Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Rogue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7192787" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unless they weren't concerned about the "supremacy of melee."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p>If the Rogue had the capability to</p><p>1) start the round at a distance, hidden</p><p>2) run up to the monster still hidden and claim sneak attack</p><p>3) run back without eating an OA, and hide</p><p>where "distance" preferably is greater than most monster's move</p><p><em>then</em> the melee rogue could be said to be working as written</p><p>---</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p><strong>The Rogue is fundamentally misdesigned if melee-range equality was ever a goal.</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>So turnabout is fair play. I'll ask this again:</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7192787, member: 6778044"] 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. Unless they weren't concerned about the "supremacy of melee." 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 [I]then[/I] 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! [B]The Rogue is fundamentally misdesigned if melee-range equality was ever a goal.[/B] 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 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Rogue
Top