D&D 5E Rogues & damage...

[Sailor Moon]

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.

The idea of the rogue in the past was not really all about damage. They were the only class back in the day that had things like Hide in Shadows, Climb Walls, Pick Pockets, could use any magic item, and could use scrolls. Back Stab allowed them to get in that one good hit but over time they weren't the best in damage nor were they meant to be. They were opportunists who were very good at utility.

 

[Cernor]

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.

Even with TWF or extra attacks the rogue can only get Sneak Attack since per turn... So unless you get to attack with Commander's Strike or an AoO, chances are you'll only get it once per round anyway.

 

[Celtavian]

The idea of the rogue in the past was not really all about damage. They were the only class back in the day that had things like Hide in Shadows, Climb Walls, Pick Pockets, could use any magic item, and could use scrolls. Back Stab allowed them to get in that one good hit but over time they weren't the best in damage nor were they meant to be. They were opportunists who were very good at utility.

It was about damage. I DMed them. Monsters had nowhere near as many hit points back in the day. So when you're rogue did a sneak attack for 1d6+1 str with a +3 sword, his damage was 35 points. That was often more than half the hit points of a monster you were fighting. Sometimes it would outright kill the monster. Most rogues I knew picked up girdles of giant strength. They did something like 1d6+10+5 sword for 90 points of damage a hit. Completely took out opponents in that first round. Their damage was nuts. Letting the rogue get the first attack was very meaningful. High level rogues were a damn nightmare. If you let them move around too much, they might kill everything in an area by themselves. That's why 3rd edition rogues were such a major disappointment.

Look up some old school monsters if you want to see how much damage the rogue did comparatively. It was hard to match a rogue's opening attack.

A rogue's combat role in early D&D was to sneak in and kill something quick. Sure, you could run adventures like Tomb of Horrors where they spent most of their time dealing with traps (you had to have one in that module) or design a steal something and get out without being seen module. In their common role, they were the guy that went in and took stuff out before you even entered combat. Martial classes like fighters and barbarians would let them because they knew the rogue hit so hard with that first attack, you often didn't need more.

 

[Authweight]

If you want your rogue to do huge burst damage, I would recommend the assassin. Automatically critting with surprise is enough to outright kill a lot of enemies you face.

 

[Sailor Moon]

It was about damage. I DMed them. Monsters had nowhere near as many hit points back in the day. So when you're rogue did a sneak attack for 1d6+1 str with a +3 sword, his damage was 35 points. That was often more than half the hit points of a monster you were fighting. Sometimes it would outright kill the monster. Most rogues I knew picked up girdles of giant strength. They did something like 1d6+10+5 sword for 90 points of damage a hit. Completely took out opponents in that first round. Their damage was nuts. Letting the rogue get the first attack was very meaningful. High level rogues were a damn nightmare. If you let them move around too much, they might kill everything in an area by themselves. That's why 3rd edition rogues were such a major disappointment.

Look up some old school monsters if you want to see how much damage the rogue did comparatively. It was hard to match a rogue's opening attack.

A rogue's combat role in early D&D was to sneak in and kill something quick. Sure, you could run adventures like Tomb of Horrors where they spent most of their time dealing with traps (you had to have one in that module) or design a steal something and get out without being seen module. In their common role, they were the guy that went in and took stuff out before you even entered combat. Martial classes like fighters and barbarians would let them because they knew the rogue hit so hard with that first attack, you often didn't need more.

I've been running and playing D&D since 1985 and I can tell you they were not all about the damage.

 

[eryndel]

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.

I disagree. Thieves in 1e typically used d4/d6 type weapons. Backstab typically required a lot of prep work to land, what with needing to be behind and the target being unaware. I've only seen a 1e backstab happen in the first round of combat, afterwards the bad guys were aware of the rogue typically negating backstab (ignoring invisibility to reset that ability). A mid level rogue could (if they hit) do 2d4 or 3d4 damage + Str and Magic for one hit per combat. In they games I typically played in, bonuses weren't multiplied but I saw other tables treat it differently.

A fighter would have a d8 or d10 weapon. Also, they'd have bonus damage from Str and Weapon Spec. A mid level fighter would be attacking a 3/2 or 2/1. If we're comparing mid level fighter vs. thief, assuming everyone hits, 3d8 + (3*(Str+WSpec+Magic)) over two rounds where a thief would pull 3d4+1d4 +(2*Str+Magic). If memory serves (it's been a while), that would be an average for the fighter over two rounds ~28 damage, while the thief has 14 (assuming +2 weapon, +1 Str bonus for fighter, no Str bonus for thief). If you factor in hit chance, it skews even more to fighter with better THAC0 and hit bonuses for str and specialization.

At top levels, when the fighter gets 4 attacks every two rounds and the thief gets x5 backstab, it slants slightly more to the thief, but not enough to make a thief provide more damage over the fighter (for combats longer than 1 round).

I state all this, being my own personal experience. Backstab, sneaking, and other thiefly acts were notoriously dependent on DM interpretation and ruling, so you're experience might be completely different. If your DM was pretty accommodating in granting backstab to lead off an encounter, and then have another opportunity to land a backstab in the encounter, then yes, thieves might have been kings of dps in your game. That was never my experience. I never saw more than one backstab land in a combat, and unless that backstab began and end the encounter, it was always the steady damage of the fighters that topped the dps charts. I did see an elven M/T once try to reset awareness by casting invisibility, and then promptly missed on her second backstab after a couple rounds of positioning. She decided after that there were better uses for her spells.

And really, in this crowd (EN world) I think it's less we're too young to have played early editions, and more we're all too old to accurately remember.

 

[Celtavian]

I've been running and playing D&D since 1985 and I can tell you they were not all about the damage.

I've been playing a little longer than that and I can tell you they were vicious damage dealers. So what's your point? They did things other than damage. Sure. But they did a huge amount of damage and hammered extremely hard.

 

[trentonjoe]

It was about damage. I DMed them. Monsters had nowhere near as many hit points back in the day. So when you're rogue did a sneak attack for 1d6+1 str with a +3 sword, his damage was 35 points. That was often more than half the hit points of a monster you were fighting. Sometimes it would outright kill the monster. Most rogues I knew picked up girdles of giant strength. They did something like 1d6+10+5 sword for 90 points of damage a hit. Completely took out opponents in that first round. Their damage was nuts. Letting the rogue get the first attack was very meaningful. High level rogues were a damn nightmare. If you let them move around too much, they might kill everything in an area by themselves. That's why 3rd edition rogues were such a major disappointment.

Look up some old school monsters if you want to see how much damage the rogue did comparatively. It was hard to match a rogue's opening attack.

Talking 1E (didn't play Basic much)

I don't how you get to 35 and 90. Only the weapon damage was modified so it would be something like 3d6 or 4d6 + magic . Our thieves didn't have super rare magic items so the +7-14 from the strength items wasn't there.

Once specialization entered the game all fighter types were doing d8+3 +magic + str twice a round by 7th level. I feel like their was a SUPER SPECIALIZATION or something that did even more damage. I feel like my fighters tended to do something like 1d8+10 like all the time after 7th level.

The thieves always hid, tried to get a sneak attack and ran away. I don't remember rogues being killing machines.

 

[Celtavian]

I disagree. Thieves in 1e typically used d4/d6 type weapons. Backstab typically required a lot of prep work to land, what with needing to be behind and the target being unaware. I've only seen a 1e backstab happen in the first round of combat, afterwards the bad guys were aware of the rogue typically negating backstab (ignoring invisibility to reset that ability). A mid level rogue could (if they hit) do 2d4 or 3d4 damage + Str and Magic for one hit per combat. In they games I typically played in, bonuses weren't multiplied but I saw other tables treat it differently.

A fighter would have a d8 or d10 weapon. Also, they'd have bonus damage from Str and Weapon Spec. A mid level fighter would be attacking a 3/2 or 2/1. If we're comparing mid level fighter vs. thief, assuming everyone hits, 3d8 + (3*(Str+WSpec+Magic)) over two rounds where a thief would pull 3d4+1d4 +(2*Str+Magic). If memory serves (it's been a while), that would be an average for the fighter over two rounds ~28 damage, while the thief has 14 (assuming +2 weapon, +1 Str bonus for fighter, no Str bonus for thief). If you factor in hit chance, it skews even more to fighter with better THAC0 and hit bonuses for str and specialization.

At top levels, when the fighter gets 4 attacks every two rounds and the thief gets x5 backstab, it slants slightly more to the thief, but not enough to make a thief provide more damage over the fighter (for combats longer than 1 round).

I state all this, being my own personal experience. Backstab, sneaking, and other thiefly acts were notoriously dependent on DM interpretation and ruling, so you're experience might be completely different. If your DM was pretty accommodating in granting backstab to lead off an encounter, and then have another opportunity to land a backstab in the encounter, then yes, thieves might have been kings of dps in your game. That was never my experience. I never saw more than one backstab land in a combat, and unless that backstab began and end the encounter, it was always the steady damage of the fighters that topped the dps charts. I did see an elven M/T once try to reset awareness by casting invisibility, and then promptly missed on her second backstab after a couple rounds of positioning. She decided after that there were better uses for her spells.

And really, in this crowd (EN world) I think it's less we're too young to have played early editions, and more we're all too old to accurately remember.

It required a percentage roll which became easier as they rose in level. Hide in Shadows and Move Silently. If you made both rolls, you get to backstab. It usually killed or nearly killed something outright.

Rogues had it tough at low level because of the percentage based abilities. Like wizards if you played them to high level, they became ridiculously strong. Most of the rogues I ran were multiclass. Those few that did make it to high level, they destroyed enemies.

 

[Celtavian]

Talking 1E (didn't play Basic much)

I don't how you get to 35 and 90. Only the weapon damage was modified so it would be something like 3d6 or 4d6 + magic . Our thieves didn't have super rare magic items so the +7-14 from the strength items wasn't there.

Once specialization entered the game all fighter types were doing d8+3 +magic + str twice a round by 7th level. I feel like their was a SUPER SPECIALIZATION or something that did even more damage. I feel like my fighters tended to do something like 1d8+10 like all the time after 7th level.

The thieves always hid, tried to get a sneak attack and ran away. I don't remember rogues being killing machines.

Maybe you didn't run many high level rogues. It was hard to get there. Low level rogues were rough to play.