Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7568885" data-attributes="member: 16814">I see this a lot -- evaluating how 5e works through the lens of previous editions.  I think this is a mistake, namely trying to recreate elements of previous mechanics within 5e.  The reason for this is that 5e is a different game altogether.  Yes, it says D&D, and it has a huge amount of similarities, but, under the hood, the mechanical engine is quite different and how it approaches design goals is quite different.Firstly, rogues in editions prior to 3.x were not martial classes.  They did poor damage and were not super useful in fights as rogues.  You could play an effective rogue, but that wasn't by applying martial skill.  3.x started changing that, and 4e completed the shift to make rogues competent in the martial realm while still focusing on the other pillars of play.  In 5e, the rogue is meant to be a competent martial asset, and it is.  It is not, however, dominant in that field, falling behind the other martial classes but still remaining relevant.  There are a few points where a 5e rogue does slightly better than a fighter (no feats) at damage, but usually the fighter is ahead.  Take your shortsword wielding rogue vs a sword and board fighter or a greatsword fighter at 4th and then 5th level:  the rogue at 4th does 3d6+stat damage if their conditions are met and the fighter does either 1d8+2+stat (dueling style) or 2d6+1.33+stat (great weapon style).  The rogue is a bit ahead (average of 11.5+stat vs either 7.5+stat or 8.33+stat) but with conditions (simple, sure, but not always).  At fifth, the fighter wins hands down as the rogue goes to 4d6+stat vs either 2d8+4+2xstat or 4d6+2.66+2xstat.  It's a big jump for every other martial class at 5th that the rogue doesn't really close until 9th level (6d6+stat vs the above).  This is ignoring the fighter's higher hitpoint, higher AC, and any subclass tricks that go to improving fighter damage output (the rogue really only has assassin for this).And, this meets the design goal of 5e -- rogues a competent martial classes in combat.  Not the best, but competent.  Don't confuse lots of dice on one attack for being super-powerful, or even being able to get that often.  5e compensates for this in other areas, like vastly increase monster hitpoints (I'm running a 5th level party and monsters with 50 or so hitpoints are speedbumps).  If you nerf rogues, you're making them less useful and reducing a core design principle.  You can do this, but you really should have a better reason that "but I remember it wasn't like this in an earlier edition."  You wouldn't complain about not being able to trump a hand in gin rummy, either, because that's a mechanic from a different game.  If you want to play an older edition, go for it, they're still great games.  But, if you're playing 5e, you should really try to grasp that it's a different game and will play differently from previous editions.  It's not an update, it's a new game.  Leave your thinking about how older editions worked with the older editions; you'll have more fun that way because you won't be fighting the system.</blockquote>

Verification