D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Eltab]

My Arcane Trickster started out feeling like a "Rogue stereotype" until L3, when he suddenly became FUN to play (and the center of attention, whenever the group got into trouble).

I used Message to tell a spy watching us through the window "I see you out there ... and I know what you're up to." Pure bluff IRL, but the DM didn't know that.
The spy freaked out and fled, dropping everything. Including a note "...we think they are on to us, so be careful..."

I also used Illusion on myself, carrying the group's weapons, to look like the Evil Boss' right-hand-man, brought in my group "captured" to show him, and started a who's-in-charge quarrel based on the fact that these intruders broke into the dungeon and got as far as my room (we had discovered and killed the real right-hand-man) without him noticing. When my Illusion dropped was the group's cue to grab their stuff and attack the Boss.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

That is disappointing to hear. I know that they made it a cornerstone of the 4E design philosophy, that the narrative is infinitely mutable and only the numbers actually matter, but it's honestly a significant part of why 4E failed to capture the 3E audience that instead turned to Pathfinder. From a game-perspective, the mechanics of 4E had a lot to offer, but without a solid grounding in the narrative it was all (quite literally) meaningless.

When they chose to copy this design decision - making sure that every class had an attack with their primary stat, as you noticed - it was a strong signal that they still value the 4E ideal of putting the game first at the expense of the underlying model. They're sending a message to me, and to everyone else who really wanted to like 4E and 5E, that they don't care about why we play RPGs. They've given up on us as a market, so they can focus on new players and other sorts of players who don't care.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It would be, if Finesse weapons & ranged weapons didn't use the defending stat for attacking, and, for that matter, if heavy armor didn't require the attacking stat and negate the defending stat.

I don't view the narrative description in the PHB as relevant to the rules.

There's not always that clear a line between the two. And, since the 5e rules are consciously written in more natural language, context, like the 'narrative description' or 'fluff' associated with the putative rules text, affects its meaning.

You get to add d6 under certain circumstances and beyond that the player gets to describe it any way they want to.

You can drive yourself crazy trying to describe a 'hit' in D&D, so abstract is the hp/damage system.

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.

That may have been a factor, it's certainly the case that every caster class gets cantrip attacks (resolved with an attack roll) that use their nominal primary stat. The few non-caster sub-classes get either melee & thrown weapons using STR, ranged & finesse weapons using DEX, the choice of which defines which of those stats is 'primary.'

But, they didn't exactly stick to the 'easy' part, when they broke out some attacks and gave them an alternate defender-rolls mechanic, for no reason other than reviving traditional feel.

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.

Sure, all that's as true as it was in the edition war, but since it's all still true, it's a tad uncomfortable. ;|

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

You need to start reading a better class of fiction, mate.

That is disappointing to hear. I know that they made it a cornerstone of the 4E design philosophy, that the narrative is infinitely mutable and only the numbers actually matter, but it's honestly a significant part of why 4E failed to capture the 3E audience that instead turned to Pathfinder.

So now you're using audience popularity to make your case. How, then, do you interpret the fact that 5E has won a lot of that audience back? Because if we accept your claims that (a) the audience didn't like what 4E did and (b) 5E continued what 4E did, that doesn't make sense.

When they chose to copy this design decision - making sure that every class had an attack with their primary stat, as you noticed - it was a strong signal that they still value the 4E ideal of putting the game first at the expense of the underlying model.

The underlying model that you are acknowledging is ridiculous and inconsistent?

They're sending a message to me, and to everyone else who really wanted to like 4E and 5E, that they don't care about why we play RPGs.

Clearly you play RPGs in order to complain about them, and WotC certainly seems to have provided you with plenty of material.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

The problem with a "Hero" class is, if it was to model the heroes of fantasy fiction, myth and legend, would have abilities like "plot armor", "automatic success", "woo love interest" and "strong as needed".

Really though, this is a backdoor way back to the class/no class division of RPGs. Some players prefer classless (true freedom to make your PC unique), some classes (niche protection and avoiding "middle-sameness"). Its purely a stylistic choice. D&D to me is classes and lots of them; other RPGs have done well without them, but not having them is not D&D. The iconic four classes are like the 9 alignments; the game might not have started with them, but try to remove them and you'll have upset fans and confused casuals.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with a "Hero" class is, if it was to model the heroes of fantasy fiction, myth and legend, would have abilities like "plot armor"

Hit points, yes.

, "automatic success"

you don't really need an ability for that, just a DM who conveniently narrates success instead of calling for a check when it really matters

"woo love interest"

CHA

"strong as needed"

OK, not sure what to make of that one (Something about like Rage?), but is a 20 after ASIs close enough?

Really though, this is a backdoor way back to the class/no class division of RPGs.

Hey, I only said every martial class - that's really not all that many, but combined into one ungodly Frakenclass, they might just climb into Tier 3. It'd leave plenty of caster classes - no danger of the system becoming even hypothetically 'classless.'

 

[Volund]

But, they didn't exactly stick to the 'easy' part, when they broke out some attacks and gave them an alternate defender-rolls mechanic, for no reason other than reviving traditional feel.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I suppose I was being intentionally obtuse. ;(

Saving throws are just d20 checks to see if an offensive effect works or not. They're mathematically no different from attacks. But, they're calculated differently and rolled by the defender - kinda mitigates against any increased simplicity & ease of play (fun is a whole 'nuther question), from getting attacks aligned on primary stats for all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You need to start reading a better class of fiction, mate.

If you're challenging the quality of David and Leigh Eddings, then you need to seriously reconsider your position.

So now you're using audience popularity to make your case. How, then, do you interpret the fact that 5E has won a lot of that audience back? Because if we accept your claims that (a) the audience didn't like what 4E did and (b) 5E continued what 4E did, that doesn't make sense.

I am merely stating a causal relationship between the loss of quality and the lost audience. If 5E is doing well, then it's not because they brought that audience back. Their marketing strategy certainly appears to be a strong appeal to new players and lapsed players. There has been roughly zero effort to bring back the audience that actually cares about the integrity of the model.

The underlying model that you are acknowledging is ridiculous and inconsistent?

The ridiculous and inconsistent parts are whenever they break from the model for gamist reasons. The model is (mostly) fine; they just don't care about following it.

 

[CapnZapp]

One concept (or archetype) I feel is underserved in 5E is the melee rogue.

The rogue class in itself is fine (even though most subclass abilities are such a mess), but that pretty much assumes a ranged rogue, that can get of semi-reliable hide sneak attacks, and generally isn't in the first line of battle (their AC and HP can't stand the comparison to melee warriors).

Obviously a melee rogue shouldn't get better AC or HP (or it'd just be a warrior under a different name). Instead a melee rogue should gain a significant DPS advantage - both over ranged rogues, but also better than melee warriors.

Because otherwise, why enter melee with such bad AC and HP?

I must say, even if melee rogues got to make a sneak attack on both attacks (assuming a TWF build), it would probably still be roughly balanced. I mean, even with regular (single) sneak attack every round, a Rogue can't match a Fighter's damage output once feats and extra attacks come in play. (There are feats that significantly improve attack damage that are great when you have many attacks, but there are no feats that provide a similar multiplication effect for single-attack classes)

But with two sneak attacks a round, it might just be worth the risk. Not just for the isolated character - for the whole party. It would encourage the party to protect the melee rogue in order for it to deliver the best DPS in the game.

Tldr: WotC have no answer to the question why my rogue should enter melee, and they really should