Okay, no, I’m gonna edit this to be less snarky. Sorry about that.
Just pointing out that a “DPR” rogue that just boosts damage is like a “tank fighter” that just boosts AC or a controller wizard that stuns without saving throws. It does the job but imbalances the game.
This is an exaggeration, particularly in terms of the comparisons. Instead of, “gotta be careful about how far such a concept goes in execution”, you seem to jump straight to “the extremes are bad so the whole type of concept can’t work”.
Removing the skills to boost damage is a imbalanced trade. You’re giving up exploration powers for more combat power. Powers shouldn’t cross pillars. You wouldn’t trade a ribbon power for more combat.
if I’d suggested trading thieves cant for fighting styles, this would be an excellent point. Ribbons are abilities that have no impact on the balance analysis. Expertise has a huge impact on the balance analysis.
Trading features you don’t want for feature that boost your combat power didn’t work well in 3e or 4e or Pathfinder. Plus it leads to a pretty one-trick-pony character where the PC ceases to be effective between combat. Which also leads to disruptive action as the player is incentivized to initiate combat because that’s the only time they get to be effective. (A lack of out-of-combat features is already a weak aspect of the fighter.)
the rogue would still have the most skills, two expertise skills at level 6, and more reliability with trained skills than anyone else, even taking every suggestion I made at face value (which is absurd when looking at a rough draft).
Remember, these are a bunch of concepts for types of traits, not a draft of a complete class.
But let’s dig into the design.
The problem with this is it causes multiclassing problems. One of the reasons barbarians don’t use Dexterity is to prevent rogue/ barbarians and pairing rage and sneak attack. This works against that. To say nothing of the ridiculousness of “sneak attacking” with a greataxe
the idea is to let rogues use staves, Spears, some polearms, longsword, etc. Sneak Attack is a silly name for the ability that only sticks around because of tradition, anyway. It never requires sneaking. It’s just as sensible with a greataxe as with a crossbow. The reason to not allow any given weapon is tradition, expectation hang ups, and balance.
It also leads to “fun” combos, like Greatweapon Master and Polearm Master. PM alone would cause a potential spike in sneak attack damage.
“it needs to exclude polearms” or “this needs to not allow GWM or PAM” are great suggestions I can take away from this. Thanks. I’ll probably try to draft out soemthing that allows the weapons but not the feats, or restrict the weapons more than I’d like for balance sake if I can’t get a good draft that way.
Also, rogue subclasses only really grant combat bonuses at 3 and 17. In all subclasses, 9 and 13 are exploration or interaction features. They’re utility powers. So getting combat bonuses there goes against established design.
I noted that in the quoted text. Again, rough draft, vague ideas, etc. level 3 is the only level where what they subclass gets needs to be at a specific level. I’m not worrying about level placement except in the vaguest terms yet.
This feels like a swashbuckler that just has its powers renamed.
I genuinely don’t understand this comment. I’d love it if you could elaborate. I specifically suggested a subclass that is focused on being an excellent swordsman, with nothing of flair or panache. I assumed it was obvious that I meant no mechanical support in the subclass for any greater charm, flourishy stuff, etc, than exists in the base class. This could easily be a tougher more athletic subclass, more like a melee focused scout than a relfavored swashbuckler.
Okay, design wise the assassin has the niche on spikes or extra damage. Every other combat or so it can get an auto-critical, which is a big damage spike with sneak attack. But that’s story dependant and unreliable. Which is why so many rogues go with two-weapon fighting: reliable damage by doubling the chances of landing one hit.
If I were designing a rogue class with the express purpose of boosting DPR, I’d focus less on spikes and more on reliable damage. Rerolling attacks and maybe even rerolling sneak attack damage. Perhaps applying Expertise to attack rolls.
Maybe a dagger wielding rogue that can hurl an offhand dagger as part of the Attack action. The extra d4s add a little damage, but not much but the advantage is the extra chance to deal sneak attack damage.
Thank you for the suggestions!
I’ll dig more into this and work on taking my rough drafts of vague ideas for the sorts of things one or more subclasses could maybe have into an actual draft of one or more subclasses tomorrow.
For now, I agree that the assassin is intended to be good at nova-capability. IMO, it’s a waste of time to play one
for the ability to nova, because they did a terrible job of executing that functionality, however. To me, it’s a nearly useless subclass for a focus on damage dealing, but incomparable at being an infiltrator.
But either way, I’d fix the assassin before trying to supplant it, so we agree that DPR is a better focus. But rerolling, and adding extra chances to get SA, is a bigger boost IMO than things like adding Str mod or prof bonus to attacks that qualify for SA.
Maybe I was unclear in the OP, though, about an important thing. The ideas in the OP aren’t a draft of a subclass. They’re a set of lists of concepts for potential features to give to one or more subclasses focused on concepts that want for brutal, visceral, top shelf, damage output, in order for their mechanics to meet their story, and for players that want the rogue class as a whole to be more a little bit more combat focused.
