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

[CapnZapp]

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.

You really need to specify whether you're using feats, MC and/or items, Oofta.

That's because if your experiences are in a no-options game we are actually in agreement!

I don't want to "limit" rogues - I want to "unleash" their potential two sneak attack damage for all the rogue players that can't or won't maximize. It's not that I don't understand that you gain twice the DPR if you use your reaction to sneak a second time. It's that it's uncharacteristically byzantine class design for 5E to rely on such a complex game feature. Did you read my suggestions?

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

1. Everybody would love it if the Rogue pulled its own weight in combat instead of being basically just a drag
2. Being king of combats is niche enough, thank you very much.
3. You really can't actually have played 4E if you make that accusation. Let me just reassure you there's a MILE between 5E with a Rogue with an actual sting, and the oppressive samey-ness that was 4E.
4. I don't even... sorry but words fail me

 

[Dausuul]

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

I said no such thing, nor did I intend it.

...asking you what you thought about my suggestions?

Well, I agree that the "once per turn loophole" should go. The "once per turn" thing is highly unintuitive and I don't like mechanics that encourage people to perform uninituitive rules maneuvers. Your approach will certainly work; though I would prefer tying Sneak Attack to the Attack action, which would remove the need to track your Sneak Attack usage across the round. A bit of extra verbiage would be needed for dual wielding rogues, of course (unless you feel like merging the off-hand attack into the regular Attack action, which I think they should have done in the first place, but that's a lot bigger than just tweaking the rogue).

Damage output-wise, I don't agree that the rogue needs more. I think Sneak Attack once per round (plus the occasional OA) is the intent of the rogue design, and I think they work fine that way. The "once per turn" thing was put in because "once per round" isn't a thing 5E does.

But if you want them to deal more Sneak Attack damage, then giving them more Sneak Attack dice is the logical way to go about it.

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

A reasonable request.

My rogue player is not exactly a minmaxer. He simply does not get the potential for using your reaction to gain a second sneak attack.

This thread's suggestions simply move that damage into the regular sneak dice, for a much more newb-friendly, generous and straightforward class!

So many times the Rogue has simply missed with his sole attack. Even the fewer times where the player realized he couldn't gain advantage and so would do hopeless damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I 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.

The paladin, barbarian and even Warlock can hit about as hard as the fighter, who already needs to be more useful in the other two pillars, not to mention could stand with being a bit more interesting even in combat...

. If those concerns are addressed you fall into the 4e trap of everything being very samey.

Only if you somehow provoke enough people into repeating that lie often enough for it to become the truth.

I still can't tell most of the time which class an ability belongs to just by looking at the stats.

There are a lot of spells that appear in two or more lists (only a minority of spells in a given class list are unique, and the Sorcerer has no unique spells, at all), sure, and combat style is shared out among three classes, and extra attack by more as well...

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I agree that the "once per turn loophole" should go. The "once per turn" thing is highly unintuitive and I don't like mechanics that encourage people to perform uninituitive rules maneuvers. Your approach will certainly work; though I would prefer tying Sneak Attack to the Attack action, which would remove the need to track your Sneak Attack usage across the round. A bit of extra verbiage would be needed for dual wielding rogues, of course (unless you feel like merging the off-hand attack into the regular Attack action, which I think they should have done in the first place, but that's a lot bigger than just tweaking the rogue).

Damage output-wise, I don't agree that the rogue needs more. I think Sneak Attack once per round (plus the occasional OA) is the intent of the rogue design, and I think they work fine that way. The "once per turn" thing was put in because "once per round" isn't a thing 5E does.

But if you want them to deal more Sneak Attack damage, then giving them more Sneak Attack dice is the logical way to go about it.

Thank you.

 

[Hjorimir]

5th level rogue (18 DEX), no magic weapon or feats averages 19 on a hit (crit 34).
5th level fighter (18 STR), no magic weapon or feats averages 22 with two hits of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 29).

11th level rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 30.5 on a hit (crit 56).
11th level fighter (20 STR), no magic weapons or feats averages 36 with 3 attacks of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 43).

I didn't factor in a fighting style, so you can throw a few points of damage on the fighter if you'd like.

We could up the fighter's damage significantly with Great Weapon Master, but - as I've already pointed out - I can do the same with a Booming Blade cantrip and/or the Sentinel feat for the rogue.

Note: Using that greatsword means no shield. If we assume the fighter is in plate we're looking at an AC of 18. The rogue (studded leather and DEX) is at 16 at 5th level and 17 at 11th level. If they picked up Moderately Armored (shields) we can increase that to 18 and 19 AC respectively.

Given all of the rogue's additional utility, is this really out of whack?

 

[Jester David]

Sorry that's just a argument.

I want a rogue that too can "double up on the DPR". Then you can choose to not do that, that's fine.

But why should there be one class that's alone in prevented from being great in combat.

The Sorcerer and Warlock have problems, but there are at least one DPR build for each class. Sure it sucks you need to play a Red Dragon Sorcerer to gain excellent combat power (that is, it sucks that if you want to play another kind of Sorq your damage will suffer.

But at least the option is there. For the Rogue that option simply does not exist.

And don't get me started on the Assassin. If it helps you, consider all the suggested changes I present above to only apply to the Assassin.

At least then there's a way to play a Rogue that pulls his own weight in combat.

The rogue is great at combat. If they’re the party’s striker then the group will do just fine and hold their own. There’s more options than a binary “great at combat” and “terrible at combat”.
They’re just not the best. They don’t NEED to be the king of DPR to fulfil that role. And it’s only apparent they’re not the best if the party doubles up on strikers. If no one else is playing a damage dealer it’s irrelevant if the rogue is the best or not as there’s no frame of reference.

There are already ways of bumping the rogue’s damage. The two rapier rogue has good accuracy, especially with the Sentinel feat. Especially with the swashbuckler class giving it guaranteed sneak attacks. The elf with a longbow is tough as well, especially with Sharpshooter. Add in Lucky to offset bad rolls.

If you think there rogue absolutely needs a little more oomf and the assassin isn’t cutting it, then make a new archetype that’s a DPR rogue but different than the assassin. Why reinvent the wheel?
Perhaps a “thug” or “enforcer” that mixes in some intimidation and status effects. Or a “sniper” that kills from a distance.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

The rogue is great at combat. If they’re the party’s striker then the group will do just fine and hold their own. There’s more options than a binary “great at combat” and “terrible at combat”.
They’re just not the best. They don’t NEED to be the king of DPR to fulfil that role. And it’s only apparent they’re not the best if the party doubles up on strikers. If no one else is playing a damage dealer it’s irrelevant if the rogue is the best or not as there’s no frame of reference.

There are already ways of bumping the rogue’s damage. The two rapier rogue has good accuracy, especially with the Sentinel feat. Especially with the swashbuckler class giving it guaranteed sneak attacks. The elf with a longbow is tough as well, especially with Sharpshooter. Add in Lucky to offset bad rolls.

If you think there rogue absolutely needs a little more oomf and the assassin isn’t cutting it, then make a new archetype that’s a DPR rogue but different than the assassin. Why reinvent the wheel?
Perhaps a “thug” or “enforcer” that mixes in some intimidation and status effects. Or a “sniper” that kills from a distance.

They're also great at helping the part avoid combat encounters entirely (people at the back of the bus: No, not all combat encounters) - unless every checkpoint, window, bush and tent is guarded by a crack commando or dragon. Which would be awesome. And kinda silly. Taken to extremes, and under the assumptions the player is making smart use of the rogues generous skill allotment (and the DM isn't an arse), they can set things up so any 'fight' is practically won before the weapons are readied (though, at extremes, you can find yourself in split-group territory).

They're also rather nifty in dungeons, if built for them. Only character at the table that keeps on trucking. Fighter gives them a run for their money until they encounter the traps. Though this does rely on the rogue not dumping Str entirely (and/or picking up Athletics).

Non-linear. Asymmetrical. Guerrilla. Psych Warfare. Rogue is good. And obviously, your DM needs to embrace these things, else...

 

[Rossbert]

There are a lot of spells that appear in two or more lists (only a minority of spells in a given class list are unique, and the Sorcerer has no unique spells, at all), sure, and combat style is shared out among three classes, and extra attack by more as well...

That was in reference to the balance of 4e. If you pull all the striker (controller, etc.) powers from my books and shuffle them without including the fluff, many, possibly most, are difficult to tell apart