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

[DND_Reborn]

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]

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]

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]

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 naughty word 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]

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

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

{snip}... and Clerics/Druids get their entire spell list by default!'

They do. If that was also something you missed, I suggest you try reading the entire PHB as well.

 

[Esker]

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]

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]

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 naughty word 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.