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

[CapnZapp]

I could flip that logic around on you: Why is it so all-fired important to give the rogue another half their level in extra d6s? Why is that bit of extra damage such a big deal?

The class is what it is. If what you want is to hand out some extra Sneak Attack dice to rogues in your game, what are you talking to us for? You don't need our permission. Just do it. (And if you're a player, then it's your DM you need to convince, not anyone here.)

If what you want is for us to agree that the class design is stingy and underpowered, then the burden of proof is on you, not us; and I'm not impressed with your case for that claim, for all the reasons that I and other people have stated.

You don't get to change the subject to "I feel my values questioned, now apologize".

You didn't have to participate in the thread. Since you did, let me take this opportunity to bring you back on topic by asking you what you thought about my suggestions?

 

[Oofta]

The rogue I ran in my last campaign did just fine for damage compared to the rest of the party so I personally don't see an issue. No, he didn't do nova rounds, but his overall DPR was close to other characters. At least close enough that it didn't seem to matter much. Rogues I've seen in play in other games seem to do quite well.

I can see that it could vary a lot. If you have only 2-3 encounters between long rests, never give your rogue a chance to hide to get advantage, always have the enemy assemble in fireball formation and so on it could make a big difference.

But I am confused - you complain that rogues don't do enough damage and then you want to limit their damage to once per round so that they can't take advantage of feats like sentinel? I suppose you also have an issue with rogues hiding and getting advantage while using Sharp Shooter feat?

Ultimately though I don't see a problem. If you want to do massive damage and go nova, play a different class. A rogue is more of a generalist who, in my experience, holds their own in combat. YMMV.

 

[Rossbert]

I think making the rogue as attacks as an attacking class runs into some issues:
1. You lose the point of being a generalist who is pretty good at several skills but obviously not as tough and hard hitting as a dedicated combatant like a fighter or barbarian.
2. If everyone hits as hard as a fighter you need to add things to make the fighter more useful out of combat as he now has no niche.
3. If those concerns are addressed you fall into the 4e trap of everything being very samey. I still can't tell most of the time which class an ability belongs to just by looking at the stats. It is the curse of trying to make everything exactly as useful in the same situations. They become the same.
4. Why do you even feel you need this? It drifts a little into the space of wondering why a bladelock or bard doesn't hit as hard as a fighter. It isn't what they are supposed to do.

 

[Hjorimir]

I don't want to discount your opinion here (you're obviously passionate about this), but I feel like I'm missing something here. Why does the rogue not play well with others exactly? Can you list some examples please?

 

[TwoSix]

Sure - in easy combats.

In hard combats you need your bonus action to deliver a second attack, so you don't fail to deliver sneak damage every turn. (Which sends you straight to the bottom of the DPR list).

This makes you much more vulnerable.

Everybody seems to ignore the fact that you can't keep up your Rogue defenses and deliver damage at the same time.

I'm reasonably sure that having to make hard choices like "do I play it safe and disengage or do I risk the second attack to make my sneak attack" is what makes hard combat hard in the first place.

D&D combat is pretty much like poker; you make the smart play based on the current odds every time and you'll win more than you lose, but even the smartest play is vulnerable to luck.

 

[CapnZapp]

This! I had a rogue player who did this (along with hiding because he could use his regular move to duck behind something) and he was a beast in combat... not because he did the most damage but because it was hard to lay a finger on him. Once he took mobile he was able to dart in unhindered on many opponents and strike (with sneak attack) on them without real fear of repercussions then move away and hide again so no ranged weapon users could target him.

EDIT: On the one hand it was a little frustrating as the DM at first but on the other hand I feel like this is exactly how a rogue should be in combat... darting in and out, quickly striking the weakened opponents in close or from a distance and disappearing into the shadows... it's almost iconic.

I could agree to this except... you're describing shadow monks

And the sad fact the 5E Stealth rules are FUBAR.

If the stealth rules made it crystal clear to every DM that the rogue could hide basically every round guaranteed then playing a ranged rogue would be great, yes.

Playing a melee rogue would still suck balls, though.

But you do have a point. Consider this thread to not discredit your argument, but to instead discussing it from another angle: that of upping damage.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Nope. The thief as a constantly backstabbing/sneak attacking damage monster is not a design development I'm overly fond of. The thief shines more in the other phases of the game. And the rogues in the 5e games I've been in have held their own just fine.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the Rogue needs an entire rebuild, honestly. It needs to be the best 'Alpha strike' class, but Heavy Weapon fighters blow them out. I'd rather they had rebuilt it than the ranger...

I have a generous house rule for rogues, but even with the house rule it is not a class that people choose to play. The house rule: If you hit a target that does not consider you to be an enemy, you deal backstab damage. Backstab damage is 3 per level of the rogue.

Thank you.

You win my prize for "first reply actually dead on topic"

 

[Arilyn]

Every class has been made competent in combat, since that's 50-90% of game play.

There's no reason to keep a non-combat class around like the 5E Rogue.

At least create a subclass for those would like to play a combat-enabled Rogue!

The very first 5e game I played in, I had a fighter, and someone else at the table played a rogue. Together, we dominated the combats. The rogue wasn't worse than my fighter. On top of that, the rogue had lots of good skill proficiencies. So, I'm thinking you already have a combat-enabled rogue in 5e, ready to go.

 

[CapnZapp]

But a well played rogue isn't taking the type of damage a Hvy Weapon fighter is...

The problem is the rogue must not take the type of damage a fighter can take.

It's a huge restricting factor.

Unless you like being the wet blanket that the Cleric needs to revivify after every other combat.

The rogue doesn't come near the alpha strike damage it needs to have in order to justify being such a glassy cannon.

Heck, the fighter easily outperforms in the alpha strike dept. just by Action Surge alone.

Move Action Surge from Fighter to Rogue and then maybe there would be a point. (Except you wouldn't be able to make two sneaks anyway, since both attacks happen on your turn. Aargh)