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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You're really going to spend an entire post bitching about the fact a few posters managed to insert their replies between my two posts?

Check the post timestamp. It can't have been more than ten minutes.

Look at threads started by other people; the ones that actually go somewhere useful is because their first post - the one that sets the tone for the entire thread for everyone reading it, especially those people that assume "They hit the post button, so they must have included everything they meant to say to open the conversation" instead of assuming that the important information is going to be made in some follow-up post that there is no indication is coming along, even if it is in less than ten minutes.

Then look at threads started by you and see what is different. It isn't just that it's you making the posts - it's the tone and context created by your word choice and phrasing. If you want a different outcome, you have to make different efforts - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to work out differently is just going to lead you to disappointment.

Also, stop your lying about me. I did not "spend an entire post bitching" - not only because I wasn't "bitching", we're just having a conversation despite your attempt to paint my participation as something negative - but also because my comments aimed at helping you avoid things you express dislike of in the future were only a portion, not the entirety, of my post.

Why do you always insert yourself in threads I start only to never discuss in the spirit of the thread? I'm sick and tired of you Aaron; you are uniformly unhelpful.

If you think I'm doing something wrong, then hit the report button. If you can't handle someone posting in a public forum having different opinions than yours and not just sitting by and letting it slide that you constantly equate 'doesn't agree with me' with BS like 'are ganging up on me' and 'won't admit the edition isn't perfect', then hit the ignore button (you wouldn't be the first person here to use it as a means to turn this forum into their own personal echo chamber)

But as far as calling me "uniformly unhelpful" - it takes two to tango. You've got no clue whether or not my advice and input is helpful because you've never tried it out - usually because of your attitude that keeps you too busy getting hung up on useless stuff like whether or not the problem you are having is or isn't pretty much only happening at your table to notice when people (not me, in this case, I'll admit) give solutions to the problem.

 

[CapnZapp]

Look at threads started by other people; the ones that actually go somewhere useful is because their first post - the one that sets the tone for the entire thread for everyone reading it, especially those people that assume "They hit the post button, so they must have included everything they meant to say to open the conversation" instead of assuming that the important information is going to be made in some follow-up post that there is no indication is coming along, even if it is in less than ten minutes.

Then look at threads started by you and see what is different. It isn't just that it's you making the posts - it's the tone and context created by your word choice and phrasing. If you want a different outcome, you have to make different efforts - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to work out differently is just going to lead you to disappointment.

Also, stop your lying about me. I did not "spend an entire post bitching" - not only because I wasn't "bitching", we're just having a conversation despite your attempt to paint my participation as something negative - but also because my comments aimed at helping you avoid things you express dislike of in the future were only a portion, not the entirety, of my post.

If you think I'm doing something wrong, then hit the report button. If you can't handle someone posting in a public forum having different opinions than yours and not just sitting by and letting it slide that you constantly equate 'doesn't agree with me' with BS like 'are ganging up on me' and 'won't admit the edition isn't perfect', then hit the ignore button (you wouldn't be the first person here to use it as a means to turn this forum into their own personal echo chamber)

But as far as calling me "uniformly unhelpful" - it takes two to tango. You've got no clue whether or not my advice and input is helpful because you've never tried it out - usually because of your attitude that keeps you too busy getting hung up on useless stuff like whether or not the problem you are having is or isn't pretty much only happening at your table to notice when people (not me, in this case, I'll admit) give solutions to the problem.

Sorry, by now I recognize your game: wrest away the discussion from the topic at hand onto a personal focus.

I won't go there.

 

[CapnZapp]

I dislike the off turn sneak attack junk. Essentially doubling the rogues combat ability by allowing him to get 1 off turn attack per round is just bad in multiple ways.
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] proposed solution is to just give that to the rogue all the time because he believes that even with it all the time that the rogue won't keep up.

I believe this is gravely mistaken. I believe there would only be a handful of builds at that point that could ever with the most optimization imaginable do more damage than the new suggested rogue.

That to me is a problem. I wouldn't mind making sneak attack slightly stronger and eliminating the chance for off-turn sneak attack. But to double it outright is making the rogue base class do what only very optimized builds can do.

Thank you for at least recognizing my perceived issue and reading my solution.

Yes, in unoptimized games the Rogue needs no help (and I believe I said as much).

But I would be interested in you taking your analysis one step further: already in the core game the Rogue can achieve his level in sneak dice, only distributed over two, not one, successful sneak attacks.

You say you dislike that, but apparently you're more worried about the damage than the delivery.

Have you taken any steps to remedy that, is my question since it seems we could benefit from the same solution (only with different amounts of sneak dice).

Regards

Ps. From my point of view you don't need "very optimized builds", but judge for yourself:

The Druid gets there any time he summons eight Velociraptors. I've actually nerfed these spells by having the player roll a die each time: rill high, you get the exact critters you want; roll low, you get weaker specimens. Otherwise the Druid isn't geared towards DPR which isn't a problem since he's a support class.

The Paladin is an obvious nova'er.

The Barbarian also has it easy, with rage and reckless.

The Sorcerer is a DPR beast and King of novas, as would be expected for a class capable of twinned cantrip plus quickened Fireball in the same round.

The Monk gets excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks and Stun remains the best debuff in the game (except possibly a twinned Hold Monster, but that's expensive)

All five are capable of 60+ damage with effort and luck.

In this perspective, granting the Rogue a single helping of 9d6 doesn't raise any eyebrows.

In fact all the players agree the Rogue falls behind and that half level in sneak dice is rather timid and conservative (or in my words, miserly and begrudging).

Of course, had the player maximized play and pulled off two sneaks a round with any consistency, the issue might have not been pressing at my table.

But that does not change my main criticism: Why is the Rogue one of the most difficult classes to play? Nothing in the class description suggests a reason why the current byzantine implementation is a good or proper one.

And very few of you have actually responded to the question: how would it be a bad thing to make the Rogue simpler? To me, the Rogue is an excellent candidate for Champion levels of straightforwardness.

In combat, mind you. Out of combat it can be as intricate as the traps it overcomes! ☺

 

[Pauln6]

Thank you for at least recognizing my perceived issue and reading my solution.

Yes, in unoptimized games the Rogue needs no help (and I believe I said as much).

But I would be interested in you taking your analysis one step further: already in the core game the Rogue can achieve his level in sneak dice, only distributed over two, not one, successful sneak attacks.

You say you dislike that, but apparently you're more worried about the damage than the delivery.

Have you taken any steps to remedy that, is my question since it seems we could benefit from the same solution (only with different amounts of sneak dice).

Regards

Is part of the problem a lack of synergy with other players? Rogues find it far easier to gain advantage, which doubles their chance of a critical, which will include sneak attack. If the other players are not working with the player to maximise that tactic, maybe that's part of the problem?

If the player really struggles, then just take 3 levels of Rogue for the expertise and subclass and then choose champion for the remainder.

 

[5ekyu]

I have seen plenty of Nova rounds where the fighter hits with all five attacks for +50 damage.

Faced with the choice on what to believe: my own play experience with ruthless minmaxers or your white-room calculations, I have chosen the former, and removed/reworked the feat from my games.

The main flaw of average numbers is, nobody cares for average numbers, if you can ensure nova output NOW, and low output later, when you probably get a long rest instead of trudging along to lower the average to your numbers.

I recall an internet discussion once where i think it was different weapon attack options were being discussed.

One guy was on quite a tear and it was not quite possible to figure out how they got to their conclusions which were decidedly different than others.

Then they got into the core math and showed and stated that they believed that for estimated oututs it was not the mean die roll or even the probable die rolls that should be used.... He saw the "mode" (number most frequently rolled) as the key and since on "his" d20 the most oft rolled number was a 17, that was the assumed die roll for all his math calculations.

And yes, optimized fighters in optimized teamplay on low AC opponents with lucky rolls can get 5 hits in a turn even with GWM and -5 to hit.

But using that as a significant part of the other side of the scales for balancing dpr with the assumption of a non-optimized rogue who eschews optimized play **while** at the same time dismissing claims that choose to not trest it as a general problem or see it as "your table issue" is very... trollish.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not ignoring their suggestions as much as they're ignoring mine.

I consider it uncouth to not mention my suggestion with a single word. Having the temerity to suggest I'm ignoring them when they are the ones ignoring me is worse.

One full sneak instead of two half sneaks - what's so complicated about that?

I'll tell you what: it's not. It's more probable you didn't read my suggestion in your eagerness to tell me I'm wrong and there is not a single thing at fault with this pristine perfect edition; the same message you always post in threads I start.

So I took the time to go back and quote your text, but you simply can't accept that the vast majority of people disagree with you, or that there may be simpler solutions. Sorry my response wasn't just gushing praise for your brilliance. I, along with several others, would be more than willing to discuss the topic but you aren't interested in a discussion. You simply want to rant and have everybody agree with you. That or you're just trolling, I can't tell any more.

As far as 5E being perfect, that would be impossible. No game system is perfect, no game system is for everyone. I've given my list of complaints more than once, I'm not going to bother again.

 

[Ash Mantle]

I have seen plenty of Nova rounds where the fighter hits with all five attacks for +50 damage.

Faced with the choice on what to believe: my own play experience with ruthless minmaxers or your white-room calculations, I have chosen the former, and removed/reworked the feat from my games.

The main flaw of average numbers is, nobody cares for average numbers, if you can ensure nova output NOW, and low output later, when you probably get a long rest instead of trudging along to lower the average to your numbers.

Could you post the stats for all PCs involved?

 

[Ash Mantle]

Only in the context of you having read my suggestions, and providing the feedback "I think this would be a better solution".

Also, I'm interested in the opinions of people sharing my belief it's a general problem deserving a general solution.

Not interested in "solutions" that mostly are meant to shunt away the issue to "my table" only.

Thanks

The others have read your suggestions and offered solutions in context to your perceived issues with the rogue. I don't have an issue with the rogue in play, and find it one of the more mechanically compelling and competent classes - especially with its mostly on active sneak attack and it's ability to get out of dodge at no opportunity attack cost. I've read the solutions offered, they don't merely shunt your perceived problems aside but actually offer meaningful solutions.

If you're interested in the opinions sharing your belief that it's a general problem deserving a general solution and dismiss the opinions of others who do not share that opinion and actually find the rogue as is to be a good class, then you're being remarkably disingenuous and biased.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ps. From my point of view you don't need "very optimized builds", but judge for yourself:

The Druid gets there any time he summons eight Velociraptors. I've actually nerfed these spells by having the player roll a die each time: rill high, you get the exact critters you want; roll low, you get weaker specimens. Otherwise the Druid isn't geared towards DPR which isn't a problem since he's a support class.

The Paladin is an obvious nova'er.

The Barbarian also has it easy, with rage and reckless.

The Sorcerer is a DPR beast and King of novas, as would be expected for a class capable of twinned cantrip plus quickened Fireball in the same round.

The Monk gets excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks and Stun remains the best debuff in the game (except possibly a twinned Hold Monster, but that's expensive)

All five are capable of 60+ damage with effort and luck.

The sorceror obviously can get there by dropping fireballs into large tightly-packed groups and/or by twin hasting the melee heavy-hitters.

Barbarian? Has two attacks. May get a bonus weapon attack if optimised. May get a reaction attack with DM collusion. If they're taking the -5 to hit, then even with advantage they're unlikely to land all of them. Their attack bonus is what? +9? With the usual adventuring day, they're only going to be raging maybe half the time as well.
Plus, from your previous threads on Crossbow expert, we know that a high proportion of encounters start at range. The barbarian's ranged damage isn't going to get them anywhere near 60+ consistently.

Druid: DM gets to choose what creatures turn up of the CR that the caster specifies in Summon spells. If the DM is consistently giving the best options available, then the Druid is going to perform consistently better than using the default 5e rules.

Monk: Only gets to use their weapon plus on two of their attacks. The other one or two are unarmed and so won't get that bonus. Damage will be less than 10 per hit, so I'm unsure of how they're hitting 60+ DPR. Could you elucidate please?

In short, hitting 60+ DPR should not be possible for all of them without DM collusion from what you've told us. Unless by "effort and luck" you mean "multiple natural 20s".

In the majority of tables with default 5e rules and basis, this level of consistent damage would be not just unlikely, but actually impossible. Thus why bringing the rogue class up to 50 DPR would be neither necessary, not even desired. This is why a lot of people aren't agreeing with your OP. No grand conspiracies to keep the rogues down. Just people playing with different groups.

OK. This is the bit that you're interested in [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION].If you want to make the Rogue simpler and allow a rogue whose player optimises at a similar level to where your other players are to do a similar amount of damage, then I have a suggestion:
Remove the round/turn limitation of Sneak attack completely. No fiddling with extra dice or short-rest replenishing pools. The Rogue simply gets to deal sneak attack on every hit that qualifies.
At base that allows a dual-wielding rogue to deal sneak attack twice. Plus it allows a feat taken and/or DM fiat to get an additional sneak attack as a reaction. And finally it provides a good incentive for the sorceror to buff their own damage by providing the Rogue with haste or similar spells rather than just the heavy melee types.

 

[Zardnaar]

Note much can hit 50 dpr consistently, nova damage is easy though (action surge,smites etc).

A Sorlock at higher levels and GWM fighter+ PAM would do it level 11 perhaps.

Kinda have to expect that when you allow feats and MCing into the game the designers missed a few combos.
There is no dex based melee feat that can compete with the -5/+10 feats.