Homebrew Homebrew: Fixing the Rogue

[doctorbadwolf]

As an aside, i don't know that it is a good thing for the rogue to "catch up" in damage dealing.

Currently the rogue has more utility than any warrior, even arguably the ranger. Expertise, 4 skills + thieves tools (which in the current rules means that taking slieght of hand give the rogue advantage on every check to pick a lock or disarm a trap) cunning action, level 5 cunning strike makes cunning action more versatile, level 6 expertise, and level 7 reliable talent, is a crazy package.

I don't think the game should ever be balanced based on a featureless room where only combat of the most simple kind occurs. It should be balanced on the assumption that many fights will have terrain and that many sessions will only feature 1 fight if any at all. How the game is actually played. In a game like that, the rogue has the spotlight and shines hright plenty, without needing any boost to damage.

 

[Silam]

Thanks everyone for the feedback!

The thinking behind the proposal is the following:

1. No matter the setup (TWF or not, weapon choice, etc) the minimum damage between a Rogue and non-Rogue is the same.

2. The best-case maximum damage of the homebrew Rogue is higher than a vanilla Rogue.

3. The average damage of the homebrew Rogue may be lower, about the same or a bit higher compared to the vanilla Rogue, depending on circumstances. In some cases (e.g., having just one attack in the whole round), then the average damage would be lower due to the extra SA damage being essentially gated on disadvantage. But I would argue this is not that likely given what is already available to Rogues, without even needing multi-classing, feats nor high levels. From the get go they have 2 WM, which could be for example with the dagger (for Nick and the option to throw if needed) and shortsword (for Vex). This is not exotic at all and means a Rogue could easily get two SA attempts rather than one (or 3 rather than 2 if an opportunity attack comes up). Then at 3rd level they get Steady Aim for one more source of advantage. All that comes online even before the first feat. At 4th level, that first feat could be Dual Wielder (though personally I think it’s a horribly designed feat and if we’re going to homebrew anyway then probably that should be cleaned up as well, but in the spirit of minimalism, let’s say we don’t change it), which would bring the attack quantity to 3 (or 4 with an op attack). Even with the pseudo-disadvantage mechanic gating the extra SA damage, I would think these are pretty good odds compared to official rules, which would give 1 (or 2 with an op attack) shots at getting SA damage.

Overall, I totally agree that the Rogue brings a lot of utility out of combat, and all that should remain as is. But combat is still an important part of the game. Mostly, I just dislike the aesthetics of the weird "1 per-turn but not limited to my own turn" limit on SA. I know D&D is not supposed to be a perfect simulation, but to me it feels so weird that it creates a sense of disbelief. Like, the Rogue needs to be so precise and focused or whatever that they only get to do this thing once every 6 seconds, but if someone leaves their reach or any number of other reaction scenarios (Sentinel, etc) then they get another shot then. But if they can actually pull it off twice, then why not 3 or 4 times? And if it requires that much precision and focus to hit a vital organ, then why is it exactly as likely as hitting for the base damage at all? Shouldn’t it be a bit less likely? These are the factors I was trying to capture in the proposed homebrew mechanics. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect of course… it’s just an unpolished idea at this point.

 

[James Gasik]

Really the main problem with the Rogue is ensuring a good balance between the three pillars of play (Combat, Exploration, Social), and giving the Rogue player the opportunity to flex what they have specialized in.

Many games focus on combat encounters more than the others. What I've noticed is that DM's are often not happy with "roll to win" style encounters with regards to ability checks, and want to see more creative thinking. Unfortunately, the Rogue's advantages are in fact, to produce high numbers and consistent numbers with chosen ability checks. They often don't need to come up with clever ideas to acquire advantage to make checks, their design is such that Expertise + Reliable can nearly guarantee DC 20 checks, eliminating much of the need to roll.

And consciously or not, I've seen DM's avoid the kinds of things the Rogue excels at because it's somewhat boring to have someone just win all the time. Further, D&D is an interactive game, where everyone is meant to equally contribute to solving problems, and the Rogue's design is such that they not only might not need any assistance, but are routinely producing numbers other characters cannot achieve without optimization or expending resources (such as the 5.5 Fighter's Second Wind) that could be used for other things.

When the focus shifts towards combat and away from the other abilities of the Rogue, they can feel a bit lacking. Their damage is consistent, but any number of factors can reduce their contribution. Just imposing disadvantage on attack rolls, a fairly common occurrence, prevents them from using Sneak Attack (and also Cunning and Devious Strikes), and with no other real boost to damage, and being forced to use lighter weaponry (not to mention only one attack per turn unless you dual wield, which anyone can do), compared to high monster HP, this becomes quite problematic.

It's true that Rogues have a good suite of survival abilities, like Evasion, bonus action Disengage, and Uncanny Dodge, but just surviving isn't winning, it's losing slower.

To make Rogues shine, you need to give them objectives that have nothing to do with dealing hit point damage, even in combat, like solving a puzzle, flipping switches, disarming or activating traps, and so on.

Another issue of the Rogue is their relationship with Stealth. Stealth is a very difficult skill to employ, even with great numbers, because of it's requirements, and the fact that many monsters have ways to foil or even negate the ability. And unless you have allies who can also Stealth effectively, attempting to scout ahead can simply lead to starting a fight with only the Rogue in initiative while others attempt to catch up.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

As an aside, i don't know that it is a good thing for the rogue to "catch up" in damage dealing.

Currently the rogue has more utility than any warrior, even arguably the ranger. Expertise, 4 skills + thieves tools (which in the current rules means that taking slieght of hand give the rogue advantage on every check to pick a lock or disarm a trap) cunning action, level 5 cunning strike makes cunning action more versatile, level 6 expertise, and level 7 reliable talent, is a crazy package.

I don't think the game should ever be balanced based on a featureless room where only combat of the most simple kind occurs. It should be balanced on the assumption that many fights will have terrain and that many sessions will only feature 1 fight if any at all. How the game is actually played. In a game like that, the rogue has the spotlight and shines hright plenty, without needing any boost to damage.

This is a good point. Consider that additional sneak attacks every round allows for extra cunning strike opportunities which gives rogues more battlefield control and versatility than they already have

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a good point. Consider that additional sneak attacks every round allows for extra cunning strike opportunities which gives rogues more battlefield control and versatility than they already have

I would love for rogues to have more cunning strike options, and be able to use them as a bonus action without sneak attack (perhaps dealing on weapon die damage or not dealing damage but getting the effect).

 

[Silam]

Really the main problem with the Rogue is ensuring a good balance between the three pillars of play (Combat, Exploration, Social), and giving the Rogue player the opportunity to flex what they have specialized in.

Many games focus on combat encounters more than the others. What I've noticed is that DM's are often not happy with "roll to win" style encounters with regards to ability checks, and want to see more creative thinking. Unfortunately, the Rogue's advantages are in fact, to produce high numbers and consistent numbers with chosen ability checks. They often don't need to come up with clever ideas to acquire advantage to make checks, their design is such that Expertise + Reliable can nearly guarantee DC 20 checks, eliminating much of the need to roll.

And consciously or not, I've seen DM's avoid the kinds of things the Rogue excels at because it's somewhat boring to have someone just win all the time. Further, D&D is an interactive game, where everyone is meant to equally contribute to solving problems, and the Rogue's design is such that they not only might not need any assistance, but are routinely producing numbers other characters cannot achieve without optimization or expending resources (such as the 5.5 Fighter's Second Wind) that could be used for other things.

When the focus shifts towards combat and away from the other abilities of the Rogue, they can feel a bit lacking. Their damage is consistent, but any number of factors can reduce their contribution. Just imposing disadvantage on attack rolls, a fairly common occurrence, prevents them from using Sneak Attack (and also Cunning and Devious Strikes), and with no other real boost to damage, and being forced to use lighter weaponry (not to mention only one attack per turn unless you dual wield, which anyone can do), compared to high monster HP, this becomes quite problematic.

It's true that Rogues have a good suite of survival abilities, like Evasion, bonus action Disengage, and Uncanny Dodge, but just surviving isn't winning, it's losing slower.

To make Rogues shine, you need to give them objectives that have nothing to do with dealing hit point damage, even in combat, like solving a puzzle, flipping switches, disarming or activating traps, and so on.

Another issue of the Rogue is their relationship with Stealth. Stealth is a very difficult skill to employ, even with great numbers, because of it's requirements, and the fact that many monsters have ways to foil or even negate the ability. And unless you have allies who can also Stealth effectively, attempting to scout ahead can simply lead to starting a fight with only the Rogue in initiative while others attempt to catch up.

I think these are all great points, but these issues are hard to solve at the game design level, rather than how the game is actually used by a given table.

The game is inherently flexible, which I think is what draws many of us to it. But in being flexible it also risks being used in a skewed way (e.g., ignoring or short-changing some of the pillars, usually those which don’t rhyme with bat).

I could see some game design principles that could incentivize the integration of all pillars (e.g., XP-wise). But then it risks feeling too constraining or even artificial (ultimately devolving in MMORPG phenomenons like "farming honor" or other such distasteful non-sense).

I’m sure there are ways to do better than 5e out there, but I don’t know exactly how. Admittedly, my goal in posting this thread was very much combat-focused, and I didn’t intend to propose anything about the other pillars (not because they’re unimportant, but simply because I believe in incremental / minimalistic tweaks rather than big bang redesigns).

 

[James Gasik]

I think these are all great points, but these issues are hard to solve at the game design level, rather than how the game is actually used by a given table.

The game is inherently flexible, which I think is what draws many of us to it. But in being flexible it also risks being used in a skewed way (e.g., ignoring or short-changing some of the pillars, usually those which don’t rhyme with bat).

I could see some game design principles that could incentivize the integration of all pillars (e.g., XP-wise). But then it risks feeling too constraining or even artificial (ultimately devolving in MMORPG phenomenons like "farming honor" or other such distasteful non-sense).

I’m sure there are ways to do better than 5e out there, but I don’t know exactly how. Admittedly, my goal in posting this thread was very much combat-focused, and I didn’t intend to propose anything about the other pillars (not because they’re unimportant, but simply because I believe in incremental / minimalistic tweaks rather than big bang redesigns).

Honestly, what I'd do would start with how Sneak Attack works. It's flavorful to actually require people to use certain "Rogue" weapons and require them to catch people somewhat off guard, but since we keep being told by the designers that the Rogue is intended to always use Sneak Attack, why not just take away the requirements?

Once per turn, the Rogue adds xd6 to one of their attacks. There, done, it can't be "turned off" by random disadvantage, you don't need to limit yourself to a given weapon. If you have the Strength, go ahead and use a greatsword, it's not exactly a huge DPS buff anyways.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Honestly, what I'd do would start with how Sneak Attack works. It's flavorful to actually require people to use certain "Rogue" weapons and require them to catch people somewhat off guard, but since we keep being told by the designers that the Rogue is intended to always use Sneak Attack, why not just take away the requirements?

Once per turn, the Rogue adds xd6 to one of their attacks. There, done, it can't be "turned off" by random disadvantage, you don't need to limit yourself to a given weapon. If you have the Strength, go ahead and use a greatsword, it's not exactly a huge DPS buff anyways.

i don't know why they can't use it with non finesse weapons, it's not like using a club or a kosh isn't thematic for a rogue, i think they probably should've had a list of 'sneak attack approved' weapons for rogues like monks have monk weapons rather than tying it to a specific property.