D&D 5E Can an elf rogue be a decent archer in (Basic) D&D 5th edition?

[tsadkiel]

It does in my alphabet! (Cue 34 page flame war in which I absolutely refuse to back down despite being obviously wrong.)

 

[Uller]

...when I was calculating earlier, I forgot to consider the off-hand weapon. ...

I noticed this. In our group, the rogue tends to produce at least as much damage as the fighter and when she gets a shot at assassinate she definitely outshines him.

At levels 1-4 this makes the rogue noticably better than the fighter. Two attacks w/ two chances at sneak attack damage. However rogues can't take the damage and lack the AC of most figthers...cunning action isn't very useful unless your big bad heavily armored buddy is blocking for you.

I definitely don't think it's terribly out of balance. Our rogue can take the spot light most of the time. The fighter, not so much. He swings his weapon and intimidates people.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I'm not trying to be difficult here Mistwell - but it's not experience, it's math. A Rogue built and played with the same level of skill as a damage-oriented Fighter (which is the default in 5E) is going to do less damage than that Fighter, and be less survivable than the Fighter, and have less "clutch" power than the Fighter, as of the October playtest rules. That was not the case as of the September rules, where the Rogue would be less survivable, and have less "clutch", but routinely do equal or sometimes more damage.

In both cases the Rogue also has to work harder than the Fighter - picking their targets based on who is vulnerable, not necessarily the tactically best targets, too (though they often will be).

Experience will vary it wildly, but the rules will remain the same. I mean, in 3E, in most groups, LFQW wasn't a big problem because a lot of Wizards were played in a unfocused and unoptimized, and campaigns often ended below the levels where it got real, but it was still a problem with the rules when they were played well or levels got higher.

People who are saying that their Rogue does as much damage or more than the Fighter as basically telling us that either the Fighter in their group is not built/played as well as the Rogue, or, I think, selectively remembering the Rogue's "big numbers" and not recalling the Fighter's multiple attacks and so on.

EDIT - This will be less of an issue at low levels, but at higher levels, once the Fighter gets his multiple attacks and so on...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not trying to be difficult here Mistwell - but it's not experience, it's math. A Rogue built and played with the same level of skill as a damage-oriented Fighter (which is the default in 5E) is going to do less damage than that Fighter, and be less survivable than the Fighter, and have less "clutch" power than the Fighter, as of the October playtest rules. That was not the case as of the September rules, where the Rogue would be less survivable, and have less "clutch", but routinely do equal or sometimes more damage.

This is true, but WOTC has said that in their mind Fighters should be the BEST fighters. They do combat, it's their thing. No one should do more damage than them. No one should equal their damage.

So, if they want that design goal to be true, Rogues have to do almost as much damage.

Either way, the math as it stands means at 20th level the Fighter gets 4 attacks at 2d6+5 while the Rogue gets one attack at likely 8d6+5 assuming no feats at all. This means that assuming all the attacks hit the difference is 15 points higher for the Fighter. That's assuming that the Fighter is using a 2d6 weapon. If he uses a 1d8 weapon the difference is even smaller.

It's not a huge difference. And in exchange, the Rogue gets a whole lot of skill and out of combat tricks that the Fighter doesn't.

They've explicitly said that the classes are balanced across the entire game not per pillar. That means that some classes will simply be better at combat than others.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is true, but WOTC has said that in their mind Fighters should be the BEST fighters. They do combat, it's their thing. No one should do more damage than them. No one should equal their damage.

So, if they want that design goal to be true, Rogues have to do almost as much damage.

A reasonable post but unfortunately all founded on a bad or at least completely arbitrary and unsupported assumption - that being the best Fighter absolutely means doing the most damage. I would very strongly argue that being the best fighter means having a combination of damage, control and survivability. In 4E, Fighters were, really, the best at fighting, despite Rogues doing superior damage. In 5E, they could do less damage than Rogues, but out-do them in survivability, control and clutch (and they do!), and still be "the best fighters".

Also, 15 damage/round is huge - Rogues by your calculations only do 68.5% of the damage of a Fighter. That's barely 2/3rds. That's not even the same ballpark.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A reasonable post but unfortunately all founded on a bad or at least completely arbitrary and unsupported assumption - that being the best Fighter absolutely means doing the most damage. I would very strongly argue that being the best fighter means having a combination of damage, control and survivability. In 4E, Fighters were, really, the best at fighting, despite Rogues doing superior damage. In 5E, they could do less damage than Rogues, but out-do them in survivability, control and clutch (and they do!), and still be "the best fighters".

I'd argue that the best fighters mean being the best at offense AND defense. Besides, in D&D more damage=always better. Damage is king and all that. When most battles end in one or two rounds and 1 point of damage can make the difference between someone in the group taking 20 points of damage or not(because the enemy dies and doesn't do an attack next round), then damage really in the most important thing.

Keep in mind, the difference between AC 18 and 17 is a 5% chance that someone misses you. It's nearly insignificant. Most battles the low AC people can get through without even an attack roll being made at them. Defense just really doesn't factor into it. It's a little helpful but basically damage is everything.

Also, 15 damage/round is huge - Rogues by your calculations only do 68.5% of the damage of a Fighter. That's barely 2/3rds. That's not even the same ballpark.

I guess huge is a matter of opinion. The final balance pass was after the last playtest so it's possible that the numbers are closer. However, even if they aren't, doing 70% of fighter's damage is pretty close. Not only that but given the fighter is making 4 attack rolls to get that damage the chance that he gets less than 100% is much higher than the Rogue. I'm not sure how to do the exact calculation but it's likely that the Rogue does more than 70% of the fighter's damage because of this.

I guess when I'm used to the difference in 3e being nearly 100 points between the weakest and strongest person in the party, 15 points seems small and insignificant by comparison. The difference was much bigger than 15 points for most characters in 4e as well.

It has not been our experience in the game so far that the Rogue has felt anything but powerful. They do more damage by far on an average round than the Cleric or Wizard.

The average combat for us generally goes like this at 5th level:

Fighter hits one of his two attacks and does 14 damage
Wizard uses a cantrip and the enemy makes his save
Cleric uses a cantrip and the enemy fails its save doing 9 damage
Rogue hits doing 13 points of damage

The enemy goes, the fighter is already in melee and did the most damage so they attack the fighter. The fighter takes 20 damage and the round starts over.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess huge is a matter of opinion. The final balance pass was after the last playtest so it's possible that the numbers are closer. However, even if they aren't, doing 70% of fighter's damage is pretty close. Not only that but given the fighter is making 4 attack rolls to get that damage the chance that he gets less than 100% is much higher than the Rogue. I'm not sure how to do the exact calculation but it's likely that the Rogue does more than 70% of the fighter's damage because of this.

Actually, no.

An Archer Fighter (Warrior) has a +1 to hit over a Rogue, Crits on an 18-20 at that level, those criticals do significant additional bleed damage (piercing), and most importantly, benefits from static damage modifiers multiple times - so his Longbow +4 (say) adds 4 to EACH attack he makes, whereas it only adds it once to the single attack of the Rogue.

Let's say the base chance to hit is 60%

So he's looking at 1d8+9, with a 50% chance to hit, a 15% chance to hit AND crit (which effectively does +8 damage when it happens), and he makes four attacks. We'll ignore the bleeding for simplicity's sake. Average of 1d8 is 4.5 so +9 is 13.5. 50% of 13.5 = 6.75, but as there is the chance of crit we add in (13.5+8 = 21.5)*0.15 for an average of 9.975 (can we call it 10? ) damage per attack (with misses and crits factored in - so the Fighter averages 40 damage (ignoring bleeds etc., which will actually add up but god we have to stop somewhere).

Archer Rogue also does 1d8+9, and has a 55% chance to hit, and a 5% chance to hit AND crit (which effectively does +8 damage when it happens), and he makes one attack. He adds +7d6 on a hit (avg. 24.5) if the enemy is distracted, which we will assume that they are. We will ignore Death Strike and Assassinate as they are once-per-combat abilities, working as they do on only on Surprised targets (but we can look at that math later if interested). Not sure if crits maximize SA, will assume they don't (doesn't make a huge difference with only a 5% chance). Anyway, 13.5*0.5 = 6.75, +21.5*0.05 = 1.075, let's be generous and call it 8. SA is 24.5*0.6 (ignoring crit) so 14.7, call it 15. So 15+8 = 23.

So the Rogue actually only does 57.5% of the Fighter's damage.

That's still close, right, 57.5%?

An additional wrinkle is the fact that the Rogue is somewhat more likely to have Advantage on his attack. I honestly do not know how to factor this in. I am willing to accept that it might take the Rogue closer to 70%, but I still don't find 70% to be "close". You could get away with calling 85-90% "close", but 70%? No.

With two-weapon fighting it gets even more complicated. The Rogue becomes more likely to deliver their SA, but the static bonus on the Fighter's damage increases further (see Fighter abilities), and then the Fighter's greater survivability becomes more of an issue, and the Rogue will find it far harder to get Advantage, because you're in melee.

I guess when I'm used to the difference in 3e being nearly 100 points between the weakest and strongest person in the party, 15 points seems small and insignificant by comparison. The difference was much bigger than 15 points for most characters in 4e as well.

3E was so bad here that I would never, ever run it again (play it, yes, but only with near-tier characters). That was just unacceptable. In 4E, different roles did different damage, sure, but there you didn't get a class that, by default did more damage, was more survivable, and had greater control that another class.

Again, we're not talking 10 or 15%. We're talking 30-40%. If Rogues did 10% less, whilst also being less survivable, and also having less control, I'd probably roll my eyes a bit but I think it would likely be okay. But they don't - they do 30-50% less as of the October packet.

It has not been our experience in the game so far that the Rogue has felt anything but powerful. They do more damage by far on an average round than the Cleric or Wizard.

The average combat for us generally goes like this at 5th level:

Fighter hits one of his two attacks and does 14 damage
Wizard uses a cantrip and the enemy makes his save
Cleric uses a cantrip and the enemy fails its save doing 9 damage
Rogue hits doing 13 points of damage

The enemy goes, the fighter is already in melee and did the most damage so they attack the fighter. The fighter takes 20 damage and the round starts over.

That's lovely, but it's meaningless, sadly. There is literally no value in taking a single round and saying "that's how it generally goes".

Anyway, all my stuff is kind of meaningless too (in a totally different way), because neither of us know what Rogues look like now. A few tweaks could easily have put them within 10-15% of Fighter damage, and I certainly hope that that happened.

EDIT - Surprise round addenda - Because the gap is so big, and Death Strike can be saved against, I kind of suspect that our two archers do pretty comparable damage even the Rogue is supposedly in his element. I haven't done the math on this yet, though.

 

[Dausuul]

Pet peeve of mine: Let's not use 20th level as a benchmark. Hardly anybody plays characters at that level, so it's a terrible guide to what the typical campaign looks like. And the relative damage output of fighters and rogues doesn't stay constant over the level range, it bounces around as different class abilities come online.

I just did some number-crunching to figure the damage output of a greatsword fighter (warrior path, great weapon style) and a dual short sword rogue across the whole level range. Here's how rogue damage stacks up to fighter damage, ignoring their respective "spike" abilities (Assassinate and Action Surge):

Level 1: +30%
Level 2: +30%
Level 3: +23%
Level 4: +18%
Level 5: -25%
Level 6: -32%
Level 7: -31%
Level 8-10: -17%
Level 11-13: -35%
Level 14-16: -26%
Level 17-19: -16%
Level 20: -30%

The rogue's big early advantage is due to the combination of dual wielding and sneak attack. From level 5 onward, you can see that the dominating mechanics are the fighter's multiple attacks and the rogue's sneak attack dice. The fighter gets an extra attack and surges ahead; the rogue's accumulating sneak attack dice erode that advantage bit by bit; then the fighter gets another attack and surges again. (One more reason level 20 is a bad benchmark: It's one of the levels where the fighter has just gotten another attack.)

Averaging across the first ten levels, which I would say is the best benchmark for a "typical" campaign, the rogue is dealing 87% of fighter damage. The average across all twenty is 78%, still respectable.

I suspect the fighter will do better when comparing archery skills... working on that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Pet peeve of mine: Can we not use 20th level as a benchmark? Hardly anybody plays characters at that level, so it's a terrible guide to what the typical campaign looks like. And the relative damage output of fighters and rogues doesn't stay constant over the level range, it bounces around as different class abilities come online.

I just did some number-crunching to figure the damage output of a greatsword fighter (warrior path, great weapon style) and a dual short sword rogue across the whole level range. Here's how rogue damage stacks up to fighter damage, ignoring their respective "spike" abilities (Assassinate and Action Surge):

Level 1: +30%
Level 2: +30%
Level 3: +23%
Level 4: +18%
Level 5: -25%
Level 6: -32%
Level 7: -31%
Level 8-10: -17%
Level 11-13: -35%
Level 14-16: -26%
Level 17-19: -16%
Level 20: -30%

The rogue's big early advantage is due to the combination of dual wielding and sneak attack. From level 5 onward, you can see that the dominating mechanics are the fighter's multiple attacks and the rogue's sneak attack dice. The fighter gets an extra attack and surges ahead; the rogue's accumulating sneak attack dice erode that advantage bit by bit; then the fighter gets another attack and surges again. (One more reason level 20 is a bad benchmark: It's one of the levels where the fighter has just gotten another attack.)

Averaging across the first ten levels, which I would say is the best benchmark for a "typical" campaign, the rogue is dealing 87% of fighter damage. The average across all twenty is 78%, still respectable.

I suspect the fighter will do better when comparing archery skills... working on that.

Can you run the same numbers for archers, as per the topic? I can spreadsheet this tomorrow maybe (got a game tonight, so not today).

Also, which kind of Fighter are you using? You're only ignoring "spike" abilities so presumably are using the high-crit one, right?

Did you factor in magic weapons at all? They benefit the Fighter, a great deal more than the Rogue.

Also why two-handed Fighter vs. dual-wield Rogue? Pretty sure dual-wield Fighter works out to more damage due to static mods. Could be wrong.

Can you link the spreadsheet if you used Googledocs? (no idea if you did, presume you used a spreadsheet).

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not trying to be difficult here Mistwell - but it's not experience, it's math.

This type of math is applicable to theoretical averages, but that doesn't dictate results. If it did, then every sports team with the theoretical averages that were higher than everyone else would win every game and always go on to win the championship and there would be no purpose to playing. But that's not how life works, and it's also not how this game works. Averages might say you will roll a 1 and a 20 roughly equal number of times, but if the 1 is spent on a listen door check and the 20 on an attack roll, damage will be higher, for instance. Because a huge amount of luck comes into this game.

Experience will vary it wildly, but the rules will remain the same.

Yes, so when you say your experience differs I accept that fully, but when you tell others their experiences are simply not true because theoretically the averages say it shouldn't be, that's when I call you out on it.

People who are saying that their Rogue does as much damage or more than the Fighter as basically telling us that either the Fighter in their group is not built/played as well as the Rogue, or, I think, selectively remembering the Rogue's "big numbers" and not recalling the Fighter's multiple attacks and so on.

Wow you really cannot accept the possibility that theoretical averages don't always give those results in play. Amazing. Why do we even roll dice, if the d20 always comes up a 10? Now hear this - it's not mis-remembering, it's not that the fighters (two of them, and then a third that is a ranger) are played poorly, it's that THE ROGUE REALLY HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE. Now if you want to call me a liar, go ahead and call me a liar. Otherwise, accept the possibility that a game with a massive random element to it might not play out based on the averages, even over a year of time.

EDIT - This will be less of an issue at low levels, but at higher levels, once the Fighter gets his multiple attacks and so on...

Given we're only at 4th level, that may well be true, and you should have considered that before accusing me of lying or misremembering or my players being incompetent. Particularly since every poll we've ever conducted shows people spend most of their time a lower levels.

EDIT - Surprise round addenda - Because the gap is so big, and Death Strike can be saved against, I kind of suspect that our two archers do pretty comparable damage even the Rogue is supposedly in his element. I haven't done the math on this yet, though.

This actually has come up a lot with our party. The rogue is very good at moving silently. Last game for instance he snuck ahead of the party, and then surprised a wyvern, assassinated in the first round with advantage doing HALF the wyvern's total hit points in damage, and then retreated (in that same round) back to the party. It was the most damage anyone's ever done in the game for us so far - the Fighters and Ranger have never come even close (though the Wizard has). This sneaking ahead, surprising, and doing massive damage before retreating isn't an aberration - it's part of how the rogue works.