Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?

[SmokeyCriminal]

So, I really like how the Rogue plays. The fact that the rogue damage is middle of the road feels like a feature to me and not a bug. If the Rogue did too much more damage then It would feel like the game would be signalling me and thus compel me to take combat more seriously, in terms of dealing and optimizing damage. And then I would feel less "free" or feel guilty when I spend my turn swinging on chandeliers, pick pocketing, and pulling levers in the middle of combat, because I wouldn't be doing my "job."

That said, I wouldn't mind a tiny flavourful DPS bump. Which brings me to [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] and his request.

I really like the idea of raising the Sneak Attack dice. But turning all the d6 into d8, and then d10 feels like too big a spike in damage. So I thought of raising the dice by Tier. So the DPS scales a little slower, and it gives the impression that your getting better at Sneak Attacking then just getting more dice.

So for example, your Sneak Attack would look like this:
At 5th lvl; 2d6+1d8 (1) A general DPS increase compared to Base Sneak Attack
10th lvl; 2d6+3d8 (1, 2, 3)
15th lvl; 2d6+3d8+3d10 (5, 7, 9)
19th lvl 2d6+3d8+3d10+2d12 (12, 15)

The damage increase stays relatively linear, It doesn't surpass a Fighter with SD and AS (I think?), and it feels flavourful.

You keep mentioning that Sneak Attack on your Turn is only "half" the Rogues "true Sneak Attack damage" and only when they get their out of turn Sneak Attack in, is when they get their "whole" Sneak Attack damage. And having them reliant on AoO (DM fiat) or weird Haste/Action Surge shenanigans where you "I hold my action to attack if the Goblin does anything other then drop his weapon and surrenders" which feels really dumb.

But also you don't want to just double the Rogues Sneak Attack without some kind of cost (I think you/someone suggested a Feat?).

Well my suggestion is to give the Rogue a Feature at 5th lvl when they get Uncanny Dodge;

Uncanny Damage: On a Hit, spend your Reaction to add Sneak Attack.

If you don't want it to work with Range Weapons say 'on a melee hit"
If you don't want it to stack with Sneak Attack, don't let it.

This way a Rogue gets their "whole Sneak Attack" every turn, but it comes at the cost of Uncanny Dodge. You decide every turn if you want to take half damage, or deal double damage, depending on the current situation. It feels like this stays on theme with the way the Rogue plays in combat due to Cunning Action. This just expands on it. And its really simple to implement.

And finally, If Assassinate doesn't work for you. why not change it to;

Assassinate: Your first Hit during an encounter is an auto critical.
If you want it to be a little harder, specify that it only works with their first attack, so if they miss, they lost it.

It's simple and straight forward. and it shifts the "meta game" from out of combat, and "how do I get a surprise round." To, in combat, and "My first hit has to go to the most important target." Which feels assassin-y.

And if your using Uncanny Attack with Assassinate, then your first hit can be 4x Sneak Attack, Which will solve your issue that the Assassin Rogue doesn't actually assassinate anything.

Finally, I see what your trying to do with your Backstab Die and its not bad. But one of the things I love about the Rogue is the lack of resource management in combat. Adding a resource burden for extra DPS doesn't feel worth it. Keep your Rogue free, don't make them have to make that scrunchy face that all the other Players have to make when they're deciding if they should Frenzy, or Spend their slot, spend a point, use a die ect. ect.

 

[CapnZapp]

He can't take reactions until his initiative during the surprise round.

Why ramble about a "full quit"? Makes no sense...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Once the first attack is landed, nothing prevents the "guard" whatever it is to call in reinforcement. He might not be able to take a reaction, but after a hit, anyone will call in for help (and that is not forbidden by the rules, unless I missed something).

Generally neither characters nor NPCs get to do anything, including talking/shouting until their initiative comes up at the beginning of a fight.

Consider that what the players can do to monsters, so can the "monsters" do to them.
So there is that stealthy wood elf 12th level fighter with enough rogue level to hide as a bonus action and the Kensai archetype.

So, a 17th level character: 12 Fighter, 2 Rogue, 3 Monk. Not exactly optimised, but an interesting concept.

He gets to smash down a player. (Two handed sword +1, GWM, uses dex to hit and dmg because he's a Kensai and advantage because he's the first to act...)

As a Fighter, they are proficient in two-handed swords. They can't use Dex to hit and damage with it however: its not a monk weapon for them.
Being the first to act doesn't grant advantage unless you're an Assassin (which would push this character up to at least 18th level).

First attack 33, Second attack 23, Third attack 23. Action Surge fourth attack 23, fifth attack 23 and sixth attack 23. Total of 148 damage on average which is more than enough to kill a lot of players.

That's really lucky to hit that many times, without advantage, using Str, and with the -5 to hit.
Its much more likely that several of those attacks are going to miss.
Given that, and that a party for which an 18th level opponent with a terrain advantage is an appropriate encounter are going to be pretty high level themselves, the damage may well be insufficient to actually put them down.

Then he hides if the player is still alive otherwise, unnoticed, he goes on to the next player and the next and TPK...

As soon as the second attack lands, the player will want to yell for help. Would you deny him his call for help? Would you? If so, I urge you to reconsider your position. If you allow the player a call for help, then so should a "monster" be able to do the same.

The player won't get to call for help until they are able to take actions or reactions. Of course the rest of the party are still going to get perception checks if they're nearby since there is someone swinging a two-handed sword around in an area of dense cover and hitting armour rather than meat a couple of times.

On the other hand, if the player die on the first attack, the player won't be happy but he will abide by your ruling. things sometimes happen. But if you had deny him his call for help, be prepare for a storm of protest (even if he died on the second attack) and a potential full quit at your game table.

As pointed out, the player would have to be pretty darn unlucky to actually die in that first round, and is likely to understand that.
If things happen the way you portray them however, the resulting storm or protest is likely to be more about the number of rules that were bent or broken to allow it to happen rather than anything to do with whether the player could call out when they can't act or react.

 

[5ekyu]

"On the other hand, if the player die on the first attack, the player won't be happy but he will abide by your ruling. things sometimes happen. But if you had deny him his call for help, be prepare for a storm of protest (even if he died on the second attack) and a potential full quit at your game table."

Uhhh... Huh...

By the levels you are describing the rules for off turn communications should have bedn well established long long ago. Seen many times, with tactics based around them.

So why would there be this mass outrage if it played just like it has for say a year already?

Also, by that level with such outputs known and possible, where are the counters like scouts, detects, reveal giding or whatever... Or have they not seen ambush as a possibility before?

 

[5ekyu]

"That's really lucky to hit that many times, without advantage, using Str, and with the -5 to hit."

Yeah, for all the white room rage over the 5/10 feats when i solve that equation and compare to actual play the gains are rather minimal and circumstantial. You need a good hit probability to break even, very good if your base damage is high and i often wonder after they also minmax the base damage how often the gains are seen in play.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, for all the white room rage over the 5/10 feats when i solve that equation and compare to actual play the gains are rather minimal and circumstantial.

The only room that's white is yours.

When you've seen GWM give a character +50 damage in actual real play, you'll pull the plug on it too, like I did.

 

[Mistwell]

So apparently all you need is a Cleric of Order in your party.

 

[CM]

It seems to me if you want to be a rogue that's more focused on combat than skills, you spend most of your levels on the fighter class.

 

[Helldritch]

Generally neither characters nor NPCs get to do anything, including talking/shouting until their initiative comes up at the beginning of a fight.

Both right and wrong. You can talk. But enemies will hear it too.

So, a 17th level character: 12 Fighter, 2 Rogue, 3 Monk. Not exactly optimised, but an interesting concept.
As a Fighter, they are proficient in two-handed swords. They can't use Dex to hit and damage with it however: its not a monk weapon for them.

The kensai get to chose two weapons. These weapon become dexterity based weapons for the kensai. (XGTE)

Being the first to act doesn't grant advantage unless you're an Assassin (which would push this character up to at least 18th level).

Surprise round, being unseen etc that it everything that come with a stealthy killing attempt.

That's really lucky to hit that many times, without advantage, using Str, and with the -5 to hit.
Its much more likely that several of those attacks are going to miss.
Given that, and that a party for which an 18th level opponent with a terrain advantage is an appropriate encounter are going to be pretty high level themselves, the damage may well be insufficient to actually put them down.

Again, advantage is assumed. Surprise round, not being seen etc... That can well happen. And the enemy could have drunk a potion of haste as well adding 46 dmg.

The player won't get to call for help until they are able to take actions or reactions. Of course the rest of the party are still going to get perception checks if they're nearby since there is someone swinging a two-handed sword around in an area of dense cover and hitting armour rather than meat a couple of times.

As pointed out, the player would have to be pretty darn unlucky to actually die in that first round, and is likely to understand that.
If things happen the way you portray them however, the resulting storm or protest is likely to be more about the number of rules that were bent or broken to allow it to happen rather than anything to do with whether the player could call out when they can't act or react.

Do the math, it is entirely possible. Not against a barb or a heavy armor wearer. But anything on D8 is about to be toast if they don't take toughness feat and do not maximize constitution...

I am still searching for the rule that prevents verbal interaction after being attacked a first time. Could you please point it to me so that I can adjust my ruling accordingly?

 

[5ekyu]

The only room that's white is yours.

When you've seen GWM give a character +50 damage in actual real play, you'll pull the plug on it too, like I did.

Nah... Especially when i see it also cost a guy three hits say costing them more

I dont judge a feature by its exception alone. But the combined effect and sacrifices across the vast array of situations.

Ymmv but hey, thats fantastic.