D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Helldritch]

But flanking is built into the sneak attack rule to start with: "You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it..."

Flanking gives them advantage on their attack roll, which might entice them to move into melee, but staying at range they can still make their sneak attack and avoid damage.

I don't understand your four backstab example. Only two of those (one each) will be a sneak attack, not four.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that's the problem I have with it, I think that ability should be available to fighters as well, not just rogues. So I'd prefer that whatever "sniper" ability that is designed, it's available to both. And I don't want sneak attack to stack. So I see it as a different ability.

If it's a different ability, Sneak Attack might stack. I suppose one expedient would be to make them their own Actions, thus they wouldn't stack with eachother, nor with a fighter's extra attack...

On the other hand, I think a sling is a must for sneak attack. It's the ultimate concealed weapon - a strip of cloth and a stone (I have different range and damage for stone and bullet). I think it works for sneak attack as well, because it's much faster than raising a bow or crossbow, aiming, and shooting.

An actual sling, the kind used in antiquity as a weapon, was rather large, used a heavy stone, and required a lot of room. Not a sniper's weapon, but definitely a skirmisher's, which is also part of the rogue's portfolio.
Mostly, though, Grey Mouser preferred the sling.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Not sure why you felt the need to explain the obvious. Nothing you say change what I said.

In order for any rational gamer to create a melee rogue over a ranged one, there needs to be an incentive that isn't there now.

Although futile, I know (not because of you, but because I'm just not going to change the internet...), could we refrain from statements like "any rational gamer?" I get it, from an optimizer's point of view, there is only one rational choice. But if the goal isn't to optimize, there are plenty of rational reasons why a character might be something other than optimal. I just bugs me. Stepping off my soapbox...

This incentive probably needs to be quite large, given the Rogue's overall squishiness. I suggest "better DPS than even the fighter". In fact, I have a hard time seeing any other option that really entices the rogue to enter risky melee, but if you have something more constructive than "certainly not with a DPR power-up", feel free to share.

So here's the thing, if you approach combat as a real person, in a world where 0 hit points = death (which it does to practically every single creature except the PCs), and you accept that the dying rules are a necessary evil in design to prevent characters from dying too much, as opposed to a rule in a game to be exploited, and since the average person can't expect to ever be resurrected (and isn't even convinced it's a real thing), then the PCs feel the same, then you don't need a whole lot of "incentives" to enter melee combat.

Combat is a risk/reward scenario. And if the risk is death, people don't approach it lightly. If a rogue (or any character) can reduce the risk by using ranged attacks, they will naturally do so. Even if they could potentially cause more damage in melee. However, if the circumstances change, that is, a companion might die unless you can find a way to help defeat their opponents, and the extra damage caused by your melee attacks, and the potential extra attack due to an opportunity attack will conceivably save them, then your self-preservation may be ignored and you'll enter melee combat.

Personally, I don't think it needs to be any more than that. But that's because we play characters as people who are afraid of death and dying.

If you want to find a rule to exploit better, then address the fact that a rogue can use a sneak attack twice in a round, on their turn, and as an opportunity attack. Then find ways for other players to provoke those opportunity attacks. Such as a fighter using a pushing attack.

I think an option that provides opportunities for characters to work together, and provide regular opportunity attacks for a rogue would be great.

Then you misinterpret that as "better than the fighter" - I said nothing of the sort. This melee rogue can still not replace or outshine the fighter, because of what I just said: its general squishiness. Unlike you, I'm not worried about toppling any fighter crowns, since my players create lots of fighters (or at least take 2-6 levels of fighter for their mc concepts). Besides, I quite like the cultivation of "striker" and "tank" concepts, and fighters are popular in many games where they do middling damage but are excellent at protecting their party.

In combat heavy games (which I assume is the D&D default, regardless of what you say) the current rogue falls by the wayside compared to mainly paladins, fighters and barbarians. The only way to play a rogue that isn't a liability to his party is to play a ranged one, and still, it's a lot of work for not-very-impressive DPS anyhow. I'm sure there's a market for not-really-combat-centric-at-all thieves, and I'm not trying to remove that option. What I am trying to do, however, is find a way for a rogue to make sense in the default (combat-heavy) game, and particularly the melee build at that.

Unlike you, I don't think "since ranged is so much better than melee we might as well give up". I fully believe a very sharp striker has its place among the D&D builds. There is no reason to relativize or generalize this to be a general "ranged vs melee" issue. That does not mean I don't acknowledge that issue. All it means is that I can well discuss the addition of glass cannon melee rogue in the game (as a solution to the "melee rogue deficiency" problem) completely separately from the ranged superiority discussion. And in fact, I have. Remember us discussing the eleven (?) individual lightened/removed restrictions on ranged combat WotC has made, probably with one hand not knowing what the other did?

Anyway, enough with having to defend my proposal.

What would be much more worthwhile to me is to take the discussion to the next level. How do you improve your survivability as this "melee rogue" build? What can your party members do to help? And most importantly, even if we do accomplish the best DPS in the game, is that enough to justify the extra burden on the party, or do this "melee rogue" need even more?

I would assume the D&D default is to use the APs. That's the easiest path to play. So the amount of combat can be quantified fairly easily.

Like the "rational gamer" tag, I (and probably others) would engage more willingly without statements like "the default (combat-heavy) game" and reduce it to simply "combat-heavy" game. I know I've made the same mistake as well, and I'm trying not to do so anymore. If anything, since the design of 5e went through an extensive amount of play-testing, and this is the ruleset that resulted from that, I suspect the focus on combat and optimization is lower than you think. Either way I don't think it matters - I think there are enough gamers that like a combat-heavy game that it's worth discussing. Just like I think there are enough role-playing focused games to maintain that consideration too.

I get that you are quite focused on optimizing for combat. Fair enough. But unless you're playing in a group that is all focused on optimizing (and you might be), I think the theory of which is better and worse is quite different from the actual practice in a game. Moreover, I have a lot of issues with the idea that a melee rogue is a "liability" to their party. Back off the soapbox...

With their special abilities, I think the rogue is designed fairly well for survivability as a skirmisher - move in, attack, move out. However, as I've stated, I'm not a fan of allowing sneak attack with bows and crossbows. Remove those as options, and they can use their ranged options to soften up the opponent before moving in (and out) for melee. Improving their chances for opportunity attacks will alter things more.

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?

 

[Tony Vargas]

if the goal isn't to optimize, there are plenty of rational reasons why a character might be something other than optimal. I just bugs me.

Nod. By the same token 'goal is not to optimize' and 'goal is to not optimize' are two different things. (I think?) That is, even if your goal isn't to optimize, unless you specifically want to be less effective than you could be (your goal is to not-optimize or counter-optimize, I guess), optimizing can still be a secondary goal, or even a tool to achieve your primary goal (build to concept, is /using/ optimization to realize a character concept).

So here's the thing, if you approach combat as a real person, in a world where 0 hit points = death and...... If a rogue (or any character) can reduce the risk by using ranged attacks, they will naturally do so.
Personally, I don't think it needs to be any more than that. But that's because we play characters as people who are afraid of death and dying.

Then again, you could approach combat as if your character were a real, but heroic person, who, even if he fears death, faces it frequently - and probably /doesn't/ 'know' how the game stacks the deck in his favor (with mechanics like hps) to let him get away with all that heroism, while you do know it.

Like the "rational gamer" tag, I (and probably others) would engage more willingly without statements like "the default (combat-heavy) game" and reduce it to simply "combat-heavy" game.

The game has always put a lot of rules into covering combat, and has not always nor consistently nor even-handedly spread exp-gaining opportunities over the 3 pillars (the early game had exp for gold, which weighted exploration, evenly with combat, but had relatively few rules for said exploration; skill challenges had potential exp comparable to encounters; 'story awards' are rarely of equal weight with other awards; etc) - Mearls's latest UA experience variant tried to address that shortcoming once again.

If anything, since the design of 5e went through an extensive amount of play-testing, and this is the ruleset that resulted from that, I suspect the focus on combat and optimization is lower than you think.

The focus on optimization is undercut by the focus on DM Empowerment, you can't optimize aspects of your PCs effectiveness that happen to rest on off the cuff DM rulings. One of many, perhaps slightly-less-obvious, perks of DM Empowerment.

Either way I don't think it matters - I think there are enough gamers that like a combat-heavy game that it's worth discussing. Just like I think there are enough role-playing focused games to maintain that consideration too.

So, as long as we're highlighting buttons, contrasting combat-heavy and role-playing focused is another. Adventurers do a lot of fighting, it's part of their role in life, when & how your character fights (including using spells in combat, obviously, or most classes would be almost entirely left out) is an expression of the character - that's right, it's roleplaying. All three Pillars are roleplaying.

Moreover, I have a lot of issues with the idea that a melee rogue is a "liability" to their party. Back off the soapbox...

Profoundly sub-optimal characters (and 'melee rogue' doesn't begin to qualify, IMHO), are only a liability to the party they waste resources trying to keep them alive. That kind of problem takes care of itself.

 

[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.

Gotcha - that's the sort of possibility then, that I think might be part of the answer for the folks that think a rogue isn't as good in melee combat, ways to leverage their reaction for a potential sneak attack. Some might think it's OP, though.

 

[CapnZapp]

Gotcha - that's the sort of possibility then, that I think might be part of the answer for the folks that think a rogue isn't as good in melee combat, ways to leverage their reaction for a potential sneak attack. Some might think it's OP, though.

Well, it's certainly not perfect (assuming Helldritch brought it up to further the discussing we're having) - you see, there's (again) no restriction on ranged attacks. Commander's strike only specifies a "weapon attack", so again there is no incentive to build a melee rogue.

As for the damage - sure a Rogue sneak attack is likely to do more damage than a regular Fighter attack (especially if we assume warlord-y characters don't build on offense).

But I hope "some" doesn't think that make the Rogue OP? If anything, the maneuver should get that "credit" (and no, I don't think a maneuver that requires you to give up your own attack, and requires the presence of a specific other class in the party, and for the record still doesn't outpace Paladin Novas or Sorlocks or whatnot, qualifies as "OP").

This would be OP if you, the Rogue, could bring along your own "mini-warlord" halfling, pixie or hamster or whatever, so you could set up Commander Strikes by yourself. But you pretty much can't. So it isn't.

 

[CapnZapp]

Profoundly sub-optimal characters (and 'melee rogue' doesn't begin to qualify, IMHO), are only a liability to the party they waste resources trying to keep them alive. That kind of problem takes care of itself.

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?

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

 

[CapnZapp]

With their special abilities, I think the rogue is designed fairly well for survivability as a skirmisher - move in, attack, move out.

The problem, again, is that there's no reason to use them - stay at range and your life is easier in so many ways. No need to "skirmish". You no longer run out of movement. Finding places to hide is much easier. The problem is that there are no clues in the PHB these insights ever reached the design team. It all reads as if everyone just assumes D&D fantasy is about a load of heroes dishing it out in melee, with the occasional "skirmishing" rogue or wizard.

This was true in previous editions. They just forgot to check if it was still true in 5E, even while they removed or lessened eleven (11) obstacles to ranged fire.

It's hard to escape the conclusion one hand didn't know what the other was doing. The supremacy of melee is so ingrained in the bones of classic fantasy that it was simply taken for granted.

However, as I've stated, I'm not a fan of allowing sneak attack with bows and crossbows. Remove those as options, and they can use their ranged options to soften up the opponent before moving in (and out) for melee.

I'm afraid badly nerfing the Rogue doesn't particularly help the melee Rogue.

Sure, it does answer the "why enter dangerous melee when I can stay at safe range?" question. But it doesn't actually help the melee Rogue.

If the melee Rogue was fine and the ranged Rogue was considered OP, then maybe. But that's not the case among people that do concern themselves with numbers. In my take, the ranged Rogue is about the only way to make the class work, like at all. It's far too squishy otherwise, and you can't afford to spend your Cunning Action on Dash when you'd rather use it to Hide.

---
If the Rogue had the capability to
1) start the round at a distance, hidden
2) run up to the monster still hidden and claim sneak attack
3) run back without eating an OA, and hide
where "distance" preferably is greater than most monster's move
then the melee rogue could be said to be working as written
---

But as you easily notice: all of that is much easier to do if you don't actually need to move up close to the monster! Not only don't you need to Cunning-Dash, you don't need to both Cunning Disengage and Cunning Hide either. In fact, you only need Cunning-Hide - and all you need to do is shuck yer daggers for a bow!

The Rogue is fundamentally misdesigned if melee-range equality was ever a goal.

It all leads back to the basic observation: any hero expecting to spend significant time in melee needs HP and AC. The Rogue has neither.

But suggesting to add those things to the rogue defeats the purpose, since that only turns it into a variant Warrior.

As an alternative, that just might work, is to embrace the squishiness, and to increase the damage output to match it.

The Rogue's current damage capacity is fairly well calibrated for a fairly well-protected ranged Rogue. For a melee Rogue, that simply can't get hiding and attacking out of hiding to work, it is woefully inadequate. Me crudely suggesting "let's double the SA dice" is an indicator of the magnitude of the damage deficit.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The problem, again, is that there's no reason to use them - stay at range and your life is easier in so many ways. No need to "skirmish". You no longer run out of movement. Finding places to hide is much easier. The problem is that there are no clues in the PHB these insights ever reached the design team. It all reads as if everyone just assumes D&D fantasy is about a load of heroes dishing it out in melee, with the occasional "skirmishing" rogue or wizard.

This was true in previous editions. They just forgot to check if it was still true in 5E, even while they removed or lessened eleven (11) obstacles to ranged fire.

I don't know if you recall, but I have already tweaked ranged attacks, not necessarily for your same 11 obstacles, though. So it's not the same issue for me, anyway.

It's hard to escape the conclusion one hand didn't know what the other was doing. The supremacy of melee is so ingrained in the bones of classic fantasy that it was simply taken for granted.

Unless they weren't concerned about the "supremacy of melee."

I'm afraid badly nerfing the Rogue doesn't particularly help the melee Rogue.

Sure, it does answer the "why enter dangerous melee when I can stay at safe range?" question. But it doesn't actually help the melee Rogue.

Well, if you notice a few posts back, my removal of those options really weren't concerned about making them better at melee. I was just pointing out that it might help. Consider it part of a solution. I did suggest some things that I think fit the concept and would help in melee as well, such as trying to boost their options for opportunity attacks.

If the melee Rogue was fine and the ranged Rogue was considered OP, then maybe. But that's not the case among people that do concern themselves with numbers. In my take, the ranged Rogue is about the only way to make the class work, like at all. It's far too squishy otherwise, and you can't afford to spend your Cunning Action on Dash when you'd rather use it to Hide.

---
If the Rogue had the capability to
1) start the round at a distance, hidden
2) run up to the monster still hidden and claim sneak attack
3) run back without eating an OA, and hide
where "distance" preferably is greater than most monster's move
then the melee rogue could be said to be working as written
---

But as you easily notice: all of that is much easier to do if you don't actually need to move up close to the monster! Not only don't you need to Cunning-Dash, you don't need to both Cunning Disengage and Cunning Hide either. In fact, you only need Cunning-Hide - and all you need to do is shuck yer daggers for a bow!

The Rogue is fundamentally misdesigned if melee-range equality was ever a goal.

It all leads back to the basic observation: any hero expecting to spend significant time in melee needs HP and AC. The Rogue has neither. [/QUOTE]

Actually, I think they need a way to cause damage and avoid taking it. In other words, they need to outlast their opponent. With a high Dexterity bonus they can wear (ugh) studded leather and have the same AC as a martial class with half-plate and Dexterity bonus. In addition, they can get out of range after making their attack, which further improves their chance of avoiding damage. With two weapons and the fact that the proficiency bonus is equal across classes, they can hit just as easily as a fighter, and when they do they do more damage with the sneak attack. Sure they have a few less hp than a fighter (2 less at first level, 1 additional less at other levels, as I'm assuming you use the fixed amount rather than rolling).

The only reason they aren't "great" is that you have other classes to compare them to. But they don't have to be the "best" at melee to attack in melee. If you don't have any barbarians, fighters, or rangers, then nobody has more hit points, and AC will be similar. Are they suddenly melee combatants then?

Even if there is an actual issue with the game design, that doesn't mean that I have to be controlled by those design factors. Assuming there's a bonus for a high Dexterity for AC, I don't think that should be eliminated because you're wearing mail armor. But my characters will still wear mail armor even if that's 1 point lower due to wonky game math (assuming I haven't fixed it), because it makes sense. Whether it's my character concept, or just my view that, hey, for a thousand years mail armor was the most common protection around. The pseudo-medieval world isn't a scientific power house, and people might just believe something is better than it actually is. I don't know. But if that's the predominant armor in the region, then that's what I'll wear.

It's not to make a suboptimal choice. It's simply because I think it's the right thing for the character in that setting. And 1 point in AC isn't enough for me to worry about even if I don't change the rule.

Yes, ranged attacks are better, and in the past I've mentioned that I don't inherently have an issue with that. I do have an issue with the way longer ranges are handled, though. You know what, though? Your enemies should be taking advantage of that as well. Even a fighter who does significantly more damage with a melee attack should be using cover and ranged attacks as much as possible. Real people actually don't like getting hit in combat, even if it doesn't kill them. It hurts. So I don't have an issue with the idea of staying at ranged as much as possible.

The problem that usually arises is that your opponents don't either. And they will use the terrain, cover, ranged attacks, and tactics too. And one of the key tactics that anybody will use is to eliminate or foil the tactics that others are using to give them an advantage. Which means that more often than not, my players have to do something different, because the "best" option isn't an option for long, if at all.

I don't particularly care about melee-range equality. Ranged should be better. Ranged is better in real life too. That's why people charge, and eliminate the option for ranged attack, things like that.

But suggesting to add those things to the rogue defeats the purpose, since that only turns it into a variant Warrior.

As an alternative, that just might work, is to embrace the squishiness, and to increase the damage output to match it.

The Rogue's current damage capacity is fairly well calibrated for a fairly well-protected ranged Rogue. For a melee Rogue, that simply can't get hiding and attacking out of hiding to work, it is woefully inadequate. Me crudely suggesting "let's double the SA dice" is an indicator of the magnitude of the damage deficit.

But you don't have to hide. Hiding is great, but not required. Find a target that the fighter is engaged with, move in, attack (sneak attack), move out, and they'll have to be subjected to an opportunity attack to chase you. You don't get hit, and you get your sneak attack. Is it mathematically identical? I don't know.

Having said that, I do like designing games, and I've offered to engage here to "fix" what I don't see as an issue. In other threads you're forcing me to give you examples instead of throwing a few out yourself

So turnabout is fair play. I'll ask this again:

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?