Snapdragyn
Explorer
I SO want to play a <redacted>, but my DM has banned them. 
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Can an elf rogue be a decent archer in (Basic) D&D 5th edition?
- Thread starter zoroaster100
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Are you talking October playtest or latest playtest, because, sorry, if it's the former, that's not true. Hitting "almost as hard" as Fighters, which is what Assassins, not Thieves, do, is absolutely not scary. I strongly disagree that it's "unfair" to expect them to hit as hard as Fighters - on the contrary, I think it's unfair to design the game so that they are both a huge amount squishier than Fighters, and do not hit as hard, and cannot provide the same level of in-combat utility. Mages and Clerics do not pay for their out-of-combat utility this way, note - what you're suggesting is a return to the bad old days of 3.XE Rogues, who were a mess. I mean, these may be superior to that, but still they are worse than they should be.
Fortunately Cybit, who is in the latest playtest, suggests that is no longer the case, and that they are back in a better place. A massive improvement from terrible isn't something anyone should be impressed with, I'd add. They should be solid - there is no excuse for them not to be. Again though - Cybit is saying that they are, so I'm optimistic!
Last edited:
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Oh yes, I was talking about the latest packet, where a rogue with sneak attack is about as damaging as a fighter with its extra attacks. The only real differences are that rogues get all of their damage in one lump, while fighters can spread it around if they need to (and rogues can occasionally be denied their sneak attack, such as against a single target in a fair fight - but a rogue should never try to fight fairly anyway).
I don't know why you'd consider the 3.X rogue to be bad, though. They were fussy, of course, requiring exact positioning and full-attack actions for their dual-wielding; and they could routinely be denied their defining class feature against half of the monsters out there; but both of those problems have been suitably addressed with 5E. Strong offense, mediocre defense, and strong utility make for a solid combination.
I don't know why you'd consider the 3.X rogue to be bad, though. They were fussy, of course, requiring exact positioning and full-attack actions for their dual-wielding; and they could routinely be denied their defining class feature against half of the monsters out there; but both of those problems have been suitably addressed with 5E. Strong offense, mediocre defense, and strong utility make for a solid combination.
CM
Adventurer
I SO want to play a <redacted>, but my DM has banned them.
I'm hoping <redacted> has "lazy" as a build option.
(no, I'm not implying I know what <redacted> is, just hoping).
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
In my experience it is not true. In fact, in my experience, our rogue tends to be the most powerful PC in the party. He took down half the hit points on a Wyvern (he's 4th level) last game, in a single shot. It was brutal. Our Fighter's never done anything close to that.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Saying your experience differs is a vastly different thing than saying his experience is "not true".
I share his experience as well. Our rogue ROUTINELY does more damage than both the fighters and the ranger in our group. AND he's the most skillful in our group, AND he speaks every regular language in the book, and he can never be hit it seems because he can full move, shoot his bow, and full move back behind cover. The rogue is scary powerful in our group, based on the last playtest. Sorry your experience differs, but your experience is not universal in this.
Agreed. The way I think about it is that when it comes to combat, the fighter rules supreme. It's what they do. But rogues are the masters of exploration, and one of the things you can do while exploring is sneak up on a hapless monster and eviscerate it.
And while the October playtest rogue has been nerfed, they can still do respectable damage. Compare a level 5 rogue with a level 5 fighter. Assume each one has 18 in the appropriate combat stat and hits 70% of the time. The fighter is wielding a two-handed sword and has Great Weapon Fighting. The rogue is dual wielding shortswords.
Fighter damage per round:
- 2d6+4 on a hit (70%) and 4 on a miss (30%) = 8.9 damage per attack
- Two attacks per round = 17.8 DPR
Rogue damage per round:
- 1d6+4 on the first attack and 1d6 on the second (70% for each) = 7.7 damage
- If either attack hits, add 2d6 sneak attack damage (91%) = 6.37 damage
- Total = 14.07 DPR
The fighter outperforms the rogue's damage by about 25%. That's a hefty chunk, but not so much as to make the rogue cry in a corner. If the rogue does open the fight with Assassinate, the average damage is 32.8328--when I was calculating earlier, I forgot to consider the off-hand weapon. Given that damage dealt at the start of combat is worth more than damage dealt at the end, and the rogue's array of noncombat abilities which the fighter can't remotely match, I'd say that's plenty good enough to even the scales.
(Though now that I look at the numbers, I'm reconsidering the efficacy of the archer rogue... it stings not having that second weapon for backup in case the first one misses. But I'll defer to the judgement of those who've seen them in play.)
Last edited:
tsadkiel
Legend
we have a monk, bard, barbarian, cleric, <redacted>, ranger, and rogue in our group. Everyone complains about how OP everyone else is. I'd say "balance achieved".
Cybit's list seems to be in alphabetical order, so I suspect not. I look forward to the triumphant return of the Jester!
"M" comes before "B" now?
Similar Threads
