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

[Horwath]

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

you can always pointbuy/array 8 CON for yourself and get the glass part of the glass cannon.

 

[Pauln6]

There is certainly design space for a subclass or a feat that does extra sneak dice. There are already subclasses and feats that allow it in different circumstances and agonising blast is probably more unbalanced at higher levels than a couple of extra dice on sneak. I'm not sure it needs to be baked into the core class though.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

No I pointed it out for a reason... The bolded one below

With a +sneak dice weapon even if the rogue has a +elemental dice weapon they can use all of the reasons in your second paragraph to push for it as a replacement or offhand weapon even if the other PC has only a standard +1 weapon or something

That makes calling it out noteworthy when I'm 279 you literally quote that bold section while shifting to the fighter and omitting any reason for it going to them instead of the rogue.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is certainly design space for a subclass or a feat that does extra sneak dice. There are already subclasses and feats that allow it in different circumstances and agonising blast is probably more unbalanced at higher levels than a couple of extra dice on sneak. I'm not sure it needs to be baked into the core class though.

Thank you.

No, this doesn't necessarily have to appear in the PHB. It can be supplementary (but still official) material.

 

[CapnZapp]

you can always pointbuy/array 8 CON for yourself and get the glass part of the glass cannon.

lol

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Sure. It's not me obsessing over the exact forms here.

Why sneak attack specifically?

Why not? It's a game feature ripe for expansion. It's a design dimension nobody argues is already completely maxxed out.

If you want to add an item or spell etc that gives a bonus to some other aspect of the game, go ahead.

Here I'm discussing how the 1d6 sneak damage per two levels isn't really good. So how do we increase it? So that a rogue doesn't have to delve into territory that "belongs" to other classes in order to deal good damage. (For instance, while multiattack does increase damage, it does so in a fighter-y way, not in a rogue-y way).

Preferably with a subclass AND a feat AND an item, but even a single official feature that breaks the inexplicable complete and total limit on sneak damage would be nice.

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

Not sure how to respond.

You're welcome to start new threads on other classes; I'm certainly not stopping you.

I posted in this thread since, well, it's about rogues.

 

[mellored]

There is certainly design space for a subclass or a feat that does extra sneak dice. There are already subclasses and feats that allow it in different circumstances and agonising blast is probably more unbalanced at higher levels than a couple of extra dice on sneak. I'm not sure it needs to be baked into the core class though.

Subclass, sure. There are many subclass that boost basic abilities. Combat wildshape for instance.

There is no "must be a warlock" feat.


Champion (rogue)
Level 3: increase crits to 19-20
Level 9: ??
Level 13: increase crits to 18-20
Level 17: ??


And I will post out that rogue 20 can already deal 20d6 sneak attack (auto-crit) once per short rest.

Assassin 20 can deal 44d6+52 damage on their first strike, with a failed save.

 

[mellored]

Here I'm discussing how the 1d6 sneak damage per two levels isn't really good

I'm not sure i agree with that premise, but ok.

Preferably with a subclass AND a feat AND an item,

Subclaas to boost sneak attack dice is easy enough. 3 of the 4 assassin features boost sneak attack damage.

Items and feats that are "once per turn" or give a per-dice boost will synergise with sneak attack. Without being "rogue only".

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure i agree with that premise, but ok.

It's good enough for most rogues, those who think damage isn't everything, those who like the class' versatility and so on.

Viewed as a damage dealer, sneak attack really can't stand up to the damage output of other martials. In other words, a character with less impressive "other stuff" can easily be given better sneak damage without tilting the game.

I thought we had established this already.

 

[Willie the Duck]

1. The difference is that action surge is already plenty while sneak attack damage is very far from being overpowered.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. But the gist of our discussion remains: this is a reasonable build choice the game absolutely refuses to deliver.

<quote modified to number paragraphs>

I have a different take on the matter.

First of all, I disagree with the stated impression of paragraph 3, sentence two. The dearth of Sneak Attack damage enhancers* in 10 years of official supplements speaks to the dev team's position on Sneak Attack and whether it should have damage-enhancers, and nothing else. Their position on whether a rogue is an overpowered damage dealer is completely orthogonal to this. Likely, they agree that they are not, as they have been slowly increasing their overall average damage over time -- in D&D 2014 mostly by making SA more likely to trigger each round (first with subclasses, and then with new action options), and in D&D 2024 with additional combat benefits throughout the class.
*side note: will people be able to follow along if I shorten this to SADE?

Secondly (and my primary point), I think the reason for no SA Damage Enhancers is that (by and large) the devs want iconic, base-class-defining things to be good enough for prime time right on the core class default presentation. There are exceptions -- 2014 Moon Druid does wildshape strictly better than the rest of Druids, 2024 UA Berserker* does rage strictly better -- but as a whole I can see a trend. I think the the general idea is to instead play around in the margins (feats which make casters concentrate better, but not cast 4th level spells at 5th level**), play with very specific portions of the defining feature (tempest cleric can maximize a very limited selection of their spells), or instead address universal qualities rather than these defining features (sure, a paladin loves a holy avenger, but it works with or without the smite feature). I think there's probably a rationale behind it. Likely that upping these features makes puts even more of the class-eggs in that features basket, and also communicates that the default level is an underperforming level.
*I don't know how to rate 2014's 'improved benefit/improved cost, everyone agrees is sub-par' version 2014's Berserker gets.
**Yes, Fey- and Shadow Touched, but anyone can grab those and they have solid limiters on which 2nd level spell is gotten

None of this is to say that they couldn't do it. I think people generally agree that a dagger of +2d6 SA damage or feat of SA dice d6-->d8s isn't going to overpower a rogue*. I honestly personally wouldn't mind it (although my preferred way of making a 'the combat rogue' variant would be to simply gets extra attack at level 5 or 6). However, I think it does point to the possibility that there are reasons that they haven't done so other than to make rogue players unhappy or fear of over-powered-ness, and that the reason could be** completely reasonable and comprehensible (if not something you might agree with).
*in fact, may be worth less than the opportunity cost, particularly if the dagger is attunement-costing.
**here I will add a perennial critique that since 2014 the devs were altogether too restrictive in discussing the whys of their decisions.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about this, and I'd still want to discuss paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 7. I think it is a self-incurred recipe for disappointment in the current release ethos to demand official output* and expect to get all reasonable potential options (to the point of framing their absence and being denied or them refusing to deliver that thing specifically). WotC has made it super clear that they are not going to put out all things for all people. Looking at the option-paloozas that 2, 3, and to some degree 4e all became, 5e lags behind in all sorts of potential-options-someone-might-want. There are no Marshals, no str-based archers**, no non-magical rangers, no pacifist builds, no arcane 1/2-caster classes (whatever name you want to give them), and somewhat half-hearted support for Str-based low-armor martial artists. That WotC-published products do not have your specific preferred option is hardly unique, and while I completely understand the disappointment, I don't see a reason that this is particularly or notably more inexplicable or unreasonable than the others missing options.
*I'm sure you don't want to hear 'what about 3pp?,' but that definitely seems to be their response in this instance.
**and the optimal choice for mimicking the 2e longbow-long/greatsword switch-hitting fighter is a hexblade