D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Lost Soul]

Only change I have house ruled for rogues is allowing them to sneak attack with any weapon listed as an initial proficiency for them in addition to ranged weapons. Rogues using longsword is iconic and needs to be kept. Longswords were the "special" weapons of D&D and had a chance to be intelligent and possess unique abilities. Rogues should always have access to them.

 

[pogre]

It's a D&D board. You've played other games, I've played other games, but we're here to talk about D&D, not to tell eachother to STFU up and play something else.

I can see how you read my post that way. That was not my intent. I would never tell anyone to shut up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, you're insisting on a narrow interpretation of what Sneak Attack "means" that is based on a rule which by your own admission is a simplification for ease of play and unrealistic if narrowly interpreted?

Yes? I'm fine with playing in the reality where ogres damage you through your armor by hitting very hard, and only nimble assassin-types slip their blade between your plates, because that's consistent with the genre as presented in countless video games and television shows and even novels. It's much more important to me that the game world is internally consistent, and each mechanic models a discrete phenomenon (such that we can use the mechanics to understand what's happening in the narrative), than that the narrative bear any particular resemblance to reality or real-world historical fighting techniques.

Throughout my extensive awareness of fictional swordfights, nobody actually uses the half-sword technique to jam their longsword under someone's shoulder. The only weapon that goes between plates is a dagger, and that's only ever done by characters who are obviously rogues.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[
How about "Tower of the Elephant"

I hear it's a nice place to rest...

 

[Aldarc]

That kind of differentiation is little more than niche-protection, sure. In the case of Clerics & Magic-Users in the old days, it seemed like a restriction on the MU (you 'can't' heal), but was actually a burden on the Cleric (guess what most of your spells will be used to do) - it was kinda one-sided. In the case of the Fighter & Thief, both were hurt by it.

Perhaps, but the wider fantasy genre now often codes the holy trinity of classes as rogue, warrior, and mage as opposed to warrior, mage, and priest, as per D&D's origins. I would be interested at some point to discuss how that former trinity came about and the implications for D&D and the fantasy gaming, on the whole.

Sure, but now we have Backgrounds for background assumptions.

I meant more of the sort of arms and armor proficiency background assumptions. A Criminal Fighter will still have training in all weapons and armor. A Criminal Rogue will not have. The rogue's weapons and armor choices are far more restrictive than the fighter. While a fighter can fight in less armor or simple weapons, the game incentivizes higher damage martial weapons and heavy armor. As such, the rogue is often viewed as more of an everyman than the fighter because they lack that training. This lends the air to the background assumption of the rogue as more of an amateur at fighting than the fighter who relies on guile and cunning over brawn and skill-of-arms. You can play up the different backgrounds for the Rogue and Fighter in 5E, but you can't really change the fact that the respective basic kits of the fighter and rogue suggest different sorts of implied backgrounds apart from 5E's mechanical Backgrounds.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Hmm. I don't see how can force govern the chance to hit?

The weapon moves faster and less of a swing is needed to deal effective damage, so your opponent has less time to spot the attack and react. You can change the direction of your weapon faster allowing you to avoid your opponent's guard, or even push past it.
Your athleticism allows you to lunge in to range when your opponent doesn't expect. You can make rapid jumps and movements to come in from other angles.
When the weapon lands, it is more likely to deal real injury rather than harmless bruising. A strike on a joint is more likely to push it out of its range of motion. A thrust is more likely to push through chain, leather, or layers of muscle/tough hide . . .
And so on.

IMHO Any to hit mechanic has to be governed by precision unless it's using a "Spray and Pray" method of overwhelming inaccurate attacks.

Its probably worth reiterating that in 5e, neither the attributes governed by Str; (athleticism, ability to generate force) or Dex (reflexes, grace, balance) cover pure skill - which is represented by proficiency bonus.

And yes, actually hitting effectively with a weapon does require both Str and Dex, just as avoiding and defending against attacks does also. I think D&D's split of one stat for attacking and one stat for defending is a reasonable simplification within the system though.

 

[Volund]

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction.

This does not describe a reckless attack guided by overwhelming strength at the expense of precision. The rules of the game (which explicitly allow this combination) do not match the narrative which these rules are meant to reflect (based on their description). Either the mechanics or the narrative need to be changed if this inconsistency is to be reconciled, but whichever way you go with it, the writers clearly got something wrong.

I don't view the narrative description in the PHB as relevant to the rules. It's just there to jump start the story-telling. "Sneak Attack" is just a more artful way of saying "Rogue Special Attack". You get to add d6 under certain circumstances and beyond that the player gets to describe it any way they want to.

When you attack with Dexterity, using a weapon that is definitely not a club or mace or anything like that, then you are specifically aiming for weak spots. That is how the game models aiming for a gap between the plates, and that is the difference between a rogue and a barbarian.

While there is fluff text about the rogue "making one precise strike...exactly where the attack will hurt the most", that could just as easily refer to a kick to the groin as anything else. If someone wants to think of their rogue specifically aiming for weak spots in armor they can, but there is nothing in the rules that requires it. The 5e combat mechanics overall are deliberately vague and I would say they don't model anything in particular other than a specified damage type. As long as my d20 hits the AC, I can describe my barbarian slashing his sword into a gap in an enemy's armor, or say that my dexterous thief made a nimble move to avoid the enemy's spear and then pierced his chainmail with a rapier thrust, or that my strong rogue slashed his scimitar across the back of his victim's neck. I roll my damage and it's the next player's turn and nobody stops to wonder where or how I actually hit the monster. I hit it because my d20 roll said I did.

Letting Dexterity completely substitute for Strength was a ridiculous design decision that only makes sense in the context of making the game easy to play. If you're using an older ruleset, like 2E, then you can instead just say that weapon control falls under Strength in all circumstances and that everyone is aiming for weak spots. Or you could play a game that isn't D&D, where accuracy is always governed by the Dexterity-equivalent and Strength always contributes to damage. There are many ways that you could model combat so that it would make more sense. They chose not to.

I think the design decision was to make sure every class had an attack roll using their primary stat so that the game would be fun and easy to play. Once I sit down at a table with dice and minis to pretend to be a rogue and pretend to have adventures with dragons and magic and demons I am way past the point where I can object that the way combat works is ridiculous. Of course it is. It's ridiculous that characters get better at attacking but not defending. It's ridiculous that you add your Dex mod to light and medium armor even if you are unconscious or blind. It's ridiculous that the most athletic characters typically have the worst initiative bonus. Let me introduce you to my UA Hexblade/Swashbuckler who sneak attacks with Charisma instead of Dexterity or Strength. How does it work? Who cares? I roll my dice and get back to role-playing the fun parts like using my skills to explore, solve puzzles and interact with NPCs.

Looking over your discussion points, you want the rogue to "make sense" by conforming to a particular description of the class in the PHB, and feel that strength-based rogues don't match this description. Having the class match a particular rogue-ish archetype you have in mind is obviously important to your enjoyment of the game, and if dexterous rogues who slip knives into armor gaps are the only kind of rogues you want to have in your world I wouldn't question that because I want the game to be fun for you the same as it is for me. However I would push back on the assertion you seem to be making in this thread, which is that other people seeing the rogue differently and being able to play it using other abilities besides Dex is a design flaw of the class. I never read the PHB descriptions to mean you have to play a character a certain way. The description of the character, the flavor of their abilities, the narrative so to speak, is entirely mutable because they aren't the actual rules. The classes are just a set of mechanical rules that you agree to play under but the character can be almost anything you want it to be despite the descriptions in the text. I have a Thief who would not knowingly steal from anyone and would describe himself as a "scout." If I wanted to, I could play a character according to the Barbarian rules but have him be from a noble family in the largest city in the kingdom, having attended the finest schools only to be kicked out because of anger issues. He might be the most refined fellow you ever met until he gets mad and goes berserk, but in 5e he could still be a "barbarian." I think this sort of adaptability is what makes 5e such a fun system to play. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that your play style seems to require a certain degree of in-game coherence about the use of abilities that I personally do not require in order to enjoy the game and I'm replying from that perspective.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps, but the wider fantasy genre now often codes the holy trinity of classes as rogue, warrior, and mage

The broader fantasy genre doesn't have classes, it has archetypes, stereotypes when they get hackneyed, and, yes, the WotC era rogue does a better job of modeling many of them, because it has broadened from its painfully narrow niche origins and become a deadly fighter as well as being capable in or than a couple of skills - unlike the fighter.

as opposed to warrior, mage, and priest, as per D&D's origins. I would be interested at some point to discuss how that former trinity came about and the implications for D&D and the fantasy gaming, on the whole.

D&D legend has it that someone played a vampire, so someone else decided to play a VanHelsing, which sorts explains Turn Undead, but, otherwise the mail & mace, glowy-healing D&D cleric seems to be it's own creation. Probably became so central to the game because of the critical role healing ended up playing.

I meant more of the sort of arms and armor proficiency background assumptions. A Criminal Fighter will still have training in all weapons and armor. A Criminal Rogue will not have.

Yet a dex-based fighter's likely using light armor and finesse & ranged weapons, much like the rogue.

The fighters broad weapon proficiencies are largely academic in the case of any given fighter.

the respective basic kits of the fighter and rogue suggest different sorts of implied backgrounds apart from 5E's mechanical Backgrounds.

Sure, mechanically, the fighter is a choiceless beatsick, while rogue can make his way in the other two pillars, as well..

 

[Aldarc]

The broader fantasy genre doesn't have classes, it has archetypes, stereotypes when they get hackneyed, and, yes, the WotC era rogue does a better job of modeling many of them, because it has broadened from its painfully narrow niche origins and become a deadly fighter as well as being capable in or than a couple of skills - unlike the fighter.

My apologies. I meant in the broader fantasy gaming genre, which does often have classes. But why do you think that the rogue, warrior, and mage archetypes have become so pervasive if the rogue/warrior distinction was really as superficial and redundant as you make it out to be? Do you think that the thief spontaneously generated out of thin air in 1975 without any preexisting influences?

Yet a dex-based fighter's likely using light armor and finesse & ranged weapons, much like the rogue.

There is no "yet." "Yet" would imply a counterpoint, but I have raised this point already. There are different archetypes that the rogue and fighter are attempting to emulate, which is often reflected in D&D and elsewhere in other fantasy classes.

The fighters broad weapon proficiencies are largely academic in the case of any given fighter.

And what again about your grudge against the rogue hasn't been "largely academic"?

Sure, mechanically, the fighter is a choiceless beatsick, while rogue can make his way in the other two pillars, as well..

It sounds like you are turning the rogue into your scapegoat for the situation of the fighter.

As an aside, it amazes me that you can advocate for the existence for the warlord out of the same mouth that you advocate against the rogue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My apologies. I meant in the broader fantasy gaming genre, which does often have classes.

Broader as in CRPGS &MMOs would be more Tank/DPS/Healer/
Crowd-Control than warrior/mage/rogue or warrior/mage/priest. And, while the rogue might be DPS, so might a warrior or mage.

But why do you think that the rogue, warrior, and mage archetypes have become so pervasive

Relative to the original trinity of magic-user, fighter, and cleric, because the cleric was so counter-genre.

if the rogue/warrior distinction was really as superficial and redundant as you make it out to be?

The distinction isn't redundant, it's the niche protection, the walling off of practical abilities, that was uncalled-for. The distinction between a knight in shining armor and a dashing rogue is certainly legitimate, but that distinction doesn't call for the dashing rogue to be a pushover in a fight nor the knight to be incompetent off the battlefield. But that's what implementing the distinction by adding the Thief class did, to both of them.

Do you think that the thief spontaneously generated out of thin air in 1975 without any preexisting influences?

Like the ranger (Aragorn) and monk (Kwai Chang Caine), the thief had one very clear precedent: Lieber's Grey Mouser. Thus the oddities like 'Read Languages,' and preference for the sling, that otherwise didn't fit the 'Thief' concept so well.

There are different archetypes that the rogue and fighter are attempting to emulate, which is often reflected in D&D and elsewhere in other fantasy classes.

D&D's influence in the limited realm of fantasy RPGs can't be understated, but it doesn't mean it's mistakes must also be emulated. D&D has successfully moved the rogue forward from it's deplorable, wussy, niche-protected, incompetence-creating Thief origins to a reasonably well-rounded class concept. The contrast with the plight of the fighter, and the perspective that initial division of the two classes deepened those issues is informative, I think. But it's not a basis for nixxing the rogue from 5e at this late date.

More broadly, there are many archetypes that the abilities and trappings of the rogue and fighter, in some combination, come close to emulating, but not so many that they do so, individually, especially the poor fighter.

It sounds like you are turning the rogue into your scapegoat for the situation of the fighter.

That would imply my intent was to excuse it. The fighter and rogue started with similar issues, the rogue has come further as the game evolved and retained more of it's progress in 5e than did the fighter.

an aside, it amazes me that you can advocate for the existence for the warlord out of the same mouth that you advocate against the rogue.

I'm very versatile. They're not as contradictory as you might think, though, a number of classes - the rogue, monk, barbarian, paladin and ranger - could all arguably be superfluous if the fighter had gotten a fairer shake from the beginning, but they're still in the game, even where the fighter comes closest to covering their schtick. The 5e fighter doesn't come anywhere near covering for the Warlord. So, it should really be among those other arguably-superfluous classes in the PH.

Not that you couldn't fold virtually all the Warlord's toys in with the fighter's & rogue's and still not have a class to assail Tier 1, nor even Tier 2.

In a broader TTRPG context, ideally, if games were to use classes at all, a 'Hero' that subsumed every martial class D&D has ever presented might be most appropriate.