D&D (2024) D&D One Changes to the Rogue...

[Cyber-Dave]

A level 20 playtest rogue does a average of 38.17 Damage per round. ( not using any feats)
The 5e fighter using feats from the playtest can only beat that constantly By getting the Pole arm Master and great weapon fighter feats getting the fighter to a DPR of 40.83 at level 20.

So a question we can be asking is do we want a Rogue with no further investment do close to the same damage as a damage dealing focused fighter ?

It’s a false-flag question (a term I’m admittedly using rather loosely), and one that will hurt the game. Not only are your mathematical calculations off, but in the end, what the two can do without feats doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is what completed builds will be able to do. In 5e, the rogue is already one of the weaker classes based on what you can make with it compared to what other classes can be used to make. Such heavy handed nerfs as those seen in One will render it worthless to anyone who cares about class balance. That is something nobody should want.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.

Mod Note:

I understand what you’re trying to say here (and subsequently), but your word choice comes off as a little brusque.

It may be more persuasive and less provocative to show the underlying math and let others decide if they’re willing to sacrifice some big damage potential for better odds of doing other things, etc. As the saying goes, “Showin’s better’n tellin’.”

 

[Cyber-Dave]

Mod Note:

I understand what you’re trying to say here (and subsequently), but your word choice comes off as a little brusque.

It may be more persuasive and less provocative to show the underlying math and let others decide if they’re willing to sacrifice some big damage potential for better odds of doing other things, etc. As the saying goes, “Showin’s better’n tellin’.”

Fair.

 

[aco175]

These changes will not affect my table since we already do most of this. Rogues only had one Sneak Attack per round and not on other peoples turn unless they had not used it , but that only came up once or twice in 7 years. The Booming Blade combo was never used either and if so good then likely needed to be nerfed. 2 weapon fighting always allowed a second chance to get SA in

The hiding rules were always some up to the DM and it was always a bit cheesy to have a rogue hide behind a corner and jump out each round or a halfling to hide behind the fighter and jump out. The Steady Aim ability took care of most of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

In 5e, the rogue is already one of the weaker classes based on what you can make with it compared to what other classes can be used to make. Such heavy handed nerfs as those seen in One will render it worthless to anyone who cares about class balance. That is something nobody should want.

I prefer the Rogue changes I've seen in D&D One to what is in current 5e. I will miss using rogue levels to be able to add on high damage opportunity attacks for 'tank' characters, but ultimately lowering the net difference between 'normal' and 'highly optimized' rogues is more important to maintaining class balance.

Note: I actually have played 5e with heavy variant human feat builds and in games without feats altogether. I much prefer the balance of the game without having early powerful feats making the benefits of optimizing so large.

I've found rogues are routinely one of my favorite classes to play and the D&D One changes only serves to upgrade rogues as I normally play them. Being able to TWF and cunning action is such a big bonus that it cannot be understated, especially in the most seen tier 1 and tier 2 play.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The Booming Blade combo was never used either and if so good then likely needed to be nerfed.

Booming Blade sneak attack is a lot of fun, and is the best thing Arcane Tricksters have going for them before level 7+ when the subclass starts to actually get enough spells to justify itself. The "cheese" factor is severely limited by the fact that you can't make an offhand attack with a Booming Blade attack. Also by the fact that, at any table that isn't RAW to the point of zero flavor or immersion, a silent, stealthy Rogue often takes a major risk doing THUNDER damage.

If there is a problem it is less the combination of Booming Blade and Sneak Attack per se and more that Booming Blade and anything simply gets too good at very high levels, with that much rider damage on top of any melee attack which may well be made with a magical weapon and all sorts of other buffs and riders.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Booming Blade sneak attack is a lot of fun, and is the best thing Arcane Tricksters have going for them before level 7+ when the subclass starts to actually get enough spells to justify itself. The "cheese" factor is severely limited by the fact that you can't make an offhand attack with a Booming Blade attack. Also by the fact that, at any table that isn't RAW to the point of zero flavor or immersion, a silent, stealthy Rogue often takes a major risk doing THUNDER damage.

If there is a problem it is less the combination of Booming Blade and Sneak Attack per se and more that Booming Blade and anything simply gets too good at very high levels, with that much rider damage on top of any melee attack which may well be made with a magical weapon and all sorts of other buffs and riders.

There are few builds more broken than an elven swashbuckler rogue with booming blade and trivantage at a table that uses the optional flanking rule.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are few builds more broken than an elven rogue with booming blade and trivantage at a table that uses the optional flanking rule.

One could suggest the problem there lies more with the optional flanking rule?

 

[Bill Zebub]

One could suggest the problem there lies more with the optional flanking rule?

I suppose it depends on whether one thinks broken is a problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose it depends on whether one thinks broken is a problem.

Not sure how this really addresses my comment?