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

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, that's part of my point.

Without feats - okay.

Then you add feats. Fighters get to double their damage (roughly speaking). Rogues don't get anything that isn't available to everyone.

The fact remains: there is no feat to make you deadlier in martial combat that doesn't rely on per attack scaling.

An obvious deficiency that make you think the game designers went "the rogue is crazily overpowered in the feat-less game, so we'd better not give it a feat."

But the rogue isn't crazily overpowered in the featless game. Remember cantrip users? They're just as good.

Sure, they can't use feats to improve their abilities either, but unlike rogues that's okay, since they've got so much else going for them. (Plus cantrips are probably too good in featless games)

(In fact, if anything, it's that fighters are offensively weak without feats. Paladins still get their smites. Rogues have their sneak. Cantrips are excellent for Warlocks and Sorcerers.)

But add feats, and the sole loser is the Rogue, that remains frail. If it was a glass cannon, fine, but as a glass pea shooter in feat-enabled games, it's not fine.

At least with my suggestion the Rogue doesn't need to bend over backwards to enable what the game does already provide the potential for, which is dual sneaks per combat round.

It is a feat that doesn't actually add anything, but makes the Rogue class much more relaxed and therefore fun to play

So, then, what you're saying isn't that your tired of the miserly design of the rogue class, but instead tired of the miserly design of feats. It's taken 350+ posts, but this is really good progress!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Just to throw in my own experience: I think rogues are the most fun class in the game. My damage output was on par with most of the group, other than the paladin but Rarely got hit and, when I did, I took almost no damage. I played in Curse of Strahd and got hit once in 5 or 6 levels. And it was an AoE sent out by my own party member.

They just have such tactical superiority on the battlefield and with the climb speed that a thief subclass gets, you have that many more options.

Edit: Once I had uncanny dodge, I had little to no fear of being hit. If I needed to draw attacks to help allies, I could.

And that is in combat. Outside combat there is so much fun to be had.

 

[Krachek]

At an optimizing table remove the -5/+10 feats,
Remove mc for paladin, warlock and sorcerer.
Suddenly rogue will do decent damage.

 

[jayoungr]

I don't know why anyone is complaining about rogue damage. With flanking and sneak attack, the rogue in my game dished out scary damage at high levels.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know why anyone is complaining about rogue damage. With flanking and sneak attack, the rogue in my game dished out scary damage at high levels.

Nearly no one uses flanking

 

[jayoungr]

Nearly no one uses flanking

All it does is increase your chance to hit, so I don't know how big a difference it made to the rogue's DPR anyway. But if people think it is significant, maybe they should consider using flanking to buff their rogues?

 

[CapnZapp]

So, then, what you're saying isn't that your tired of the miserly design of the rogue class, but instead tired of the miserly design of feats. It's taken 350+ posts, but this is really good progress!

If you had actually read the thread, you would know that my recent post is just a summary. This thread was recently necroed, but feel free to actually read - and not just count - my earlier posts

 

[5ekyu]

i dont run flanking for non-rogue reasons but the rogues have not had problems because of it. hits are not automatic but they often arrange dual wielding or some other edge to make the hits in a turn more likely. If they need help, often as not some other combatant will use HELP to get them the edge to hit - a cleric running multiple DoT type effects might use their action to HELP the rogue if the rogue needs help in the actual to-hit department *or* to counter disadvantage.

Not sure what the basis for the idea that not using flanking hurts rogues is.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you had actually read the thread, you would know that my recent post is just a summary. This thread was recently necroed, but feel free to actually read - and not just count - my earlier posts

Why you trying to be so dismissive?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you had actually read the thread, you would know that my recent post is just a summary. This thread was recently necroed, but feel free to actually read - and not just count - my earlier posts

Ah, good, you think the rogue is fine and have pivoted (again) to feats as the culprit of miserly design. Glad to understand you.