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

[Ash Mantle]

Read my second post in this thread. (I think it's post #4)

To me, the message is crystal clear: what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?

Are there any unforeseen consequences I've missed? Any loopholes or abusive combos I need to patch up?

Could you also address the suggested solutions to your perceived problems of the rogue at your table?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Read my second post... To me, the message is crystal clear...

You really don't see how those two details are at odds, do you? Your message could have been crystal clear in the title of the thread, and if not there, then definitely in your first post in the thread - which was not the case this time around.

what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?

I think it seems like there are significant enough differences between our at-the-table experiences that my thoughts on your house-rule are almost assuredly going to be irrelevant, because you're talking about enhancing the damage output of one of the classes I've seen lay out consistent high damage on a regular basis (both relative to the other characters, and relative to the monster hit point totals) without the player of the rogue managing many off-turn sneak attacks.

So to me, it sounds completely unnecessary and like it's not the unforeseen consequences, but your deliberately intended consequences, that would be the cause of any problems that would arise.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Another way of "fixing" the rogue would be to eliminate sneak attack entirely but give them extra attacks at 11 and 18. Which means they could use 2H weapons and thus could get the good damaging feats. To compensate we would have to remove a bunch of their special abilities, especially the defensive ones, which means we would then need to give them heavy armor proficiency.

There, fixed.

 

[Krachek]

Simply stop giving xp points based on damage per encounter, and rogue will be fine.

 

[gyor]

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.

Arcane Trickster, take the Shadow Blade Spell, use a 4th level slot that will be an extra 4D8 pyschic damage and automatic advantage in darkness or dim light, can be thrown and summoned back. Still not enough? Take the absorb elements spell as well, its a cross between protection from energy and smite, but for the Wizard/Arcane Trickster/Eldrich Knight.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

My real question is, why is thread apparently filled with people who absolutely insist the Rogue of all classes be shackled to a very harsh system mastery requirement...?

What is inherent to the Rogue's theme that just screams "straight-forward players shouldn't bother! Go play Champion or something!"

And of course I'm sarcastic. They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all.

You're evidently entitled to your own opinions about 5e, the designers, and the design decisions made. And ENWorld gives you a platform to air those. And those who read your title and original post are free to look at the language and tone used, judge the post, and you yourself by the metric of your previous posts, and render their own opinions.
That their opinions don't seem to jibe with your own agenda is not cause to insult, attempt to insinuate, or assign them ulterior motives.

Why otherwise utterly deny there is any kind of issue here, and adamantly avoid actually discussing the suggestions I've made?

Because a lot of people do not share your opinion that there is an issue there, and it took you till the 5th post on the thread after your OP to actually make some suggestions. Your priority was obviously the points addressed in the OP and people are concentrating on that because that is where your priorities appear to lie.

Now myself, and several others are willing to accept that you need help on this issue at your table, and we accept that it is an issue at your table. Thus suggestions have been offered and analysis done on your proposals. Generally altering an entire class because of an issue a single player is having is a rather clumsy way of doing things, and opens up the risk of going haywire when an actual optimiser gets hold of it.
Hence why there are a lot of alternative suggestions to help you out as well.

Rogues have few synergy effects with multiclassing.

Expertise says "Hi!" Cunning Action just just nicks your wallet and scarpers.

There are no Rogue feats that increase DPR.

Alert, Sentinel, Skulker, Medium Armoured and Shield master. Sharpshooter, Crossbow expert.

Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?

Practise what you preach. Quit trying to make grand sweeping claims about the people responding to your OP and instead look at what they're actually saying.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Read my second post in this thread. (I think it's post #4)

To me, the message is crystal clear: what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?

Are there any unforeseen consequences I've missed? Any loopholes or abusive combos I need to patch up?

I think it is fine as is. If it aint broke don't try to fix it.

But then no one in either of my groups measures their contribution to the group by the size of their DPS, so "my opinion" is of no value to you.

But you haven't justified your use of the words "miserly" and "begrudging" in the thread title. You can't separate the words in the title from what you claim your "message" is.

 

[Oofta]

So let's get this straight.

Non-rogue characters are doing higher damage per round than most people experience. This is possibly because it's focused on situational, nova damage and definitely because the players in question have used feats and optimized their characters.

However, rogues can't take feats such as sharp shooter, sentinel, hide during combat, do anything to get attacks (and sneak attack damage) outside of their turn or do anything to optimize their characters because for the rogue those options are too "byzantine".

Suggestions on how to increase the rogues damage such as increasing the sneak attack die to a d8 or d10 (a very simple fix) or give them magic weapons to help out are ignored. The solutions you suggested seem to be more complex.

Then 98% of responses say that there's not a problem, that the answer in the title of the thread is a simple "NO". All of those responses get attacked because they don't agree 100% with the OP.

But let's talk about (an abbreviated version to bypass some of the bluster) first posts.

...
But in games with feats the fighter get upwards of 35 or more damage a round, along with a host of other tricks.
...
There is no burst/nova capability.
...
Correct play requires absolute system mastery, to gain two sneak attacks in as many rounds as humanly possible.
...

Sure the Rogue has its uses outside of combat, but let's be honest - D&D is a combat-heavy game, and there needs to be a straightforward way to build a Rogue that is competitive in combat.

I don't see the fighters getting 35 or more damage per round consistently without using limited resources, and rogues have their own tricks if they want.

True, rogues don't have burst/nova capability. Unless of course they're an assassin or a trickster rogue.

In order for your fighters to be getting sky-high damage, they have to have quite a bit of system mastery as well. What's your point? As far as being a combat-heavy game, it depends on your DM and player. There's another thread where people are posting that combat takes up half or less of game time for many people. I know in my current game, the rogue has been quite useful out of combat. YMMV

• Change sneak attack from once per turn into once per round.
• Instead, grant one sneak d6 each level instead of every other.

Why take away something only to make people take a feat later on to get it back?

It would be easier to just give the +n damage on a sneak attack or change the sneak attack die to d8 or d10. I think it's a pretty huge increase in damage.

• You gain one "backstab die" every other level, which are regained during a short or long rest. You may use any or all of your backstab dice on any attack that qualifies as a sneak attack. Each adds 1d6 to the sneak damage. You can decide how many backstab dice to use after you see whether you hit or miss.

You think this is simple? OK ... I don't see a need for it. But depending on your game your just piling on and if you don't have many fights between rests then the rogue is suddenly out-damaging everyone.

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

This feat reinstates the raw rule, in the anticipation that regular players won't bother, and thus, that the feat won't be considered a feat tax.

CapnZapp taketh away so that CapnZapp can giveth? I don't see the point. If I want to play a swashbuckler rogue, this becomes a feat tax for no reason.

Then throw in a few things like rogues have to be better than everyone at damage, better survivability in melee compared to a bear totem barbarian all while insisting that everyone else is wrong unless they agree with you 100%.

I could see some minor tweaks to make a more combat effective rogue here and there depending on type of rogue, but why bother? Anything that doesn't just agree with the mighty Capn is ignored or flamed.

 

[5ekyu]

My real question is, why is thread apparently filled with people who absolutely insist the Rogue of all classes be shackled to a very harsh system mastery requirement...?

What is inherent to the Rogue's theme that just screams "straight-forward players shouldn't bother! Go play Champion or something!"

And of course I'm sarcastic. They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all.

Why otherwise utterly deny there is any kind of issue here, and adamantly avoid actually discussing the suggestions I've made?

I find the frequent forum jump to "They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all." to be a very simplistic broad brush disnissal often throw when foljs just disagree, especially when married with broad sweeping grouping like "thread filled with."

It often is used to dismiss what are actually cogent positions that jyst happen to disagree with the presumptions or conclusions.

But let me tackle your bait...

Item 1 - is the rogue "shackled to a very hard system mastery requirement"? Not in my experience. In your own case, you said the player did not want to or prefer to opyimize iirc. You characterized the minmaxing options as byzantine, a matter of taste. I suggest that, in fact, there are quite a few builds to optimize two-sneaks available. I have not seen them to be more onerous to construct. How hard are they to play compared to the -5/+10... a lot of that depends on the combats put in play by the Gm. -5/+10 math for extra damage only works out to be a bonus if the hit odds are really high **and** predictable.

Item 2 - Should it be "harder" at all to get the rogue dpr to match the barbarian or fighter? Yes. Because the class rogue gets more out of combat stuff. They get more skills, more expertise, etc. Of the got all those things and easily matched (or got close enough it does not matter) they would be OP by comparison in a game where both mattered.

Now, the key thing is once a GM table decides to throw out (effectively) those other things and drive to as much as 90% combat, that goes away.

But, like the original title, the post above characterizes this in terms relating to system and edition, not the half-dodge "its about my table" revisionist repackaging mentinoned along the way.

More and more, this is clearly seeming to be a vehicle to gripe about 5e than a seeking house rule thread.

 

[5ekyu]

Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?

Is this an example of you focusing on the message?

"They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all."