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

[CleverNickName]

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?

I guess I don't understand the question.

The rogue might not be able to match the damage output of other classes, but I wouldn't say it's low. And not many character classes can match the rogue's durability, skill, and speed; certainly not as effortlessly. There's more to a character design than its damage output, and the rogue class does a decent job of balancing everything out. (I didn't read the other 350 posts, maybe this was already mentioned. If so, sorry for beating a dead horse.)

 

[Slit518]

Rogue gets Sneak Attack when an ally of their's is within 5 feet of a target they are attacking, correct?

In that case, attack the same targets as allies or coordinate with allies to take out targets you feel are bigger threats.

I've had no problem dealing damage as a Rogue.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Nope, I don’t even agree with the premise of the question.

The rogue isn’t “meant” to get SA twice a round, it’s built around getting it once a round. Twice a round is an extra. Mearls has confirmed this (on MMHFH, I think), but he didn’t need to.

The Rogue’s job isn’t to deal as much damage as a fighter at high levels.

If you want rogues to do that, you need to build for it, or make/find a subclass built for it.

I **am** tired of the overcautious design of the Assassin subclass, though.

Requiring surprise is just silly, mechanically, and if you’re gonna make something that situational, it should be a big bright 100 LED spotlight moment when it happens. At level brute style enemies should drop reliably.

To avoid that assymetry of spotlight, I’d have given them the ability that leaving a position of cover doesn’t lose stealth unless they end their turn in plain sight, and allow them to surprise enemies in any fight where they are hidden when combat starts, and then give them everything they’ve already got. Or something along those lines.

But the core class? Nah. It’s great.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Nope, I don’t even agree with the premise of the question.

The Rogue’s job isn’t to deal as much damage as a fighter at high levels.

I think a lot of this stems from people used to MMOs and CRPGS that draw on MMOs for mechanics instead of traditional D&D. In MMOs, rogues are typically raw damage dealers, designed to just deal out raw DPS with maybe some minor stuns or poison effects, while 'fighters' are more stereotypes as 'tanks' who soak up damage but don't do that much (lots of fighter/warrior/paladin/etc. classes actually do pretty good damage, but that's not the stereotype). Old D&D didn't fit the Tank/Healer/DPS trinity that MMOs love so much, using tactical positioning with absolutely no aggro mechanics at all. Fighters (and the other fighter-types) were the consistent damage dealers who could stay in the fight and keep doing damage. Thieves were utility characters as they were the only ones with find/remove traps and the best at sneaking, and could do big burst damage on occasion with a backstab. I think 4e may have made them into a straight 'DPS' class (I never played 4th), but 4e is an aberration in a lot of ways, and other than possibly 4e they aren't really meant to consistently out damage fighters. I think there's a decent number of people who expect rogues to consistently out damage fighters because of MMOs, when in reality the D&D rogue is made to do good (but not consistently the best) damage with really good sneaking and survival abilities.

 

[Krachek]

Agree.
Rogue alpha striker come from WoW and some other games.
DnD classic rogue is an explorer, sneak, utility character.
5ed Design is ok for that role.

 

[FrogReaver]

Honestly, without GWM and PM or CE and SS I don't think rogues really do less damage than fighters, at least not in a standard adventuring day. They do have a worse alpha strike though as action surge and superiority dice expenditure can do a lot for an alpha strike

That said, a rogue does more damage than a fighter at level 1 (about 10% to 20% more to be exact). By the time you hit level 3 a rogue does is doing similar daily damage to a battlemaster fighter. The rogue lacks a good alpha strike though. By level 5 the rogue is still only doing somewhere between 1% and 9% less damage than battlemaster fighter.

By level 7 the rogue is again doing more than the battlemaster fighter at the same level (about 5% to 13% more).

The only issues with this analysis are:
1. Many people experience much shorter adventuring days than standard 5e calls for. This significantly helps the battlemaster fighter.
2. Rogues get no NOVA capabilities.
3. Fighters taking damage feats is generally a good assumption (and there are no good damage feats for a rogue)
4. Rogues will occasionally be unable to sneak attack

Sometimes actually running an analysis is quite enlightening. Rogues are better than fighters IMO, at least until you start comparing to a fighter with GWM, PM, SS, CE and such.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agree.
Rogue alpha striker come from WoW and some other games.
DnD classic rogue is an explorer, sneak, utility character.
5ed Design is ok for that role.

Yep. Even 4e had them with more skills and a lot of really good utility powers, and fighters were the hardest hitting defender, who could be built to rival strikers for damage in all but the most optimized parties.

Rogues were damage dealers, but could easily be built more like underhanded bastardsthan DPR junky lethal killers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Honestly, without GWM and PM or CE and SS I don't think rogues really do less damage than fighters, at least not in a standard adventuring day. They do have a worse alpha strike though as action surge and superiority dice expenditure can do a lot for an alpha strike

That said, a rogue does more damage than a fighter at level 1 (about 10% to 20% more to be exact). By the time you hit level 3 a rogue does is doing similar daily damage to a battlemaster fighter. The rogue lacks a good alpha strike though. By level 5 the rogue is still only doing somewhere between 1% and 9% less damage than battlemaster fighter.

By level 7 the rogue is again doing more than the battlemaster fighter at the same level (about 5% to 13% more).

The only issues with this analysis are:
1. Many people experience much shorter adventuring days than standard 5e calls for. This significantly helps the battlemaster fighter.
2. Rogues get no NOVA capabilities.
3. Fighters taking damage feats is generally a good assumption (and there are no good damage feats for a rogue)
4. Rogues will occasionally be unable to sneak attack

Sometimes actually running an analysis is quite enlightening. Rogues are better than fighters IMO, at least until you start comparing to a fighter with GWM, PM, SS, CE and such.

TWF and CE are both actually good for Rogues, and they open up more reliable Sneak Attack and don’t require any suboptimal weapon loadouts.

The game really needs a good feat for thrown weapons, and for dueling combatants to boost damage, but Rogues also have the freedom to take things like Mage Slayer, and oddball feats, bc feats just aren’t a big part of their combat builds.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, that's part of my point.

Without feats - okay.

Then you add feats. Fighters get to double their damage (roughly speaking). Rogues don't get anything that isn't available to everyone.

The fact remains: there is no feat to make you deadlier in martial combat that doesn't rely on per attack scaling.

An obvious deficiency that make you think the game designers went "the rogue is crazily overpowered in the feat-less game, so we'd better not give it a feat."

But the rogue isn't crazily overpowered in the featless game. Remember cantrip users? They're just as good.

Sure, they can't use feats to improve their abilities either, but unlike rogues that's okay, since they've got so much else going for them. (Plus cantrips are probably too good in featless games)

(In fact, if anything, it's that fighters are offensively weak without feats. Paladins still get their smites. Rogues have their sneak. Cantrips are excellent for Warlocks and Sorcerers.)

But add feats, and the sole loser is the Rogue, that remains frail. If it was a glass cannon, fine, but as a glass pea shooter in feat-enabled games, it's not fine.

At least with my suggestion the Rogue doesn't need to bend over backwards to enable what the game does already provide the potential for, which is dual sneaks per combat round.

It is a feat that doesn't actually add anything, but makes the Rogue class much more relaxed and therefore fun to play

 

[S'mon]

I see a good number of 5e Rogue PCs, but I've almost never seen an off-turn sneak attack. The class definitely seems built around 1 sneak attack/round. I think the difference between well played/built & mediocre is just that the well played/built Rogue usually has Advantage or an off hand attack, so rarely misses.

I don't think 5e Rogues expect to be particularly great in combat, but they get a lot of spotlight time in exploration & social areas, and players tend to enjoy playing them.

Re Feats - a Rogue can use Sharpshooter just as well as a Fighter can; probably better, since the Rogue sniper can reliably get Advantage via the Hide bonus action.