D&D 5E Rogue Expertise, another alternative

[Blackbrrd]

People need to quit thinking of the Rogue in 3e/4e "I'm a spike-damage dealer" terms, and remember that the Rogue started out as just the clever thief. Even thinking back to classic media, the Rogue-type character never manages to fight as well as the main warrior, not even with finesse and panache. In an entire fight scene, you might see the plucky thief wait and watch, and finally jump in for that last-minute backstab... getting one kill to the seven the brave hero already has.

Why should I change the way I look at the Rogue? I like the Rogue as a spike-damage dealer. Assuming that your opinion is the right one and everyone else is wrong isn't very constructive.

I think the Rogue should have the option of being a spike damage dealer. To avoid stepping on the Fighter's toes, I think they should do something about the survivability (AC specifically) of the current 5e Rogue. Players like DogBackward should have the option to make something more like the Thief of AD&D.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While I don´t believe, this kind of solution would please everyone, I could imagine following maneuver:

Improvised trick:

While using the enviroment to deal damage, the rogue may roll all his expertise dice spent and deal that amount of damage in addition to all other damage done. If the attack usually does no damage, he only deals his highest roll as damage.

This way, everyone can drop a chandelier on anyone, but the rogue does it with extra oomph. And everyone can use oil to drop enemies, the rogue has such good timing, that the enemy is damaged in the process.

Maybe this could be a function of sneak attack, maybe a DM can add some features, if the rogue spends expertise dice...

I still believe, it is more important, how the rogue gains and spends his dice: it should be different than the fighter´s mechanic.

Maybe a rogue should be able to save his dice and gains additional dice every turn, and can unleash them all at once. Maybe his level is the limit on how many dice he can safe up. And he begins accumulating them, when he can study his enemy for a while. And sneak attack once again only works when having advantage.

 

[DogBackward]

I think the Rogue should have the option of being a spike damage dealer.

It's called Sneak Attack. If you choose that maneuver, and you time things right, it's just as much of a damage boost as the Fighter.

I think they should do something about the survivability (AC specifically) of the current 5e Rogue.

What? A Dexterity-based Rogue's AC is about 1 point behind, 2 if the Fighter is using a shield. And, again, the Rogue isn't supposed to be able to withstand close-up combat. When something comes gunning for the Rogue, you use your bag of tricks to get the hell out of there until you can come back from a different angle.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand: stop trying to play your Rogue like a Fighter. It's that easy.

 

[Blackbrrd]

It's called Sneak Attack. If you choose that maneuver, and you time things right, it's just as much of a damage boost as the Fighter.

Doing the same damage as the fighter can do every round, but with conditions, isn't what I call a spike damage dealer. It's in the "fighter-light" category. Not what I am after.

 

[Blackbrrd]

What? A Dexterity-based Rogue's AC is about 1 point behind, 2 if the Fighter is using a shield. And, again, the Rogue isn't supposed to be able to withstand close-up combat. When something comes gunning for the Rogue, you use your bag of tricks to get the hell out of there until you can come back from a different angle.

Level 8 and up it's pretty likely you will have a 20 dex Rogue which has the same AC in Mithril Chain (5000gp) as the Fighter does in Plate (5000gp). Too good AC for the Rogue in my opinion.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I don't get why this is so hard to understand: stop trying to play your Rogue like a Fighter. It's that easy.

I am not trying to play my Rogue like a Fighter, where do you have that from? I want my Rogue to be a character that will take a beating if staying up close to mobs, I want him to have high situational damage and I want him to be very good at skills.

I want my Fighter to be able to take a beating, staying up close to mobs. I want his damage to be consistently good and ok at skills.

Not the same thing at all.

What I don't like currently is that the Rogue and Fighter are too similar in many areas. Nearly the same AC, nearly the same damage dealing maneuver as their typical damage dealing maneuver. It's just boring. I want the Rogue to be able to fill a niche in combat that the fighter doesn't already sit in and do better.

 

[howandwhy99]

I am totally with [MENTION=82425]BobTheNob[/MENTION] 's starting point that the answer to this question should be "The Rogue is best at improvising".

I think Players should be best at improvising.
Players don't cast spells at the table. Nor do they engage in hand to hand combat. However they do improvise. Designing out of a game this requirement on players would be a bad idea IMO.

I don't think you're actually advocating that last, but I think it's what happens when we try and say rogues actions are more interesting than anyone at the table actually dreams them up to be. If player improvisation of great ideas is still required though, I'll probably be on board.

Actually, I like the list I eventually came up with for the main focuses of thieves and rogues. (Like everyone else) they get to be okay at all the other stuff too, combat, magic use, and interacting with NPCs. They just excel at those in their own, more limited way.

 

[BobTheNob]

I think Players should be best at improvising.

and I would never advocate taking that away.

When I put forward this idea, I was not trying to say that the rogue was the only one that could improvise, just that he had extra tricks for getting it done.

I have one guy I play with and he was really flat on 4e. He is the one whom always tries to think outside the square, and by his own admission, he found 4e too structured for the type of game he wanted to play. Sure, there was always the disclaimer that you didnt have to follow the rules all the time, and wherever possible I bent the rules to accommodate.

Then I read FATE and thought to myself "Thats interesting, we have a game where improvising isnt the exception to the rules...its the norm" and I thought of the rogue. This is always how I have seen the rogue = fast thinking, adaptable, he doesnt cnfront problems, he gets around them. Then I thought, what about that player, he would LOVE something like this and I put it all together, hence why I posted this idea.

For the record, I also wouldnt suggest this replaces the "damage spiker". Though I find that a very one-dimensional definition of the rogues (combat) purpose, Im just trying to find an extension on this that isnt "fighter light".

 

[howandwhy99]

In combat, everyone else is "fighter light", but I think you are definitely on to something with the rogue. That does sound not only archetypal, but historically true to life as well.

I'm not a fan of FATE or most games where strategy is considered either irrelevant or illusory. But I do appreciate solid creativity, intuitiveness, and imaginative play built into a system's design.

I still say having more options to play within another class's sphere of focus is being better than that class. Having more combat maneuvers than the fighter is the same as having more spells than the wizard. It means more opportunity to be creative in the defined situation (rather than the "do anything not in the rules" creative option). From my point of view, this actually is playing another class (or classes) at a higher class level than those with fewer options, but given the title for the class.

 

[DogBackward]

Doing the same damage as the fighter can do every round, but with conditions, isn't what I call a spike damage dealer. It's in the "fighter-light" category. Not what I am after.

Yes, it is a spike damage dealer. You're just confused by the fact that the Fighter is a steady damage dealer. The Rogue isn't Fighter light, the Rogue is the Rogue, which cannot match the Fighter in combat. This is how it's supposed to be. It's why the Fighter is called the Fighter, and the Rogue isn't. How is this so hard to understand?