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

[Tony Vargas]

You know taking the Psychopath flaw is just pure powergaming, right?

'Flaw?'

I thought we were talking about a new Rogue(Assassin) feat?

 

[Ancalagon]

Kensai can't chose a weapon with the heavy property for their kensai weapon, GWM only works with heavy weapons for the -5/+10. Believe me, I was hoping to use kensai as a pseudo-avenger, but it doesn't work.

Sad trumpet noise...

Although I'm not entirely sure why it had to be a kensai monk to be frank.

 

[TwoSix]

Although I'm not entirely sure why it had to be a kensai monk to be frank.

Why a pseudo-avenger had to be a kensai monk, or the build from earlier in the thread that started this tangent?

 

[Ancalagon]

Why a pseudo-avenger had to be a kensai monk, or the build from earlier in the thread that started this tangent?

Build from earlier

 

[Razamis]

Rogues are amazing because they escape so much damage. Between Cunning Action (disengage as a bonus action) and Uncanny Dodge/Evasion ("What is half damage, Alex?"), they laugh off the big stuff. Also, consider Sentinel as a feat for a rogue, to trigger an occasional extra sneak attack. You can attack the rogue, who will use Uncanny Dodge for half damage, or attack his friend leaving you open to the rogue's Sentinel attack. Yummy.

No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky and so being amazing at taking less damage is not something that is relevant to a rogue player. Rogue players want situational nova damage to simulate the sneaky stab you in the vital spot aspect of a rogue, and of course the skill-lord aspect. The skills are mostly correct, although the bard really steps on a rogues toes in D&D5e which isn't good, and the damage aspect is miles behind a good martial character build.

 

[Satyrn]

No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky

I accept your challenge, good sir!

*adds tanky rogue to list of future characters*

 

[Razamis]

The true strength of a rogue comes from having around a good third more skills than anyone else and among those several that almost cannot fail.

Lore bards get more skills.

Also the skilled feat allows fighters (who get a lot of feats) to take 3 additional skills each time they take the feat, even ones that are not on their list. This means that even though Fighters only get 2 skills to start, 6 potential feats, where as rogues only get 5. The fighter could use this extra one feat for skilled and have a total of 5 skills... which is one MORE than the rogue. The fighter could then take ONE SINGLE level of rogue and gain a 6th skills freely, and gain expertise in 2 of his skills, including thieves tools. The fighter can rather instantly become about as good as any rogue with skills while retaining his position as a complete combat dominator.

As for the skills almost not failing, that only comes into affect at level 11+, which a lot of players often don't see. For the other half of the rogues career, they can fail just like everyone else.

 

[Razamis]

If your table is doubling up on the DPR role, the rogue will fall behind. But that’s the nature of the beast: there will always being someone at the bottom. If you buff the rogue then we’ll start talking about the warlock or sorcerer...

And, as stated, the rogue gets a lot of useful stuff other than dealing damage. D&D is a combat heavy game, but it's not a combat ONLY game.
And if you've every had an adventure come to an abrupt halt with a locked door, the rogue doesn't seem underpowered.

I really hate comments like this because it refutes some pure idealistic version of the classes but not the reality at the table.

The fact that a Fighter can use one of their extra feats to take Skilled and take Lockpicking, Stealth, Sleight of Hand means that he's more than capable of performing out of combat if he choses. Additionally a single level of rogue provides thieves tools and expertise in 2 skills. Also, who gets stopped by a locked door in D&D? It's not a single player game, isn't there a wizard or barbarian in your group?

Finally you do not take a rogue for utility... that is what spell casters are for, they have vastly more utility than a rogue, especially if that spell caster just happens to be a bard... even more so if they are a lore bard.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky and so being amazing at taking less damage is not something that is relevant to a rogue player. Rogue players want situational nova damage to simulate the sneaky stab you in the vital spot aspect of a rogue, and of course the skill-lord aspect.

Speak for yourself. When I play a rogue, I want an evasive striker, and the lack of Cunning Action or Uncanny Dodge would render the class into a second-rate glass cannon.

 

[Henry]

Speak for yourself. When I play a rogue, I want an evasive striker, and the lack of Cunning Action or Uncanny Dodge would render the class into a second-rate glass cannon.

In every game I've played, even games with the Great Weapon Master Sharpshooter types running around, Rogues are among the top damage dealers in the party every time (not the top, but among the top, usually #2.) In my table experience, they don't need the extra damage. If they did, fighters would cease being played immediately, because then the rogue would have tons of damage evasion, high skills, AND the top damage in combat.

In a recent arena-style combat between our party barbarian and party swashbuckler, the barbarian did win, but it came down to one unlucky roll from the rogue as to why he did so - he held his own quite handily. I have seen a rogue in nearly every table, and I expect I'll continue to do so, with happy players sitting behind them, and ultimately that's what matters to me.