D&D (2024) Maybe this is a bit late, but let's talk about Rogue's Niche, and What Rogue Should Be.

[Minigiant]

There is no need for a new class that combines both. The class that combines skills with high damage in combat is and has always been (with the arguable exception of 2e where fighters were very highly tuned) was 2e.

The fact that you wish to physically cripple the rogue and turn them into an NPC class by making them uniquely unable to contribute effectively in combat (unlike literally any other class) and then force in an entirely new class into the rogue's classic role is something I find ridiculous

I don't want the rogue to be crippled.

I just disagree that the road should deal more damage than the fighter.

A trained warrior should be deadlier and tougher than a thief, trickster, or assa

So what needs to happen? The fighter needs to become tougher to fulfil their class fantasy and better at skills to be more than a warm body out of combat. And the rogue needs to hit hard, and to have it's utility increased so it's not playing second fiddle to characters who ignore the skill system

I agree.

I am just in the camp who want rogues to be top martial damage dealers.

Ideally I'd add Control and Support to Martials.

OFFENSE: Fighter
DEFENSE: Barbarian (Fighter Second)
CONTROL: Rogue
SUPPORT: Warlord
MOBILITY: Monk (Rogue Second)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't want the rogue to be crippled.

I just disagree that the road should deal more damage than the fighter.

So go and invent a new game that is not as combat heavy as D&D - or a new low damage class that fulfils your class fantasy. Rogues and thieves have always been top tier martial damage dealers outside 2e (where they were simply useless). They just had to work for it a bit.

A trained warrior should be deadlier and tougher than a thief, trickster, or assa

Here I think you are absolutely 100% wrong. An assassin should 100% be able to kill single foes faster and more effectively than a warrior. It's their job.

The problems the assassin has are in multi way brawls and when the enemy hits back. Warriors can take it as well as dish it out and are much better able to cope with chaos. An assassin in a brawl generally wants to run.

 

[Chaosmancer]

rogue does not have fighting style so they lose 4 on the off hand damage


Same as before

Ah, I knew I was getting something wrong.

You messed up your math.

So that would be Fighter 5 at 24.5 and Rogue 5 at 22.5, while Fighter 11 is at 33 and Rogue 11 is at 33. SO the change is instead of continuously leading the fighter in damage, the Rogue is 2 points behind at the level the fighter doubled their damage output, and is tied by level 11.

Going back to the rough accuracy math I did before, Fighter 5 is 14.7 and Rogue 5 is 16.02, and Fighter 11 is 19.8 while Rogue 11 is 24.84... putting Rogues back as doing more damage than the fighter, on average, at each break point.

If you let the rogue deal more damage then you make the fighter useless as now Rogue has Damage and Skills.
What is the solution?

I suggested making a new high damage low durbility class with a slight Stealth focus.

So wait, have we gone from "the rogue is too weak and has no place, the fighter can outperform them" to "the fighter is now useless because the rogue has everything" without changing a single fact on the field?

Because I just demonstrated again that, if both sides are dual-wielding, the Rogue is doing superior damage on average. And remember, these are just the two break points where Fighter damage spikes, the rogue gets more damage every two levels.

Personally? I don't think there is an issue. Rogue is doing superior to sword and board and dual-wielding fighter, potentially even with archer fighter (both lose second attack, fighter gains accuracy, rogue doesn't. But Rogue can continue with likely advantage on every attack and fighter can't) meaning it is only when you have pure damage build fighters are they out-damaging rogues, which they should absolutely do.

We don't need a new class. We need people to stop jumping to conclusions.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So go and invent a new game that is not as combat heavy as D&D - or a new low damage class that fulfils your class fantasy. Rogues and thieves have always been top tier martial damage dealers outside 2e (where they were simply useless). They just had to work for it a bit.

Here I think you are absolutely 100% wrong. An assassin should 100% be able to kill single foes faster and more effectively than a warrior. It's their job.

The problems the assassin has are in multi way brawls and when the enemy hits back. Warriors can take it as well as dish it out and are much better able to cope with chaos. An assassin in a brawl generally wants to run.

i think i'd draw the dividing line at rogues should be able to deal pretty much around the same level of damage as a fighter but it's harder for them to consistently do it, they need opportunities to set up their sneak attack, be that the situationality of a flanking ally or giving up your bonus action and movement with steady aim, they're also less sturdy than a fighter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And this is why I dislike WotC's design-by-survey. The point of a class system is that different people can get different things. Does every class need to be as simple to play as the barbarian? Or every complex class need to be complex because you have a lot of buttons like the wizard?

Of course every class doesn't need to be the same. But just because 10 people like it doesn't mean the other 75,000 will enjoy it. A class where you are weak unless you are outthinking other people at the table is going to be endlessly frustrating, and start to become some elitist class that DMs ban until they can make it worthless by being better than the player playing it.

The 4e rogue didn't need to outsmart the DM to work. They did however need to pay attention and use the situation on the ground.

Okay? And they were lambasted for being utterly child's play to run compared to the 3.5 rogue who needed "true skill" to play.

Rogues still benefit from paying attention to the combat situation. Just like every other class in the game. I know people like to pretend that a barbarian doesn't need to have any understanding of tactics, they just need to run and smash, but I've SEEN barbarian players who do that and they get creamed. What you are asking for is either to put more restrictions on rogues to make yourself feel smarter when playing one, or for exactly the situation we currently have.

Because frankly, with the new cunning strikes and weapon masteries, there are a LOT more options for Rogues to utilize tactics than there used to be. And trading damage for debuffs and movement is not a simple equation to figure out.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't want the rogue to be crippled.

I just disagree that the road should deal more damage than the fighter.

A trained warrior should be deadlier and tougher than a thief, trickster, or assa

I agree.

I am just in the camp who want rogues to be top martial damage dealers.

I think you got your wires crossed somewhere. You disagree that the rogue should deal more damage than the fighter, but are in the camp that want rogues to be top martial damage dealers... like the fighter.

Which is it?

Also, you again seem to keep missing the arguments going on. I keep responding to Bloodtide, who has EXPLICITLY stated that they want to cripple the rogue, by pointing out that Rogues can fight and fight well. You keep responding to those posts saying that the rogue should not fight as well as the fighter.... implicitly agreeing with Bloodtide who I am debating that the rogue should be crippled.

Ideally I'd add Control and Support to Martials.

OFFENSE: Fighter
DEFENSE: Barbarian (Fighter Second)
CONTROL: Rogue
SUPPORT: Warlord
MOBILITY: Monk (Rogue Second)

Considering Cunning Strikes is allowing rogues to trip, disarm, poison, blind, charm, and who knows what else... aren't they already showing a design that makes rogues controllers? Not as good as spellcasters, sure, but the current design seems to be headed in exactly that direction you are saying it should head in.

 

[Chaosmancer]

i think i'd draw the dividing line at rogues should be able to deal pretty much around the same level of damage as a fighter but it's harder for them to consistently do it, they need opportunities to set up their sneak attack, be that the situationality of a flanking ally or giving up your bonus action and movement with steady aim, they're also less sturdy than a fighter.

Isn't that... exactly where we are?

Yes, Sneak attack is "easy" in that you only need an ally next to an enemy instead of pure flanking, but considering how easy it is to separate the rogue from the rest of the party? It is still a restriction, and potentially a deadly one. Rogues are the ONLY class whose damage output is severely hampered by changing the environment and not having allies. And I have played games where my rogue was attacking an enemy with an ally, only to have that ally drop and my damage potential plummet with them.

And again, I would like to point out, we have changed not a single fact on the ground, and yet we have moved from "rogues are in dire need of a buff, they are the weakest and most useless class" to "rogues need more restrictions on them, they are outshining fighters too much"

Making the skill system better for the game? I'm all for it. But at this point I think it should be becoming clear that in terms of Combat, the rogue is in a perfectly fine place and does not need any major overhauls.

 

[Minigiant]

So go and invent a new game that is not as combat heavy as D&D - or a new low damage class that fulfils your class fantasy. Rogues and thieves have always been top tier martial damage dealers outside 2e (where they were simply useless). They just had to work for it a bit

Again that's false.

The fighter had better accuracy, attacks per turn, and base damage. Plus they had better access to damage boosting subsystems.

Here I think you are absolutely 100% wrong. An assassin should 100% be able to kill single foes faster and more effectively than a warrior. It's their job.

The problems the assassin has are in multi way brawls and when the enemy hits back. Warriors can take it as well as dish it out and are much better able to cope with chaos. An assassin in a brawl generally wants to run.

Assassin might have better damage on turn and OHKO standard foes.

But over the day and various fights a fighter should outdo an assassin.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Your initial comparison way back in 163 shows a 9th level rogue against a low level fighter or a dpr optimized lower level rogue against a fighter that ignored dpr in favor of something else unstated making "the point" questionable at best.

Shock trooper is a 3.5 feat in the 3.5 complete warrior book. Someone else mentioned a bunch of other 3.5 damage feats a post before I suggested looking into shock trooper builds for examples of 3?5 damage feats that didn't involve being "slightly better at grappling" too.

And that would matter if I was talking about 3.5. Is the 'e' not showing up? Is the forum replacing it with a '.5'?

 

[Minigiant]

I think you got your wires crossed somewhere. You disagree that the rogue should deal more damage than the fighter, but are in the camp that want rogues to be top martial damage dealers... like the fighter

I'm not in the camp.
A "not" was missing.

Also, you again seem to keep missing the arguments going on. I keep responding to Bloodtide, who has EXPLICITLY stated that they want to cripple the rogue, by pointing out that Rogues can fight and fight well. You keep responding to those posts saying that the rogue should not fight as well as the fighter.... implicitly agreeing with Bloodtide who I am debating that the rogue should be crippled

The current rogue does less damage than a fighter and has fewer option to increase its damage.

I prefer this status quo on damage.

On skills, I want the rogue better, the fighter better, and the core system better.