D&D 5E Rogues & damage...
Ebony Dragon
First Post
Blame MMO's. In Everquest, a game mostly about combat, the rogue was given the role of "group dependent melee damage dealer". Since things like picking locks and disarming traps and hiding from NPC's are really only secondary concerns in a video game that is all about killing monsters and looting the bodies, they needed rogues to be able to do something great to make them a balanced character class. High single target DPS was that thing they got.
World of Warcraft continued on that trajectory, and it became such a phenomenon of a game that it's influence has now, of course, had its impact on players of other fantasy games such as D&D. Hence the idea that rogues should be doing big dps in combat, even in traditional table top games.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Almost certainly not a coincidence. I remember reading various class previews on Blizzard's web site sometime in late 2003-early 2004, and they said that rogues were designed to be the "primary melee damage dealers", and it all just clicked for me what a perfect role that was for rogues. I literally have not thought about the rogue/thief archetype in any other light since. It's too perfect of a union of class to combat role.
Ahrimon
Bourbon and Dice
In that environment it works. There really isn't anything other than combat in MMOs. In a tabletop game the rogue has so many other niches to fill that they're not set up (besides 4e) to be a primary damage dealer.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Class definitions are flexible. I'm fine with the rogue handling melee cuisinart duties and the ranger picking up the slack in the environmental area.
Ahrimon
Bourbon and Dice
Most definitely, but the current mechanics are balanced on them not being the top. Would you remove other features from the rogue to help balance things out? Like the extra skills or expertise or something else or would you just up their damage to make them the top? It's your game if you do make them the top, be prepared for some possibly annoyed other players.
Not ever having played WoW, this makes no sense to me. What, then - in D&D I suppose - would be primary role for fighter classes if not to be the primary damage maker in melee? I always think of rogues/thieves as being opportunists lurking in the shadows for single attach strikes, not on the front lines or jumping amongst combatants and dealing out heavy damage with a short sword.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I wouldn't make any change to the 5e rogue, because that's already done, and works well enough for my taste. I'm more saying "If I was making my own D&D, this is how I would approach the archetypes."
Secondary damage dealer and primary damage mitigator.
In my perfect D&D, rogues would deal damage primarily with situational and encounter specific powers, providing them with the highest spike damage, and supplement that with various control abilities (stuns, hamstringing, blinding people, etc.) Fighters would have the ability to crank out lower but consistent damage, and be able to take more hits than the rogue.
Celebrim
Legend
1e: Thief matches beats fighter for damage only on rounds when the thief backstabs, which is rare. Otherwise, with much better BAB (1e thief BAB progression matches 3e wizard), and generally harder hitting weapons and higher potential strength, it's all fighter. High level fighter eventually does as much damage each round as the thief would if it backstabbed every round.
1.5e: With weapon specialization in the mix, fighter does more damage each round than a thief would if he backstabbed every round. In general, as a thief you are pretty much an all around inferior class compared to anything. At high levels, you literally do nothing well. Your hit points, combat abilities, saving throws, expected damage and even out of combat utility is lower than pretty much any class. (For example, by the time your thief abilities are reliable enough to consider using, your allies now have spells that are even more reliable and convenient.) You are easily out shown in all areas.
2e: As 1.5e.
3e: The third edition designers working from the template of prior editions try to avoid repeating past mistakes. Rogue is greatly boosted as an attractive class. Sneak attack is much easier to pull off and hits hard, allowing rogues to match or beat fighters for damage.
4e: Rogues are specifically called out as 'strikers' with the role of delivering high amounts of damage. This is necessitated by the 4e design principle that called for all classes to have basically equal in combat utility and equal out of combat utility.
1.5e: With weapon specialization in the mix, fighter does more damage each round than a thief would if he backstabbed every round. In general, as a thief you are pretty much an all around inferior class compared to anything. At high levels, you literally do nothing well. Your hit points, combat abilities, saving throws, expected damage and even out of combat utility is lower than pretty much any class. (For example, by the time your thief abilities are reliable enough to consider using, your allies now have spells that are even more reliable and convenient.) You are easily out shown in all areas.
2e: As 1.5e.
3e: The third edition designers working from the template of prior editions try to avoid repeating past mistakes. Rogue is greatly boosted as an attractive class. Sneak attack is much easier to pull off and hits hard, allowing rogues to match or beat fighters for damage.
4e: Rogues are specifically called out as 'strikers' with the role of delivering high amounts of damage. This is necessitated by the 4e design principle that called for all classes to have basically equal in combat utility and equal out of combat utility.
I think that was the concept:
Rogue = High Damage, Low Durability. They can unleash the highest damage at targets of opportunity, but are vulnerable if the enemy survives to counterattack.
Fighter = Moderate Damage, High Durability. They don't do as much damage, but they are very consistent in their damage dealing, and can take a beating on the front line.
Now, those elements have fluctuated through various editions and games, certainly. 5E moves a bit away from the strict roles that 4E developed. (And even in 4E, there were significant variations within each class itself.) The 5E rogue may have the highest single-attack damage out there, but other classes with more attacks may be able to consistently out-damage it. But in return, it reaches heights of mobility and utility - even in combat - that few other classes can compare with, while retaining its niche as the 'skill-monkey' of the party.
