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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Yes, but delivery is also considered.

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

I have not. In games where most other players highly optimize I'll either play something else if I want to keep up with them in combat or I'll highly optimize my rogue toward out of combat purposes and be the best of the best at those. It helps that I know optimization when I see it.

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.

A few things. I only really look at single target damage potential not AOE potential as the impact of AOE's can be so variable. I wouldn't compare it to NOVA damage without at least looking at how much daily damage in total the NOVA character can do as well.

1. Paladins can occasionly NOVA for a lot of damage. They don't get anywhere near 60 DPR even with GWM and PM and smites.
2. Monks get much less damage than even the Paladin (unless maybe you are counting the advantage he can grant into his damage?)
3. Barbarians are great at damage when optimized. Even a Zealot Barbarian struggles to break 60 DPR.
4. I have no idea what Velicoraptors are capable of right off. So I can't really comment on your Druid.
5. Sorcerer does good AOE damage. As I mentioned before though I really don't compare single target vs AOE.

Anyways out of your current party (barring magic items), no melee character you listed gets near 60 DPR.

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).

Rogues are one on my favorite PC's in 5e. I've never felt like I'd be behind on damage unless it was GWM and PM style shenanigans. I've never yet used off-turn attacks as a rogue.

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.

Well, rogues are hard to "play" because most players either suck at tactics or don't want to engage in them regularly. My rogues all approach combat very tactically and always either try to hide for advantage or two weapon fight and maximize hit and run style tactics. Generally I'm assassain's or swashbucklers.

As long as you can attack twice or get advantage on most of your turns then rogues compete well with all but the most optimized builds IME.

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! ☺

I like the tactical aspects of the rogue. I don't want him straightforward like a champion in that regard. In terms of damage, every rogue I've ever played was straightforward in damage. Play for advantage as often as possible or use two weapon fighting to maximize your chance of sneak attack landing. No off-turn shenanigans etc. (Not that I'd be above using them but I haven't yet).

I think for most of us the rogue plays very simply. That's the real answer I think.

 

[Ancalagon]

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)

I agree that the monk is a great class BUT, the monk does NOT get excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks. Only 2 may be performed with a monk weapons, the others are *unarmed* attacks.

I just re-checked the rules btw, because one of my players is a monk with a +1 spear.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

Well... in a super optimal occasion to do this (say you need 5 or above to hit), the odds of hitting 5 out of 5 times are 32%. In a more normalish situation (your odds are hitting are about 50%), your chance of hitting 5 times are 3%

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.

There is a danger with relying on self experience without careful documentation, because recall bias etc can warp your perception - those "the fighter just hit five times!" are certainly very memorable! On the other hand, white room calculations are not always sound either. Anyway, I don't allow feats in my game in part because of GWM so...

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 readily conceded that the rogue has next to no nova capacity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In a game that functions as te core rules of 5E seem to suggest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Rogue. I’ve seen a coupleof pure Rogues, and also a multiclass Rogue/Ranger that were all functional characters with much to offer their party.

In a game that is more combat focused than the rules seem to expect, the Rogue does a bit less damage than the classes designed more for martial capability. The difference is more notable the more the focus shofts toward combat and away from the other pillars, and also the fewer combats per day that the party faces. This is offset at least a but by its ability to avoid damage and its performance outside of combat.

In CapnZapp’s game, it seems that there is no reason to play a Rogue and the player in question would be better off playing a Fighter with the Criminal background. He could then take the same exact feats the other players have taken for their characters, and match their DPR exactly.

If for some reason the player still wanted to play a Rogue, then just grant Extra Attacks at the same level as the other classes, and remove the Once Per Turn restriction on Sneak Attack.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I also find the 5e rogue disappointing, and less fun to play than in previous editions. In part, this is because I want specific things from my thief/rogue, and they are not measured in DPR:

(1) a (mostly) non-magical class. Arcane Trickster aside, rogue is the only class that is spell-less by design apart from the fighter.
(2) skill monkey. Able to do more non-combat non-magical things than other classes.
(3) a class capable of excelling in the exploring and or social game, while holding their own in combat.
(4) diversity of builds. I want viable charisma rouges, intelligence rogues, strength rogues, wisdom rogues. Not just Dex rogues.

In my view, the 5e rogue delivers (1), but not (2)-(4); I recognize that my desires might be the problem here.

Nevertheless:
(2) Two extra skills and expertise should deliver, but bard and ranger also get one extra skill, and bard gets expertise from level 3, as well as Jack of all trades at 2. From levels 3-11 (when Reliable Talent kicks in), then, the Rogue is not more versatile in skills as a bard, who is additionally a full caster with tons of utility. The only thing that distinguishes Rogues is the ability to apply expertise to Thieves' Tools, which Rogues can't do.

(3) The Ranger has a better exploration game (as does the Outlander background for outdoor games); thieves' tools proficiency are easily acquired in background. Three spellcasting classes use charisma as a prime stat (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock), and two use it as a secondary stat (Cleric, Paladin). With backgrounds, any of these can naturally be a party face.

(4) Without multiclassing, I think I have yet to see a rogue with less than a 14 dex. I recognize I may want a diversity of builds that doesn't exist for other classes, but since this is the only non-fighter non-magical option, and since fighters can do equally well with Strength or Dex, I would like the ability to have viable builds favoring mental stats. Things have begun to change. XGTE does have subclasses that favour these stats, but I don't think they can do so without at least a +2 Dex modifier.

The problem for me, then, isn't that the rogue can't hold their own or be almost as good as someone else; but that there is nothing they can do that is distinctly theirs. (2) and (3) point to niche erosion -- you need to make some pretty focussed choices in order to hold on to any edge. And those choices (4) don't allow a wide variety of builds.

I know these aren't [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] 's issues. I agree that the rules for Sneak Attack are byzantine and non-intuitive, but that's not where I see the real fix being needed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Thank you for pointing out there are ways to scrounge out a few more DPR.

Now please address my issue of this thread: what about simplifying and un-byzantifying the class design?

Wouldn't it be great if the Rogue got one full sneak attack instead of two half ones?

You are missing the point: people who like rogues like them because of the complexity.

If you want simplicity play a fighter.

So no. It wouldn't be better. Some players like simplicity, some like complexity and some prefer non-combat encounters. the game should accommodate all types of player.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - you are already pretty convinced of your fix. So, what's the problem here. Institute your fix and have at it. Take the time to actually track damage done for a couple of sessions (just to do away with confirmation bias) and you're golden.

I know that I had a heck of a time convincing my group just how far behind my fighter was than the rest of the group until I actually tracked the damage done. It really is eye opening to be able to point to actual empirical evidence, rather than "I remember that one time the fighter hit five times!" because, I guarantee, you don't remember the times that he or she didn't.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - you are already pretty convinced of your fix. So, what's the problem here. Institute your fix and have at it. Take the time to actually track damage done for a couple of sessions (just to do away with confirmation bias) and you're golden.

I know that I had a heck of a time convincing my group just how far behind my fighter was than the rest of the group until I actually tracked the damage done. It really is eye opening to be able to point to actual empirical evidence, rather than "I remember that one time the fighter hit five times!" because, I guarantee, you don't remember the times that he or she didn't.

I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same. What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM). So a fix that works for one table won't for another.

I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter). But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.

 

[Rossbert]

I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same. What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM). So a fix that works for one table won't for another.

I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter). But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.

This is pretty solid. Our table's Paladin and Cleric spike way harder than the Rogue, but once the spell slots and channel divinity are gone the rogue's sneak attack on every turn is better damage. The Wizard just has no idea what he is doing.

 

[Hussar]

I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same. What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM). So a fix that works for one table won't for another.

I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter). But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.

Oh, for sure.

That's why I always suggest tracking this stuff for a few sessions before you do anything. Is this actually a problem? Or is it simply perception? How much of a problem is it? Are we talking a 10 point spread over the course of a session or a 100?

IME, so much of this is tied up in confirmation bias that without actually tracking the numbers over a reasonable set of time (say, 1 level, or maybe 3 or 4 session - at least 20 or 30 round of combat at a minimum), that any complaints and fixes are just stabs in the dark.