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

[Kobold Stew]

It isn't meaningless to me and given that reliable talent comes significantly sooner than peerless skill for lore bards (don't apply a subclass benefit to all bards) it's clear to see rogues have it better from level 11 on.<snip>
Don't assume everyone is starting at low levels.
<snip>

We can disagree. You are certainly correct for high-level play.

I stand by the claim that weighing in benefits that come at levels 11, 14, and 15 does not reflect most rogues being played, and so is meaningless for them.

 

[Gladius Legis]

We can disagree.
For a player who wants to be a skill monkey, the Bard also gets Jack of Trades at level 2, which helps with all non-proficient skills, and using only the PHB the option of the Lore bard, in my view, makes it zero out of five levels at Tier 2.

Jack of All Trades bonus is +1 from Lv. 1-8. It doesn't become +2 until Lv. 9. I'll take a +4 to +8 over the same span to two more skills of my choice for those levels any day.

Lv. 10, Bard wins outright, of course. For one level, yipee. Then Rogue takes back over at Lv. 11 with Reliable Talent.

 

[S'mon]

IME the Rogue seems viable in play; Cunning Action is very powerful, and then taking half damage from the first hit every round makes them more durable than some warrior types.

There are some more powerful and popular classes - Forge Cleric and Zealot Barbarian seem overpowered - but Rogues definitely aren't at the bottom.

They aren't the top fighty class, but in the dungeon environment they tend to get a lot of play focus, and they can be good in an intrigue game too. If a game is centred on 1 fight per day then they won't do well.

 

[Damon_Tor]

• Opportunist. You may sneak attack once per turn instead of once per round. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

Too many dice. You really want the player sitting there adding up 12 dice results every turn at level 11? Or god forbid they crit; everybody at the table would groan in unison. It would make a dice-rolling simulator app damn near essential. And besides, the more dice you roll the less random the result becomes, so they'd be spending all that time just to figure out if their sneak attack damage was exactly 42 or whether it was +/- 5 or so. Enough to make you beg for static modifiers again.

I'd go the other way, and remove the dice progression entirely. The feature would read:

"Sneak Attack Once per round when you hit a creature with an attack using a ranged weapon or a weapon with the finesse property, roll 1d6 and add then result to the damage dealt. Starting at level 2, multiply this extra damage by your rogue level."

There, dice problem solved, and it's really swingy now, which feels right for a rogue for some reason. If you don't want it swingy then just add a big static modifier or something.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Too many dice.
<snip>

If you don't want it swingy then just add a big static modifier or something.

Maybe just add Dex to each SA die, and use a reasonable progression of number of dice.

could work.

or, less change, just give a level 10 feature that lets you add SA up to twice per turn, and give extra attack at level 17? it'd lock you into either dual wielding or using crossbow expert, but if someone wants that, so be it.

but honestly, the idea that rogues need to do more damage is completely silly, to me. Assassins need a less situational benefit, and Swashbucklers are great. Maybe let them add CHA to damage at some point. Or maybe make a Brute Rogue that is all about being a big damage dealer.

But the core class is really good.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hello again. Since I was quoted directly...

Too many dice. You really want the player sitting there adding up 12 dice results every turn at level 11? Or god forbid they crit; everybody at the table would groan in unison. It would make a dice-rolling simulator app damn near essential.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. This poster speaks as if a good rogue player aren't already gaining sneak attack damage twice a turn, and completely misses my (old) point:

Why make it the most difficult damage potential in the game to reach?

Compared to pulling off other combos or build choices, I'd say the Rogue's job is the most difficult in the game. And it's not like Rogues are particularly deadly, sturdy or otherwise strong combatants, that might justify being so stingy. So why allow two sneak attacks a round, but then make it so hard that lots of newbs can't pull it off, essentially gimping themselves?

After all, if you only achieve six sneak dice a round @ L12, you're only reaching half the class' full potential.

So, even after all this time, and well over three hundred posts, the question burns as bright as ever:

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

 

[Damon_Tor]

Hello again. Since I was quoted directly...


This is a good example of what I'm talking about. This poster speaks as if a good rogue player aren't already gaining sneak attack damage twice a turn, and completely misses my (old) point:

Why make it the most difficult damage potential in the game to reach?

Compared to pulling off other combos or build choices, I'd say the Rogue's job is the most difficult in the game. And it's not like Rogues are particularly deadly, sturdy or otherwise strong combatants, that might justify being so stingy. So why allow two sneak attacks a round, but then make it so hard that lots of newbs can't pull it off, essentially gimping themselves?

After all, if you only achieve six sneak dice a round @ L12, you're only reaching half the class' full potential.

So, even after all this time, and well over three hundred posts, the question burns as bright as ever:

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

Seems like you didn't read my proposal: I don't disagree with the central premise, that an increase to damage alongside a restriction to 1/round is a good idea. My proposal was (1d6)RogueLevel (ie, roll one dice them multiply it). I don't object to more damage, I object to having to count so many dice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Seems like you didn't read my proposal: I don't disagree with the central premise, that an increase to damage alongside a restriction to 1/round is a good idea. My proposal was (1d6)RogueLevel (ie, roll one dice them multiply it). I don't object to more damage, I object to having to count so many dice.

Apologies if you feel unfairly singled out.

My argument is: the game already makes a level 11 Rogue roll twelve sneak attack dice, per the Rules as Written, so I'm not adding any. All I'm doing is meant to narrow the gap between optimal and average players.

Of course you are free to suggest a reduction of the number of sneak dice regardless.

 

[FrogReaver]

Apologies if you feel unfairly singled out.

My argument is: the game already makes a level 11 Rogue roll twelve sneak attack dice, per the Rules as Written, so I'm not adding any. All I'm doing is meant to narrow the gap between optimal and average players.

Of course you are free to suggest a reduction of the number of sneak dice regardless.

It is possible that he dislikes that part of the rules as written as well. Just because the rules as written allow something doesn’t necessarily mean that they should.

 

[CapnZapp]

It is possible that he dislikes that part of the rules as written as well. Just because the rules as written allow something doesn’t necessarily mean that they should.

Sure.

It did come across as a reaction on my suggestion, though.

Plenty of gamers are completely unawares that already by the rules in the PHB they can make more than one sneak attack each combat round, after all.