D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Tony Vargas]

After reading the conversation, I have to wonder why more of you do not try other games.

It's a D&D board. You've played other games, I've played other games, but we're here to talk about D&D, not to tell eachother to STFU up and play something else.

Hmm. I don't see how can force govern the chance to hit?
.

A hoary D&Dism. Brute force (STR) gives you a bonus to hit in D&D because it lets you punch through armor and/or batter down an opponent's guard.

 

[BookBarbarian]

A hoary D&Dism. Brute force (STR) gives you a bonus to hit in D&D because it lets you punch through armor and/or batter down an opponent's guard.

Ah, an abstraction then. Like Hitpoints and AC. I can except that.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

According to you, he was a criminal. That sounds like he has the criminal background.

He was an outlander. He became a criminal. Seriously, if you don't know Conan, that's fine, the stories aren't required reading, but maybe then don't talk about them as if you did?

It comes from reading the Rogue class, and understanding what it's all about.

You say "understanding", but I hear "reading things into it that aren't there to fit an unnecessarily narrow preconceived idea which does nobody any favors".

This does not describe a reckless attack guided by overwhelming strength at the expense of precision.

You realize that a Reckless Attack is more accurate than a regular attack, right?

Swinging with Strength is not making a precise attack. Precision is governed by Dexterity. If you are using a Strength-based attack, then you are not attacking with precision, as Sneak Attack describes. That they tailored the description of Reckless Attack to try and describe the mechanics involved does not change the fact that Strength-based attacks are governed by force rather than precision.

An attack "governed by force rather than precision" is also known as a "miss". Honestly, the Strength/Dexterity distinction is pretty contrived: a real-life swordfighter requires plenty of both, whether wielding a smallsword or a zweihander.

That is a rationalization. You have decided which end-goal you want to argue for, and contrived a scenario* which you think might justify it.

Um, Pot, meet Kettle.

It is not what the rules were originally intended to reflect, though, and the difference between intent and technicality are a prime example of how poorly-written this edition is.

You claim to know an awful lot about the writers' intent for someone who isn't a telepath.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

He was an outlander. He became a criminal. Seriously, if you don't know Conan, that's fine, the stories aren't required reading, but maybe then don't talk about them as if you did?

It depends on when you start counting. If you're playing him during his Thief days, then he's a Thief with an appropriate wilderness kit. If you're playing him after that point, then he's a Barbarian who used to be a thief. Class-based systems aren't well-suited to multiple career changes.

You realize that a Reckless Attack is more accurate than a regular attack, right?

No, a Reckless Attack is more likely to actually hurt someone through the armor that they are wearing, just like putting more Strength behind an attack increases the chance of hurting your target. Advantage on the attack roll models the same reality as the old +4 to Strength while raging, just with a different degree of granularity. You're still just swinging harder.

 

[Helldritch]

I really like the rogue class. It is perhaps the most well written and round up that we have now.
Rogues have 3 subclasses. (5 with SCAG)

The sneak attack rule is clear. Either have advantage on the roll, have an ally beside your mark or both. Weapon must be a finesse one in order for the sneak attack to work.
Yes with the current rules, we see a lot of "ranged" rogue. I have two out of 4 roguish in my groups. So what? Nothing prevents them from going in hand to hand combat. Fog (and fog clould spells), heavy rains, strong winds and many other environmental effects (a dense forest?) are great to neutralize a ranged rogue. Use them. Make your players use their abilities to the maximum. And if you use the flanking rule, then the rogue will give advantage to the attack roll of his friend. This is a strong incentive for a rogue to get in thick of it.

For the assassin,
Yes some of the feature might seem a bit meh at first sight. The assassinate rule, in particuliar is countered by the alert feat. Now how many monsters do have that feat? None that I remember. So in a PvE environment, the assassination feature works out fine. It is only in a PvP that this might comes in. Or if the DM uses a lot of NPC built like the characters. Then I would almost think of it as cheating a player of his ability.
Anyways... In my group, the assassins do have to use this feature quite often. They are the scouts of their respective group. They get to sneak up on the enemy and use their assassination ability on small groups of enemy scouts, guards, patrols. If they get the catch on a lone beast/monster, that thing might be dead before the rest of the group comes in (this happened quite a few times, especially with Bretai the assassin.)

For the poison feature.
Assassin have always used poison. They will always use them whenever possible. I don't like poison users. But hey, if they get caught with poison on them they're doomed. Yet, poison has its place. With creative thinking, the player will come up with reasonable reasons to poison possession. "Look good sir, I hunt owlbears, I use poison on them because they're vicious, mean and evil beasts..." And it's not that easy to say something was poisoned with all the cuts and bruises it might have if the thing doesn't die immediately. So yes, the two assassins are using poison in key encounters or when they can get away with it. Rule is working as intended.

For the Infiltration Expertise.
That one depends largely on the skills of the player and the generosity or willingness of the DM. Bretai isn't that high, but Thomrax is using this feature like crazy. He used that feature to pass himself off as a Iuz emissary in a hobgoblin forteress, to act like a traveling merchant (at la Silk in the Belgariade), to a noble from the Great court in Rauxes in the Great Kingdom, a distant relative of Ivid V...
Maybe it's because my campaing is involving a lot of travel and it gives a lot of down time and travel time so that Thomrax can create a lot of different personalities. But in my book, it works out great.

For the Impostor.
Again, Thomrax is using that feature quite a lot. He is often in enemy territory to get intel on the forces of the Ancient. He is passing off as an obscure patrol captain of the boneheart that brings a lot of exotic goods from his "patrols" mainly spell components. Again the feature works as intended.

For the Death Strike.
None of my players are that high now. Yet, unless you build your NPCs as PCs are, none of them will have the Alert feat. That means that the feature should work as intended most of the time.

So far, the Assassins that I saw were quite good. Should I dare say almost too good? We have had quite a few arcane tricksters and thieves, but these didn't got as high as Thomrax as most of them either died an early death or had multiclasses in some way or another. Assassins, to my absolute dismay (I tend to prefer the arcane trickster as a DM), is the archetype that rose the highest level as a single class.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It depends on when you start counting.

You're absurdly absolutist about every other aspect of the game, but this you're willing to be relativist about? I start counting when the character starts adventuring.

If you're playing him during his Thief days, then he's a Thief with an appropriate wilderness kit. If you're playing him after that point, then he's a Barbarian who used to be a thief. Class-based systems aren't well-suited to multiple career changes.

Hmm, if only there were some sort of "multiple-class" system...

No, a Reckless Attack is more likely to actually hurt someone through the armor that they are wearing, just like putting more Strength behind an attack increases the chance of hurting your target.

It doesn't matter how strong you are. If you aren't also precise, you will just be making mighty swings at thin air, or glancing off plate armor. (No, nobody is strong enough to punch a sword through plate.) But strength is necessary for precision, because it contributes to your speed and control of the weapon.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It doesn't matter how strong you are. If you aren't also precise, you will just be making mighty swings at thin air, or glancing off plate armor. (No, nobody is strong enough to punch a sword through plate.) But strength is necessary for precision, because it contributes to your speed and control of the weapon.

That is exactly the difference between swinging with Strength and making a precise strike with Dexterity. If you swing hard and fast enough, you will make contact, because you're swinging in an arc and the enemy is roughly a five-foot tall cylinder with one-foot radius; and we know their effective position within that period of time to within a five-foot square. Failing to make contact is not a situation worth modeling. They can try to deflect it, or roll with it, or parry, or do something to make your swing not hurt them. If they're wearing plate, then they probably won't be significantly injured regardless.

When you attack with Dexterity, using a weapon that is definitely not a club or mace or anything like that, then you are specifically aiming for weak spots. That is how the game models aiming for a gap between the plates, and that is the difference between a rogue and a barbarian.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That is exactly the difference between swinging with Strength and making a precise strike with Dexterity. If you swing hard and fast enough, you will make contact, because you're swinging in an arc and the enemy is roughly a five-foot tall cylinder with one-foot radius; and we know their effective position within that period of time to within a five-foot square. Failing to make contact is not a situation worth modeling. They can try to deflect it, or roll with it, or parry, or do something to make your swing not hurt them. If they're wearing plate, then they probably won't be significantly injured regardless.

You're spelling out all the reasons in which fighting the way you describe is idiotic, but you don't seem to realize that's what you're doing. An actual fighter with any sort of training is certainly not just swinging in arcs in the general direction of the enemy. He is always aiming for weak spots. The notion that there's a clear-cut distinction between Strength-based attacks and Dexterity-based attacks is totally false.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're spelling out all the reasons in which fighting the way you describe is idiotic, but you don't seem to realize that's what you're doing. An actual fighter with any sort of training is certainly not just swinging in arcs in the general direction of the enemy. He is always aiming for weak spots. The notion that there's a clear-cut distinction between Strength-based attacks and Dexterity-based attacks is totally false.

The game mechanics tell us that you're either swinging in such a way that Strength is important and Dexterity is irrelevant, or vice versa. If you're an ogre, then your Strength of 20 matters and your Dexterity of 5 does not. If you're an assassin, then your Dexterity of 20 matters and your Strength of 5 does not. It's why air elementals hit harder than water elementals, in spite of not having any appreciable mass.

Yes, it's unrealistic. It might even be immersion-breaking, depending on your personal tolerance for that sort of thing. Letting Dexterity completely substitute for Strength was a ridiculous design decision that only makes sense in the context of making the game easy to play. If you're using an older ruleset, like 2E, then you can instead just say that weapon control falls under Strength in all circumstances and that everyone is aiming for weak spots. Or you could play a game that isn't D&D, where accuracy is always governed by the Dexterity-equivalent and Strength always contributes to damage. There are many ways that you could model combat so that it would make more sense. They chose not to.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The game mechanics tell us that you're either swinging in such a way that Strength is important and Dexterity is irrelevant, or vice versa. If you're an ogre, then your Strength of 20 matters and your Dexterity of 5 does not. If you're an assassin, then your Dexterity of 20 matters and your Strength of 5 does not. It's why air elementals hit harder than water elementals, in spite of not having any appreciable mass.

Yes, it's unrealistic. It might even be immersion-breaking, depending on your personal tolerance for that sort of thing. Letting Dexterity completely substitute for Strength was a ridiculous design decision that only makes sense in the context of making the game easy to play. If you're using an older ruleset, like 2E, then you can instead just say that weapon control falls under Strength in all circumstances and that everyone is aiming for weak spots. Or you could play a game that isn't D&D, where accuracy is always governed by the Dexterity-equivalent and Strength always contributes to damage. There are many ways that you could model combat so that it would make more sense. They chose not to.

So, you're insisting on a narrow interpretation of what Sneak Attack "means" that is based on a rule which by your own admission is a simplification for ease of play and unrealistic if narrowly interpreted?