D&D 5E The Rogueish Shenanigans!

[Celtavian]

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.

It is unfortunately the way we play. We have a couple of players whose eyes start to glaze over when combat doesn't occur quite often. When major roleplay encounters are occurring or scouting or out of combat stuff, it is usually resolved within 10 or 20 minutes. If it is not, players start to disengage from the game finding other things to occupy their time.

I would bet money this is not something that occurs only at my table. The game is made to advanced based on combat encounters with occasional roleplay and out of combat scenarios that add xp. The majority of a party is made up of classes that have very little to do out of combat or in roleplay situations due to the focus nature of each class. A DM can't engage with one player for too long a period of time without causing the others to grow bored. Combat is the one event that involves all present. That is why most DMs focus on it heavily to keep the game engaging.

Not to say anyone should or has to play this way, just that the majority most likely do. This talk of three legs should be more of a graph with a roleplaying and out of combat scenarios making up a very small percentage of the graph and combat making up a very large percentage for the majority of adventurers.

 

[Authweight]

It is unfortunately the way we play. We have a couple of players whose eyes start to glaze over when combat doesn't occur quite often. When major roleplay encounters are occurring or scouting or out of combat stuff, it is usually resolved within 10 or 20 minutes. If it is not, players start to disengage from the game finding other things to occupy their time.

I would bet money this is not something that occurs only at my table. The game is made to advanced based on combat encounters with occasional roleplay and out of combat scenarios that add xp. The majority of a party is made up of classes that have very little to do out of combat or in roleplay situations due to the focus nature of each class. A DM can't engage with one player for too long a period of time without causing the others to grow bored. Combat is the one event that involves all present. That is why most DMs focus on it heavily to keep the game engaging.

Not to say anyone should or has to play this way, just that the majority most likely do. This talk of three legs should be more of a graph with a roleplaying and out of combat scenarios making up a very small percentage of the graph and combat making up a very large percentage for the majority of adventurers.

I've played in a few groups, as well as some con games, and I've never really seen anything like this. Usually it's the opposite: if combats are dragging on too long people will start to fall asleep or go find things to do when it's not their turn

Combat is a big part of the game, but it's fun because of non-combat context and because it is part of a well-balanced game. I don't think your experience is as typical as you think it is. I also think 5e was not designed with that playstyle in mind at all. It's really obvious that in terms of damage certain classes are way better than others. The other classes make up for it with utility, which can be useful in or out of combat in various ways.

 

[Eric V]

The Disengage action as a bonus action is huge in combat. So is Dash. I could see it hurting the monk not to have the capability. AoOs can be quite a problem when fighting groups or powerful creatures that hit hard. I find the ability to escape immediate combat an amazing defensive ability.

Rogues are pretty high up the defensive capability ladder. I will give them that. Probably just behind paladins and possibly tied with monks...maybe a little higher.

I was surprised when I read the 5e rogue, at how defensive it was compared to many other classes.

I am currently running an Elf 4th level Arcane Trickster. I am the biggest damage dealer in the group, knowing that might change when the paladin and battlemaster hit level 5. We are playing HotDQ. Between sleep and sneak attacking with the longbow, then hiding...I do just fine in combat. I considered multiclassing into champion for the higher crit range for my sneak attacks, but the extra damage from more SA dice outweighs the +2 to hit and 19-20 crit range. Took the Skulker feat, and strongly considering Sharpshooter.

Outside of combat, I am a pain for the DM. Took Perception with Expertise, so my PP is 16. High stealth, sleight of hand and Investigation too. Playing her like a Lisbeth Salander (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo); low cha skills, good cerebral skills. Just made a bunch of cash pickpocketing the drunken paladins. She's been fun to play so far; I wasn't sure she would be since usually I play CHA-based toons.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No one is more mobile than the rogue though. That is nice.

Oh, nic-

Their skill mastery is second to none.

Right, that's awes-

Rogues are pretty high up the defensive capability ladder. I will give them that.

Coo-

I like the rogue class for the most part.

I can see wh-

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

Uh... right. And spells! The best spellcaster, too!

Just playing with you. But seriously, if they're the most mobile (your claim), the best at skills (your claim), and are high up on the defensive ladder (maybe tied for 2nd? your claim), why do you think it'd be balanced for them to be a top martial damage dealer, too? Is their lesser damage not made up for by their other features?

Just curious on your thoughts on this.

 

[Celtavian]

I've played in a few groups, as well as some con games, and I've never really seen anything like this. Usually it's the opposite: if combats are dragging on too long people will start to fall asleep or go find things to do when it's not their turn

Combat is a big part of the game, but it's fun because of non-combat context and because it is part of a well-balanced game. I don't think your experience is as typical as you think it is. I also think 5e was not designed with that playstyle in mind at all. It's really obvious that in terms of damage certain classes are way better than others. The other classes make up for it with utility, which can be useful in or out of combat in various ways.

I would love to see the percentages.

I do agree that a single long combat does have a similar effect unless the DM is very good at keeping it going. 5E has made combat fast and furious. My players love that aspect of 5E. Not a lot of time thinking about what they're going to do or looking up rules. Just get to it and may the stronger win.

Pathfinder/3E definitely had the glazed over 3 hour combat effect. I ran it fast and it helped. 5E is way faster. Now the glazed over looks happen out of combat because most don't like to talk with the DM that much and don't have the skills or out of combat capabilities to do much out of combat. Everyone has combat capabilities, not everyone has out of combat capabilities that are worthwhile.

 

[Celtavian]

I was surprised when I read the 5e rogue, at how defensive it was compared to many other classes.

I am currently running an Elf 4th level Arcane Trickster. I am the biggest damage dealer in the group, knowing that might change when the paladin and battlemaster hit level 5. We are playing HotDQ. Between sleep and sneak attacking with the longbow, then hiding...I do just fine in combat. I considered multiclassing into champion for the higher crit range for my sneak attacks, but the extra damage from more SA dice outweighs the +2 to hit and 19-20 crit range. Took the Skulker feat, and strongly considering Sharpshooter.

Outside of combat, I am a pain for the DM. Took Perception with Expertise, so my PP is 16. High stealth, sleight of hand and Investigation too. Playing her like a Lisbeth Salander (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo); low cha skills, good cerebral skills. Just made a bunch of cash pickpocketing the drunken paladins. She's been fun to play so far; I wasn't sure she would be since usually I play CHA-based toons.

I was doing fine until 5th level hit. The barbarian started using Reckless with Great Weapon Master. Spiked his damage way up. Ranger picked up hunter's mark with Hoardbreaker and Sharpshooter. It really starts to add up for them.

I'm doing Arcane Trickster as well. I might try archery. It may allow me to keep up.

As far as skills go, I'm very pleased. No one is more aware and stealthier than the rogue. It is pretty fun to play. I move in and out of combat easily. I tend to avoid hits as they focus on other classes rather than provoke the AoO.

I have found the Sneak Attack damage is good for killing things like zombies since it is one big attack rather than a few smaller attacks. I'll see how I feel after I pick up Sentinel. That will probably decide whether I go archer or stick with melee.

 

[Celtavian]

Oh, nic-

Right, that's awes-

Coo-

I can see wh-

Uh... right. And spells! The best spellcaster, too!

Just playing with you. But seriously, if they're the most mobile (your claim), the best at skills (your claim), and are high up on the defensive ladder (maybe tied for 2nd? your claim), why do you think it'd be balanced for them to be a top martial damage dealer, too? Is their lesser damage not made up for by their other features?

Just curious on your thoughts on this.

It's what they've been since I've been playing (save for the environmental problems in 3E/Pathfinder). I guess I've become accustomed to that role.

Maybe 5th edition intended to change that role.

Mearls and Crawford talk about Sneak Attack like it's a big deal when I see it mentioned. It's not quite as potent as they seem to make it out to be that the rogue couldn't have used a second attack. All the other perks are extremely nice, but at the end of the day taking out enemies is the job. Though when they run, there is no one better than the rogue to make sure they don't get away. I do like that aspect of the class. I've chased more than a few runners down ending their hopes of escape with superior Rogue mobility.

So maybe the overall package does require a lower damage number. I imagine I can live with it. My rogue is still pretty effective and fun. It's pretty hard not to get jealous when paladins and fighters are spiking their damage to insane levels and barbarians are taking an unbelievable beating while dishing great damage. Makes you a little envious as a rogue, especially when you miss with that single sneak attack doing nothing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's what they've been since I've been playing (save for the environmental problems in 3E/Pathfinder). I guess I've become accustomed to that role.

Okay, I understand your expectations now.

Maybe 5th edition intended to change that role.

If they're the best at other things (mobility, skills) and great at others (defense), and not top tier for yet other things (damage), I would assume they didn't intend for them to be top tier damage dealers. I mean, yes, it's an assumption, but it seems like a reasonable trade-off.

You wouldn't want them to be top tier damage dealers in addition to having the best mobility and skills and second best defense, would you?

Mearls and Crawford talk about Sneak Attack like it's a big deal when I see it mentioned. It's not quite as potent as they seem to make it out to be that the rogue couldn't have used a second attack. All the other perks are extremely nice, but at the end of the day taking out enemies is the job. Though when they run, there is no one better than the rogue to make sure they don't get away. I do like that aspect of the class. I've chased more than a few runners down ending their hopes of escape with superior Rogue mobility.

Sounds like the Assassin subclass was the way to go? I don't know what yours is, nor am I familiar with 5e; only what I've read on these boards. I have never played through any playtest / session, nor do I own / have read the books, nor do I intend to run / play in a game. (I'm currently running two campaigns at the moment, one a 4e campaign, and one a campaign using my own RPG system.)

So maybe the overall package does require a lower damage number. I imagine I can live with it. My rogue is still pretty effective and fun. It's pretty hard not to get jealous when paladins and fighters are spiking their damage to insane levels and barbarians are taking an unbelievable beating while dishing great damage. Makes you a little envious as a rogue, especially when you miss with that single sneak attack doing nothing.

I imagine doing nothing is like when someone saves against your SoD spell, or your Sleep doesn't work because they have too much HP. Or your waste your Action Surge by missing. Or whatever. It sucks, but it happens.

I can understand getting jealous of the insane damage. Maybe multiclass if you want it. If not, enjoy the perks of being a Rogue. I'm sure the other players are jealous of your mobility, and that in plenty of other campaigns, people are jealous of the Rogue's skill bonuses.

It's all just give and take.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Riley37]

There's a variety of genre archetypes for Rogue. One of them is Bilbo Baggins, who was not a front-line fighter, but who was one of the most important members of his party.

There are martial rogues, and I imagine them as hard to engage, hit and hurt, and thus more inclined to nickel-and-dime-over-time offense, than all-at-once offense, in a stand-up fight; with options for peak damage when ambushing, if they have time to set up favorable circumstances (sneak up and attack from behind, etc.). My hierarchy goes like this: they should never know you were there; failing that, if they spot you, they should not be able to bring an attack to bear; failing that, if they can launch an attack at you, they should not be able to hit you; and if they hit you, and you survive the hit, then you have not entirely failed, but you're cutting it close. (Style preference, YMMV.)