D&D 5E The Rogue in 5e

[ferratus]

Another vote for expanding combat maneuvers/stunts/etc. It does seem like the rogue is begging for more creative combat rules than it's had (except possibly in PF; I haven't played a PF rogue).

Pathfinder rogues have all the problems of 3e rogues in my opinion. In other words, if you want to make an effective dirty fighter who stunts, you put strength as your primary score. You don't use stealth skills much anyway (since splitting the party means death) and if you can't get the lock open you carry a crowbar. Dex is good for AC, but since you have lighter armour and less hp than the fighter, you are pretty fragile anyway.

I'm a bit baffled here. Frankly, I always thought the rogue being in danger out of combat (and being in the background and never a target in combat) worked pretty well. I also always enjoyed surprising people with a sneak attack and never really saw the rogue as being too weak.

I don't really get where you think the rogue isn't in danger in combat, unless you have a really nice DM. The rogue is a secondary melee fighter with his sneak attack abilities, which means he is going to take a fair bit of punishment unless he can cripple or disable any opponents he is facing off against. So rogues need in their halo some basic knifework, alchemical and poison abilities to bridge the gap with their better armed and armoured opponents.

I don't mind the rogue being in danger when he is by himself, but failing a stealth check when you are trying to infiltrate or scout an area is pretty much a death sentence. Even the defenders of the save or die mechanic admit that the only way to survive repeated save or die checks is to put yourself in a situation where you don't have to take regular save or die checks. So what did experienced players of rogues do? In 1e/2e they generally didn't use their stealth skills until they had about 80% chance of succeeding, and really only became bold at 95% success rate. In 3e, with opposed skill rolls for stealth and perception, they never scouted ahead. Ever. (Unless of course they had magical enhancements (invisibility, boots of elven kind etc) which ensured they had an 80% success rate).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have an interesting I dea.

What if the Rogue can specialize skills and gained a class features based on which skills he chose.

Acrobatics/Escape/Jump- Evasion
Arcana- Use Wizard scrolls
Athletics/Jump/Climb/Swim- Extra speed
Bluff- Feinting
Diplomacy- ???
Insight- Trap Sense
Intimidate- Demoralize
Perception- Uncanny Dodge
Perform- Bard song
Religion- Use Cleric Scrolls
Stealth- Sneak Attack
Streetwise/Local- Bonus weapons
Thievery/Sleight of hand- Trapfinding

The default rogue would have Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, and Thievery for the sneak attack, evasive, trap disarmer. In other games, rogues can be different things

I like this idea. It reminds me of what I did for my variant rogue, which was to take trap sense, make it into several different possible bonuses, and base what abilities you got later (improved evasion, slippery mind) on whether you'd chosen reflex or will bonuses. This would be a whole nother level of that concept, and very robust while still being reasonably page count- and beginner-friendly, IMO.

From previous editions, the Rogue (or Thief) was the type of Class that appealled to players who liked to play a bit of an everyman type, who didn't have brawn or magic, but instead relied on his skills and wits to bet by.

You'll note that when Theives were introduced they were the only class that had skills. The universal skill system only came about with 3rd edition. Rogues had more skills however, so it was still OK I think.

I think the problem with changing the Rogue into a combat 'Striker' is that there is no real outlet left for those players who actually want to play relatively ordinary people, relying on their wits (and skills!). Essentially, if you stock it up with powers it's just like picking any other character

I agree with this. Each class attracts a different kind of person, a rogue is no exception. And there is definitely a sense for myself and a lot of other people playing this game that the rogue is the easiest D&D archetype to connect to, being a relatively ordinary-looking person with hidden talent. I thought the striker role was probably a more accurate description of the rogue than any of the other roles, but even then it applied only to some rogues and was a real paradigm change for the class as a whole. Hopefully, the new rogue will start with the concept of resourcefulness and add access to combat abilities as needed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Pathfinder rogues have all the problems of 3e rogues in my opinion. In other words, if you want to make an effective dirty fighter who stunts, you put strength as your primary score. You don't use stealth skills much anyway (since splitting the party means death) and if you can't get the lock open you carry a crowbar. Dex is good for AC, but since you have lighter armour and less hp than the fighter, you are pretty fragile anyway.

I like the flavor of the PF rogue (see above) but I suspect there probably is a lot of room for improvement in execution.

I don't really get where you think the rogue isn't in danger in combat, unless you have a really nice DM. The rogue is a secondary melee fighter with his sneak attack abilities, which means he is going to take a fair bit of punishment unless he can cripple or disable any opponents he is facing off against. So rogues need in their halo some basic knifework, alchemical and poison abilities to bridge the gap with their better armed and armoured opponents.

IME, most intelligent enemies will preferentially target anything that seems to be a mage, followed by anything that does healing. Unintelligent enemies usually wind up in melee with the fighter and aren't interested in chasing a rogue. When I played one, I was rarely attacked. I also find that rogues tend to have respectable AC. I do think they could use a more diverse set of offensive tricks, and were less dependent on sneak attack for damage.

I don't mind the rogue being in danger when he is by himself, but failing a stealth check when you are trying to infiltrate or scout an area is pretty much a death sentence. Even the defenders of the save or die mechanic admit that the only way to survive repeated save or die checks is to put yourself in a situation where you don't have to take regular save or die checks. So what did experienced players of rogues do? In 1e/2e they generally didn't use their stealth skills until they had about 80% chance of succeeding, and really only became bold at 95% success rate. In 3e, with opposed skill rolls for stealth and perception, they never scouted ahead. Ever. (Unless of course they had magical enhancements (invisibility, boots of elven kind etc) which ensured they had an 80% success rate).

I guess most of the sneaky rogues I've seen are so confident they don't fret it. Unlike a save, a skill check doesn't fail on a natural 1, and you get a huge bonus for distance; and if you yourself are perceptive you can do all your scouting without really risking detection in most cases.

In cases where there's real risk, I find that just like in a movie, scenes of someone carefully sneaking are tremendously tense and dramatic. I don't think that 'scouting ahead' is a requirement anyway. If you want to do it, do it, if not, don't. IME, the more experienced players are usually the ones comfortable taking those risks because they trust the DM not to punish them for doing so, but that will depend greatly on one's DM.

 

[elusivefur]

I have a question. If a rogue critically fails and hits himself, does he half the damage because of uncanny dodge?

 

[Draegn]

For our group there are only three "classes". Mundane, arcane and divine. A rogue, thief, etc, is the mundane character that goes into combat as a last resort.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I have a question. If a rogue critically fails and hits himself, does he half the damage because of uncanny dodge?

Critical failure doesn't result in hitting yourself under the core rules in 5E, so there's not going to be any official or correct answer to this question. It's something you and/or your DM are going to have to work out for yourselves.

 

[devincutler]

I don't really get where you think the rogue isn't in danger in combat, unless you have a really nice DM. The rogue is a secondary melee fighter with his sneak attack abilities, which means he is going to take a fair bit of punishment unless he can cripple or disable any opponents he is facing off against. So rogues need in their halo some basic knifework, alchemical and poison abilities to bridge the gap with their better armed and armoured opponents.

I am not seeing this in our games. Cunning Action is one of the best abilities in the game and it pretty much gets the rogue out of most dangerous situations. Our rogues in the game I DM and the one I play in almost never get scratched because they are always moving into combat, attacking, and using Cunning Action to withdraw with the remainder of their movement. Given that the rogue properly attacks foes already engaged with other PCs, it is a very tough choice for the enemy to break off to go after the rogue and suffer an AoO (and if the PC making the AoO has Sentinel, then forget about it).

 

[n0nym]

Epic troll threadomancy here.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Rogue you say? When someone mentions DnD rogues, i think of this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

See, this is perfect.
Who else but a rogue could locate, disarm, and reactivate a thread that has lain dormant in a dusty and forgotten corner of the realm for nigh on four years?