D&D (2024) Maybe this is a bit late, but let's talk about Rogue's Niche, and What Rogue Should Be.

[tetrasodium]

And that would matter if I was talking about 3.5. Is the 'e' not showing up? Is the forum replacing it with a '.5'?

three point zero was out for such a short period with 3.5 being such small but desperately needed changes that any reference to 3rd without specifying the zero is generally rolled into including 3.5 & sometimes d20. Your premise way back rests on a bad comparison of an optimized high level rogue & an unoptimized or low level fighter

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of course every class doesn't need to be the same. But just because 10 people like it doesn't mean the other 75,000 will enjoy it. A class where you are weak unless you are outthinking other people at the table is going to be endlessly frustrating, and start to become some elitist class that DMs ban until they can make it worthless by being better than the player playing it.

#BanTheWizard

A class where you are weak unless you are planning and preparing and picking the right tool for the situation is going to be endlessly frustrating, and start to become some elitist class that DMs ban.

 

[Vaalingrade]

three point zero was out for such a short period with 3.5 being such small but desperately needed changes that any reference to 3rd without specifying the zero is generally rolled into including 3.5 & sometimes d20. Your premise way back rests on a bad comparison of an optimized high level rogue & an unoptimized or low level fighter

The actual point was that rogues were DPS before 4e. This 'you didn't say the word right' culdesac of argumentation is unnecessary. I'm done with it.

 

[tetrasodium]

The actual point was that rogues were DPS before 4e. This culdesac of argumentation is unnecessary. I'm done with it.

Except they were not dps before 4e, that is the primary point of contention at the root of your awful comparison.

 

[GrimCo]

So go and invent a new game that is not as combat heavy as D&D - or a new low damage class that fulfils your class fantasy. Rogues and thieves have always been top tier martial damage dealers outside 2e (where they were simply useless). They just had to work for it a bit.

Except, they didn't. Even in 3.5 they weren't top tier DPR builds. They were good, but there were tons of things immune to SA damage, and without SA, rogues were mediocre at best. Also, let's not forget, full attack. So after you did your damage dealing, if enemy still stands, you are in world of pain with your d6+con hp. TBH, best dpr builds relied on multiclassing. Fighters, even with modicum of system mastery, can get those numbers uuup. They have tons of feats, you just need good ones. For fighter, that was always focus, specialization, power attack. Over sized weapons. It's been a while since i last played pure 3.5, but that's the gist. Or you can forgo direct damage and go for standard spiked chain trip fighter. Those are nasty.

Here I think you are absolutely 100% wrong. An assassin should 100% be able to kill single foes faster and more effectively than a warrior. It's their job.

They should, if they can catch their target unaware. But in fair 1v1 combat, not really. Assassin isn't someone who will stand and bang with his foe.

The problems the assassin has are in multi way brawls and when the enemy hits back. Warriors can take it as well as dish it out and are much better able to cope with chaos. An assassin in a brawl generally wants to run.

Yup. Assassin isn't there to stand and fight. Surprise, hit from the shadow, hide, maneuver. Use dirty tricks like poison etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again that's false.

The fighter had better accuracy, attacks per turn, and base damage. Plus they had better access to damage boosting subsystems.

And the rogue in every edition has not just had access to but come with a class based damage boosting subsystem baked into the class. Two attacks a round doesn't equal a triple damage front loaded burst.

Assassin might have better damage on turn and OHKO standard foes.

But over the day and various fights a fighter should outdo an assassin.

Yes - because they can take it as well as dish it out. Damage isn't the only measure of how well someone does in a fight.

And no the rogue is not in a good place right now and neither is the fighter in terms of damage. The most dangerous weapon wielder is the bladesinger. Or possibly the cleric stacking spiritual weapon and spirit guardians. Or at low level the moon druid.

 

[Neonchameleon]

They should, if they can catch their target unaware. But in fair 1v1 combat, not really. Assassin isn't someone who will stand and bang with his foe.

Indeed. This isn't because the assassin isn't lethal. This is because they can dish it out but aren't going to be able to take it. If the foe stays standing ... the assassin doesn't.

 

[Minigiant]

And the rogue in every edition has not just had access to but come with a class based damage boosting subsystem baked into the class. Two attacks a round doesn't equal a triple damage front loaded burst.

The frontloaded burst was never guaranteed until 4e and was hard to do.

And even then a Fighter dealt more damage

Yes - because they can take it as well as dish it out. Damage isn't the only measure of how well someone does in a fight.

And no the rogue is not in a good place right now and neither is the fighter in terms of damage. The most dangerous weapon wielder is the bladesinger. Or possibly the cleric stacking spiritual weapon and spirit guardians. Or at low level the moon druid

That's only because DMs are running sub 5 encounter days or less that 25 combat rounds per day.

The problem the rogue has is DM guidance.
The fighter is kinda sorta being fixed in 5.2024e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The frontloaded burst was never guaranteed until 4e and was hard to do.

It was however common.

And even then a Fighter dealt more damage

Only in 2e. Or they've gone all in as a glass cannon.

That's only because DMs are running sub 5 encounter days or less that 25 combat rounds per day.

You mean that DMs aren't having entire ecosystems depopulated in an orgy of blood and violence? And don't like All Combat All The Time?

Seriously, I don't expect combat to go much past three rounds, and even on six encounter days I only expect about half of the encounters to be combat. Even in 4e where combat was actually good I didn't expect more than half of encounters to be combat.

And if the problem is "DMs aren't twisting the game and the worldbuilding into something utterly tedious" all I have to say is that of course they aren't. And that if this is the problem it's one of bad design.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not in the camp.
A "not" was missing.

The current rogue does less damage than a fighter and has fewer option to increase its damage.

I prefer this status quo on damage.

On skills, I want the rogue better, the fighter better, and the core system better.

So we are basically in agreement.