Almost as good as the fighter

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes. Just so long as the fighter is almost as good at casting spells as the cleric.

Yea like 1/4 his pyramid

 

[WarlockLord]

IMHO in 3ed the Cleric and Rogue were definitely good enough in melee... The Rogue required more effort (but not that much) because if the player could not think of anything more than the "I attack" tactic then it was obviously weak, but already a simple tactic such as constantly re-positioning yourself to a flanking position to get sneak attack meant to improve your damage output significantly.

If anything, IMXP it is more common to hear complaint about the fighter not being enough better than the others in melee, considering that the Cleric has tons of other options from spells and Rogues have plenty of non-combat schtiks. With the 3e Fighter being almost entirely designed for combat, I would be tempted to make him even "more better" than the others.

Rogue is weird. You can do a lot of damage with dual-wielding boot blading sneak attacking fools, but you are squishy and too many ways of setting up sneak attack require you to sacrifice a full attack.

 

[CM]

Rogue is weird. You can do a lot of damage with dual-wielding boot blading sneak attacking fools, but you are squishy and too many ways of setting up sneak attack require you to sacrifice a full attack.

Luckily from the sound of things, requiring you to stand still in order to get your full complement of attacks is (still) gone the way of the dodo.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Rogue is weird. You can do a lot of damage with dual-wielding boot blading sneak attacking fools, but you are squishy and too many ways of setting up sneak attack require you to sacrifice a full attack.

I use to joke that my high level rogue in3e had a backpack full of short swords... I hit you with my d4 dagger and add my +9, then thesE 6 short swords come out for 6d6 extra damage... Cause my dagger might as well be a 1pt wet noodle, as long as I get my 6 free short swords in...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

In the oldest old-school D&D games, clerics and thieves were expected to do this on a regular basis. And when the fighter isn't buffed with massive damage bonuses and specialization attacks, they could do that. They weren't as good at it, but they weren't doing 4 points of damage a round while the fighter did 67.

Now I'm not saying that the cleric or rogue shouldn't need special combat abilities. But if he's in a situation where he's bereft of them, he shouldn't feel like he might as well not bother rolling to hit since he's making no difference anyway.

Anyone out there agree with this sentiment?

Clerics have always been a decent melee capable class. Thieves are weaker in combat than either clerics or fighters but not worthless.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yep, every class should be able to bring at least a little something to the table in most situations, at least at their very basic levels. Players can then refocus away from those elements as they level up.

 

[dkyle]

Theme could play a big role here.

A Slayer Cleric, or Slayer Rogue, might be near baseline Fighter (one with a non-Melee focused Theme) at toe-to-toe fights, but a Slayer Fighter would have a significant leg-up.

While Mystic Clerics and Lurker Rogues would want to avoid toe-to-toe fights.

 

[El Mahdi]

Anyone out there agree with this sentiment?

Absolutely. I agree completely. I don't want them to outshine the Fighter at combat, but they definitely should be able to hold their own and contribute effectively in combat.

 

[thalmin]

And of course the fighter should also be able to contribute when he is nearly out of hit points and his weapons and armor are missing!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I believe that, in 5e, a cleric or rogue should be able to stand in the middle of melee and, without benefit of spells or class abilities, still feel like he's contributing to the fight.

Cleric, yes, rogue, no. Well, they should contribute, yes, but the rogue should be nowhere near as good as a fighter or a cleric unless he's striking from surprise.