D&D 5E Are Rogues mostly archers?

[xuriel]

The rogues characters I've seen played in my gaming group have been a 50/50 split between ranged or melee. Despite there being no "true" defender role or class, we almost always have someone who plays a character with the Protector fighting style, Sentinel feat, and/or Shield Mastery feat, to keep monsters off squishy characters like a melee rogue.

 

[CapnZapp]

Do you think that was the intent of the designers?

I honestly believe the designers were blindsided on this one.

The fantasy genre uses hit points and levels for one important purpose:

To support the trope of the melee hero. The heroic swordsman, the mighty barbarian, the stoic dwarf.

All of fantasy and "heroic history" emphasizes the manliness of stepping up to your foe to do close combat.

But. As the real-world knights, there's a very painful lesson to be learned: the ranged combatant. The crossbowman. The longbowman. (Earlier, the mounted shortbow archer. Later, the musketman.)

Reality simply doesn't support the image of Conan standing on top of a mountain of hacked and slashed orcs. So fantasy rpgs added "buffers": unrealistic (or heroic, I'm not here to judge) defenses such as levels, sky-high armor classes, lots and lots of hit points. And what's more: they made archery a relatively fragile way to fight. The orc in your face simply slashing your bow, or punching you in the face, or simply pushing your bow aside ruining your aim. And a two-handed sword or greataxe often does much more damage than a puny arrow or slingstone.

Of course, this is largely intact in 5th edition. You won't be shooting down the giant or demon or dragon before it can close any distance to bite your ass off: it has hit points and AC too.

But what the designers of 5th edition did forget was that to do heroic melee you need to either be better with a sword than with a bow, or the option to fight with a bow in close combat needs to be pretty wrecked.

Otherwise, what's stopping you from going all Legolas on your poor little D&D game?

And the answer, sadly, seems to be: nothing, except the expectation that melee combat is cool.

While that is enough for many (swinging an axe in face of the enemy is never a bad option), it isn't enough for those of us that carefully analyse the statistical outcomes of our choices (our "character builds").

You don't have to be a minmaxer to see that with feats such as Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert the expected drawbacks of ranged combat simply aren't there anymore.

So, yes, the Rogue is better off as a ranged combatant. But so is everyone else.

I maintain that the designers must have lost sight of the fact that the game must actively encourage something as stupid as walking up to your foe with a sharp stick in your hand, when you could just shoot his face off from a safe distance.

In previous editions of D&D this has always been so:
- you deal strength based damage even with dex based weapons. Strike one for the archer
- you get penalties based on distance. Strike two for the archer
- you get penalties for cover and concealment, which is much more commonplace at a distance. Strike three!
- your day is ruined when an enemy manages to get up close (which he will if the game features hit points). Strike and you're out!

But in 5E all of these important checks on ranged combat can be removed.
- people complained they had to put points in Strength so now you dont
- a feat negates disadvantage for distance. Not "lessens" and not "some distance". All penalties are simply gone!
- another feat negates any cover penalty. (This is actually not a big deal, since everybody can do "move out of cover, shoot, and move back into total cover")
- the feat that completely removes any discomfort of having an enemy's claws and fangs in your face is the kicker, however. If any single rule can be said to be ill advised, it's this one. Clearly, this is Peter Jackson's fault.

There simply isn't any reason to create that swordsman or dwarf any longer.

(Actually, there does remain a few benefits: the likelyhood of finding heavy weaponry as loot. The single extra point of AC. Playing as a Barbarian - which has proper checks and balances to make you focus on Strength and melee combat)

Other than that, all characters can eat the cake and have it too: you deal almost as much damage at range, and the slight dip is more than compensated for by your vastly increased reach, meaning that the number of round where you simply can't reach a foe to attack is sharply reduced with a bow compared to a sword. Adding to that the usuals: fighting at range generally is much less painful than at melee, and you can often start doing damage at least one round before the melee fighters.

I do not think this was intentional on the part of the designers. Like I said, I think they simply forgot to make sure the game actually supports the tropes everybody expects the game to support.

Fortunately, there exists a very easy fix that solves most if not all these issues (and more):

Remove the Crossbow Expert feat from the game.

 

[Greg Benage]

Remove the Crossbow Expert feat from the game.

Glad I'm not alone. I'm not fond of the cover-ignoring part of SS either. Yet most people focus on -5/+10.

One comment, though, on some previous posts: Melee rogues aren't squishy. With Dual-Wielder and maxed Dex, they're AC 18 and they have Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Melee-based ATs have Mirror Image, Blur, Haste, etc., along with Cunning Action (assuming BB/GFB with an owl for Advantage rather than dual-wielding). In short, melee rogues have good AC, tons of damage mitigation, and one less hit point per level than a fighter. Not squishy.

 

[Horwath]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]

some things you say are true, but...

as this is D&D, and first D is dungeons, you really don't have much range to utilize. Longest corridors are about 60ft and don't remember any hall bigger than 80-100ft and they are rare.

and most of the time monsters can outflank you.

If you do not have SS you have almost constant cover bonus vs your attack, from corners or your allies infront.
so you must have it before Xbow expert.

negating range penalty is useless as range is so short to everything.

also you have to suck up then disadvantage to attack in melee or suck up AoO to move away.

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=6801299]Horwath[/MENTION]: I'm assuming the two feats.

If you don't take them, you don't have to remove them and your game is fine.

But in a game where you have them, none of your objections change the painful fact that you don't particularly need melee.

Which is devastating for the game's ability to uphold the fantasy trope.

PS. Just because the game starts with a D doesn't mean everybody is down a dungeon all the time.

 

[Horwath]

Yes, it's not all dungeons, but even in forests maximum spotting distance is between 50-150 ft. So no much luck for long range there either. Fewest battles we had on open plains(maybe 5%).

In campaign from 1st to 8th level I used long range at maybe 5% shots. Maybe!
powershot on maybe 10-15%.
Most usage from SS was cover denial part.

and if you have both feats, that means that at lvl8 you are still sitting at 16 dex.

And you need melee, because in case of all ranged party, enemy will charge all of you without the fear of AoO or any passage blocking.

Ranged combatant works best with a big meatshield in front of him.

 

[jaelis]

In all the games I've played, there's been plenty of melee combat. And my rogue has been effective both at range and in melee; the ability to switch back and forth easily is part of what I like.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

my simple fix for archers is just not adding dex to damage beyond half short range.

As to the point of the OP, flexibility is your best weapon. In melee you can use twf to have a second chance for sneak attack or retreat if you have hit with your normal action using bonus to disengage.
Sharp shooter in general may be a bad idea for a rogue at least for later levels. You take a -6 penalty for quite a while for only +9 damage until you max dexterity. Furthermore as a rogue your average damage is so high that reducing your chance to hit may effectively lower your damage output even without considering the chance for an overkill.

Assume a rogue of level 5, starting dexterity of 16. Without sharp shooter you have 18 dex and you look at +7 to hit for 4d6+4 damage and with a dagger in the off hand another chance +7 to hit for 1d4+3d6 damage. Against a target with 16 AC you look at an average of 0.6*18=10.6 damage. And another chance for 0.6*13=7.8 damage.

With sharp shooter you are at +1 to hit for 1d8+13+3d6 damage. Against 16 AC that is 0.3*28=8.4 damage on average.
Advantage on the attack may shift the calculation a bit more towards your favour as do low AC targets.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And I forgot the most important thing: if noone is the front line, everyone is. Do you rather have your mages tank the hits?

 

[Azurewraith]

And I forgot the most important thing: if noone is the front line, everyone is. Do you rather have your mages tank the hits?

Yes! They have shield and mage armour lol! Oh and shapeshift