D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[The Crimson Binome]

Principle of charity. When in doubt, assume a writer knows what they're doing.

I'm familiar with it, and I practice it whenever practical. I do not practice it for those who clearly do not deserve it, and the designers of 5E have demonstrated their incompetence repeatedly throughout the edition, so I no longer extend them that courtesy. It is much more likely that this is yet another case of sloppy writing than that this is the one intentional use of clever technical language amidst a sea of sloppiness.

How about "Tower of the Elephant" or "Rogues in the House" (the clue is in the name)? Conan had a thief phase in his early career. It's not just that he displays abilities consistent with the D&D rogue class, it's that he spent several years making a living by burgling and occasionally assassinating people. This is probably the clearest example in major fantasy fiction of what multiclassing is intended to represent.

Certainly, that's not in question, but most of his thiefly skills could easily fall under the criminal background if you were trying to accurately reflect the character in 5E. As far as I know, he doesn't demonstrate the rogue ability of Sneak Attack, which is the actual topic at hand. The sneak attack rules model a very specific type of reality, utilizing distraction and precision rather than power to bypass defenses, and that doesn't describe how Conan fights.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm familiar with it, and I practice it whenever practical. I do not practice it for those who clearly do not deserve it, and the designers of 5E have demonstrated their incompetence repeatedly throughout the edition, so I no longer extend them that courtesy.

Haha, okay. "Incompetent" is not an adjective I would use to describe the writers of a highly successful and acclaimed game, but if you say so.

Certainly, that's not in question, but most of his thiefly skills could easily fall under the criminal background if you were trying to accurately reflect the character in 5E.

"Accurately"? Do you not know what Conan's background is?

The sneak attack rules model a very specific type of reality, utilizing distraction and precision rather than power to bypass defenses, and that doesn't describe how Conan fights.

Per the rules, Sneak Attack works with Strength-based attacks. It works quite well with Reckless Attack. This "very specific type of reality" idea is coming from you, not the rules. So you can complain about how the rules as written don't fit into the tiny little box you're envisioning for them, or you can ditch the box and embrace the game for the breadth and flexibility it actually has. Your choice.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Haha, okay. "Incompetent" is not an adjective I would use to describe the writers of a highly successful and acclaimed game, but if you say so.

Don't confuse quality with popularity. D&D 5E is not well-written, even if it's dominating the market.

"Accurately"? Do you not know what Conan's background is?

According to you, he was a criminal. That sounds like he has the criminal background.

Per the rules, Sneak Attack works with Strength-based attacks. It works quite well with Reckless Attack. This "very specific type of reality" idea is coming from you, not the rules. So you can complain about how the rules as written don't fit into the tiny little box you're envisioning for them, or you can ditch the box and embrace the game for the breadth and flexibility it actually has. Your choice.

It comes from reading the Rogue class, and understanding what it's all about.

When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength. A rogue would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks.
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.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Don't confuse quality with popularity. D&D 5E is not well-written, even if it's dominating the market.

It's dominating the market and dominating the statistics of what many people are playing in various venues. And unlike you, most aren't complaining via arbitrary criteria of whatever "poorly written" means.

This does not describe a reckless attack guided by overwhelming strength at the expense of precision.

First of all, since you want to condescendingly tell people they should read something, maybe you ought to actually read what Reckless Attack entails. "You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with fierce desperation," and later "recklessly." Note that nowhere in that description does that entail an "expense of precision," as you put it. An expense of personal safety, definitely. But precision: WRONG.

And it's pretty easy to justify a burly Rogue (MC Barbarian) with a club putting aside concern for his personal safety in the middle of a melee to make sure he can zonk an enemy square in the head, which is very much a precision-based attack even if it requires STR to really make it hurt.

But then again, you've got a track record of calling rules poorly written or lacking in realism or verisimilitude despite several people in the same thread coming up with perfectly sensible visual interpretations.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's dominating the market and dominating the statistics of what many people are playing in various venues. .

Much as Saelorn may deserve what you're dishing, I feel compelled to point out that TTRPGs are amazingly unpopular, so if ad populum wasnt a fallacy , and market success and popularity perfectly tracked quality, D&D would necessarily be crap - better than all those other RPGs, but best of a bad lot.

But, quality and popularity don't track, ad populum is a fallacy, and D&D should be judged by it's merits, not its overwhelming unpopularity, nor it's relative popularity among it's even more obscure peers.

Not that Saelorn isn't 100% wrong.

 

[Aldarc]

It was never much of a split. In the classic game, clerics nominally prayed for their spells and wizards studied their books, but they both used the 'memorization' mechanics. In 5e, they're both neo-Vancian casters. They both casst spells, and Dispel Magic and anti-magic works on them regardless.

The big differentiation, traditionally, was the Clerics (and Druids) healed and Magic-users (and illusionists) had fun. Now Bards (and Artificers, I suppose) are 'arcane' but also heal.

But that sort of differentiation is as meaningful as Fighters are the best trained in all weapons and armor, but Rogues aren't as they have adapted their fighting styles appropriately. At the very least, IMHO, the rogue often caters to a different set of base background assumptions than the typical fighting-man in a class-based archetype system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The big differentiation, traditionally, was the Clerics (and Druids) healed and Magic-users (and illusionists) had fun.

But that sort of differentiation is as meaningful as Fighters are the best trained in all weapons and armor, but Rogues aren't as they have adapted their fighting styles appropriately.

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.

At the very least, IMHO, the rogue often caters to a different set of base background assumptions than the typical fighting-man in a class-based archetype system.

Sure, but now we have Backgrounds for background assumptions.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

First of all, since you want to condescendingly tell people they should read something, maybe you ought to actually read what Reckless Attack entails. "You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with fierce desperation," and later "recklessly." Note that nowhere in that description does that entail an "expense of precision," as you put it. An expense of personal safety, definitely. But precision: WRONG.

Swinging with Strength is not making a precise attack. Precision is governed by Dexterity. If you are using a Strength-based attack, then you are not attacking with precision, as Sneak Attack describes. That they tailored the description of Reckless Attack to try and describe the mechanics involved does not change the fact that Strength-based attacks are governed by force rather than precision.

And it's pretty easy to justify a burly Rogue (MC Barbarian) with a club putting aside concern for his personal safety in the middle of a melee to make sure he can zonk an enemy square in the head, which is very much a precision-based attack even if it requires STR to really make it hurt.

That is a rationalization. You have decided which end-goal you want to argue for, and contrived a scenario* which you think might justify it. It is not what the rules were originally intended to reflect, though, and the difference between intent and technicality are a prime example of how poorly-written this edition is.

Sneak Attack says you strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction, and the mechanics reflect this by saying you must use a suitable weapon - a weapon which can be wielded with precision, rather than force. When you say that you can still wield that weapon by force, you demonstrate that you do not understand why it is considered a suitable weapon in the first place. If you were going to allow Sneak Attack by force, in flagrant disregard for what a Sneak Attack is supposed to represent, then you should equally be arguing for Sneak Attack with a mace or morningstar.

* For the record, though I doubt it will convince anyone, your scenario isn't actually rules-legal. A club is a light weapon, but it isn't a finesse weapon, and Sneak Attack requires a finesse or ranged weapon. The only finesse weapons on the basic weapon list are: dagger, dart, rapier, scimitar, shortsword, and whip.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Swinging with Strength is not making a precise attack. Precision is governed by Dexterity. If you are using a Strength-based attack, then you are not attacking with precision, as Sneak Attack describes. That they tailored the description of Reckless Attack to try and describe the mechanics involved does not change the fact that Strength-based attacks are governed by force rather than precision.

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

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

 

[pogre]

I like the rogue class. I think it is well done.

After reading the conversation, I have to wonder why more of you do not try other games. I enjoy many rpgs that do not have "classes". However, classes are part of the deal with D&D. It's pretty much baked in. If the constrictions of classes bother you, look around, there are a lot of cool games to try.