Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7188287" data-attributes="member: 12731">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</blockquote>

Verification