Variants/Subclass for a DPR Rogue

[Autumn Bask]

There is room, here, for a strength rogue.

You have my attention, and then some. I was just thinking the other day that I wished there was a Rogue subclass that allowed the use of Strength weapons. Then again, I was also looking for multiclasses for the Barbarian I'm playing, so that factored into it a lot.

So, some folks are disappointed that the 5e rogue is not focused on DPR, while others are happy that the Rogue basically auto-wins at skill stuff, and are satisfied with moderate damage output.

However, this is honestly the first I'm hearing of anyone being disappointed with the Rogue's damage output. Every game I've ever played in that's had a Rogue, they're typically the ones doing the most impressive damage. Then again, I've yet to play with any Fighters. (Why would anybody pick Fighter? It's so boring.)

However, things seem to be turning into a bit of a mess here, and I think that's cause ya'll are throwing around the word DPR without providing any actual calculations, or means of doing them. So far, everything is just speculation, so let me see if I can help with that.

https://anydice.com/program/13a0c

This is AnyDice. I've been fiddling around with a 5e compatible program for a bit, and this is what I've managed, based on things that other people have made (I'm not a programmer). If you see any mistakes, let me know, but for now I'll assume I did everything correctly.

I did these calculations for level 11, assuming the example Rogue is a Swashbuckler, as that guarantees the most consistent Sneak Attacks, and that the Fighter is a Champion, because that is infinitely easier to account for mathematically then a Battlemaster.

This should account for GWF style as well, but it does not take into account Action Surge, because that has too many factors at play.

So, an 11th level Swashbuckler Rogue (with the DW feat), on average w/o Sneak Attack, does 10.95 DPR per round assuming an AC range of 10 to 20.

Assuming Sneak Attack hits every round, which is possible, but not at all always the case, the SwashRogue's DPR will be about 32.16. So, Sneak Attack at this AC range increases DPR by 21.21. I don't know what the healthy average between these two are, as I've never played a Rogue myself, I've only observed them in the wild.

In comparison a Champion Fighter wielding a Greatsword at level 11 does 32.5 DPR w/o GWM and 37.5 DPR w/ GWM, assuming they use GWM against every enemy within the 10 to 20 AC range.

I've done few calculations (two) for your potential Strength Rogue as well. I love the idea of a Polearm Master Rogue. I think that would be wicked cool, however I think it would also be wicked broken. Unless you really think the base Rogue is underpowered and needs a significant boost.

This is because, obviously, the benefit of Polearm Master + Sentinel increases exponentially when you have the mobility of a Rogue. That, and the fact that you have even more ways to proc a reaction, which means more then one Sneak Attack per round.

Anyway, based on the calculations I did, which gave the Rogue an extra attack, a Strength Rogue Dual Wielding Battleaxes (1d8) will deal an average of 18.30 DPR w/o Sneak Attack and 41.57 DPR with Sneak Attack. Sneak Attacks DPR increases from 21.21 to 23.27 due to the extra chance of proccing it that having extra attack gives.

A Polearm Master Rogue, w/o accounting for potential Reaction attacks, will lead to another increase. They will deal 22.05 DPR w/o Sneak Attack and 45.32 DPR w/ Sneak Attack.

This, btw, does not account for the potential of a PAM Rogue picking up the GWM feat. With that, the Rogue would do 29.93 DPR w/o Sneak Attack and 50.51 DPR w/ Sneak Attack, which is absolutely insane.

I'd love to give calculation for other AC ranges, but with the program you can enter those in easy enough. Just change where it says AC: {10..20} to whatever you want. It can even be just a single number. Also, before relying too heavily on these calculations, I'd like to make sure everything in the program is actually accurate.

EDIT: I mathed wrong and gave the DW Rogue + their modifier to their bonus attack, because I've never played a dual-wielding character w/o the Fighting Style. I have fixed that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, that's what we're trying to figure out. Why do you want to play a fighter - by your description of what they do - but play a rogue - by the name of a class.

So I'm trying to understand what "rogue" means to you. Because "more martial damage" is part of another class. And you can get a more damage rogue already by simply multiclassing the two.

IMO, “multiclass it” isn’t an answer to “I wish there was a subclass that does X”. It’s an answer to “I want to play X, and my dm doesn’t allow homebrew or I don’t want to mess with homebrew”. I’m not looking for a rogue/fighter, I’m looking for an enforcer rogue, a “master thrower” rogue, and a blade-master rogue. I’m using “rogue” as shorthand for a mobile, underhanded, skill-heavy, character that isn’t standing toe to toe with dragons, but instead moves around the battlefield stabbing people, NEEDING some kind of upper hand to be effective.

There is a difference of story, base class mechanics, and general play-style, between the two classes.

In a game using the popular “bonus feat at level 10” house rule, I could do a fighter subclass and take Skilled at level 1, but it’ll still be 90% a “fighter”, with a bit of rogueishness. why do that, when the playstyle, story, and primary mechanics desired are all part of the rogue?

So you DID comprehend it! Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I'm saying this jokingly - the intensity of your response feels like someone responding to an attack. Which I wasn't trying to do. So I'm attempting to de-escalate.

I’m gonna have to review my sentence structure and word choice, apparently. I wasn’t taking your post as an attack at all.

This is a great arrow at the issue. We only think we have "convenient mechanical shorthand that we all already know." Because to me you are clearly mislabelling fighter mechanics as "rogue". So I was attempting to sidestep the mechanics.
Because I think that any general archetype you come up with that fits we can already build without the need to add any bloat to the system. It may not have "mechanic XYZ".[/

I’m not married to any specifics, here. If you can somehow build a fighter subclass that is highly skilled, with abilities narratively similar to cunning action, evasion, and uncanny dodge, who can go beyond what others are capable of in skill use, AND plays like a scary enforcer, blade master that isn’t all about singling our opponents for one on one duels and being a flashy charmer, or a highly mobile master thrower (this one is gonna overlap with scout, probably), AND doing so is somehow simpler than just making a rogue subclass, cool. Oh! It also has to not rely on optional rules like MC and feats.

To me your original post is absolutely full of mechanics, starting with describing a specific class.

of course it’s full of mechanics. I wasn’t asking for help developing the story elements, bc I thought they were obvious. Since they aren’t, maybe I’ll just let this thread die and start a new one that goes into the story elements as well, but...idk maybe not.

Also, the story is only relevant for the subclasses, while the variant rules ARE about mechanics. There’s nothing wrong with variant rules that are there to support a different playstyle, rather than a different story.

I know I said I was trying to de-escalate, but please don't tell me what I ignored. I saw that you weren't trying to build a specific character and asked you to describe the archetype you were going for rather then a character concept.

You want not to lose it's "roguish identity" which is part of what I was asking you to explain, because to gain some "fighter identity" you MUST give up part of what you have to maintain balance. So understanding what type of archetype you want to play is it. "Everything a rogue has but more powerful in combat" isn't a description - everyone wants to be more powerful. But just like making a paladin a full caster would increase it's power without taking something away, we need to understand what you mean by "roguish identity" so we know what's afe to give up in exchange for the new power.

Even better if we can identify it more specifically so we can make it more flavorful at the same time.

fair enough.

However, there is no fighter identity. It’s the one class who leans entirely on subclass in order to have literally any identity whatsoever. “Fights good” isn’t an identity, and if it were, it would be the shared identity of every single weapon using class. Making a rogue that hits harder reliably, instead of relying on jumping through extra hoops, and whose utility benefits are more about physical prowess rather than the social skills, doesn’t make the rogue “like a fighter”, either. Fighters don’t have a monopoly on being effective in melee combat. I also never said anything remotely like “everything the rogue has but more powerful”.

Thanks for putting this, my first response was responding like I had just been attacked, and both of us there wouldn't have been able to have any decent conversation, just the ole' internet "you're wrong" shouts.

Well I apologize for causing you to feel attacked. My frustrations with certain others in the thread probably came out when replying to you. Sorry about that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=6986805]Autumn Bask[/MENTION] As I replied to someone else, it’s easy enough to include a clause that the expanded weapons do not benefit from any features that require heavy, reach, or two-handed, weapons while also using sneak attack. The rogue would have to choose between SA and PAM or GWM.

Also, how does this theoretical rogue compare to a sniper rogue with a longbow and SS?

And the Champion is widely considered subpar in DPR output.

Still, it’s nice to have some numbers. Thanks!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What if that multiclassing could potentially solve the mechanical issues relatively simply and quickly?

It doesn’t, IMO, ever. MC rules are kludgey, not always available, and require greater system mastery to use without unintended drawbacks.

Further, I don’t believe that a new option should ever be shot down because it can be accomplished via multiclass.

I think that this might be the source of the disconnect that you're having with a lot of the people trying to help you. Unless its just hyperbole, where is that 90% figure coming from? Most of the class abilities are directly combat-focused or usable in combat. The rogue is more capable out of combat than the other martial classes, but it currently isn't paying much in the way of combat capability to do so.
Its close enough that adding more combat power would risk putting it over the more dedicated combat types, while still also being better out of combat.

Maybe some details about the specific game or group that this subclass will be used in might help. Is there a lot of optimisation? Feats and/or multiclassing? Is there much/any Social and/or exploration pillar or is it almost all combat?

I don’t design things for specific games, unless it’s a unique magic item or other in game resource/reward, or it’s really weird but makes sense for one specific character. This thread isn’t for the benefit of a specific game.
And no, 90% isn’t intended as some sort of exact percentage of traits. I wouldn’t ever count traits that everyone gets, like weapon proficiencies, or the like, anyway. The rogue is focused on skill use and utility. It’s still effective in combat, but it does so often by leaning in to skill use and teamwork, which is fun. As I said in the OP, I like the rogue as it is.

The issues that they were pointing out are based on general game mechanics, not class abilities. As they point out, the easiest way to make Str matter more and reduce reliance on Dex to keep the character more competitive would be to grant Medium armour, but you already nixed that suggestion I believe.

I don’t care if rogues get medium armor, I just don’t think it really fits the class.

I just removed the Finesse requirement for Sneak attack completely. I've yet to see any problems pop up due to that houserule. I doubt that expanding the weapons in a more limited fashion would create issues.

I agree.

Expertise is already usable in combat. I think that the only way to make it more usable would be to be able to add it to more combat rolls, such as initiative, hit, or damage. Hit or damage might cause problems because you seem to be looking to add Str there.

for a strength subclass, yes. For a blademaster, adding prof bonus to damage with a specific weapon type/group (in addition to light weapons) could be fun. Either way, I’d require it be “attack’s that would qualify for Sneak Attack”, so that the rogue still needs some kind of upper hand to get the bonus.

You're talking about removing the skill monkeying to become better in combat. The issue I see there is that most of the skill monkeying of the Rogue are base class features, not subclass capabilities.
However, since this is a homebrew subclass designed for a specific table, there is no reason that you can't actually remove base class features. - Which would allow removing some of the skill capabilities that make the Rogue so dominant in that area. Dropping the subclass to Champion-levels of out of combat capabilities would allow improvement to Champion-levels of combat capability. I think that currently the Rogue is only about 75-80% of their combat capability, so removing the extra skills, reliable talent and expertise should balance out a boost in DPR to bring them up to 95% ish for example.

there’s a misunderstanding. I should have organized the OP better to avoid this. Well, two misunderstandings.

First: The subclass isn’t going to remove anything. They would function the same as any other subclass. And again, it’s not going to be designed for a specific table, character, or game.

Second: The ideas that involve changing core features do remove skill monkeying from the class. They shift the dial a small amount from social and exploration toward combat. If a prof bonus damage bonus is worth more than a single expertise, then the damage bonus has to be more situational or a lower number, bc ditching expertise entirely is out of the question.

They are still trying to help you out, they, are (just like myself and many others it appears) just having difficulty getting our heads around what you are asking for and how to mechanically express it in a balanced fashion.

Other than some misunderstandings about specifics, I don’t understand what is so confusing about the premise of the thread.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Funny, if I were to imagine a rogue subclass even more focused on damage than the assassin (which I don't think the game needs, but that's neither here nor there) I would see it dual wielding daggers. Going the opposite direction and giving it...a glaive (really?!?!?!)...is not where I would have gone with that concept.

Unless, of course, you are talking about dual wielding giant green double-bladed "warglaives". Then I'm with you 100%.

(Excuse me while I take a meditative break to reminisce about some glory days....)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Funny, if I were to imagine a rogue subclass even more focused on damage than the assassin (which I don't think the game needs, but that's neither here nor there) I would see it dual wielding daggers. Going the opposite direction and giving it...a glaive (really?!?!?!)...is not where I would have gone with that concept.

Unless, of course, you are talking about dual wielding giant green double-bladed "warglaives". Then I'm with you 100%.

(Excuse me while I take a meditative break to reminisce about some glory days....)

Sure, or a spear, or a longsword. I honestly don’t think the finesse restriction even makes sense.

A dagger master rogue is a fun concept, though, that I’m currently running using a thief with Sharpshooter. (My group unanimously agrees that thrown weapons should count as ranged weapons for things like feats and fighting styles)

Also, the idea is only “more damage focused than the assassin” in that I don’t view the assassin as all that damage focused. It’s level 3 damage ability (which is what matters, since the vast majority don’t hit capstone level) is so unreliable and situational that it can’t be considered (IMO) a significant damage feature.

The swashbuckler is more damage focused, because it gets SA more reliably, which actually comes up every single combat for most groups not using Flanking, and still quite often if you are using flanking, and you don’t need to spend a bonus action to get away, clearing you to gank juicier targets without fear of reprisal, more often.

That’s why I’d go with something reliable, like extra damage on any attack that would qualify for SA, more frequent crits, etc.

Edut: is that a Final Fantasy 9 reference, btw?

 

[TwoSix]

Unless, of course, you are talking about dual wielding giant green double-bladed "warglaives". Then I'm with you 100%.

(Excuse me while I take a meditative break to reminisce about some glory days....)

I object to rogues using those. They are obviously hunter weapons.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don’t care if rogues get medium armor, I just don’t think it really fits the class.

Its probably the easiest way to make Strength more relevant to a Rogue subclass.

First: The subclass isn’t going to remove anything. They would function the same as any other subclass. And again, it’s not going to be designed for a specific table, character, or game.

While I think that its a bad idea in general to regard combat boosts as interchangeable with benefits to the other pillars, without removing the main Social- and Exploration-pillar-dominating abilities of the Rogue base class, its hard to balance improving the already respectable damage capability of the Rogue.

Second: The ideas that involve changing core features do remove skill monkeying from the class. They shift the dial a small amount from social and exploration toward combat. If a prof bonus damage bonus is worth more than a single expertise, then the damage bonus has to be more situational or a lower number, bc ditching expertise entirely is out of the question.

A prof bonus to damage, even only for attacks that count as sneak attacks is worth considerably more then Expertise is: You're probably using it once every round, which is far more often than Expertise will be applied.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its probably the easiest way to make Strength more relevant to a Rogue subclass.

How so? Why would a rogue increase strength just because they can use medium armor? You’re just making the subclass work at cross purposes to the rest of the class.

While I think that its a bad idea in general to regard combat boosts as interchangeable with benefits to the other pillars, without removing the main Social- and Exploration-pillar-dominating abilities of the Rogue base class, its hard to balance improving the already respectable damage capability of the Rogue.

Swahsbuckler already does it, as does Arcane Trickster with SCAG cantrips. One that does it in a different way isn’t going to throw things off. Certainly won’t require giving up anything from the base class.

A prof bonus to damage, even only for attacks that count as sneak attacks is worth considerably more then Expertise is: You're probably using it once every round, which is far more often than Expertise will be applied.

True, but Expertise matters a lot more when it comes up than a 2-5 point bonus to damage does. Especially when it’s 2-3 points at the levels where most play occurs.

But in the end, we simply disagree about how good the rogue’s damage is. IMO, it’s fine, but not so great that boosting it will put it at first place. There is room to accommodate folks who want a rogue that is more about “ganking fools” without being locked in to trying to convince their group and DM to accommodate their need to get surprise all the time for their subclass to matter in a fight.

 

[CapnZapp]

None of that is my intent. I should have been clearer, but I was trying to invite you to provide some sort of analysis of the numbers showing the sort of incredible damage deficit you're seeing, because we can't really get anywhere if we don't even have a common starting point. It may be that the difference between our games means that a single subclass or variant feature can't provide a strong DPR lurker experience for both of us that is balanced in both our games, or it may be that we aren't as far apart as it seems. I've no clue which it is, as of right now.

I prefer to just shrug and say if you can't see it by yourself, maybe it's best to just end this at

But that is not worth my while if I have to stick to a similar total power level to the PHB Rogue. Frankly, that is akin to trying to design an attractive Beastmaster Ranger that can't abolish the PHB restrictions on the beast, I'm afraid. Quite the mission impossible, or rather mission hopeless.

Then, if you ever open up to the notion Rogues are underpowered in combat-heavy feat-enabled games, we can start a new thread and discuss