D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[Remathilis]

I agree that magic unarmed items with be introduced, but I don't think they're going to be intended for Fighters - I think they'll be for Monks, primarily, and after that Punchadins and maybe Tavern Brawler Barbs.

And dance bards

 

[Vikingkingq]

And dance bards

Right, I keep forgetting about the dance bards.

 

[mellored]

There is no reason to design the item (or spell or feature) in such a way that you need a specific class so a subclass of a non-rogue class that still awards the Sneak Attack class feature can't use the item.

There is no reason to design an item that only a tiny fraction of characters can use.

I understand wanting to have an item that works better on the rogue, as compared to better with multi-attack.

But that doesn't warrant adding unnecessary restrictions.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is no reason to design an item that only a tiny fraction of characters can use.

False.

On an unrelated note, there is no reason the very class-defining feature of one of the four iconic classes should not have any upgrades, like at all.

Remember, this is not chiefly about items.

It is about being able to offer a Rogue build that focuses on sneak attack damage at the expense of various other strengths of the Rogue class. This is certainly not limited to items, though having at least one item in the core rules would send the useful signal that this design dimension isn't actually closed to improvements. But I'm mostly envisioning build choices rather than things mostly out of your control (such as specific items, which you can never assume you will be getting).

 

[tetrasodium]

You appear to think of it as a problem that the rogue player will try extra hard to persuade her group to give her the item if that is a sneak attack related item?

I don't understand.

The only reason to hand out an item that effectively targets a particular class... is for that class to get the item?

What you somehow make out to be a problem is intended to be a solution.

A solution to the problem that otherwise the group's fighter will take it.

It's really really hard to discuss with someone that appears to read the rules entirely backwards.

Not only are dex build fighters very much not going to be interested in a dagger or something, they also tend to be a small minority of fighters IME.

That underlined admission is the critical point I feel that you've been avoiding while posting as if the mere call for a magic item in the edition wotc has tried to excise their need from is enough to guarantee their creation. When you've gone to such lengths to avoid saying it & do so in a way that presents a scenario using words like "take" you also express that the rogue is the one who deserves it, that evasion makes it look like the mechanical need is more "I want to force the party to give it to the rogue even if the rogue already has a great weapon.".. not so coincidentally that's one of the problems this kind of item creates and I noted that earlier in 276

There are better ways to guarantee that the fighter will not want it by choice, that's a big part of the reason there are so many magic daggers among the small fraction of magic daggers brought over from past editions or created new for 5e.

 

[mellored]

False.

What benefit do you imagine there is to having the Staff of Woodlands be Druid only?
What good is it to prevent barbarians from getting an item that can cast speak with animals?
How does preventing the wizard from casting Speak with Plants help?

On an unrelated note, there is no reason the very class-defining feature of one of the four iconic classes should not have any upgrades, like at all.

Most class features don't have upgrades.

There is no extra action surge amulet, no extra wild shape helm, no extra ki belt.

It is about being able to offer a Rogue build that focuses on sneak attack damage at the expense of various other strengths of the Rogue class. This is certainly not limited to items, though having at least one item in the core rules would send the useful signal that this design dimension isn't actually closed to improvements. But I'm mostly envisioning build choices rather than things mostly out of your control (such as specific items, which you can never assume you will be getting).

So... a subclass.


Cutthroat.
Subtlety and tricks have their place, but so does sticking your knife where it hurts the most.

3: Ruthless
When you hit with a melee attack, increase your sneak attack dice are d8s.

Level 9: Kick them while they are down.
As a bonus action, you can make an Unarmed Attack against a prone creature. This attack gains the Finesse trait, and thus can qualify for sneak attack if you haven't used it already.

13: twist the knife.
???

17: go for the jugular
When you hit with a melee attack, increase your sneak attack dice are d10s.

 

[Older Beholder]

The groups I game with use a house rule where crits do max damage, plus the dice rolls as well.
It gives rogues a chance to really pop off from time to time.

I once multiclassed as a sorcerer/rogue, taking 3 levels of rogue felt enough to keep pace in melee up until the last few sessions where we were level 12 - 13

 

[CapnZapp]

words intended to avoid having to admit that extra sneak dice is a perfectly reasonable ask

You focus desperately on a suitably narrow perspective that allows you to not have to discuss the subject in a way where you have to agree with others on the forum.

You keep doing that. Bye. It is not my job to convince you of something that is bleeding obvious when you clearly don't want to.

 

[CapnZapp]

Most class features don't have upgrades.

There is no extra action surge amulet

The difference is that action surge is already plenty while sneak attack damage is very far from being overpowered.

I'm a simple man. I see clearly a lot of design space for a rogue build with more than 10d6 sneak damage at level 20, I ask myself why on earth there are no official ways (subclasses, items, what have you) to create a Rogue that ends up with 12d6 or 15d6 or 20d6 sneak damage at level 20.

It's inexplicable and incomprehensible. Nobody ever argued that the rogue is such an overpowered damage dealer that sneak attack damage absolutely can never be increased, which is the impression you get when you observe absolutely zero avenues for improvement across dozens and dozens of official supplements.

Some of you have argued the Rogue is fun enough with plenty of other toys to play with (movement, skills, what have you) and I'm not saying the opposite.

I am, however, saying that this is not a good reason to deny players the option to exchange those toys (to some degree) for more sneak attack damage. Nowhere have I asked for all the toys and also more sneak damage. (And when the game does give you just moar damage, it never occurs to the game to offer the GM the option to provide an item that increases sneak damage specifically)

The build choice where you play the Rogue as a glass cannon is a perfectly viable build choice. It will not distrupt gameplay and it will not be overpowered. (It might even be slightly dangerous)

But the gist of our discussion remains: this is a reasonable build choice the game absolutely refuses to deliver.

 

[mellored]

I'm a simple man. I see clearly a lot of design space for a rogue build with more than 10d6 sneak damage at level 20, I ask myself why on earth there are no official ways (subclasses, items, what have you) to create a Rogue that ends up with 12d6 or 15d6 or 20d6 sneak damage at level 20.

Not sure i would call "only a tiny fraction of games can use this item" design space.

Stabtastic
once per turn when you hit with an attack, you deal 10d6 extra damage.

It's inexplicable and incomprehensible. Nobody ever argued that the rogue is such an overpowered damage dealer that sneak attack damage absolutely can never be increased, which is the impression you get when you observe absolutely zero avenues for improvement across dozens and dozens of official supplements.

Increasing Rogue damage is not the same as rogue only items.

I am, however, saying that this is not a good reason to deny players the option to exchange those toys (to some degree) for more sneak attack damage. Nowhere have I asked for all the toys and also more sneak damage. (And when the game does give you just moar damage, it never occurs to the game to offer the GM the option to provide an item that increases sneak damage specifically)

Why sneak attack specifically?

The build choice where you play the Rogue as a glass cannon is a perfectly viable build choice. It will not distrupt gameplay and it will not be overpowered. (It might even be slightly dangerous)

Why is it only the rogue that is allowed to play a glass cannon?

Glass Cannon
All your attacks are critical attacks.
All attacks against you are critical attacks.