• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

[5E] A Rogue "unnerf" - Extra Attack

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Hot take: The thief hurt D&D by siloing combat and non-combat specialization into different classes. A unified "warrior" class merging combat and practical skills would have been better.
Well, I love the comment, but you know that this "hot take" is approximately 44 years old.

I mean, it's probably room-temperature at this point.
 

Ashrym

Explorer
Are there other options I'm forgetting?
There are plenty of spells to trigger opportunity attacks, tbh. That's what makes spells like command or dissonant whispers good.

I'm going to say you missed paying a high level spell caster into turning the rogue into a hydra with true polymorph. Each head gets a reaction. Then wish the INT score back up. Then intentionally cut off heads to regrow two in it's place for a while.

11 heads, 11 reactions, 1 dissonant whispers, let the sneak attack havoc ensue.

Or it would be less cheesy just to cast the spell on the rogue once and give him 6 SA's every round or so that combat via abilities causing opponents to move.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Haste won't give another SA. It grants another attack on your turn, so you have another chance of landing the SA if your first attack misses, but you won't actually get two SA's.

I think CapnZapp was more thinking of feats that allow use of reactions to make opportunity attacks and SA on other people's turns.
This is the perfect example of my point - even a presumable knowledgeable player getting it wrong (no offense dnd4v).

You use the Hasted action just like it says on the label: to attack.

It is your regular action you instead use differently - you ready an action with it, saying "I shoot/stab the monster as soon as something, anything at all, happens".

This means your readied action triggers as soon as the next creature takes its turn (friend or foe), and you can do a second sneak attack since it is now a new turn!

This is what I call going through "hoops". It is un-intuitive and cheesy-feeling. But it is also completely legit as every minmaxer knows.

My suggestion is intended to take the Cheeze Hoops ;) out of the equation, and solve the OP's issue in a way that is very close to what the RAW actually permits.

 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Hot take: The thief hurt D&D by siloing combat and non-combat specialization into different classes. A unified "warrior" class merging combat and practical skills would have been better.
My own take is that classes is the life blood of D&D, and that any move towards genericized classes will destroy the game.

In other words, I definitely want fighters and rogues to remain separate. I just need the devs to understand that "skill monkey" is far less valuable in a regular game of D&D than they seem to think.

Give Rogues skills AND awesome DPS, and people will still play fighters simply because they last longer on the battlefield and can actually protect their friends.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
My own take is that classes is the life blood of D&D, and that any move towards genericized classes will destroy the game.

In other words, I definitely want fighters and rogues to remain separate. I just need the devs to understand that "skill monkey" is far less valuable in a regular game of D&D than they seem to think.

Give Rogues skills AND awesome DPS, and people will still play fighters simply because they last longer on the battlefield and can actually protect their friends.
Mmmm.... I think you need to be careful about defining a "regular game of D&D," unless you are aware of information that I am not.

Rogues get something no other class does in terms helping them shine in ALL THE OTHER PILLARS*, so I think you need to be extra careful about basic assertions of just "I wanna do more damage," especially when they already do a lot.


*Okay, also bards, but not as much.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
My own take is that classes is the life blood of D&D, and that any move towards genericized classes will destroy the game.

In other words, I definitely want fighters and rogues to remain separate. I just need the devs to understand that "skill monkey" is far less valuable in a regular game of D&D than they seem to think.

Give Rogues skills AND awesome DPS, and people will still play fighters simply because they last longer on the battlefield and can actually protect their friends.
Current D&D is in a weird spot for me where I think it should have gone more generic or more specialized, but it ended up in a compromise position. I'd love to see a book of 50 specialized classes, all of which take up only 2 pages each. Or my own homebrew project, which is a lot of mini-classes that become accessible only as campaign rewards.
 

Kinematics

Explorer
Now then. I am of the firm belief Rogues should be DPS machines. Skill use is vastly overrated by a dev team that perpetuates the fantasy that the three pillars are in any way equal. Just look at any published module to instantly see that the game is maybe 80% combat and 15% exploration. The times you make a social check that actually matters can be counted on one hand, for all books together! So putting even 5% on social is generous.
I find the exact opposite. Combat is maybe 20%, and the rest is social and exploration (exact division depends on what parts qualify as "exploration"). And in fact I am often envious of the skill selection and expertise available to rogues and bards. I do not think they are overrated at all, as they are vastly useful for large portions of our games.

This is from four different GMs over the last 4-5 years, and several long-duration games. Two of the games were based on modules (one of which is still going), and the rest were homebrew. (5E convinced us to retry D&D; prior to that, I think we'd played maybe 2 D&D games over the previous 20 years.)
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
This is the perfect example of my point - even a presumable knowledgeable player getting it wrong (no offense dnd4v).
WHAT!? WELL, YEAH, YOU CAN, WELL, YOU KNOW...

Boy, wouldn't it be horrible if that was actually my response! LOL! :LOL:

No offense taken. We've only been playing 5E for maybe nine months. No one has Haste yet (I have Slow, though). Actually, we've never even encountered a bad-guy with it either!

I think in all the thousands of rounds of combat, we've only had people ready an action maybe twice???

And finally, I abhor min/maxers and as the most "experienced" player (I've been playing other editions for close to 40 years...) I am trying to discourage it in all the others since they are all new to D&D as of this campaign.

Anyway... as to the OP:

Allowing multiple SA's was definitely not my idea. Allowing the Extra Attack would give the chance for getting the SA each round, and maybe a bit extra damage if the rogue hits with both attacks. The Second Strike idea allows that as well, but at the cost of your reaction, forcing the player to choose between offense and defense.

So, that is what I am going to suggest to the group this weekend. Otherwise, I am just sort of following the thread to see what others come up with.
 

Immoralkickass

Explorer
You abhor min/maxing, yet you want Rogues to have Extra Attack? And the title is 'Unnerf' Rogues, which could also mean, 'Buff Roags plz?'
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
You abhor min/maxing, yet you want Rogues to have Extra Attack? And the title is 'Unnerf' Rogues, which could also mean, 'Buff Roags plz?'
There is a logic behind it that you might not be aware of from other threads and the OP. Rogues are the only non-casting base class without Extra Attack. Other threads have focused on limiting rogues in other ways. Hence, a possible option that would "unnerf" them.

Reason, flavor, etc. determine my ideas for changes. So, yes, I ABHOR min/maxing. Is that clear enough for you?
 

Immoralkickass

Explorer
Rogues are the only non-casting base class without Extra Attack.
And there's a good reason for that. Rogues are fine as it is, they don't need buffs. They are not weak in combat by any means.

Giving them Extra Attack would be Maximizing their damage output. Is that clear enough for you?
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
And there's a good reason for that. Rogues are fine as it is, they don't need buffs. They are not weak in combat by any means.
What does that even mean, "not weak"?

Compared to what? What classes do you consider weaker?

Myself, I consider melee Rogues to be one of the riskier, most fragile, and therefore weaker build choice. Just going fighter with a sneaky background and Stealth is better - most of the time you won't even miss Rogue specific abilities. The ranged Rogue is better than the melee build, but if you want to stay at range, why not go Ranger/Fighter and pick up Crossbow Expert.

No matter how you look at it, Rogues are one of the classes paying the most combat power for out of combat utility, and that's a shame.

Giving them Extra Attack would be Maximizing their damage output. Is that clear enough for you?
Maximizing damage output is good, that's exactly what the Rogue class needs.

I do agree Extra Attack is not the way to do it, though. That way, it just makes the Rogue a poor-man's martial.

Much better to observe what the rules already do give all Rogues, and instead simplify and streamline access to that: two Sneak Attacks every round.

That way we're not actually boosting the class, we're just making the game more user-friendly and inviting. No longer do you need to be a minmaxer cheesing out specific rules to play a Rogue with competitive DPS!

 

Immoralkickass

Explorer
Y'all clowns be crazy, trying to justify Rogue's weaknesses with your stupid logic. "Rogues should be DPS machines", "80% of the game is fighting", "Expertise is not important because DCs are low anyways".

I get that YMMV stuff, but seriously,Whaaaaat. I've not read that much bullshit in a long time.

So you want the rules to just give them what they deserve (a 2nd sneak attack in the round). Aren't you bloody entitled or what? Why not ask for wizard spells to be given to you for 2 gold per spell level, and take 1 min to learn? 'My class is meant to learn spells anyway, and Clerics/Druids get their entire spell list by default!'
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
So you want the rules to just give them what they deserve (a 2nd sneak attack in the round). Aren't you bloody entitled or what?
For the umpteenth time:

Rogues already get a second Sneak Attack each round as soon as they can grab a second (re)action.

If you can't see that, you are only revealing your own ignorance. Please consider who might be the clown here before you call other posters names.

Have a nice day
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
And there's a good reason for that. Rogues are fine as it is, they don't need buffs. They are not weak in combat by any means.

Giving them Extra Attack would be Maximizing their damage output. Is that clear enough for you?
Read every post in the thread. Then maybe you will be able to contribute in a meaningful way. If you are still under the delusion that the OP was about granting a second SA, you are woefully ignorant.
 

Esker

Exploree
I'm going to say you missed paying a high level spell caster into turning the rogue into a hydra with true polymorph. Each head gets a reaction. Then wish the INT score back up. Then intentionally cut off heads to regrow two in it's place for a while.
Hah, that's amazing. Now I know what spell I'm going to ask the bard in my group to take when we hit 17th level... :)
 

Esker

Exploree
Rogues already get a second Sneak Attack each round as soon as they can grab a second (re)action.
Not reliably though, and not without hefty opportunity cost. What's the highest proportion of the time a dedicated DPR optimizer can get a second sneak attack, do you think? Maybe half the time with a pretty substantial individual and partywide investment? I don't think it's true that it's just a matter of jumping through fiddly hoops to get the second sneak attack, and if you created a feat that could provide it more reliably than feats that already exist (e.g., Sentinel), it'd be a big power boost, not just streamlining.
 

Esker

Exploree
Y'all clowns be crazy, trying to justify Rogue's weaknesses with your stupid logic. "Rogues should be DPS machines", "80% of the game is fighting", "Expertise is not important because DCs are low anyways".

I get that YMMV stuff, but seriously,Whaaaaat. I've not read that much bullshit in a long time.

So you want the rules to just give them what they deserve (a 2nd sneak attack in the round). Aren't you bloody entitled or what? Why not ask for wizard spells to be given to you for 2 gold per spell level, and take 1 min to learn? 'My class is meant to learn spells anyway, and Clerics/Druids get their entire spell list by default!'
Yeesh, why the tone? I basically even agree with the gist of what you're saying but being that hostile doesn't help your case any.
 

Advertisement

Top