Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7388877" data-attributes="member: 12731">Good call adding a mention.Thank you for coming up with these 46 vs 44 numbers. They tell me my suggestions aren't far off the mark. The point is, the Rogue's particulars scream for it to be a glass cannon. It should be able to make alpha strikes like no other class in order to justify it being squishy and have no magical tricks up its sleeve.Ideally the Rogue class design is remade entirely, and a clear demarcation is done between ranged and melee builds. At range, the ability to sneak and hide is a clear advantage, and I wouldn't want to add an alpha strike to that class. But in melee, where the bonus action is needed to dual-wield, and where you can't escape the monsters and can't easily hide, it's another story.So thanks. Overall the simplification of the sneak dice (one full helping instead of two half helings) seems to do the trick. By your feedback, I'd say the "backstab" ability needs a bit of a boost, but making it melee or thrown weapons only.RegardsZappPS. Why are you okay with the Rogue out of all classes lacking a combat-focused build?All the other classes (to my knowledge) can be built for combat. Party-focused combat even (that is, disregarding the "the Rogue does perform well in combat, assuming it gets to sneak around on its own" argument).Most complaints (that I've seen around here) are directed towards beastmaster ranger, four elements monk and sorcerer. But it turns out ranger multiclasses excellently with fighter, the beastmaster is the sole class WotC have conceded needs an upgrade, you can choose another monk subclass, and as long as you choose red draconic the sorcerer does splendidly (and in fact rises to the DPR top on any short adventure day, converting most low-level slots to sorcery points to twin or quicken spells or even both in the same round).But the Rogue is expected to work its ass off, and for what? Byzantinely scrounging a second sneak out of it? That's not good enough - that level of play expertise plays off much better with any other class.Even if I buy your numbers right off the bat, the thing is, no class as squishy as a Rogue will "dominate" combat with a mere 2 points advantage over the sturdy Fighter. What it does imo is just barely justify why any party would invite a rogue - sure it's squishy, but at least it now pulls its own weight (dealing competitive damage), and it's useful to bring along for hidden traps and treasure.It is, after all, "just" a martial. Imo all martials need to do well in combat, since they don't have nearly the same amount of doodad magics as the full casters.</blockquote>

Verification