D&D 5E Rogues & damage...

[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.

I see strength and magic aren't multiplied. So it would have been something like 5d6+15 for about 32 damage. That was still a lot of damage in those early editions. That opening rogue attack could decide a combat.

 

[trentonjoe]

What was awesome about the old school thief was that he was situationally brilliant. There were times he (or she) could just shine. I remember stepping out of a fog cloud and destroying a cleric with a back stab in one game. I also remembering climbing a wall to disarm a "laser ray" while the rest of the party fought orcs or something. In 1E, thieves were the only ones who could do that sort of stuff.

What I really like about 5E is that the rogue now still has a unique feel (Uncanny Dodge,Evasion, Cunning Action and Sneak Attack) but now everyone has access to the skills (and can be good at) only the Thief had in 1E.

Character Class is still important to mechanics but isn't so rigid.

 

[trentonjoe]

I see strength and magic wasn't multiplied. So it would have been something like 5d6+15 for about 32 damage. That was still a lot of damage in those early editions. That opening rogue attack could decide a combat.

Your talking about a 13th level thief, +3 short sword with a girdle of Fire Giant Strength?

The same fighter gets 5/2 with 3 more damage each round. That's more damage the first round if he hits twice.

 

[eryndel]

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.

That's a great ruling, but that certainly wasn't the case at every AD&D table. In some groups I played, you couldn't both Move Silently and Hide in Shadows at the same time. Others you could. Both were supported by the rules in the book. I never played where bonuses were multiplied, but I knew others who argued those rules.

I can agree that if you played with a DM that allowed you multiply strength and magic bonuses with backstab, and if you played in a game where the DM was pretty permissive with magic items that you had an awesome strength bonuses (either along with or instead of the fighter getting that gear) and if your DM was pretty easy-going with setting up the conditions to get a backstab that a simple set of % rolls could get you potentially several backstabs in a combat, then yes... in such a game high-level thieves would really shine in the damage dealing. Even still, at low to mid levels I'd rather count on my fighter for damage.

To say that AD&D as designed expected the above, is a stretch. I completely believe that in the games you played in and ran, rogues were king. That's just not my experience, and it sounds like it wasn't for others as well.

 

[GameOgre]

I think it's just impossible to say Rogues were like THIS or Rogues were like THAT!

Everyone played them differently and many DM's rules Sneaking and Hide differently. One DM I played with ruled that you couldn't ever get off Backstab after the monster knew you were there(so after the first round) another ruled that anytime you struck it from behind you got off a backstab.

It varied so wildly from table to table that no two players playing rogues would have had the same experience.

Heck my Thief made it to 16th level back in 1E and I think at the end he would still have trouble doing more than 1D4-1(9 strength)+3 damage(magic dagger) per round unless he got off a Backstab (I think at the end my DM let me backstab from behind once per monster but after that ruled he knew I was there).

Nobody's memories are wrong. It's just that the rules were not set in stone and the DM ruled as he saw fit.

I'm sure many people played with DM's more lenient in the backstab department than mine was.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Your talking about a 13th level thief, +3 short sword with a girdle of Fire Giant Strength?

The same fighter gets 5/2 with 3 more damage each round. That's more damage the first round if he hits twice.

Exactly.

Celtavian: You're just incorrect on a number of levels, but the real problem here is that you're assuming that a highly situational x2-x5 damage (generally once per battle, and no you can't assume that it would automatically occur at the outset of combat; the thief successfully sneaking up to and BEHIND an enemy is something highly dependent on circumstance) makes the thief a "top damage dealer" in the face of the following disadvantages:

1) Limited weapon selection (generally to a 1d6/1d8 shortsword at best)
2) Less emphasis on Strength, and no access to exceptional Strength
3) Mediocre-to-poor (worse than everyone except the M-U) THAC0
4) Backstab being melee-only
5) No access to some of the best damage boosters, including gauntlets of ogre power and potions of (super-)heroism
6) No multiple attacks
7) (Post-1985) no weapon specialization

In a wilderness rather than dungeon setting, a lance charge is more reliable and does more damage than backstab at any level below about 13th, and that's assuming that a fighter or cavalier has the same chance to hit as a thief (of course they don't; the percentage advantage is probably about 25% at any given level, meaning that the lance becomes a superior option across all levels).

 

[aramis erak]

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.

We get it. You're a monty-haul GM who can't accept that the experiences of the rest of use 30+ year veterans don't match yours.

You're the outlier, by the way. Which tends to imply you're wrong.

The only times in AD&D that I've seen thieves doing lots of damage was when they were multiclassed fighter-thieves. Using a d10 or d12 weapon with a x5 backstab was always a big hit, but it's also not a pure thief role.

Many GM's didn't give away magic items like candy. (I did, for a while. I got over that real quick.)
Many GM's didn't let thieves get more than 1 backstab attempt, and even then, required a check on move silently.

 

[guachi]

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.

Yes, you can only get one sneak attack per turn. But getting multiple attacks per turn means, of course, a higher chance of getting that one sneak attack in. 2 attacks on your turn at 60% chance to hit (for example) means your chance of no sneak attack is reduced from 40% to 16% and of having a sneak attack increases from 60% to 84%.

Since it's per turn, you can have more than one sneak attack per round. If you can somehow get an attack when it isn't your turn, you can sneak attack again. For example, if you are willing to put yourself in danger, you can take Sentinel and (potentially) sneak attack again using your reaction.

Although in that case you'd likely want 5 levels of Fighter/Ranger/Paladin or 6 of Valor Bard to get the second attack. At that point you aren't a full blown rogue, anyway. But it does do a consistent level of damage. You could take Horde Breaker as a Ranger, for example, and you'd have the possibility of 2 attacks on your turn at Ranger level 3 and 3 at Ranger level 5.

My Rogue was going for the Holy Slayer from al-Qadim. They use one-handed weapons. So my Rogue had to be sturdier in melee combat then a straight Rogue or he'd be toast.

With a ranged weapon, you could just stay Rogue and take the CE feat to get two attacks.

 

[Minigiant]

The thief was not a top damage deal until level 13+ and only vs stuff which died fast.

The rogue was good damage dealer in 3rd and very good in 4th.

The 5th edition rogue is not too bad. Top "base" damage dealer but everyone* passes it with feats, magic buffs, and magic items.

I see it the idea of rogue as damage dealer from video games. Early games could not (and still can't) handle the utility of rogues. Also since they can't tank as they are too squishy and can't heal because they lack magic, rogues were stuck as damage dealers. And many games (video, table top, card, AND board) jammed them in the DD role.

*every damage dealer build of damage focused classes.

 

[the Jester]

It was about damage. I DMed them.

I dmed them too, and I disagree with you. A rogue was lucky to be able to sneak attack. He had to both successfully move silently AND hide in shadows; that meant that he had to have shadows to hide in in the first place, just for starters. And let's not be coy- a halfling with an 18 Dex, which was the best sneak in the game (unless you allowed stats above 18, which was common but not by any means ubiquitous) wouldn't have a 50% chance of success at either one of those until 4th level at the earliest. And two 50% chances to fail is only a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding at both- assuming that the circumstances permitted the rogue to get into position in the first place.

So, no, I dispute that rogues were all about damage. You didn't have a rogue (actually, thief) in the party for damage-dealing, you had one because he was the only guy who could find/remove traps or open locks.

Not all play experiences were the same. I'm sure in some games- for instance, yours- damage was the main reason for having a thief in the group. But I think that was the exception, not the norm. At least, in all my days of running and playing D&D, I never ever saw rogues as top-tier damage dealers until 4e. In 3e, they were close, except that they could only be that top-tier damage dealer against about 1/2 the things you fight- not undead, plants, constructs, etc.