Ilbranteloth
Explorer
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?
So obviously you only hang out with people that will make you a billionaire one day, right?
Oh, you mean you actually like the people you hang out with? That people aren't just numbers, and aren't just about combat, or getting a better job, or getting rich, and perhaps the reason you're in combat is you have a shared goal in life and that goal is big enough that you'll risk you life for it? that there's more to life than just fitting an optimized niche in a fight? I'm guessing some of them aren't really going to benefit your future riches in any way at all. They're just friends.
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.
Wow, so supporting your real life friend's desires in a game where you all are representing your pretend friends desires doesn't cut it forever? That seems kind of harsh.
"Sorry Jim, I know you want to play this character and all, but if you want to play with the big boys then you'll have to select something we approve of and can get behind."
And maybe a good example of why many non-optimizers might point the finger and say "that's not role-playing." That you're more concerned about the math than making decisions as a fictional character.
The last party in our campaign varied over time, but at the end it was a included a bard, a rogue, a ranger, and a druid. It started as two rogues, a bard and a ranger and a wizard, and then added the second bard. In the middle there was a different druid, a cleric and a paladin. So clearly this group can't survive 5e because it's mostly the classes that everybody has declared suboptimal. Only the wizard died (by accident, when they forgot about a trap they already knew about, he was already essentially an NPC by then too, played by another player since the original player had left).
Actually, the only character that died was the wizard, and that was accidental, and after the player had left and the wizard was an NPC. They thought they were safe (having cleared out the squatters in their own house), and he wandered into a trap that they forgot about when going to get something for the others. And the rogue was the one that was primarily being protected for other reasons.
In my campaign, the players make the characters they want. Most of the time before they even know what anybody else is playing. In part because I specifically want to avoid, "oh, I wanted to play a rogue, but we already have one. Nobody's playing the cleric, I guess I'll play that." The characters are people, who don't know who they are going to meet, or who they'll end up spending time with. The players all know that all of the other players can choose whatever they'd like too, and there may be lots of a single class, or none. Then they go do what adventurers do. And somehow they seem to actually do what adventurers do. They fight some combats, and get some treasure.
So to me, the sad truth is that it seems like you're limiting the options and the fun of Jim because he doesn't fit your style of playing. Or that you feel like you can't play the game if you're not all picking the best options all the time. If you'd like to join my group and optimize away, hey, go for it. I do understand that's the best part of the game for some people. And I try to support that, although I also understand that if that's your primary focus, you probably won't enjoy playing a game where the others don't. Maybe I'm wrong.
And frankly, the game becomes more exciting if the PCs aren't so damn superior all the time.
And that's a great quote to promote non-optimizing. I love it! Try making your next character by rolling your ability scores randomly, in order. That's a start. Random hit points too, even at 1st level. Instead of system mastery, shoot for game mastery and survive despite your flaws and weaknesses.