D&D 5E Rogues & damage...

[pming]

Hiya.

In another thread, someone mentioned "The rogue is supposed to be a top martial damage dealer".

I'm curious as to when this idea started. I'm thinking it started either around the "2.5e" Skills & Powers, or 3e, because when I started playing, the Thief class was absolutely NOT even near the "top damage dealer" except in one specific, not-so-easy-to-get-off situations (re: when he successfully made a Move Silently and Hide in Shadows check from a position where he could actually be able to even attempt that...and then hit with his Backstab).

Thieves, when I started playing the game, had but d4 for HP and the second worse AC in the game...in the thick of combat was not where a thief wanted to be, that's for dang sure! A thief was a good "range" fighter, however. If there was a big bad monster, the fighter would be right up there, the cleric right behind him, then the thief standing next to the magic-user a safe distance away. When did this change?

I have other theories as to why some folks think of "rogue = best damage", but for fear of starting a flame war I'll remain silent.

How many others out there think the thief should be doing as much or more damage than the fighter?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Freejackk]

The idea started when one (very misguided) poster stated it in another thread...

Actually, it probably started recently with 4E, as I think that was the first edition where they were really considered top-tier in the dps department. The picture many people have of the iconic assassin types would have a very large burst damage potential, and I think it saddens many to learn that they are behind nearly every other martial class in terms of damage.

(Now this is the part where people say "dps never mattered before and it's still irrelevant play whatever you want the game is about having fun blah blah rant)

 

[trentonjoe]

The Rogue was a striker in 4E and could do some serious damage. I don't recall it being the best melee damage dealer but it was certainly better than 1E and 2E.

Personally, I think the rogue should be good in combat in the right situation. The bonus damage when having advantage seems like a great mechanic for the situation.

 

[was]

The idea of the party rogue being a major striker does go back to late 2nd ed. Rogues, however, were only the top damage dealer when they are able to use their sneak attack ability. Traditionally, in a straight forward one-on-one fight, the rogue did not fare well against the fighter in either offense or defense. Now with the addition of using Dex. to damage rolls, and the ease of TWF, they could easily do the most damage in a group.

 

[guachi]

You absolutely must be able to get your sneak attack in. While you can do this solo, it's much more reliable to have an ally within 5 feet of an enemy. In other words, the other melee fighter(s) are the ones enabling most of the rogue's damage.

A rogue works well multiclassing with lots of other classes and benefits greatly from any class or feat or ability that grants another attack because one opportunity a round to sneak attack just isn't enough. You can two weapon fight without a feat or fighting style almost as well as you can if you do take the feat or style as most of your damage is sneak attack. You'll have 2 opportunities to get a sneak attack at the expense of no Cunning Action on your bonus action.

You can take Crossbow Expert and burn your bonus action shooting a hand crossbow. You can take Sentinel and stay in melee and use your reaction to get a chance at two sneak attacks a round - one on your turn and one on another turn with your Sentinel ability. You can multiclass into any of the melee classes for two attacks and a fighting style (but not with Valor Bard).

However, the Rogue, at least a straight Rogue, has some fantastic damage avoidance abilities and you could, in theory, have the three major resistances by level 15 if you took Resilience feat in Constitution. A character who avoids damage left and right is pretty valuable.

Rogues are also capable of being great at skills. There are a number of ways to get lots of skills combined with the ability to have a roll no lower than a 10 in all of your proficient skills is fantastic. It's super easy to have 10 or more skills with barely a dent in your damage output.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Rogues are much more than dmg, but their dmg is excellent, regardless. And none of their abilities are short or long rest limited. They are powerful all rounders.

 

[eryndel]

Backstab was relatively strong in 1e and 2e, when you could get it off. Thieves also had the benefit of being XP advantaged when leveling, so they might have been a level or so higher than the rest of the party. But there were nowhere near the consistent damage per round as a ranger or fighter.

3e saw some great improvements in the damage department. I remember thinking Sneak Attack dice were godly compared to the old backstab. However, SA was pretty situational, so was often hard to pull off outside the first round. Also, rogues were afflicted by a large number of creatures in midgame which were immune to sneak attack (undead, constructs). That said, by 3.5 there were a large number of splats and 3pp books out there that one was sure to find a prestige class or set of feats to maximize damage output.

In 4th, consistently high damage for rogues appears to be a design goal.

So, if someone were to tell me that back in the good 'ole days, rogues were the king of damage, I'd assume those days were back in ~2004.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, if someone were to tell me that back in the good 'ole days, rogues were the king of damage, I'd assume those days were back in ~2004.

(Not so) coincidentally, this was also the year World of Warcraft was released...

 

[Celtavian]

It did not start in 4E.

It started back in Advanced. Rogues did a lot of damage with an opening attack and if attacking from the back (as determined by the DM). Often enough to kill something outright. Then again this was back in the days when dragons had 60 hit points.

A high level rogue could sneak up on something with a very high chance of success (percentage based) and strike hard doing anywhere from times 2 to times 5 damage. It was quite substantial.

Sneak Attack/Backstab continued to do substantial damage in 3rd edition, though as more of a standard attack. When something wasn't immune, they did immense damage.

4th edition rogues did ok damage.

5th edition are back to ok damage.

Here is a discussion on it for some history lessons for those that either didn't play a rogue or don't remember how strong their damage was:

http://pogromisland.com/html/RulesForge/Backstab.htm

Sorry to say, I was not incorrect. Rogues had been premier damage dealers since very early in the D&D. One of the best damage dealers in the game. They were often able to kill something outright with a backstab before it could attack back. They definitely rivaled warriors for damage. Not in a straight up fight, but as part of a party environment. It was why people enjoyed playing them. Positioning for a backstab to rip up an opponent was part of the fun of playing a rogue.

I get it. Some of you are too young to have played an early edition rogue. You only did 3rd edition where tons of stuff was immune to their attack or 4th edition "striker" rogue. Rogues used to frighten players as did assassins (when it was a percentage chance to outright kill you). PCs didn't have near the hit points they have now. So a backstab was not something you wanted to get hit with.

 

[Celtavian]

The idea started when one (very misguided) poster stated it in another thread...

Actually, it probably started recently with 4E, as I think that was the first edition where they were really considered top-tier in the dps department. The picture many people have of the iconic assassin types would have a very large burst damage potential, and I think it saddens many to learn that they are behind nearly every other martial class in terms of damage.

(Now this is the part where people say "dps never mattered before and it's still irrelevant play whatever you want the game is about having fun blah blah rant)

You must be too young to know what a rogue could do in the past.

If it wasn't meant to be a top damage dealer in 5E, so be it. My bad.