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

[Mistwell]

Hey, has anyone heard whether everyone's furious arguing in this thread about the target has worked yet? Has Mearls said anything about Revising the rogue because some people feel it could use a little more DPR?

I presume that's why people are still going on about it as though there's a chance of a change being made to the Core game. Because no one would go on this long over a pointless argument to which the result has already been determined, right? No one would be wasting their time like that, would they?

Well, he could be looking for a house rule suggestion. Of course, if that were his purpose, you'd think he'd mentioned in clear words....like saying he's looking for advice on a house rule.

Or he could just be looking for moral support for a rant, to experience the catharsis of similarly tormented souls over this issue?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Although I still think that the rogue is fine as it is, this idea caught my eyes.
20th level Assassin...
+1 Rapier, 20 dex. 14 max damage multiplied by 6. For a total of 84 dmg.
+1 Arrow, Longbow... Same results...
Factor in the SS feat... 144 dmg.

And that is just one attack. One attack that will normaly be made with advantage. That strike can kill a lot of things. That is way too much damage if you want my opinion.
At least a fighter with the PM and GWM will have to roll a few dice and might miss some attacks. Even if all attacks hit, we look at a damage range going around 79 to 124 with a +1 polearm. I am not factoring in the action surge.

The fighter will not be able to surge indefinately, but a well built rogue could go at this kind of damage for a long time (wood elf, in some woods will hide then sneak almost indefinitely.) The fighter, will be seen and attacked, the enemies still got some chance to fight back.

Nope, rogue is quite fine as is.

Yeah, that's kind of where I usually land too. Thanks for doing the math, though, it helps clarify that. Although the 20th level math in D&D is still a lot higher than my preference across the board.

Really, I guess if the Sneak Attack damage isn't enough for some, the easiest option would be to increase the die size for Sneak Attack. Instead of a d6, go with a d8 or d10. Or start at 1st level with 2d4 instead of 1d6.

So I guess that's a question for [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - is it just DPR that you're looking for? If so, what's the target number? Because once you have a target number, it's easy to tweak things to meet those numbers.

If it's not just DPR, then what exactly are you looking for?

 

[Eltab]

I haven't seen that a 5e Rogue under-performs in combat. True that you only get one Attack, but you have a bunch of dice to roll (due to SA) instead of multiple opportunities to roll a few dice each.
When you watch another player roll a fistful of dice (ex: a successful Assassin attack), it isn't always obvious that a Rogue is a skirmisher first.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, that's kind of where I usually land too. Thanks for doing the math, though, it helps clarify that. Although the 20th level math in D&D is still a lot higher than my preference across the board.

Really, I guess if the Sneak Attack damage isn't enough for some, the easiest option would be to increase the die size for Sneak Attack. Instead of a d6, go with a d8 or d10. Or start at 1st level with 2d4 instead of 1d6.

So I guess that's a question for [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - is it just DPR that you're looking for? If so, what's the target number? Because once you have a target number, it's easy to tweak things to meet those numbers.

If it's not just DPR, then what exactly are you looking for?

Apparently for people to agree with him and tell him that his solution is the best solution ever.

I'm sure we could go back through this list and there have been several suggestions. Increasing the dice damage, making it easier to get multiple sneak attacks (via magic item or simply removing the 1/turn limit), simply adding a flat damage bonus to sneak attack, etc.

Anything suggesting alternatives has been ignored, postings that state there is no issue for other people get slammed. Since I'm firmly in the "I don't see an issue in any games I've played" he's labeled me a WOTC apologist. At this point he seems to be simply trolling. He has over 260 posts, so I guess it's working.

 

[CapnZapp]

Although I still think that the rogue is fine as it is, this idea caught my eyes.
20th level Assassin...
+1 Rapier, 20 dex. 14 max damage multiplied by 6. For a total of 84 dmg.
+1 Arrow, Longbow... Same results...
Factor in the SS feat... 144 dmg.

And that is just one attack. One attack that will normaly be made with advantage. That strike can kill a lot of things. That is way too much damage if you want my opinion.
At least a fighter with the PM and GWM will have to roll a few dice and might miss some attacks. Even if all attacks hit, we look at a damage range going around 79 to 124 with a +1 polearm. I am not factoring in the action surge.

The fighter will not be able to surge indefinately, but a well built rogue could go at this kind of damage for a long time (wood elf, in some woods will hide then sneak almost indefinitely.) The fighter, will be seen and attacked, the enemies still got some chance to fight back.

Nope, rogue is quite fine as is.

Our rogue considered Assassin and decided against it - it simply won't happen often enough to justify the subclass. When the whole group wants in on the action, having one party member scout ahead and control when the fight starts isn't fun.

If the feature wasn't so very restricted and curtailed it might have worked, but it is. Besides, to gain it, you have to lose out on Thief things. I'd much rather give the base Rogue some oomph.

 

[CapnZapp]

Apparently for people to agree with him and tell him that his solution is the best solution ever.

I'm sure we could go back through this list and there have been several suggestions. Increasing the dice damage, making it easier to get multiple sneak attacks (via magic item or simply removing the 1/turn limit), simply adding a flat damage bonus to sneak attack, etc.

Anything suggesting alternatives has been ignored, postings that state there is no issue for other people get slammed. Since I'm firmly in the "I don't see an issue in any games I've played" he's labeled me a WOTC apologist. At this point he seems to be simply trolling. He has over 260 posts, so I guess it's working.

You have certainly ignored the suggestions I wanted feedback on.

That is all I feel confident to say at this point.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, that's kind of where I usually land too. Thanks for doing the math, though, it helps clarify that. Although the 20th level math in D&D is still a lot higher than my preference across the board.

Really, I guess if the Sneak Attack damage isn't enough for some, the easiest option would be to increase the die size for Sneak Attack. Instead of a d6, go with a d8 or d10. Or start at 1st level with 2d4 instead of 1d6.

So I guess that's a question for [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - is it just DPR that you're looking for? If so, what's the target number? Because once you have a target number, it's easy to tweak things to meet those numbers.

If it's not just DPR, then what exactly are you looking for?

Increasing the damage die is certainly doable... but I would say it is pretty much identical to what I suggested myself? Whether you gain one d6 each level or a d12 every other level is not important.

I prefer a nice even progression (Nd6 at level N) over "strange" die combos myself.

But let's not forget my other suggestion - to restrict sneak to once a round unless you have a feat. (I've already explained why this gating has significance)

 

[5ekyu]

I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.

Never mind how the book says to actually play the game or what the book says the focus of play is meant to be on - only page count means anything!

Which is made even more hilarious by the fact that even Call of Cthulhu, a game that explicitly tells you that if you are in combat you are likely to end up with your character dead so you should seriously avoid combat - especially with actual monsters - spends more page count on combat rules than other sorts of rules, so this failure of logic that equates page count with "what the book's about" would say that Call of Cthulhu is "all about combat."

And if you don't think so, you must not be "thinking for yourself."

Now lets be fair, this is not about the rogue even being weaker in combat... OP has qualified the lack with player who hates optimizing the rogue **and** dismissed existing optimizations for the rogue as "byzantine" (ie not a flavor of ice cream they like, even if it is ice cream.)

 

[Oofta]

You have certainly ignored the suggestions I wanted feedback on.

That is all I feel confident to say at this point.

I, and others have given you a lot of feedback. Personally, I quoted your first post and gave point by point critique. Others have suggested ways to improve damage for the rogue.

Most have answered the question of "Anyone else tired..." with a no.

You ignore it all, praising only affirmation of your ideas. I simply wish you would stop pretending you are seeking advice if you are not.

 

[Mistwell]

But let's not forget my other suggestion - to restrict sneak to once a round unless you have a feat. (I've already explained why this gating has significance)

I like the feat idea and I agree the distinction is meaningful. So most feats have 2-3 things in them. Do you have some proposed text?