D&D 5E The Rogueish Shenanigans!

[Joe Liker]

The rogue is supposed to be a top martial damage dealer.

What is your basis for this assertion? It was not even remotely true during a large chunk of the playtest.

Given the amount of utility rogues enjoy, they have no business topping the damage charts as well.

 

[Sailor Moon]

What is your basis for this assertion? It was not even remotely true during a large chunk of the playtest.

Given the amount of utility rogues enjoy, they have no business topping the damage charts as well.

I think he's got too much 4th edition on the brain.

 

[Celtavian]

The rogue in our game deals as much damage as the barbarian.

He is +7 doing 4d6+4 at 5th level

The barbarian is 1d12+6.

The melee warlock is usually 1d12+1d6+4.

Now, the warlock and barbarian get two attacks a round so when they hit twice they usually outpace the rogue but that's hardly automatic and it isn't by a ton.

The ranger with the -5/+10 feat and the Giant Killer (or whatever it is called) feature tends to do as much or more damage as well in certain situation.

I think to say the rogue is the worst of the martial characters in dealing damage isn't accurate.

That will change shortly if the barbarian is built optimally. Starts at 5th level once they get a second attack. Then his damage will be 1d12+16 per attack.

With Reckless and/or a bless spell, hitting with a -5 penalty is quite easy. It only becomes easier as you go up in level. Add in the bonus action from dropping an opponent and possibly taking Sentinel, you get up to four attacks a round for 1d12+16 per attack. It's quite potent.

Fighters and Paladins can do quite a bit more damage. Then again, they can't take the hits as well as the barbarian.

 

[Celtavian]

What is your basis for this assertion? It was not even remotely true during a large chunk of the playtest.

Given the amount of utility rogues enjoy, they have no business topping the damage charts as well.

Previous editions of D&D. They said they were going old school. Rogues were amongst the top damage dealers in old school D&D.

So it is by design that the rogue is an inferior damage dealer. I did not read up on the playtest. That would explain their inferior damage. It was intentional that they do two-thirds to half the damage of other martial classes or less including misses. That's a lot of damage to give up for excellence with skills that some DMs don't even incorporate into adventures. It certainly doesn't help against many of the most powerful creatures at higher level. The usual problems occur with powerful senses and stats trumping non-magical skills.

I wonder once again to what level the playtest went. It has been a real problem with classes completely unbalanced past a certain level around ten. If that is the case once again in 5E, the rogue will hurt badly because of it. That will be unfortunate.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't really know about the rogue being so out damaged by Barbarians and such, as in our games, the rogue seems to be fairly well holding his own. Oh sure from time to time when he can't line up a sneak attack or just flat out misses(he attacks twice and declares sneak attack on whatever one hits!) his damage might suffer but everyone has those sort of issues.

It would be nice if they added one of those nifty -5 to hit for +10 damage deals for our poor little rogue but if they did...im really not sure how often he would use it. -5 to hit is a HUGE deal in 5E!

As for action surge bah! Who needs it! It wouldn't help out sneak attack (but if it did Whooa boy THAT would be crazy).

Now I do LOVE daggers and so I would love some dagger feats! let me use a feat to add +2 to my dagger damage and I would be thrilled or even up the damage die from a D4 to a D6! Let me spend a feat to be able to use Assassin archetype specials on my Thief archetype rogue! (really only want the 3rd level one that lets me get advantage on everyone on later initiatives than I have on the first round of combat and a hit from hide counts as a crit.).

I think later on some of the meat we are looking for will arrive in the form of more feats and archetypes ect..

I'm sure my DM would let me do most of those things as house feats anyway. I'm loving Rogue so much more in 5E than in our pathfinder games.

-5 is not that large if you have someone that can provide a bless spell and have abilities to help you hit by providing advantage or extra dice to hit. If you get three or four attacks a round, chances are that one or two will hit. Then you can use your other abilities to make sure the last one hits as well.

If the rogue misses even once, he loses all his damage. His single hits do quality damage, but without a boost the aggregate damage starts to fall behind quite a bit, especially accounting for misses. If you decide to go the Two-weapon fighting route, you'll be inferior unless you take levels of fighter. You'll also lose Rogue Mobility which requires the use of a bonus action.

I loved the rogue to start the game. Seemed extremely fun. He's been falling behind as the levels rise. It's very disappointing. Given the fact Sneak Attack is only useable once per turn, I fail to see why they did not give the rogue a second attack so he could keep pace with the damage of other martials. The damage output of Fighters and Paladins in major encounters is sickening. Makes the rogue look like he's shooting off a pop gun. Paladins lack nothing for extra defensive power. Paladins are probably the most powerful martial in the game followed by barbarians for overall ability. Fighters probably come in third.

I'll enjoy the rogue as long as I can. I'll probably avoid the class in the future. D&D is now and always has been built around combat. Sure, some DMs customize encounters to make out of combat play interesting enough for a rogue player. That's not how modules are generally designed. My group runs modules. If you can't deal damage, you don't get to shine in the major encounters of the module. I find that highly disappointing. Rogues should shine dealing damage. They don't. Mearls and Crawford seem to believe Sneak Attack is far more powerful than it is.

 

[GameOgre]

A friggin Bless? Man I'm dancing on clouds if I can even get a heal! Nobody ever wants to play a healer, our cleric is a War cleric who I think has cast 1 heal in 5 levels during a fight. If your character asks for a heal he looks at you all crazy eyed and says" There is no greater joy than to die in battle! Die bravely and enter Valhalla with pride!

A friggin Bless! I don't think that spell really exists. It's just there for forum arguments!

 

[Celtavian]

A friggin Bless? Man I'm dancing on clouds if I can even get a heal! Nobody ever wants to play a healer, our cleric is a War cleric who I think has cast 1 heal in 5 levels during a fight. If your character asks for a heal he looks at you all crazy eyed and says" There is no greater joy than to die in battle! Die bravely and enter Valhalla with pride!

A friggin Bless! I don't think that spell really exists. It's just there for forum arguments!

We have a cleric and bard that casts bless quite often. Best buffing spell in the game besides the level 9 Foresight. Yet bless affects three targets or more with a higher level slots. Bless is the new haste. Hands down the most powerful group buff spell in the game.

If your cleric isn't casting it, he's incompetent. Sorry to say it, but it's true. It changes everything from damage output to defenses. The bonuses it gives and how many players it affects should make it a upper level spell. But they made it a level 1 spell. It's very strange.

 

[Voort]

He is the most mobile character we have seen (even more so than the 50' monk).

That's my biggest gripe about rogues. Cunning Action cheapens the monk as a speed-based melee class if anyone with two levels of rogue is always faster & more mobile.

 

[Celtavian]

That's my biggest gripe about rogues. Cunning Action cheapens the monk as a speed-based melee class if anyone with two levels of rogue is always faster & more mobile.

Monks can do a lot of other stuff that rogues can't. Not sure how their damage rates. I imagine they might be lower than the rogue given their inability to use Great Weapon Mastery or Sharpshooter with the same level of proficiency as other classes.

 

[Joe Liker]

Sure, some DMs customize encounters to make out of combat play interesting enough for a rogue player. That's not how modules are generally designed.

That may seem to be the case because stat blocks take up so much space, but every published adventure I've ever read has had plenty of non-combat content. I'm sure there are groups who ignore all that, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

I assure you, 5e was not designed with the intent that combat should be more important than exploration or social interaction. You could argue that that was true for 4e, certainly, but during every step of the 5e design process, Mearls et al made it very clear that all three pillars were extremely important to them, and they didn't want any one of them to outshine the others.

I'm not saying your way of playing is wrong, however; if you do value combat above all else, then I will completely agree that the rogue class is probably not right for you. But you cannot claim this is a design flaw, because to do so would mean you are ignoring two-thirds of the game the designers set out to create.