# Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous. 

In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.

But in games with feats the fighter get upwards of 35 or more damage a round, along with a host of other tricks. That's 10d6! There is no feat to meaningfully increase sneak attack damage.

And in games where the Sorcerer can cast a Fireball together with two Firebolts each combat (for something like 8d6+3d10+3d10+10 damage) the Rogue's so-called "alpha strike" looks just sad.

But the design is not only too stingy with damage. It is poor and counter-intuitive. There is no burst/nova capability. Correct play requires absolute system mastery, to gain two sneak attacks in as many rounds as humanly possible. The Assassinate ability is just mean to the Rogue player, enclosed in so many requirements it basically never happens in games where the party consensus is that solo raids are boring for the rest of the players; much more fun if everybody joins in to the combat simultaneously!

Sure the Rogue has its uses outside of combat, but let's be honest - D&D is a combat-heavy game, and there needs to be a straightforward way to build a Rogue that is competitive in combat.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 29, 2018)

No one at my table has played a rogue yet, and the only feat that boosted offense that's ever been taken was Martial Adept to supplement what the battlemaster already had.

So I have not seen this issue.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

Rogues are amazing because they escape so much damage. Between Cunning Action (disengage as a bonus action) and Uncanny Dodge/Evasion ("What is half damage, Alex?"), they laugh off the big stuff. Also, consider Sentinel as a feat for a rogue, to trigger an occasional extra sneak attack. You can attack the rogue, who will use Uncanny Dodge for half damage, or attack his friend leaving you open to the rogue's Sentinel attack. Yummy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

I've been disenchanted with it since it was the Thief.  

You could fold every toy the rogue ever got in any edition of D&D into a fighter with every toy it had ever had, and it still wouldn't rise any higher than Class Tier 3.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

In the light of this, here are my suggestions:


Change sneak attack from once per turn into *once per round*. It's simply too difficult and mechanical and fiddly for most players to set up a reaction-sneak each round (for some, even when you get all the help you need, such as with Haste).
Instead, grant one sneak d6 *each level* instead of every other. You're a level N Rogue? You have N sneak dice. Bam - simple!

This does not change balance meaningfully. It merely turns "expert play" into "regular play".

Then, a way to gain a burst.

You gain one *"backstab die"* every other level, which are regained during a short or long rest. You may use any or all of your backstab dice on any attack that qualifies as a sneak attack. Each adds 1d6 to the sneak damage. You can decide how many backstab dice to use after you see whether you hit or miss.
Note how this feature specifically avoids wasting dice on misses. Nobody likes wasting dice.

As a burst, it isn't super-huge, but should still feel satisfying (especially if used on a crit). 

Finally, a feat for the minmaxers.

Opportunist. You may sneak attack *once per turn* instead of once per round. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. 
This feat reinstates the raw rule, in the anticipation that regular players won't bother, and thus, that the feat won't be considered a feat tax.


----------



## Rossbert (Mar 29, 2018)

I get the frustration, but it seems to me to miss the 'point' of the rogue.  A fighter's speciality is fighting, hitting things with a big chunk of wood and/or metal, ideally all day long.  A rogue is more of an opportunistic combatant because that is more their secondary focus as a class.  The true strength of a rogue comes from having around a good third more skills than anyone else and among those several that almost cannot fail.

While a spellcaster (with the right selection, and even then mostly just wizards) can be good at solving out of combat challenges while they have the open slots, a rogue can address those issues consistently.  Then if the sneaky or diplomatic methods completely fail you have the option of dropping to the side (or back) and whipping out the sneak attack.  On top of that they have excellent damage mitigation to offset the lower hit die.

A rogue is not a sword, a rogue is a toolbox.  It just happens to have a knife hidden in there as well.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 29, 2018)

I agree that the 1/turn limit is counterintuitive and silly, incentivizing cheesy tricks. Rogues should not be taking the Sentinel feat to double their DPR.

That's about all I agree with, though. The rogue is designed to encourage creative play*, both in and out of combat; that's why you get Cunning Action, Expertise, et cetera. It works, too. I've played a high-level rogue, and while I did not get the steady high DPR of a fighter, I got more than my share of awesome moments due to absurdly high skill bonuses and Reliable Talent enabling me to use them without fear. Fighters can win fights fairly. Rogues can't... but boy, can they ever cheat.

If rogues get a buff, it should reinforce their skills, not their DPR. I'd like to see Reliable Talent come earlier, and change Expertise to a fixed +4 or +5 instead of double proficiency. Make low-level rogues feel more roguish.

[size=-2]*That's "creative play," not "creative builds." The Sentinel thing is a bug, not a feature.[/size]


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 29, 2018)

I have never had any problems with the rogue class in any edition, except ADnD, where it was amazing that all the thieves weren't either dead or imprisoned, since they were so bad at thieving.

Lately, the rogue has become a little too much a combat machine, as players demand more and more that they have the same damage output as the fighter. The rogues so far in our 5e games are matching, or even exceeding the combat capabilities of most other classes, plus good skills, and the enviable position of having dex as their needed stat. Sneak attack is ridiculously easy to orchestrate, plus expertise, bonus actions, evasion...

I mean, what more do you want?


----------



## LordEntrails (Mar 29, 2018)

No I'm not tired of the rogue design.

It is different from a fighter. It does things different than the fighter. It is different from a sorcerer. It does things different than a sorcerer. If all you want is combat damage, then play a fighter or a sorcerer.

The rogue does it's job as envisioned by the developers just fine. If that's not the job you want a character to do, then don't use the class. If you want a class that does things differently and you want it to be called "Rogue" then do it.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

Honestly, every time we see a rogue in action a commonly said thing at our table is, "I'm surprised we don't see more rogues in play." They're very good at what they do.


----------



## Salthorae (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...




Assassinate works easily... you have advantage on anyone who hasn't gone in the initiative order yet, so you're guaranteed Sneak Attack against something unless you go after all enemies. The auto crit part is separate from that, and getting surprise isn't that hard, they just need to not be aware of you. Some in the combat maybe surprised while others aren't. 

If you get both and attack with two short swords then you're doing 8-10d6+Dex on that first round (because all hits are Crits with assassinate not just the first & depending on level) , then you move and hide or just move and start attacking the things the fighter is hitting so you still get sneak attack. The higher level and more sneak attack that get doubled the more deadly. 

Rogue isn't supposed to be a front line fighter. That is why there is a Fighter. They are a supplement to the fighter in combat, but Fighters can't do hardly anything out of combat, they are a one trick pony really. And Fighters get to take all that damage that the Rogue just evades or dodges, because you can sneak attack at range! Or attack, disengage and move out of melee range, then move back in next round. 

Take alertness or mobility, those are both going to help you in combat get sneak attacks. Alertness increases your chances to Assassinate. Mobility means you don't waste your Bonus Action disengaging and can use it to attack, move and hide, then attack from hiding for more sneak attack. 

It is much easier in 5e to get sneak attack dice on most all attacks (even against Constructs and Undead now!) than any previous edition. Yes a Rogue isn't dealing the fighter damage every round, they're not a fighter. 

If you're disappointed by the Rogue' damage output and the other gems that they offer don't appeal to you, then don't play a Rogue, play a melee class instead. But a complaint about a rogues consistent damage output is just wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Make up your own fighter "thug" subclass that gives some sneak attack damage with light/finesse weapons so you can have the fighter attacks but get some sneak attack too and see if DMs will allow it. I probably would. 

I love Rogues and have played 3 or 4 different subclasses and am DM'ing a party where 3 of the character are either assassins or have Rogue levels. They shine where they shine and they do a decent job in combat, but they should never be mistaken for front line fighters in terms of damage output or soaked.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 29, 2018)

Didn't you already make a thread asking about ways to get more Sneak Attacks for your rogue player?  What happened?  I could have sworn there were like over a dozen different ideas thrown about to increase Rogue damage.  Did nothing anyone suggest actually make your rogue player happy?

Or do you just want everyone who gave their suggestions in the other thread to retype them here so you won't have to read the other long thread over again?


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2018)

If you evaluate the rogue one dimensional about the amount of damage they do, I can see your frustration.

If you include their other combat abilities, especially mobility and to be able to deliver that damage where it will do the most good, and well as their damage avoidance features, and then roll in their expertise (heh) in other pillars of play, you've got a much more robust character.

That purely martial "at-will" characters are not the master of the nova seems to be a design choice.  The fact that the design choice also requires 6-8 combats per day in order to balance the three resource models is ... unfortunate.

Where I agree is that there the feats for enhancing combat damage are very uneven, favoring two specific styles (two handed and archers) foremost, and favoring those with Extra Attack over those without it like the rogue.  I'd like to see more balanced options across that field.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 29, 2018)

If your table is doubling up on the DPR role, the rogue will fall behind. But that’s the nature of the beast: there will always being someone at the bottom. If you buff the rogue then we’ll start talking about the warlock or sorcerer...

And, as stated, the rogue gets a lot of useful stuff other than dealing damage. D&D is a combat heavy game, but it's not a combat ONLY game. 
And if you've every had an adventure come to an abrupt halt with a locked door, the rogue doesn't seem underpowered.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've been disenchanted with it since it was the Thief.
> 
> You could fold every toy the rogue ever got in any edition of D&D into a fighter with every toy it had ever had, and it still wouldn't rise any higher than Class Tier 3.



What I don't get is the notion that half your level in extra d6's is somehow a dangerous amount of extra damage.

It's not. At 10th level it's +18 damage. On top of weak base damage, so really, it's only +15 damage. 

That's not gonna "assassinate" anything level appropriate. In 1E maybe, but not in 5E where everybody has huge bags of hit points. You probably can't oneshot even a CR 1 critter at 10th level.

Why do people treat sneak attack as something dangerously close to unbalanced, when nobody has any problems giving out feats, multiclassing and items to fighters and sorcerers?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

LordEntrails said:


> It is different from a fighter. It does things different than the fighter. It is different from a sorcerer. It does things different than a sorcerer. If all you want is combat damage, then play a fighter or a sorcerer.



No. 

I want to play a rogue in combat.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

The issue isn't so much rogues, the issue is with other martials getting Extra Attack, and then the feats that synergize well with it.

Now, granted, it's easier to much easier to fix just rogues than to fix every other martial class, but the doesn't change the fact that the rogue design is great.  It gets a fantastic bonus action option and reaction option by level 5, with no feats required.  Sneak attack is exactly how damage _should_ scale.  (It should be once per round to discourage fishing for extra attacks, of course.)  My only wish for rogue is that its 2nd subclass feature came earlier than level 9 (which is way too late for a second subclass feature), and that Reliable Talent came earlier, somewhere between 7 and 9.


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

The rogues "alpha-strike" is to take a bow, shoot, and cunningly dash away.  Take the mobile feat and be an aarakocra just to be rediculous.  It doesn't matter if the rogue only does 1d8+dex if the enemy can't attack you.


The big issue IMO, is the rogue doesn't play well with the rest of the party.  Never has.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> What I don't get is the notion that half your level in extra d6's is somehow a dangerous amount of extra damage.
> 
> It's not. At 10th level it's +18 damage. On top of weak base damage, so really, it's only +15 damage.
> 
> ...



I could flip that logic around on you: Why is it so all-fired important to give the rogue another half their level in extra d6s? Why is that bit of extra damage such a big deal?

The class is what it is. If what you want is to hand out some extra Sneak Attack dice to rogues in your game, what are you talking to _us_ for? You don't need our permission. Just do it. (And if you're a player, then it's your DM you need to convince, not anyone here.)

If what you want is for us to agree that the class design is stingy and underpowered, then the burden of proof is on you, not us; and I'm not impressed with your case for that claim, for all the reasons that I and other people have stated.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Jester David said:


> If your table is doubling up on the DPR role, the rogue will fall behind. But that’s the nature of the beast: there will always being someone at the bottom.



Sorry that's just a  argument.

I want a rogue that too can "double up on the DPR". Then you can choose to not do that, that's fine. 

But why should there be one class that's alone in prevented from being great in combat.

The Sorcerer and Warlock have problems, but there are at least one DPR build for each class. Sure it sucks you need to play a Red Dragon Sorcerer to gain excellent combat power (that is, it sucks that if you want to play another kind of Sorq your damage will suffer.

But at least the option is there. For the Rogue that option simply does not exist. 

And don't get me started on the Assassin. If it helps you, consider all the suggested changes I present above to only apply to the Assassin. 

At least then there's a way to play a Rogue that pulls his own weight in combat.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> That's about all I agree with, though. The rogue is designed to encourage creative play*, both in and out of combat; that's why you get Cunning Action, Expertise, et cetera. It works, too. I've played a high-level rogue, and while I did not get the steady high DPR of a fighter, I got more than my share of awesome moments due to absurdly high skill bonuses and Reliable Talent enabling me to use them without fear. Fighters can win fights fairly. Rogues can't... but boy, can they ever cheat.



Ehhh....spells encourage creative, assertive play because you know how they work.  Skills encourage "I have a +10 Acrobatics check, can I please try to climb this?" asking for permission play, which some people find creative and I find tedious.  I prefer rules that allow me to state what's happening, not ask if it's allowed.

Now, Cunning Action is great, no question there.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Why do people treat sneak attack as something dangerously close to unbalanced?



 Because it's at-will, and in the 6-8 encounter day it adds up to a satifylingly large number and good DPR.  

That it has 0 versatility or that 5es fast-combat design limits the number of rounds a combat will last or that the 6-8 encounter day is un-enforced or that peak damage is much more spotlight-grabbing than grinding DPR or that the Rogue's relative squishiness means it's likely to sit out some rounds making death saves  - all are ignored in those calculations.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> The issue isn't so much rogues, the issue is with other martials getting Extra Attack, and then the feats that synergize well with it.
> 
> Now, granted, it's easier to much easier to fix just rogues than to fix every other martial class, but the doesn't change the fact that the rogue design is great.



The rogue design is not great - it's miserly and byzantine. If you try to squeeze some DPR out of the class, anyway. 

I agree the rogue probably doesn't need help in games with all options turned off, and I said as much above. 

So, yes, the problem is that everybody else gets all the goodies. But removing those goodies is certainly not the fun way of solving the issue.

The fun way of solving the issue is making sure the rogue keeps up.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Didn't you already make a thread asking about ways to get more Sneak Attacks for your rogue player?  What happened?  I could have sworn there were like over a dozen different ideas thrown about to increase Rogue damage.  Did nothing anyone suggest actually make your rogue player happy?
> 
> Or do you just want everyone who gave their suggestions in the other thread to retype them here so you won't have to read the other long thread over again?



Why would I want to bury my suggestions in a huge thread where everybody just throw pie at each other. Here I posted them in my second post - it's just that a couple of posters got in a reply inbetween.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

High Elf rogue (or Magic Initiate) for Booming Blade. Sneak Attack, cunning action disengage, and boom goes the target when it attempts to follow. At 11th level that's +2d8 damage on the initial strike (9 damage) and another 3d8 if they move (13.5 damage). I'm sure you can run the numbers. This is just an idea mind you, but 5e is pretty flexible and you can generally build to the things that matter most to you as a player pretty easily.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Blue said:


> If you evaluate the rogue one dimensional about the amount of damage they do, I can see your frustration.
> 
> If you include their other combat abilities, especially mobility and to be able to deliver that damage where it will do the most good, and well as their damage avoidance features, and then roll in their expertise (heh) in other pillars of play, you've got a much more robust character.
> 
> ...



Rogues are very squishy. The fact they have evasion and bonus dodge does not mean their hp and AC issues go away.

So yes, very unfortunate indeed, agreed.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...



I loved the 5e rogue.

As with all things in rpgs, the balance comes from the intersection of ability and needs and imx it does very well. 

Obviously, at other tables seeing other needs, that may vary.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Now, Cunning Action is great, no question there.



Sure - in easy combats. 

In hard combats you need your bonus action to deliver a second attack, so you don't fail to deliver sneak damage every turn. (Which sends you straight to the bottom of the DPR list).

This makes you much more vulnerable.

Everybody seems to ignore the fact that you can't keep up your Rogue defenses and deliver damage at the same time.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> The rogues "alpha-strike" is to take a bow, shoot, and cunningly dash away.  Take the mobile feat and be an aarakocra just to be rediculous.  It doesn't matter if the rogue only does 1d8+dex if the enemy can't attack you.
> 
> 
> The big issue IMO, is the rogue doesn't play well with the rest of the party.  Never has.




This! I had a rogue player who did this (along with hiding because he could use his regular move to duck behind something) and he was a beast in combat... not because he did the most damage but because it was hard to lay a finger on him.  Once he took mobile he was able to dart in unhindered on many opponents and strike (with sneak attack) on them without real fear of repercussions then move away and hide again so no ranged weapon users could target him.

EDIT: On the one hand it was a little frustrating as the DM at first but on the other hand I feel like this is exactly how a rogue should be in combat... darting in and out, quickly striking the weakened opponents in close or from a distance and disappearing into the shadows... it's almost iconic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> The big issue IMO, is the rogue doesn't play well with the rest of the party.  Never has.



 In 3e & 4e, flanking meant that the rogue at least benefited from a modicum of cooperation...


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Arilyn said:


> Lately, the rogue has become a little too much a combat machine



Every class has been made competent in combat, since that's 50-90% of game play.

There's no reason to keep a non-combat class around like the 5E Rogue. 

At least create a subclass for those would like to play a combat-enabled Rogue!


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2018)

Also, imo, focusing on the rogue from just a dpr focus is truly missing the point. In combat imx sneak keeps the dpr in the ball park for competitive but not top - assuming not just looking at white room novas .

But the real gains in combat come as much from its movement and other tricks. Cunning action, evasion, uncanny dodge etc etc etc and various sub-class features play well into combat, plus the strong non-combat play.

But power is only meaningful in the context of need, so, table to table any (im)balance can occur.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Rogues are very squishy. The fact they have evasion and bonus dodge does not mean their hp and AC issues go away.
> 
> So yes, very unfortunate indeed, agreed.




HP issues? They have on average 1 less HP per level than a fighter (other than at 1st). A DEX 20 rogue in studded leather is a 17 AC. Sure,  they're not "tanks," but they're not intended to be. Maybe takes the Moderately Armored feat along the way to your 20 DEX for a +1 DEX and shield proficiency. Now you're 19 AC (before magic), along with being slippery in combat (Cunning Action) and taking half damage from either Uncanny Dodge or Evasion. The rogues in my game are usually like Bill Murray at the end of Ghost Busters (barely touched by the marshmallow flying around) while everybody else is trying to staunch the blood leaking out of their bodies.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 29, 2018)

I think the Rogue needs an entire rebuild, honestly.  It needs to be the best 'Alpha strike' class, but Heavy Weapon fighters blow them out.  I'd rather they had rebuilt it than the ranger...

I have a generous house rule for rogues, but even with the house rule it is not a class that people choose to play.  The house rule: If you hit a target that does not consider you to be an enemy, you deal backstab damage.  Backstab damage is 3 per level of the rogue.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In 3e & 4e, flanking meant that the rogue at least benefited from a modicum of cooperation...




Sneak Attack still benefits from allies in 5e.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Salthorae said:


> Assassinate works easily... you have advantage on anyone who hasn't gone in the initiative order yet, so you're guaranteed Sneak Attack against something unless you go after all enemies. The auto crit part is separate from that, and getting surprise isn't that hard, they just need to not be aware of you. Some in the combat maybe surprised while others aren't.



Sorry but you didn't read my original post. 

In any game where the players agree it's boring to sit and watch one player do a solo scouting round, assassinate is nearly worthless. 

There simply will almost never be any surprise when a full plate character comes along. 

Basing the Rogue design on the assumption that the fighter players must stop playing in order to enable my abilities is bad.

This thread is about suggestions on how to make Rogues work for groups that like to play _together_.

Besides, scouting ahead on your own is inherently too dangerous in games with any degree of challenge. To justify the risk of getting ganged by all the monsters by yourself, the assassinate ability needed to have been much stronger, and much more reliable.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> I think the Rogue needs an entire rebuild, honestly.  It needs to be the best 'Alpha strike' class, but Heavy Weapon fighters blow them out.  I'd rather they had rebuilt it than the ranger...
> 
> I have a generous house rule for rogues, but even with the house rule it is not a class that people choose to play.  The house rule: If you hit a target that does not consider you to be an enemy, you deal backstab damage.  Backstab damage is 3 per level of the rogue.




But a well played rogue isn't taking the type of damage a Hvy Weapon fighter is...


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> The big issue IMO, is the rogue doesn't play well with the rest of the party.  Never has.



*Exactly.*

Thank you 

The suggestions upthread are intended for rogues who stick to the group, and still want to feel meaningful.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> In any game where the players agree it's boring to sit and watch one player do a solo scouting round, assassinate is nearly worthless.
> 
> Basing the Rogue design on the assumption that the fighter players must stop playing in order to enable my abilities is bad..



 It's spotlight balance.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry but you didn't read my original post.
> 
> In any game where the players agree it's boring to sit and watch one player do a solo scouting round, assassinate is nearly worthless.
> 
> ...




If the rogue is hidden even while the group moves forward in plain sight he can still get the auto-crit... right?  As long as the other side isn't aware of him/her


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> I could flip that logic around on you: Why is it so all-fired important to give the rogue another half their level in extra d6s? Why is that bit of extra damage such a big deal?
> 
> The class is what it is. If what you want is to hand out some extra Sneak Attack dice to rogues in your game, what are you talking to _us_ for? You don't need our permission. Just do it. (And if you're a player, then it's your DM you need to convince, not anyone here.)
> 
> If what you want is for us to agree that the class design is stingy and underpowered, then the burden of proof is on you, not us; and I'm not impressed with your case for that claim, for all the reasons that I and other people have stated.



You don't get to change the subject to "I feel my values questioned, now apologize". 

You didn't have to participate in the thread. Since you did, let me take this opportunity to _bring you back on topic_ by asking you what you thought about my suggestions?


----------



## Oofta (Mar 29, 2018)

The rogue I ran in my last campaign did just fine for damage compared to the rest of the party so I personally don't see an issue.  No, he didn't do nova rounds, but his overall DPR was close to other characters.  At least close enough that it didn't seem to matter much.  Rogues I've seen in play in other games seem to do quite well.

I _can_ see that it could vary a lot.  If you have only 2-3 encounters between long rests, never give your rogue a chance to hide to get advantage, always have the enemy assemble in fireball formation and so on it could make a big difference.

But I am confused - you complain that rogues don't do enough damage and then you want to limit their damage to once per round so that they can't take advantage of feats like sentinel? I suppose you also have an issue with rogues hiding and getting advantage while using Sharp Shooter feat?

Ultimately though I don't see a problem.  If you want to do massive damage and go nova, play a different class.  A rogue is more of a generalist who, in my experience, holds their own in combat. YMMV.


----------



## Rossbert (Mar 29, 2018)

I think making the rogue as attacks as an attacking class runs into some issues:
1. You lose the point of being a generalist who is pretty good at several skills but obviously not as tough and hard hitting as a dedicated combatant like a fighter or barbarian.
2. If everyone hits as hard as a fighter you need to add things to make the fighter more useful out of combat as he now has no niche.
3. If those concerns are addressed you fall into the 4e trap of everything being very samey.  I still can't tell most of the time which class an ability belongs to just by looking at the stats.  It is the curse of trying to make everything exactly as useful in the same situations. They become the same.
4. Why do you even feel you need this?  It drifts a little into the space of wondering why a bladelock or bard doesn't hit as hard as a fighter.  It isn't what they are supposed to do.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

I don't want to discount your opinion here (you're obviously passionate about this), but I feel like I'm missing something here. Why does the rogue not play well with others exactly? Can you list some examples please?


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sure - in easy combats.
> 
> In hard combats you need your bonus action to deliver a second attack, so you don't fail to deliver sneak damage every turn. (Which sends you straight to the bottom of the DPR list).
> 
> ...



I'm reasonably sure that having to make hard choices like "do I play it safe and disengage or do I risk the second attack to make my sneak attack" is what makes hard combat hard in the first place.

D&D combat is pretty much like poker; you make the smart play based on the current odds every time and you'll win more than you lose, but even the smartest play is vulnerable to luck.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Imaro said:


> This! I had a rogue player who did this (along with hiding because he could use his regular move to duck behind something) and he was a beast in combat... not because he did the most damage but because it was hard to lay a finger on him.  Once he took mobile he was able to dart in unhindered on many opponents and strike (with sneak attack) on them without real fear of repercussions then move away and hide again so no ranged weapon users could target him.
> 
> EDIT: On the one hand it was a little frustrating as the DM at first but on the other hand I feel like this is exactly how a rogue should be in combat... darting in and out, quickly striking the weakened opponents in close or from a distance and disappearing into the shadows... it's almost iconic.



I could agree to this except... you're describing shadow monks 

And the sad fact the 5E Stealth rules are FUBAR. 

If the stealth rules made it crystal clear to every DM that the rogue could hide basically every round guaranteed then playing a ranged rogue would be great, yes. 

Playing a melee rogue would still suck balls, though.

But you do have a point. Consider this thread to not discredit your argument, but to instead discussing it from another angle: that of upping damage.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 29, 2018)

Nope.  The thief as a constantly backstabbing/sneak attacking damage monster is not a design development I'm overly fond of.  The thief shines more in the other phases of the game.  And the rogues in the 5e games I've been in have held their own just fine.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> I think the Rogue needs an entire rebuild, honestly.  It needs to be the best 'Alpha strike' class, but Heavy Weapon fighters blow them out.  I'd rather they had rebuilt it than the ranger...
> 
> I have a generous house rule for rogues, but even with the house rule it is not a class that people choose to play.  The house rule: If you hit a target that does not consider you to be an enemy, you deal backstab damage.  Backstab damage is 3 per level of the rogue.



Thank you. 

You win my prize for "first reply actually dead on topic"


----------



## Arilyn (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Every class has been made competent in combat, since that's 50-90% of game play.
> 
> There's no reason to keep a non-combat class around like the 5E Rogue.
> 
> At least create a subclass for those would like to play a combat-enabled Rogue!




The very first 5e game I played in, I had a fighter, and someone else at the table played a rogue. Together, we dominated the combats. The rogue wasn't worse than my fighter. On top of that, the rogue had lots of good skill proficiencies. So, I'm thinking you already have a combat-enabled rogue in 5e, ready to go.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Imaro said:


> But a well played rogue isn't taking the type of damage a Hvy Weapon fighter is...



The problem is the rogue *must* not take the type of damage a fighter can take.

It's a huge restricting factor. 

Unless you like being the wet blanket that the Cleric needs to revivify after every other combat.

The rogue doesn't come near the alpha strike damage it needs to have in order to justify being such a glassy cannon.

Heck, the fighter easily outperforms in the alpha strike dept. just by Action Surge alone.

Move Action Surge from Fighter to Rogue and then maybe there would be a point. (Except you wouldn't be able to make two sneaks *anyway*, since both attacks happen on your turn. Aargh)


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The rogue I ran in my last campaign did just fine for damage compared to the rest of the party so I personally don't see an issue.  No, he didn't do nova rounds, but his overall DPR was close to other characters.  At least close enough that it didn't seem to matter much.  Rogues I've seen in play in other games seem to do quite well.
> 
> I _can_ see that it could vary a lot.  If you have only 2-3 encounters between long rests, never give your rogue a chance to hide to get advantage, always have the enemy assemble in fireball formation and so on it could make a big difference.
> 
> ...



You really need to specify whether you're using feats, MC and/or items, Oofta. 

That's because if your experiences are in a no-options game we are actually in agreement!

I don't want to "limit" rogues - I want to "unleash" their potential two sneak attack damage for all the rogue players that can't or won't maximize. It's not that I don't understand that you gain twice the DPR if you use your reaction to sneak a second time. It's that it's uncharacteristically byzantine class design for 5E to rely on such a complex game feature. Did you read my suggestions?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Rossbert said:


> I think making the rogue as attacks as an attacking class runs into some issues:
> 1. You lose the point of being a generalist who is pretty good at several skills but obviously not as tough and hard hitting as a dedicated combatant like a fighter or barbarian.
> 2. If everyone hits as hard as a fighter you need to add things to make the fighter more useful out of combat as he now has no niche.
> 3. If those concerns are addressed you fall into the 4e trap of everything being very samey.  I still can't tell most of the time which class an ability belongs to just by looking at the stats.  It is the curse of trying to make everything exactly as useful in the same situations. They become the same.
> 4. Why do you even feel you need this?  It drifts a little into the space of wondering why a bladelock or bard doesn't hit as hard as a fighter.  It isn't what they are supposed to do.



1. Everybody would love it if the Rogue pulled its own weight in combat instead of being basically just a drag
2. Being king of combats is niche enough, thank you very much. 
3. You really can't actually have played 4E if you make that accusation. Let me just reassure you there's a MILE between 5E with a Rogue with an actual sting, and the oppressive samey-ness that was 4E.
4. I don't even... sorry but words fail me


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You don't get to change the subject to "I feel my values questioned, now apologize".



I said no such thing, nor did I intend it.



CapnZapp said:


> ...asking you what you thought about my suggestions?



Well, I agree that the "once per turn loophole" should go. The "once per turn" thing is highly unintuitive and I don't like mechanics that encourage people to perform uninituitive rules maneuvers. Your approach will certainly work; though I would prefer tying Sneak Attack to the Attack action, which would remove the need to track your Sneak Attack usage across the round. A bit of extra verbiage would be needed for dual wielding rogues, of course (unless you feel like merging the off-hand attack into the regular Attack action, which I think they should have done in the first place, but that's a lot bigger than just tweaking the rogue).

Damage output-wise, I don't agree that the rogue needs more. I think Sneak Attack once per round (plus the occasional OA) is the intent of the rogue design, and I think they work fine that way. The "once per turn" thing was put in because "once per round" isn't a thing 5E does.

But if you want them to deal more Sneak Attack damage, then giving them more Sneak Attack dice is the logical way to go about it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> I don't want to discount your opinion here (you're obviously passionate about this), but I feel like I'm missing something here. Why does the rogue not play well with others exactly? Can you list some examples please?



A reasonable request. 

My rogue player is not exactly a minmaxer. He simply does not get the potential for using your reaction to gain a second sneak attack. 

This thread's suggestions simply move that damage into the regular sneak dice, for a much more newb-friendly, generous and straightforward class! 

So many times the Rogue has simply missed with his sole attack. Even the fewer times where the player realized he couldn't gain advantage and so would do hopeless damage.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Rossbert said:


> I If everyone hits as hard as a fighter you need to add things to make the fighter more useful out of combat as he now has no niche.



 The paladin, barbarian and even Warlock can hit about as hard as the fighter, who already needs to be more useful in the other two pillars, not to mention could stand with being a bit more interesting even in combat...



> . If those concerns are addressed you fall into the 4e trap of everything being very samey.



 Only if you somehow provoke enough people into repeating that lie often enough for it to become the truth.




> I still can't tell most of the time which class an ability belongs to just by looking at the stats.



 There are a lot of spells that appear in two or more lists (only a minority of spells in a given class list are unique, and the Sorcerer has no unique spells, at all), sure, and combat style is shared out among three classes, and extra attack by more as well...


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 29, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Well, I agree that the "once per turn loophole" should go. The "once per turn" thing is highly unintuitive and I don't like mechanics that encourage people to perform uninituitive rules maneuvers. Your approach will certainly work; though I would prefer tying Sneak Attack to the Attack action, which would remove the need to track your Sneak Attack usage across the round. A bit of extra verbiage would be needed for dual wielding rogues, of course (unless you feel like merging the off-hand attack into the regular Attack action, which I think they should have done in the first place, but that's a lot bigger than just tweaking the rogue).
> 
> Damage output-wise, I don't agree that the rogue needs more. I think Sneak Attack once per round (plus the occasional OA) is the intent of the rogue design, and I think they work fine that way. The "once per turn" thing was put in because "once per round" isn't a thing 5E does.
> 
> But if you want them to deal more Sneak Attack damage, then giving them more Sneak Attack dice is the logical way to go about it.




Thank you.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

5th level rogue (18 DEX), no magic weapon or feats averages 19 on a hit (crit 34).
5th level fighter (18 STR), no magic weapon or feats averages 22 with two hits of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 29).

11th level rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 30.5 on a hit (crit 56).
11th level fighter (20 STR), no magic weapons or feats averages 36 with 3 attacks of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 43).

I didn't factor in a fighting style, so you can throw a few points of damage on the fighter if you'd like.

We could up the fighter's damage significantly with Great Weapon Master, but - as I've already pointed out - I can do the same with a Booming Blade cantrip and/or the Sentinel feat for the rogue.

Note: Using that greatsword means no shield. If we assume the fighter is in plate we're looking at an AC of 18. The rogue (studded leather and DEX) is at 16 at 5th level and 17 at 11th level. If they picked up Moderately Armored (shields) we can increase that to 18 and 19 AC respectively.

Given all of the rogue's additional utility, is this really out of whack?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry that's just a  argument.
> 
> I want a rogue that too can "double up on the DPR". Then you can choose to not do that, that's fine.
> 
> ...



The rogue _is_ great at combat. If they’re the party’s striker then the group will do just fine and hold their own. There’s more options than a binary “great at combat” and “terrible at combat”.
They’re just not the best. They don’t NEED to be the king of DPR to fulfil that role. And it’s only apparent they’re not the best if the party doubles up on strikers. If no one else is playing a damage dealer it’s irrelevant if the rogue is the best or not as there’s no frame of reference.

There are already ways of bumping the rogue’s damage. The two rapier rogue has good accuracy, especially with the Sentinel feat. Especially with the swashbuckler class giving it guaranteed sneak attacks. The elf with a longbow is tough as well, especially with Sharpshooter. Add in Lucky to offset bad rolls. 

If you think there rogue absolutely _*needs*_ a little more oomf and the assassin isn’t cutting it, then make a new archetype that’s a DPR rogue but different than the assassin. Why reinvent the wheel?
Perhaps a “thug” or “enforcer” that mixes in some intimidation and status effects. Or a “sniper” that kills from a distance.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 29, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The rogue _is_ great at combat. If they’re the party’s striker then the group will do just fine and hold their own. There’s more options than a binary “great at combat” and “terrible at combat”.
> They’re just not the best. They don’t NEED to be the king of DPR to fulfil that role. And it’s only apparent they’re not the best if the party doubles up on strikers. If no one else is playing a damage dealer it’s irrelevant if the rogue is the best or not as there’s no frame of reference.
> 
> There are already ways of bumping the rogue’s damage. The two rapier rogue has good accuracy, especially with the Sentinel feat. Especially with the swashbuckler class giving it guaranteed sneak attacks. The elf with a longbow is tough as well, especially with Sharpshooter. Add in Lucky to offset bad rolls.
> ...




They're also great at helping the part avoid combat encounters entirely _(people at the back of the bus: No, not all combat encounters)_ - unless every checkpoint, window, bush and tent is guarded by a crack commando or dragon. Which would be awesome. And kinda silly. Taken to extremes, and under the assumptions the player is making smart use of the rogues generous skill allotment _(and the DM isn't an arse)_, they can set things up so any 'fight' is practically won before the weapons are readied _(though, at extremes, you can find yourself in split-group territory)_. 

They're also rather nifty in dungeons, if built for them. Only character at the table that keeps on trucking. Fighter gives them a run for their money until they encounter the traps. Though this does rely on the rogue not dumping Str entirely _(and/or picking up Athletics)_.

Non-linear. Asymmetrical. Guerrilla. Psych Warfare. Rogue is good. And obviously, your DM needs to embrace these things, else...


----------



## Rossbert (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> There are a lot of spells that appear in two or more lists (only a minority of spells in a given class list are unique, and the Sorcerer has no unique spells, at all), sure, and combat style is shared out among three classes, and extra attack by more as well...




That was in reference to the balance of 4e. If you pull all the striker (controller, etc.) powers from my books and shuffle them without including the fluff, many, possibly most, are difficult to tell apart


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 29, 2018)

Roughly what numbers do you think you need to aim for?
Or possibly more relevant: what builds is your Rogue competing against on the "DPR list"?

Are you trying to hit fully-optimised BM CE+SS/2-nova-encounters-per-day sorceror - level DPR? Or are the other players a little more baseline?

How many combat rounds is the average day, and what is the DPR that you're working towards?



CapnZapp said:


> The problem is the rogue *must* not take the type of damage a fighter can take.
> 
> It's a huge restricting factor.
> 
> Unless you like being the wet blanket that the Cleric needs to revivify after every other combat.



 What are the relative ACs and HP totals of the Rogue and Fighter? Assuming that they both prioritised survivability with the same weighting in ability distribution it would be extremely unusual for the Rogue to be dying so regularly compared to the Fighter.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2018)

I think to better understand the basis and foundation, it would be necessary for the OP to post specs for foghter and rogue baselines used in his analysis. References to his non-optimizing rogue and such makes me wonder if the issue is (was there something about harder to optimize) a less efficient vs more effecient character, not class.

Having baselines more informative than "drag" or "bottom" are needed to see how big the gap that needs closing is. 

How can one assess "x dice burst" if we dont know that shortfall and its source?


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Mar 29, 2018)

I still don't get the basic premise that the Rogue has to be on equal DPR footing with dedicated fighting classes.  They already get such a full package - Cunning Action, Expertise, lots more skills, great defensive abilities in Uncanny Dodge & Evasion, a decent-scaling Sneak Attack, auto-crits for Assassins & built-in Mobile for Swashbucklers, an extra Feat (though still not as many as Fighters), having the super-Stat Dexterity as their core stat, and the higher level abilities like Reliable Talent are awesome as well.

The perfect scout and skirmisher, rogues fit their niche superlatively and are probably the best class at their role in the game.  I have to assume that the thread title is a bit of attention-attracting hyperbole by stating that the Rogue is a 'miserly' design. 

 If you want to do more damage, multi-class as a fighter.  Get more attacks, fighting styles and combat-oriented Feats.  Just 7 levels of Rogue get you a great foundation for that class and you still have 13 levels to put into fighter.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 29, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> The issue isn't so much rogues, the issue is with other martials getting Extra Attack, and then the feats that synergize well with it.



The obvious solution, then, is to restrict certain feats such that they no longer synergize as well with Extra Attack. That way, you're only meddling with the optional rules which are obviously broken rather than a core class which works well within the core rules.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You really need to specify whether you're using feats, MC and/or items, Oofta.
> 
> That's because if your experiences are in a no-options game we are actually in agreement!
> 
> I don't want to "limit" rogues - I want to "unleash" their potential two sneak attack damage for all the rogue players that can't or won't maximize. It's not that I don't understand that you gain twice the DPR if you use your reaction to sneak a second time. It's that it's uncharacteristically byzantine class design for 5E to rely on such a complex game feature. Did you read my suggestions?




In our game we used feats, my rogue was a  sharpshooter with (eventually) an owl familiar who would help and distract opponents to give him advantage on attack if he couldn't hide.  At higher levels I didn't need that often since he was a arcane trickster who could get advantage with his mage hand.  I did take 4 levels of champion fighter to get another attack, but to be honest I think that may have hurt more than it helped and was more of a character decision than a optimization decision.

I'm thinking the next rogue I play (when I get around to playing one) will be a swashbuckler in which case I'll definitely take sentinel.  I don't see the feat as being "byzantine" any more than any other feat.  

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on one fundamental assumption though.  I don't think rogues need to be at the top of the DPR pile.  It's going to depend on your game and style, but I'm OK with rogues being "decent" at damage and flexible outside of combat.  Rogues being strikers was an artifact of 4E.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> A reasonable request.
> 
> My rogue player is not exactly a minmaxer. He simply does not get the potential for using your reaction to gain a second sneak attack.
> 
> ...




I found this to be a REALLY interesting response. All of this time we've been talking about the rogue (as a class), but your response here is about "the" rogue (a specific player). It sounds like you want to help this player have a good time in your game (if so, kudos to you for being a good DM and seeing that enjoyment is the point of the game). Let me suggest that instead of solving the issue of combat performance through modification of the entire class that you handle this with a good ole' magic item. Maybe a short sword that ups sneak attack damage to d8s (or even d10s). Something along that line.

Why? Because of other players (and potentially you) having the ability to abuse an up-tuned rogue.

Let's say Bob isn't a great player (mechanically speaking). He shows up and just wants to have fun with Bilfo the Burglar and isn't really doing too well. You up the rogue's power to compensate and now Bob's happy. Great! Unfortunately, Sally is a savvy player and she's decided to make one of these new fandangled cool rogues you've got in your campaign. She is great with mechanics and takes the feats/spells/whatnot to maximize the class's potential. Now you've got a monster on your hands and it's always more difficult to take things away from the players than it is to give them new things. Maybe you're good with the rules as the DM and want to send in some rogues/assassins for an encounter. All of a sudden you've got a TPK on your hands because you're melting everybody. 

I'm firmly in the camp that fighters should be the best fighters, admittedly, but I think the rogue class is fantastic as is.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> Let's say Bob isn't a great player (mechanically speaking). He shows up and just wants to have fun with Bilfo the Burglar and isn't really doing too well. You up the rogue's power to compensate and now Bob's happy. Great! Unfortunately, Sally is a savvy player and she's decided to make one of these new fandangled cool rogues you've got in your campaign. She is great with mechanics and takes the feats/spells/whatnot to maximize the class's potential. Now you've got a monster on your hands and it's always more difficult to take things away from the players than it is to give them new things.



 Simply powering up the class could have that effect, sure, you start off with imbalanced characters and one player not having fun, and you end up with imbalanced characters and a different player dominating.  Both are bad results, both are because of imbalance...

...but, the proposal was actually to snip away a bit of the Rogue's optimization potential by changing SA to per round instead of per turn, not just to power up SA in a vacuum.




Rossbert said:


> If you pull all the striker (controller, etc.) powers from my books and shuffle them without including the fluff, many, possibly most, are difficult to tell apart



 The name, class & level of the power, and the source, weapon,   implement, & other keywords were not part of the fluff, so, no, not hard at all.  
And, of course, they weren't shuffled together like the 5e spell list,  but were grouped with their class, and, each list of powers for each class was unique.*



> That was in reference to the balance of 4e.



 4e was far more balanced than other eds, sure, but, I don't think that's at issue.  

Rather, the point is that balance does not result in 'sameness,' so, your concern that Cap's proposed squishy rogue using a simplified, higher-damage, version of SA, once per round, to deliver DPR comparable to the Extra Attacking tanky fighter would somehow make them seem samey is unwarranted.









* with the exception of a few repeated names, and the Healing Word prayer, shared by the Cleric and the Druid(Sentinel).


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> The obvious solution, then, is to restrict certain feats such that they no longer synergize as well with Extra Attack. That way, you're only meddling with the optional rules which are obviously broken rather than a core class which works well within the core rules.



That is exactly a house rule I'm implementing.  

In a perfect world, though, I would have any kind of extra attack tied to a bonus action or reaction.


----------



## Rossbert (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The name, class & level of the power, and the source, weapon,   implement, & other keywords were not part of the fluff, so, no, not hard at all.
> And, of course, they weren't shuffled together like the 5e spell list,  but were grouped with their class, and, each list of powers for each class was unique.*
> 
> 4e was far more balanced than other eds, sure, but, I don't think that's at issue.
> ...





Completely valid, and maybe not an issue at all. It is just the specter that rises in my brain whenever people want to pull classes closer together. I had the same worries with some of the UA stuff that mixes class features (whatever that wizard with sorcery points was), and the Xanathar bard that uses Battle Master dice.  Good easily be paranoia and to be taken with a healthy dose of salt.

I guess my big concern is that light armor and one step lower hit die might not be enough to offset being the skill monkey AND a high level DPS.  The fighter gets high damage and durability but at the cost of having almost nothing else to contribute.  The sorcerer gets good ranged damage, but at the cost of limited uses and almost no durability.

It will be a challenge to give the rogue the level of damage asked for in a combat-centered game without unbalancing it with consideration to its general utility.

But then some also argue that the paladin has far too high damage in addition to his utility and defense.   Doubly so if a hexblade multi class happens.

For full disclosure my current game has that kind of paladin, an assassin rogue, tempest cleric, and a wizard who thinks he is a bard or rogue (bladesinger).  Paladin wrecks face, but the rogue and wizard are really helping with directing that fury and preventing Bad Things (goblin ambushes most recently).  I will keep an eye on the situation as it develops and see if it lends insight.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Simply powering up the class could have that effect, sure, you start off with imbalanced characters and one player not having fun, and you end up with imbalanced characters and a different player dominating.  Both are bad results, both are because of imbalance...
> 
> ...but, the proposal was actually to snip away a bit of the Rogue's optimization potential by changing SA to per round instead of per turn, not just to power up SA in a vacuum.



I can't say I'm a fan of designing to the lowest common denominator in player mechanical acumen either. If you do go this route, keep in mind that you're also removing the "opportunity cost" from the rogue, meaning that they are now free to spend those feats in other areas of improvement.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> I can't say I'm a fan of designing to the lowest common denominator in player mechanical acumen either..



 I can't say I am, either, nor of designing to the bleeding edge so only optimal builds are viable.  
I'm more a fan of balance - if robust enough, both the optimized and indifferent build can be viable, even at the same table...  



Rossbert said:


> Completely valid, and maybe not an issue at all. It is just the specter that rises in my brain whenever people want to pull classes closer together.



 Actually doing that is a clumsy - and ultimately self-defeating - way of trying to balance two things,  they effectively become one thing. 
It's just not what was done in 4e, nor what the proposal in this thread was trying to do.



> I had the same worries with some of the UA stuff that mixes class features (But that wizard with sorcery points was)



 Understandable, the Sorcerer is already put-upon. 







> and the Xanathar bard that uses Battle Master dice



 less of an issue, I think, no worse than the bard lifting otherwise unique spells from other casters' lists.  


> I guess my big concern is that light armor and one step lower hit die might not be enough to offset being the skill monkey AND a high level DPS.  The fighter gets high damage and durability but at the cost of having almost nothing else to contribute.



 Nod, it's not a great situation, to start with.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 29, 2018)

To me, the rogue feels like one of the better designed classes in 5e. I think this thread is the first I've ever heard that anyone was disappointed with it.


----------



## devincutler (Mar 29, 2018)

I think part of the reason the OP is getting a lot of responses that he considers not on topic is because he essentially made a single point: that rogues should not have a clunky mechanic for optimizing their SA, and then befuddled it with contentions that rogues are not proper glass cannons.

These are two entirely different points requiring two entirely different arguments, and so I don't think the OP should fault responders for responding to one and not the other.

I will respond to both.

With regard to the glass cannon issue: my sense is that the OP wants rogues to fill the glass cannon niche found in MMOs...they do the most DPS but are also quite vulnerable. From his point of view, rogues in 5e are not glass cannons, they are glass rifles or glass pistols. In other words, their damage output does not justify their lack of tankiness.

My response would be, as others have said, the rogue is not designed to be the MMO glass cannon in 5e. 5e is supposed to, ostensibly, support all 3 pillars of play equally, and that means the rogue shines in other areas aside from combat. IMO, a rogue that can contribute meaningfully to DPS, who can use tactics to remain out of harm's way (and they have PLENTY of tools to do so), and who excels in the noncombat pillars is a well designed class.

With regard to your second contention, that forcing rogues to utilize OA and other clunky exploits to maximize SA's per combat round (not turn) is bad, that may be more valid, IMO. I am not too comfortable with mechanics that exist just for mechanics sake. Why would a rogue under a haste spell get 3 SA a round if he readies an action but 2 per round if he makes both of his attacks on his turn? Seems counterintuitive to me!

I'd rather see a rule as follows:

A rogue gains 2 sneak attacks at the start of each of its turns. Each sneak attack can be used once per action, bonus action, or reaction where it makes an attack roll with a qualifying weapon under qualifying circumstances.

That would seem to cover it. A two weapon rogue could use his action to SA with his on hand and his bonus action to SA with his offhand. A one weapon rogue could get an SA during his attack action and an SA during an OA.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

devincutler said:


> I think part of the reason the OP is getting a lot of responses that he considers not on topic is because he essentially made a single point: that rogues should not have a clunky mechanic for optimizing their SA, and then befuddled it with contentions that rogues are not proper glass cannons.
> 
> These are two entirely different points requiring two entirely different arguments, and so I don't think the OP should fault responders for responding to one and not the other.
> 
> ...




Please don't take this as an attack, but I cannot stress enough how broken I think this would be. No other class would even come close to this level of consistent damage output. It would make all rogues go swashbuckler and to dual wield instantly. Sure, Sentinel can give you an extra sneak attack, but that doesn't happen each round. It's very situational. To each their own, but no way I'd support such a rule.


----------



## devincutler (Mar 29, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> Please don't take this as an attack, but I cannot stress enough how broken I think this would be. No other class would even come close to this level of consistent damage output. It would make all rogues go swashbuckler and to dual wield instantly. Sure, Sentinel can give you an extra sneak attack, but that doesn't happen each round. It's very situational. To each their own, but no way I'd support such a rule.




No worries. I was just addressing the OP's concern that there are all these clunky ways to squeeze out a second SA in a round, so why not just embed that into the rules in the first place?

By your response, it is apparent that, in your play, rogues are not squeezing out second or multiple SAs. But there are threads where rogues are getting something like up to 5 SAs per round using RAW, so why not just eliminate all of that hokum and cap it at 2?

As far as dual wielding, well that was pretty de riguer for rogues in 3e when they got to sneak attack with all of their attacks. Dual wielding rogues in 3e got 2 SAs per round while 1 weapon rogues got 1 SA per round. If it was acceptable then, then what's the issue now?


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 29, 2018)

I dunno, the only reason I ever play a rogue is to be a skill-monkey.

Usually I do a fighter/rogue MC swashbuckler-style character because it fits my playstyle better.  More attacks with the fighter and more skills from the rogue.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 29, 2018)

devincutler said:


> No worries. I was just addressing the OP's concern that there are all these clunky ways to squeeze out a second SA in a round, so why not just embed that into the rules in the first place?
> 
> By your response, it is apparent that, in your play, rogues are not squeezing out second or multiple SAs. But there are threads where rogues are getting something like up to 5 SAs per round using RAW, so why not just eliminate all of that hokum and cap it at 2?
> 
> As far as dual wielding, well that was pretty de riguer for rogues in 3e when they got to sneak attack with all of their attacks. Dual wielding rogues in 3e got 2 SAs per round while 1 weapon rogues got 1 SA per round. If it was acceptable then, then what's the issue now?




3e was a different beast altogether. Power Attack could go crazy and there was a slew of monsters immune to sneak attacks. Rogues were more in the glass cannon mode with d6 hit dice and as many sneak attacks as they could conceivably crank out. What I'm getting at is that I feel this rule would create too large of a disparity between classes.


----------



## devincutler (Mar 29, 2018)

That's fine, though I do take issue with the idea that d6s instead of d8s make that big of deal. That's a difference of 1 hp per level. 10 hp at 10th level or 15 hp at 15th level is not going to make a difference. In fact, it is the EXACT same difference as between a fighter at 15th level with an 18 CON and one with a 20 CON. Is the 18 CON fighter (who has 15 fewer hp) a glass cannon comparatively speaking?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 29, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> To me, the rogue feels like one of the better designed classes in 5e. I think this thread is the first I've ever heard that anyone was disappointed with it.




From later responses, I think it's because CapnZapp has a player in their game is that is not as effective as the rest of the party, and they're trying to think of a way to boost that character.
But rather than phrase that question in a _helpful_ way where we can give useful and focused advice, he phrased it into a general complaint regarding the rogue. So we were trying to fix the _class_ instead of trying to fix the _character_.


----------



## i_dont_meta (Mar 29, 2018)

My current PC is a Forest Gnome Arcane Trickster and is one of my all-time favorite PC's--and I'm only level 4!


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Mar 29, 2018)

devincutler said:


> As far as dual wielding, well that was pretty de riguer for rogues in 3e when they got to sneak attack with all of their attacks. Dual wielding rogues in 3e got 2 SAs per round while 1 weapon rogues got 1 SA per round. If it was acceptable then, then what's the issue now?



Dual wielding in 3E required a feat investment and carried a -2 penalty to attacks. It was still emphatically worth the cost for rogues, but it wasn't "free" like it is in 5E. Furthermore, I _don't_ think it's acceptable for the mechanics to so strongly lock an entire class into a particular fighting style -- especially a fighting style that's so seldom seen among the roguish characters of fantasy fiction. (I think it's mostly just the Grey Mouser. And even then, his off-hand weapon is a parrying dagger. Seriously, two-weapon fighting in D&D is weird.) So the once-per-turn limitation on Sneak Attack in 5E is a tremendous improvement in that it levels the playing field for two-blade rogues, one-blade rogues, and archer rogues. If we think the methods of getting attacks on other characters' turns to maximize damage feel too gamey, we can change the limitation to once per round. And if we think the damage output is too low, we can increase it. But any rule that makes it so that Robin Hood and Jack Sparrow and Han Solo are idiots for only fighting with one weapon should probably be avoided.


----------



## Krachek (Mar 29, 2018)

The alpha strike rogue is related to WoW or 4ed rogue.
DnD 5ed rules design are based on three pillars. Combat is one of them.

But rogue is often outshine in many domain.
In damage dealing for sure.
In scouting by Warlock Improved familiar, or simply familiar. Or Druid shape Change and pass without trace.
In social skill rogue will also be outshine by bard.
Rogue don’t have the exclusivity of thieve tools.
And even expertise is not a rogue exclusivity.
Rogue is ok for casual play.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Mar 29, 2018)

I'm not a min maxer or an optimizer, but I do pay attention to different CharOp type of boards because I find that kind of thing interesting to lurk on. Rogue has never come up as a weak class in 5e as far as I have ever seen, in fact there's a lot of builds that require it. Most of the complaints are pointed squarely at the Ranger for being both underpowered and not really being a good multi-class fit (at the moment).


----------



## Wiseblood (Mar 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...




I disagree but lets roll with this anyway.

You want what exactly?

A class that is dex based, outshines all other classes in the single target damage category and is called Rogue. This single taget damage must be "on call" and deployable at any time during contact and/or combat.  They can trasition from noncombat into combat while spiking high damage. 


Later it seems you want to elimintae surprize (or stealth) altogether beacause it is clunky and has some characters doing nothing while other characters are engaged.

Is that right or did I miss the mark?


----------



## Lidgar (Mar 29, 2018)

Most rogues excel at exploration. Sure others can fill that niche, but with expertise placed correctly, they are tough to beat. 

I tend to build Fighter 5 or Ranger 5, Rogue X, just to get extra attack and a combat style (archery or two weapon fighting). I don't play enough level 10+ to worry about what I miss at levels >15.


----------



## happyhermit (Mar 30, 2018)

If a player doesn't value the 5e Rogue's "non combat abilities" ie; skills (which are anything but useless in combat IME), then why are they playing a Rogue? With the way backgrounds were implemented along with class/subclass design they could be playing a fighter, monk, ranger, etc. and still be a still be a small r rogue. It kinda sounds like someone saying "I want to buy a Porsche, but with all the utility of a Land Rover, and it shoudn't cost anything or involve any tradeoffs because all that utility isn't going to help me on the racetrack".


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 30, 2018)

devincutler said:


> No worries. I was just addressing the OP's concern that there are all these clunky ways to squeeze out a second SA in a round, so why not just embed that into the rules in the first place?
> 
> By your response, it is apparent that, in your play, rogues are not squeezing out second or multiple SAs. But there are threads where rogues are getting something like up to 5 SAs per round using RAW, so why not just eliminate all of that hokum and cap it at 2?
> 
> As far as dual wielding, well that was pretty de riguer for rogues in 3e when they got to sneak attack with all of their attacks. Dual wielding rogues in 3e got 2 SAs per round while 1 weapon rogues got 1 SA per round. If it was acceptable then, then what's the issue now?




to be fair the 5 Sa per round rogues are iirc correctly using 17th+ level subclasses and on the opening round - where they get an extra turn as a class feature - and then only when they get a reaction attack before their first attack. 

In my current game, not yet at those levels and only at tier 2, rogue gets one sneak almost every round, almost every round, and sometimes can get two - but that requires as it always will before extreme levels - enemy cooperation.

Its not producing any sort of damage output problems for the rogue. Far from it.

i can say that replacing that with what would be an almost automatic two-per and drive to TWF would shift the rogue out of whack.

One of the key elements in the results and analysis i feel is that truthfully the rogue and the fighter should have close to the same hit chance. 

Yet, we have seen discussions factor in damage output feats for fighters (which give a -5 to hit) and *also* reflect on the odds of hitting for the rogue dropping his damage output down a lot forcing TWf no shield etc... which really seems to me to be inconsistent as far as adversaries go.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 30, 2018)

Krachek said:


> The alpha strike rogue is related to WoW or 4ed rogue.
> DnD 5ed rules design are based on three pillars. Combat is one of them.
> 
> But rogue is often outshine in many domain.
> ...




i think you can find almost any class can be outshone is one aspect of their abilities by another class with the right assumptions. 
the fact that you listed that many different classes to have to show all the rogues functions being outshone is the key.

No other class outshines the rogue... but some other classes can outshine the rogue in one way while the rogue outshines them in others.

*pretty much, each class has a couple different options for strengths worked in together with sub-classes spreading or focusing on them... the key to class balance is that no *one* class overshadows all of another class so the class choice becomes "which group of things do i want to have on my character to be good at?"*


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 30, 2018)

Nope. Non issue.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Rogues are very squishy. The fact they have evasion and bonus dodge does not mean their hp and AC issues go away.
> 
> So yes, very unfortunate indeed, agreed.




Wait, what?  A rogue will be 1 hp/level behind the fighter.  That's not exactly squishy.  And with the high dex, he'll be what, 2 points behind in AC?  Whoopee.

I'm really, really glad I don't play with people who absolutely need to maximize their optimize.  We've had rogues in every campaign we've played and they've all been excellent.  No problems at all.

The fact that you think all fighters deal 35+ points of damage/round is probably the big disconnect here.  Up to 10th level, probably closer to 20 points/round IME for an average fighter.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 30, 2018)

Nope.  I love the rogue.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Unless we are talking about a SS CE Fighter or a GWM PM Barbarian/Fighter then a rogue fares very well with even a battle master fighter in DPR.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Every class has been made competent in combat, since that's 50-90% of game play.




By the book, combat is literally a THIRD of the game. In most cases, it’s actually far less because of the detail involved in dungeon crawling and social engagement. If your game is spending that much time in combat, you’re going to shortchanging a number of the classes in the same way that a game that spent 50-90% of game play canoodling in noble salons would be shortchanging the fighter and barbarian. The rogue is built, alongside the Ranger, to have the sort of extra strength in the Exploration Pillar that classes like the Fighter does in the Combat Pillar and the Bard or Paladin does in the Interaction Pillar. Yes, every class is competent in battle, but you’re ignoring their competing competancies elsewhere in the system and acting as if different levels of combat ability is the only factor in class design.

In the same way that ignoring the CR rules are going to result in encounter that run differently than the game’s design expects, so too does running a game almost entirely in one style/Pillar of play result in a game that runs differently and changes the power dynamics between classes that are meant to be balanced overall in how they contribute differently across different sorts of encounters. As much as I loathe to use the phrase...you’re playing it wrong.

(and it’s your right to do so, being your table; but you can’t then make an argument against the system-as-designed if you’re ignored that system-as-designed to emulated a different mode of game)


----------



## CTurbo (Mar 30, 2018)

I don't think the Rogue is THAT hurting for damage. If you can reliably pull of sneak most every turn, you'll be doing decent damage. I know that's easier said than done but some(Swashbucklers) can do it better than others. 

I can agree that there could be SOME sort of feat support for those who wish to make a DPR focused Rogue. Sentinel is a poor choice because a Rogue doesn't want to end it's turn standing beside an enemy. 

If anything, the biggest problem with the Rogue class is, it's actually kind of difficult to play properly(in combat) compared to most classes. Rogues are meant to hit, run, and hide. Cunning Action and Evasion are really strong features. Uncanny Dodge is good, but it's only once per turn so getting hit by multiple enemies can be bad. I'd rather have Defensive Duelist since turning a hit into miss is better than turning a hit into half damage, but hey, it's free. 

So yeah I'd be on board with a feat or two that boosts the Rogue's DPR whether it be giving the Rogue a 2nd attack, allowing a 2nd Sneak attack per turn, giving it more d6s, turning the d6s into d8s, or taking away some d6s but making it more reliable.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Wait, what?  A rogue will be 1 hp/level behind the fighter.  That's not exactly squishy.  And with the high dex, he'll be what, 2 points behind in AC?  Whoopee.



 Shhh! ..the fighter'll hear you! 
....we're trying not to hurt his feelings...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2018)

Look, all of you people who keep going over to CapnZapp's house and crumpling up his house rules page for the Rogue class and forcing him at rapier point to not enact these house rules for his game, y'all need to cut it out. If CapnZapp wants to houserule the rogue for his own private games, please let him do it.


----------



## LordEntrails (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> I want to play a rogue in combat.



No you don't. You said so in the first post. You want to play something that hits like a fighter or a sorcerer in combat and is named "rogue".

So do it. It would have been much more useful and less click bait if you had titled your post something like; "Here's my idea on making the Rogue more of an Alpha strike Combat class, Critiques Please".

But instead you tried to indicate that the Rogue class RAW is deficient. It's only deficient in your view because you don't want it to do what it does. You want it to do something else.


----------



## LordEntrails (Mar 30, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Look, all of you people who keep going over to CapnZapp's house and crumpling up his house rules page for the Rogue class and forcing him at rapier point to not enact these house rules for his game, y'all need to cut it out. If CapnZapp wants to houserule the rogue for his own private games, please let him do it.



I'm all for him making his own houserules and using them. I just think it's.... whatever... for him making a click bait title and OP.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2018)

Hang on a tick.  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], aren't you the one who went on at rather length about how 5e combats aren't challenging enough and that your PC's are steam rolling your encounters?  

And now you want to make the PC's even stronger in combat?

Something is not adding up here.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick.  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], aren't you the one who went on at rather length about how 5e combats aren't challenging enough and that your PC's are steam rolling your encounters?
> 
> And now you want to make the PC's even stronger in combat?
> 
> Something is not adding up here.




Yup. 
Also the classics
‘GWM is broken! Melee is too strong!’ 
And 
‘SS is broken ranges combat is too strong!’ 

Classic tracks man...


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> From later responses, I think it's because CapnZapp has a player in their game is that is not as effective as the rest of the party, and they're trying to think of a way to boost that character.
> But rather than phrase that question in a _helpful_ way where we can give useful and focused advice, he phrased it into a general complaint regarding the rogue. So we were trying to fix the _class_ instead of trying to fix the _character_.




It's not just fixing the *character* it's fixing the PARTY

First they never do stealth, because one member wears plate.  Hello, group checks?  Pass without trace?  One party member with poor stealth is *not* an excuse in 5e!

Second, they never do stealth because it's "boring to have the scout go ahead".  So essentially they are playing combat as sport (vs combat as war).  When you play combat as war, your goal is to engineer a situation what will give you a great advantage and crush the enemy.  The goal is not a fair fight, it's to win!  And rogues are SUPER USEFUL at this.  

Thirdly, the player isn't good at min maxing... yet cares a lot about damage?  A strange combo that.  Perhaps he shouldn't be playing a rogue?

Finally, it's not even clear what [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] wants to do because later in the thread he said "I want to play", vs this other fellow party member.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick.  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], aren't you the one who went on at rather length about how 5e combats aren't challenging enough and that your PC's are steam rolling your encounters?
> 
> And now you want to make the PC's even stronger in combat?
> 
> Something is not adding up here.




While CapnZapp often has good points, a certain pattern has emerged yes.


----------



## ccs (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> I want to play a rogue in combat.




Then accept the rogues limitations.

I mean it's no ones fault but your own that you 're insisting upon using the wrong tool for the job....


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

It's a player problem square peg round hole. Even in 4E the Rogue was not that good at dealing damage.

 Might also be a problem with the - 5/+10 feats. I pointed this out in 2014 along with the moon Druid.

 A lot of people also play the rogue as a mobile skirmishers which is fine but it lowers your damage. 

Might also be because 5E doesn't run how he wants it to.  He might want to change the Rogue to fit in action granting warlord or use the Warlord to enable the rogue to deal more damage.  Or get people to agree with him so he can argue 5E needs a warlord to patch the rogue.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 30, 2018)

Rogues are by far the post popular class in our groups. Two tables, both have two rogues.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick.  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], aren't you the one who went on at rather length about how 5e combats aren't challenging enough and that your PC's are steam rolling your encounters?
> 
> And now you want to make the PC's even stronger in combat?
> 
> Something is not adding up here.



I thought it was really simple, but since you obviously don't want to listen, you managed to not get it anyway. So let me spell it out for you:

The party is a combat monster. 

But the rogue isn't.

Our collective hivemind is struggling to come up with strategies for playing a rogue in the context of our game. As somebody stated, the problem with the class is that it depends on the others sitting on their hands and leaving the spotlight on the rogue's solo stealthing.

I won't have it. 

I also think the path to decent rogue DPR is completely out of whack for a welcoming and simple game like 5E. Having to set up reactions to gain a second Sneak Attack feels very metagamey and way too complicated for this edition.

Other than that, if you want to leave your feedback on my actual suggestions, I'm all ears. Otherwise I won't comment you further.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> Perhaps he shouldn't be playing a rogue?



Strange how your only suggestion is to give up on the design challenge that this thread is about.

If you play a combat heavy game, with little skulking about, every other character can be built to contribute decently. 

But the rogue needs to master metagamey and byzantine game rules almost like it was playing Pathfinder while everybody else is playing 5E...? 

No, frack that. 

This thread is about simplifying streamlining and friendlifying the class.

What do you think about my suggestions?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

Try playing without feats Rogue damage is better.
 Could also be a problem of power gaming.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

LordEntrails said:


> No you don't. You said so in the first post. You want to play something that hits like a fighter or a sorcerer in combat and is named "rogue".
> 
> So do it. It would have been much more useful and less click bait if you had titled your post something like; "Here's my idea on making the Rogue more of an Alpha strike Combat class, Critiques Please".
> 
> But instead you tried to indicate that the Rogue class RAW is deficient. It's only deficient in your view because you don't want it to do what it does. You want it to do something else.



The rogue is really shifty at its job, at least in games with options turned on.

Why would you choose the rogue class if you want to create an Assassin, when a Shadow Monk is leagues better at that job. At least that class has a potent Alpha Strike - stun your target and game over.

Why is the rogue described as someone who "would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks" when the barrage deals much more damage (at least after level 4)?

Why play a rogue in a combat-heavy game, when you're very squishy against the most common danger - physical damage. Sure you can dance out of combat, but then you're risking a miss on your attack, and any round where you don't deliver Sneak damage is a wasted round, given that sneak attack isn't all that impressive.

Why play a rogue in any game with only two or three non-trivial fights a day, when your Action Surges, Rages or Sorcery Points are enough to overshadow the Rogue every time?

Sure you can play a game with no feats, no MC, no magic items and an interminable sequence of encounters of questionable challenge level, and yes, there the Rogue does much better. But I explicitly said this thread isn't about those games.

I want the Rogue to deliver competitive DPR. 

That is why I didn't want to give the thread the name you suggest. 

Because I strongly believe the Rogue should be able to deliver competitive DPR as part of being.. a Rogue. 

To me, the Rogue class RAW *is* deficient. 


It is strangely designed to force players to master byzantine and metagamey rules.
It is subpar when played as part of a team.
It has weak class-specific "boost paths" - it gets much less out of feats, items and build choices than almost every other class
It has no burst capability. In return, it seems to be balanced for an adventuring day much much longer than anyone actually experiences

Sure I could say "sorry, don't play a Rogue in my kind of game" but why would I want to settle for that, when we've made every other class work in our context?

I don't accept that out of all the PHB classes, there is one that simply should not be able to compete on damage, _especially_ given the way the class is described as a fearsome assassin.

_Nothing_ about the class says it must suck in combat. *It's just miserly and begrudingly designed*, that's all.

But wait! This thread isn't just about complaining (although you lot make your best to make it be only about that) - it's also about constructively fixing these huge flaws in the class' design!

So what do you think about my suggestions (back in my second post)? Too little, just perfect, or too much?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Wiseblood said:


> outshines all other classes in the single target damage category



Take your straw men elsewhere. 

If you had read my suggestions you would have known that I was aiming for "two sneaks per round" levels of damage (though simplified into just the one attack).


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> I found this to be a REALLY interesting response. All of this time we've been talking about the rogue (as a class), but your response here is about "the" rogue (a specific player). It sounds like you want to help this player have a good time in your game (if so, kudos to you for being a good DM and seeing that enjoyment is the point of the game). Let me suggest that instead of solving the issue of combat performance through modification of the entire class that you handle this with a good ole' magic item. Maybe a short sword that ups sneak attack damage to d8s (or even d10s). Something along that line.



Thank you.

Believe me when I say I have:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...he-many-and-fabulous-bazaars-of-Port-Nyanzaru

This thread is on page 7-ish out of 23 pages in total (already written, only I hand out one page a day so as to not overwhelm you readers). 

Unless I remember wrong it contains no less than three items that specifically target the problem areas discussed by this thread. An item to counterattack on a miss. An item to make two off-hand attacks with your TWF bonus action. And a third item... sorry, it escapes me at the mo'.

Apart from the myriad items that benefit many characters, that is.



> Why? Because of other players (and potentially you) having the ability to abuse an up-tuned rogue.



Thank you. I am aware. 

But in my discussions we simply don't see it. The ability to abuse Rogue damage, that is. 

Yes, we see how the class can be used to scout ahead solo and murderize single targets. But we're not down for that. Nobody is interested in showing up to sit on their hands while another player plays the game for them.



> Let's say Bob isn't a great player (mechanically speaking). He shows up and just wants to have fun with Bilfo the Burglar and isn't really doing too well. You up the rogue's power to compensate and now Bob's happy. Great! Unfortunately, Sally is a savvy player and she's decided to make one of these new fandangled cool rogues you've got in your campaign. She is great with mechanics and takes the feats/spells/whatnot to maximize the class's potential. Now you've got a monster on your hands and it's always more difficult to take things away from the players than it is to give them new things. Maybe you're good with the rules as the DM and want to send in some rogues/assassins for an encounter. All of a sudden you've got a TPK on your hands because you're melting everybody.
> 
> I'm firmly in the camp that fighters should be the best fighters, admittedly, but I think the rogue class is fantastic as is.



You really should have Sally call me and explain how she accomplishes all that melting. 

We fancy ourselves as heavy minmaxers, and we simply can't see it. 

I'm eagerly awaiting Sally's call 

As for NPC assassins, let me assure you I'm no slouch in the abuse-the-rules area. Let me give you a sneak preview of one of my souped-up Omu encounters (my party is on their way to becoming level 10).

Remember good old Bag of Nails, the demented tabaxi hunter. Well, I'm planning to give him an Oathbow with Arrows of Slaying. To make a long story short, he will shoot arrows with their names on them from 600 feet away with advantage for 20d6 damage. (To make this short story longer, wait for the encounter in my Omu thread)

Yes, you heard that right. The only way to represent a truly legendary hunter is if he actually stands a chance of one-shotting a character before they hunt him down and kill him. And at that distance, he will actually stand a chance of disappearing (my players like extreme mobility and they HATE monsters that get away) to repeat this. He has divined three names and he has three arrows. It should be fun! 

(They have 50-70 hp each plus reactionary temp hp (see the Many and Fabulous Bazaars thread), so even when I roll high, I don't expect any instant deaths - that would require me to deal 100+ damage in a single attack. *If* I hit, which even with advantage isn't a given. But I expect an hope to come close at least once out of the three attempts  ) 

That's not my idea of a balanced encounter, by the way. I just came to think of it when you worried about my abilities to send "melting" NPCs of Sally levels at the party


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> What are the relative ACs and HP totals of the Rogue and Fighter? Assuming that they both prioritised survivability with the same weighting in ability distribution it would be extremely unusual for the Rogue to be dying so regularly compared to the Fighter.



The Rogue has maybe 50 hp and AC 18, with a reaction parry for +4 AC against one attack.

Both melee bruisers have gone for greatweapon builds. 

The Barbarian has effectively 140 hp and also AC 18 (I think), multiclassed into Fighter for Action Surge, Second Wind and crit-fishing (yes, Champion - I was as shocked as you are  )

The Paladin has only 70 hp (but excellent healing), AC 20 (AC 22 when buffed) and excellent prospects. She can burst like no other melee fighter, and if she respecs to sword'n'board her AC will become stratospheric.

The problem for our melee Rogue is that in order to maximize its offensive potential, it must sacrifice a lot of its defensive. Meaning things like a bonus Dodge or Dash to ensure survival can't be combined with reliably delivering Sneak damage each round.

And as I have said repeatedly, said sneak damage is nothing special anyway.

So the Rogue is facing a hard sell. Dance in and out of combat, and risk doing nothing else. Abstain from your cool powers and do... good but not impressive damage. 

It's a lose lose scenario and this thread aims to discuss suggestions on how to fix this.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The Rogue has maybe 50 hp and AC 18, with a reaction parry for +4 AC against one attack.
> 
> Both melee bruisers have gone for greatweapon builds.
> 
> ...



What level are the party? And more importantly are they all the same level?
If the Rogue is prioritising survivability at the same level as the other characters that they want to share the DPR chart with, they should have a similar Con, and thus there shouldn't be that discrepancy in HP.
The AC looks a little odd. Those two greatweapon users have the sort of ACs as if they're using shields, if not higher. That is a pretty major boost to their survivability right there: - I'm assuming its a pretty monty-haul campaign. Does the rogue have similarly powerful and survivability-focused items.

By the barbarians effective HP, I'm assuming Bear totem, and that there are few enough fights per day that they can rage continuously (including reactivating mid-fight if it drops). That sort of adventuring day will also greatly benefit the Paladin compared to the Rogue due to the long-rest/at-will resource difference. 

How do the two melee bruisers fare out of combat compared to the Rogue? Do they have another party member capable of handling the sort of traps that they'll find in the tombs and suchlike?


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 30, 2018)

I think there is an unnecessary obsession with DPR.  Rogues have great versatility and a lot of fun subclasses plus ways to increase DPR through multi-classing.  Still, I think a magic item to plug a gap in damage dealing is a good way to go if there is a perceived problem.

Another good exercise is to spend a few sessions totting up each character's damage dealing, ignoring wasted damage because the target was already dead.  The results may surprise the players.  A paladin nova against a monster with 1hp counts as 1 damage.   The characters come out as reasonably balanced this way.  One of my players felt his Fighter Barbarian Ranger multiclass was underperforming because he was looking at dice totals rather than relevant damage dealt and damage mitigation, which meant his durability was way better than anybody else.  Turns out he was top damage dealer in some sessions.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Level 9, all of them.

The Rogue can't afford as high Con, since Dex and Int are needed.

Yes, bear totem.

Out of combat the Rogue is king. I've moved trap detection to Investigate and the Rogue is the only one with a decent Intelligence. 

But being king of traps does not (should not) mean you have to accept being at the bottom of the DPR list.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

Your party is using the -5/+10 feats? I think you will find that is the problem not the Rogue. 

Don't allow feats or don't pick those ones.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 30, 2018)

What do i think about the house rules suggested?

That is the topic that keeps getting pushed, right?

In the context of "with our campaign, group, our preferences, our specific players etc" and not as a general Rogie design as class for DnD outlook (again seems to be the focus) --- I think your rules are overly complicated.

Instead, figure out the DPR diff per round under current rules for you game.

Divide it by level.

Apply that as a per level adder to sneak for that player.

As an adder it wont get crit boosted, much like the 10 pt boosts dont get.

The gap is closed and nobody has to alter any gameplay choices, preferences or dials. Nobody has to even question the labels of rogue optimization as byzantine or any of the other built in assumption s.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?




Since you asked, I'll answer the thread title question with a resounding "No".  Rogues at our tables have been just fine - both flavorful in all their rogue-iness and very successful combat contributors.  That's a 7th level Tiefling Swashbuckler at one table and a 10th level Half-Orc Assassin at the other.  In fact, the Assassin was the tank of the party until the Bard died and the player rolled up a Paladin - and now he shares tanking duties.

That said, this perceived lack of combat effectiveness seems to be impacting the player's fun at your table.  If it were my table, I might introduce a special magic weapon to make the Rogue feel more "special".  

*Speedy Shortsword (requires attunement by a Rogue)*
_This +1 shortsword has 3 charges.  While holding it, you can expend 1 charge as a bonus action to cast Haste upon yourself.  While under the effects of the Haste, the weapon allows for a second Sneak Attack each turn.  The shortsword regains 1d3 expended charges daily at dawn._

I think that (or something like it) might accomplish your goal of making that player's Rogue more of a damage machine in combat.  No need to fiddle with Rogue RAW and any unintended consequences it might cause, IMO.


----------



## Wiseblood (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Take your straw men elsewhere.
> 
> If you had read my suggestions you would have known that I was aiming for "two sneaks per round" levels of damage (though simplified into just the one attack).




I don't think that was a strawman. Damage equal to 1d6 per level plus weapon damage with no conditional requirements is what I gathered from your post.

 I think that is pretty clearly going to add up to outshining all other classes in single target damage. 

When I think of other classes they almost all require the expenditure of limited resources to do high damage. I listed paladin first as they are often cited as the worst offender in terms of nova damage for martial classes.
Paladin and ranger rely on spells/slots to enhance striking.
Barbarian on rage.
Fighter on superiority dice and extra attacks.
Bard, wizard, sorcerer, warlock on higher level spell slots.
Monk on Ki.

I wanted to clarify for myself your position so that I might help in spite of my personal tastes.
I hope I didn't sound too defensive there.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Level 9, all of them.
> 
> The Rogue can't afford as high Con, since Dex and Int are needed.



 No. They *chose *to sacrifice survivability for out  of combat capability. How many hitpoints would the Rogue have if they had prioritised combat survivability as much as the other melee characters that they are competing against?



> Out of combat the Rogue is king. I've moved trap detection to Investigate and the Rogue is the only one with a decent Intelligence.
> 
> But being king of traps does not (should not) mean you have to accept being at the bottom of the DPR list.



 Being level with the dedicated melee heavy-hitters in DPR while at the same time benefiting from the Rogue's mobility, versatility, and out of combat excellence would seem to be unfair to the other classes would it not?


----------



## ccs (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Why is the rogue described as someone who "would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks" when the barrage deals much more damage (at least after level 4)?




Flavor text.  ALL classes have it.  Always have.  Not unique or limited to D&D.  Doesn't always line up with actual mechanics....  You need to learn to identify & ignore it. 






CapnZapp said:


> Why play a rogue in a combat-heavy game, when you're very squishy against the most common danger - physical damage. Sure you can dance out of combat, but then you're risking a miss on your attack, and any round where you don't deliver Sneak damage is a wasted round, given that sneak attack isn't all that impressive.
> 
> Why play a rogue in any game with only two or three non-trivial fights a day, when your Action Surges, Rages or Sorcery Points are enough to overshadow the Rogue every time?




Given the type of combat heavy game you've indicated you run, and the fact that you've said that you won't allow the rogue to do anything solo?
Perhaps this question is best directed to you're rogue player.

I mean, presumably they know what type of game & DM they'll be dealing with.  So what in the world would draw them to play a character who won't be allowed to make use of certain aspects of their class & is viewed as not being competitive enough in the only metric the group (and worse yet, the DM) deems important: DPR?
What are they gaining out of this?


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> To me, the Rogue class RAW *is* deficient.
> 
> 
> It is strangely designed to force players to master byzantine and metagamey rules.
> ...




I'm pretty sure you are correct that the rogue is deficient *in your game*.  But I'm also pretty sure that it's a *your game* problem, not a problem with the class as a whole.  If pretty much everyone says "oh no it's fine"... are you certain that maybe, just maybe, it's not a universal problem?

So to fix your game, I would either increase the sneak attack dice to 1d8, or even 1d10 (2d6 seems like too much IMO), OR give them a burst ability with those extra sneak attack dice.  But do whatever you want - it's a *your game* problem after all. 

I'll conclude to include that your group has a strange definition of teamwork where the assassin never gets to assassinate because stealth as a group is verboten.  I also note that  - unless I missed it - you never addressed my comment re combat as war vs combat as ssport.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 30, 2018)

To answer the question in the title: 

Uh....no.  Because I don't feel it is "miserly" or "begrudging".

If that Fighter buys all those Feats then he hasn't bought ASIs.  By level 8 he might have two feats, but I've got Dex 20 and he's only at 16 or 17 Strength.

Also, feats like Sentinel or Mage-Slayer, in addition to regular AoOs, do increase Rogue damage (way more than for everybody else) because I get to add Sneak Attack.

Third, I don't play Rogue to "win" the DPR meter.  (Only true if we're talking about D&D not WoW.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

ccs said:


> Flavor text.    Doesn't always line up with actual mechanics....
> You need to learn to identify & ignore it.



 People seemed to have a lot if trouble with that, even when the flavor text was explicitly called out as such and printed in italics.

5e has gone the other way with that.  5e classes are designed from concept up, meaning the flavor text of a class isn't just window-dressing, it's a mission statement.  5e rules are written in natural language, so there's no clear line between those rules and flavor or description mixed in with them.



> So what in the world would draw them to play a character who won't be allowed to make use of certain aspects of their class & is viewed as not being competitive enough in the only metric the group (and worse yet, the DM) deems important: DPR?
> What are they gaining out of this?





CapnZapp said:


> Why play a rogue in any game with only two or three non-trivial fights a day, when your Action Surges, Rages or Sorcery Points are enough to overshadow the Rogue every time?



 Character concept.  If you want to play a not-that-unusual-in-genre quick/lucky/clever/'cool' (anti-)hero who doesn't depend on supernatural powers and isn't a muscle-bound killing machine, rogue is the obvious choice - Robin-Hood-type Fighter might be a better one, but rogue is obvious.



> So what do you think about my suggestions (back in my second post)? Too little, just perfect, or too much?



 5e has Empowered you to re-balance the rogue to fit your style, so you're on the right track. IMHO, 1/rnd SA is a good call. The damage seems high, but you know how things are at your table.  The Essentials-Thief-style rest-recharge Backstab ability is probably a good idea, maybe put more of the damage boost in that.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I thought it was really simple, but since you obviously don't want to listen, you managed to not get it anyway. So let me spell it out for you:
> 
> The party is a combat monster.
> 
> ...




I get it. You won't have it. Nothing wrong with that.

So house rule it in your game! If all you are after is making the best house rule to fit your needs for your games, then just say that and we can work with you to figure out your best fix.

But you didn't seem to phrase it that way to start this thread so it's gotten kinda confusing (and you are having to tell people they're not listening, repeatedly now, so it must be frustrating on some level for you as well). You seemed to phrase it as some sort of "Let's get WOTC to fix the rogue" or "pile on with me in feeling sympathy for this problem I am experiencing". Neither of which fosters the goal of "help me come up with a good set of house rules to fix this thing at my table" if that is your actual goal, as well as just stating outright that finding a good houserule is your dominant goal.

So, is that your goal, perfecting a houserule for your table for this issue? 125 posts into this thread, and a meaningful number of us are still not sure what your goal is for this issue. So help us help you.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 30, 2018)

For general consumption think you’re ideas here are unnecessary and not well thought out. 
Specifically for your game I think they’re fine.


----------



## pming (Mar 30, 2018)

Hiya!

 @_*CapnZapp*_, I'm gonna go with..."Nope".

IMHO, Rogues are still too combat oriented. OK. Let me rephrase... "The Rogue 'Class', overall, is still to focused on combat". Now, Assassins...should rawk when they have the advantage (alone, from surprise, attacking an unarmored opponent). Trickster...should not be 'fighting' if at all possible; their shtick should be diversion, conning someone, or confusion of targets. Thief...should suck at fighting, and be really good at avoiding combat in the first place via hiding, sneaking, and such, but should be absolutely awesome at finding traps, removing them, climbing walls, detecting noise, etc.

If I had my way, I'd remodel the 5e Rogue (Thief) to be more like 2e's version and give them only d6 HD like a wizard.

Just goes to show...different people like different things and have different ideas of what a "Thief" should be in D&D I guess. 

That said...if I wanted the Rogue to be more of a "Nimble-Stabby-Stab Fighter", I'd just rework some of the Fighter stuff into the Rogue class. Switch out stuff and such. Give the Rogue a higher HD, let him keep Sneak Attack but let him do it anytime he makes a successful Stealth DC check (DC based on, say, opponents Level or HD x some number; and where failure indicates no more Sneak Attack until his next turn and/or any movement), that sort of thing. Switch out the stuff that is "dividing the group" or focusing too much on the Rogue with Fighter stuff of the same 'level'. Then I'd call it an Archtype of the Rogue; maybe "Brigand" or "Bandit" or something.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 30, 2018)

I wonder... If he had a fighter in his game sprnding feats on skill proficiencies or initiate and ritual casting and divvy ability scores around for the  "many +2" alongside those built for optimized combat paladin and barbie, would we be responding to his thread about how gimped the fighter class was at what it is supposed to do - put out damage?

Note - nothing wrong with "my extra ASI for skilled" approaches but gotta say, if i knew my gm would cover my choosing to not optimize by house ruling more output into my class... its not bad at all to not optimize.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> For general consumption think you’re ideas here are unnecessary and not well thought out.
> Specifically for your game I think they’re fine.



That they're "unnecessary" to some is very clear, but what do you mean by "not well thought out"?

Do you mean the Rogue becomes too good, expertly played?

Specifically, are you worried two sneaks a round becomes too good? Even though I make you take a feat to gain that?

Do you not value the simplicity in not having to muck about with your reaction to gain the second sneak - instead you getting twice as many sneak dice already from the start?

Or do you have concerns about the "backstab dice"?

I fully admit my suggestions are unpolished - at this stage, they're more discussion material than finished product.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Character concept.  If you want to play a not-that-unusual-in-genre quick/lucky/clever/'cool' (anti-)hero who doesn't depend on supernatural powers and isn't a muscle-bound killing machine, rogue is the obvious choice - Robin-Hood-type Fighter might be a better one, but rogue is obvious.



Of course the Rogue is obvious. 

But I consider it a problem when it doesn't deliver. You're better off calling yourself a "precise striker" or someone that "finds weak spots" and still be a (Dex) fighter. 

You lose sneak attack, but you're more than compensated for that with synergies around feats, multiclassing and magic items. 

Also, I'm imagining an Assassin mostly just does one mark per day, and certainly only one mark in any given hour. Which makes Action Surge and Second Wind much more useful in murderizing your foe than any incidental "meld into shadows" stuff.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Wiseblood said:


> I don't think that was a strawman. Damage equal to 1d6 per level plus weapon damage with no conditional requirements is what I gathered from your post.
> 
> I think that is pretty clearly going to add up to outshining all other classes in single target damage.



And I *know* it is not.

Nobody thinks sneak is impressive in our campaign. Everybody would love it if the Rogue could contribute better, and nobody would feel sidelined by the fact he's the trap finder.

Not sure what you mean by "conditional requirements". The Rogue would still need to make sneak attacks.

And you seem to assume I'm doubling the damage of the class. *I'm not.*

The only difference is that I remove the need to master your reaction to gain your 1d6 per level damage that you can get _today_.

Instead of doing half dice twice, you do full dice once.

Simpler, cleaner, less difficult... but not inherently better.

(Okay so a little better it is... you do free up your reaction, and you stand two shots at one helping of full dice instead of three shots at two helpings of half dice. The number of rounds where you deal only half or no sneak damage at all should be lowered, which should mostly be just fun!)


----------



## Helldritch (Mar 30, 2018)

Before I start answering your question I need to mention that just like you I did move Find trap to the investigate skill. On the other hand, Perception can still find a trap but I make the DC 3 higher to "just" see the trap instead of finding it. 

Second house rule, we do have a "surprise" round where an ambush is possible and that the ambushers can get a free round of combat before the other side can make the initiative. It works both ways. Monsters and foes can and will make ambushes against the party as much as they are ambushing their enemies. That being said...

The rogue is quite fine as is. Remember that the rogue's role isn't to be a full fledge warrior. That is far from his role.

*At low level* the rogue will be the scout of the party in dungeons and probably in the wilderness too.
Normaly a rogue will prioritize Stealth, Investigation or Perception and Pick locks  (tools). The last one is usually something like sleight of hand or either investigation or perception (in my games for the house rule given above).

The rogue will usually be 60 to 120 feet ahead of the group to scout ahead. He needs those skills. When he has finished scouting and listening to doors and mapping what can be mapped, the rogue will make an accurate report to the group. That knowledge can be invaluable to a successful group.

Disabling traps (and finding them) can (and will) save a lot of damage and thus, save a lot of spells to the party's healer(s).

*At mid level*, the rogue will have the same role. Now the scouting/mapping part can be made by magic if needed. But in some adventures, using magic to investigate the complex/area might not be a good idea as some foes will be able to put some sentries/spells/features that could foil magical investigation. Not all magic spells but some of them can be foiled quite easily.

Again the rogue will be able to scout ahead of the party, find traps even more effectively and probably be able to hold his own in combat. The sneak attack feature is often an extremely good finishing move.

During the exploration phase, if the rogue is an assassin, he can become quite deadly for sentries. A lone sentry or an assassin in the sleeping quarters of the guards can litteraly wreak havoc on them. I have seen an assassin slay 20 guards in this fashion. Stealthy Killing can be horrifying to witness. 

*At high level* the rogue are becoming even more dangerous. A single rogue can get in an out of a stronghold witouth anyone noticing. The stealth skill could be as high as +17! With reliable talent your rogue will steadily get 27 or higher on his stealth rolls. None will see him/her if that is his/her wish. No traps will be safe from such a rogue as he will see them, disarm them and rearm them as needed. No sir, the safe room is still locked, but it is empty. How it was done is beyond my understanding, even the magical traps have not triggered nor did the magical alarm. Yep, the anti-teleportation and anti-etheral counter measure are still active sir. 

Again, combat will not be something to sneeze at. Such a rogue could single handedly kill the garnison of a whole castle/dungeon with dual sneak attacks or simply with the assassin's auto crit feature (and that class will use poison). He would not do it on the leader and important foes, but the support cast won't be safe from him.

If this is your idea of a weak class, I do not share it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 30, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> No. They *chose *to sacrifice survivability for out  of combat capability. How many hitpoints would the Rogue have if they had prioritised combat survivability as much as the other melee characters that they are competing against?



What are you talking about? 

Sure you can stat up a Rogue who dumps Int and the skill monkey role... but why on earth would you want to do that?

All you end up with is a subpar dex fighter.

(The answer is probably +10 hp since they're level 9, but I would have to check to know for sure. The main difference is one between the hit die sizes: 10 hp compared to a Fighter or Paladin, and 20 compared to a Barbarian)

But you're missing my point: my complaint is that the Rogue must sacrifice survivability just to gain out of combat capability. (If its in combat capability was any good, this might have made sense. But it's not, so it doesn't.)

Instead of talking in sweeping terms about how horrible it would be for a Rogue to do it all, how about you specifying your exact misgivings against my specific suggestions.

What would be so brokenly bad about giving the Rogue a couple of extra sneak dice?

What would be so mind-numbingly unfair about absolving the Rogue from having to master the metagame of action currency, and just give him the sneak dice you are already allowed today?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 30, 2018)

Maybe you could, instead of giving him 2 chances at SA per round with the risk of essentially doubling is DPR, give him an alternative to the Attack Action that would let him split his d6s between Attack rolls and Damage rolls, giving him steady damage instead of burst damage.
*Brutal Accuracy*
As an Action on you turn, you can make a single attack against an enemy (Insert same restriction as SA). After the initial attack roll but before the Dm announce a hit or a miss, you can spend a number of d6 up to the maximum shown of the rogue's table for your level. If the attack hits, you roll the balance of the d6, if any,  you didnt roll and add them to your Damage roll. 

*Opportunist*
When you would hit a creature as part of an AoO, you can add half the d6 from SA on your Damage roll. On a hit, you can use Sneak Attack or Brutal Accuracy without restriction against the same creature.

I think this would allow for different way to apply sneak attack at different opportunity costs, while making it easier on the player to generate SA turn after turn.


----------



## dave2008 (Mar 30, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...




I very rarely play a PC (99.99% DM), but when I do I always play a rogue / thief.  I've enjoyed it in every edition, including 5e.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION].  I think the problem is that you are trying to raise everything to the level of SS CE Battlemaster Fighters when most the classes in the game can't achieve anywhere near that kind of damage output.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Sure you can stat up a Rogue who dumps Int and the skill monkey role... but why on earth would you want to do that?



 So you have survivability closer to a Fighter or Barbarian.

The player chose to prioritise Int over Con because they wanted to play someone who was intelligent, but not as tough. Presumably for the same reason that they chose to actually play a Rogue rather than a Fighter with a criminal background. As soon as the DM mentioned that their style was going to disadvantage the Rogue compared to purely combat-focused, resource-based classes, that would be a definite option for someone wanting to shine more in combat compared to out of combat. 
As it is, the player went ahead and made the choice to play a less-combat-focused class, and assign abilities in a less combat-focused distribution.



> (The answer is probably +10 hp since they're level 9, but I would have to check to know for sure. The main difference is one between the hit die sizes: 10 hp compared to a Fighter or Paladin, and 20 compared to a Barbarian)
> 
> But you're missing my point: my complaint is that the Rogue must sacrifice survivability just to gain out of combat capability. (If its in combat capability was any good, this might have made sense. But it's not, so it doesn't.)



 Yes. Exactly. The Rogue does sacrifice pure combat capability for pure out of combat capability. 
Just like the Fighter sacrifices out of combat capability for combat capability. 
Choosing to be best at something involves choosing other things that you won't be best in. 

I'd suggest you have a chat with your player. It sounds like they are unhappy about their low performance in combat and don't view their choice to be good at out of combat things to be worth the trade-off. Thus would rather play a more combat-focused character. It shouldn't be too hard to remake the character as a Dex-fighter with superior combat capability.



> Instead of talking in sweeping terms about how horrible it would be for a Rogue to do it all, how about you specifying your exact misgivings against my specific suggestions.
> 
> What would be so brokenly bad about giving the Rogue a couple of extra sneak dice?
> 
> What would be so mind-numbingly unfair about absolving the Rogue from having to master the metagame of action currency, and just give him the sneak dice you are already allowed today?



 Your words, not mine.
Specifically, it was important to know how the player prioritised their choices: you don't want to invalidate their character creation decisions by undoing the trade-offs that they wanted to make.

Now, your suggestions (This is the bit you're probably inrerested in  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]) would increase sneak attack damage by 14 points at the current level. Plus the backstab dice which I'm going to arbitrarily  guess at averaging an extra 5 pts/round. (4 or 5 d6 at 9th level, split into only 1 or 2 combats per short rest, but often used on crits.)
With nothing stated to the contrary, we'll use basic 5e assumptions: The Fighter and Barbarian are probably using weapons that average a few points higher than the Rogue's and have two attacks. GWM is worth up to +5 damage on each of those attacks. Everyone has +5 ability bonus.

Rogue damage per round would be around 46 (d8 +5 +9d6 +5). 50 if they dual-wield as would be optional.  Getting additional attacks in from reactions would be highly useful with these changes, but we'll assume that they benefit the other classes as much.  
Fighter DPR is going to be (2d6 + 5 +5 +5) x 2 or around 44. Chances to hit should be about the same.

So: it kinda depends upon whether you regard the Rogue dominating the combat as well as out-of-combat  situations is what you're aiming for. I'm guessing that it'll make the Rogue player happy. How the players who actually build their characters for the purpose of combat will feel about it, only you can tell.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 31, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Yes. Exactly. The Rogue does sacrifice pure combat capability for pure out of combat capability.
> Just like the Fighter sacrifices out of combat capability for combat capability.
> Choosing to be best at something involves choosing other things that you won't be best in.




Yup. The 'problem' seems to be, 'When I choose A, it is not B. And I want B because it is a better choice than A. But I still want to have my choice of A. So I want A to be B. But not actually be B.'


----------



## Wiseblood (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> And I *know* it is not.
> 
> Nobody thinks sneak is impressive in our campaign. Everybody would love it if the Rogue could contribute better, and nobody would feel sidelined by the fact he's the trap finder.
> 
> ...




Oh, I think I see now. 

You cleared up the conditional misconceptions that I had.

Well, if you want the non-system-mastery rogue to keep up better damage-wise with the hardcore brawlers that is simple and elegant enough to do the trick.


Or/and you could try something akin to the Battlemasters Superiority dice. Or possibly alternate uses of cunning action. Though that might be more than you would be willing to trade for.

Treachery dice sounds good to me. Save dc = 8+dex mod + proficiency bonus

Gang attack: spend one treachery dice to make a sneak attack against an opponent that can see at least one member of your party. Add 5d6 (above and beyond sneak attck) to the damage dealt. Can be used after the attack roll but before damage.

Bleeding strike: strike an opponent so that they bleed profusely. When you successfully sneak attack an opponent spend one treachery dice to cause a bleed effect that does 1d6 plus dex mod at the end of each of their turns until a constitution save is made vs your treachery DC. A successful heal check vs the dc or any amount of magical healing ends the effect.

Snake hands: when you hit an opponent spend one treachery dice. They must make a wisdom save against your treachery DC. Failure means they blame a creature within reach of your choice for their misfortune and lash out with their reaction to attack that creature.

I understand these are not as simple or elegant as a plain damage boost but I felt they fit a murderous scoundrel theme well...if your rogue is that kind of person. 


Also it could be tacked on after you try out the enhanced Sneak Attack if you feel that they are still lagging behind.


If such advice or mechanics previously existed I stole it from someone here on ENWorld.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 31, 2018)

Wiseblood said:


> Oh, I think I see now.
> 
> You cleared up the conditional misconceptions that I had.
> 
> Well, if you want the non-system-mastery rogue to keep up better damage-wise with the hardcore brawlers that is simple and elegant enough to do the trick.



My real question is, why is thread apparently filled with people who absolutely insist the Rogue of all classes be shackled to a very harsh system mastery requirement...?

What is inherent to the Rogue's theme that just screams "straight-forward players shouldn't bother! Go play Champion or something!"

And of course I'm sarcastic. They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all.

Why otherwise utterly deny there is any kind of issue here, and adamantly avoid actually discussing the suggestions I've made?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 31, 2018)

> Let’s be honest: D&D is a combat focused game. You can’t argue that. And you’d be stupid to try. You can stay away from combat if you want, but you can’t pretend it isn’t designed around a pretty damned cool combat engine.



Angry GMs words. 

*Of course* the Rogue should work within this context, and I think the current design is *miserly* as in ungenerous and I think it is *begrudging* as in suspecting: "don't know about handing out more to the Rogue, didn't that class get a godly amount of sneak d6's back when the PHB was first created, back when the classes were just made and the feats chapter wasn't even finalized...?" 

Except this pile of d6 can't be embiggened by most traditional means.

"Here you are little rogue, here's a couple of d6, now go play with the big boys".

Rogues have few synergy effects with multiclassing. There are no Rogue feats that increase DPR. Straight-forward magic weapons gel much worse for a single-attack class than an attack-five-times-a-round class.

It's almost like Rogues are supposed to be happy with their meager pile of d6, except everyone else gets the toys later on to completely overshadow them. Throughout the lifetime of the edition, they're constantly reminded how great sneak attack is, and everybody is forgetting that by now everyone else has surpassed them.

All that's left to Rogues are going deep into mechanical meta issues to scrounge up a second sneak attack. Which is *deeply deeply unsatisfying*. "WHY can I make a second sneak three seconds later, but I can't do it myself, I have to wait for the Kobold's turn?" I'm not usually much for explaining crunch by fluff, but here I'm flabbergasted - so many forumists that are dead set against simplifying and removing a very very odd mechanical circumstance.

And when I suggest to simply add the two "half dice" sneaks together, everybody gangs up on me for daring to question the holy sanctity of the impeccable Rogue class design. Without even stopping to actually analyze my proposal.

Sigh.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 31, 2018)

Maybe stop playing the victim, stop wildly misrepresenting everyone's statements if they don't immediately agree with you, stop using hyperbole and other word choice that tries to paint a problem you are having as one that is inherent to the subject matter (by which I mean that you say things in a way that reads as "this bit of the book can't work well" rather than "this bit of the book doesn't work well at my table"), and stop accusing anyone that doesn't have the same problems you are having of things like thinking the game in question is literally perfect, and you'll find the resulting conversation stays more focused on your actual problem and the actual solutions rather than all the distracting junk you have chosen to sew all throughout the conversation even though you don't want anyone to respond to it?


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Angry GMs words.
> 
> *Of course* the Rogue should work within this context, and I think the current design is *miserly* as in ungenerous and I think it is *begrudging* as in suspecting: "don't know about handing out more to the Rogue, didn't that class get a godly amount of sneak d6's back when the PHB was first created, back when the classes were just made and the feats chapter wasn't even finalized...?"
> 
> ...




I think it's important not to be myopic and focus on only one solution i.e.  Changing the Base class.  A single class rogue is not supposed to be damage king because they are not 4e strikers (and even there, their other talents meant they were not top of damage dealing) and they are more versatile than pure damage dealers.   A fighter rogue multiclass can help increase base damage output.   That's as it should be.  A more damage dealing rogue can be built as a pure dex fighter with a criminal background.  That is also as intended.  So-called system mastery is just a way of tweaking builds in a direction.   I can also make my Rogue even better out of combat if I want to.

I stress again,  carry out a test to see how much damage actually matters to killing the monster.  The gap may be smaller than everyone thinks.

Magic items with extra damage will help, as will ones that help maximising ways to gain advantage to increase the chance of a critical.  A Rogue's dagger that increases critical range,  adds extra sneak dice, increases the size of critical dice, or can grant advantage,  or a dagger of venom might all be good ways to go.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 31, 2018)

Make a feat that grants extra dice on the SA or upgrades them to a d8.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 31, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Maybe stop playing the victim, stop wildly misrepresenting everyone's statements if they don't immediately agree with you, stop using hyperbole and other word choice that tries to paint a problem you are having as one that is inherent to the subject matter (by which I mean that you say things in a way that reads as "this bit of the book can't work well" rather than "this bit of the book doesn't work well at my table"), and stop accusing anyone that doesn't have the same problems you are having of things like thinking the game in question is literally perfect, and you'll find the resulting conversation stays more focused on your actual problem and the actual solutions rather than all the distracting junk you have chosen to sew all throughout the conversation even though you don't want anyone to respond to it?



Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 31, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> I think it's important not to be myopic and focus on only one solution i.e.  Changing the Base class.  A single class rogue is not supposed to be damage king because they are not 4e strikers (and even there, their other talents meant they were not top of damage dealing) and they are more versatile than pure damage dealers.   A fighter rogue multiclass can help increase base damage output.   That's as it should be.  A more damage dealing rogue can be built as a pure dex fighter with a criminal background.  That is also as intended.  So-called system mastery is just a way of tweaking builds in a direction.   I can also make my Rogue even better out of combat if I want to.
> 
> I stress again,  carry out a test to see how much damage actually matters to killing the monster.  The gap may be smaller than everyone thinks.
> 
> Magic items with extra damage will help, as will ones that help maximising ways to gain advantage to increase the chance of a critical.  A Rogue's dagger that increases critical range,  adds extra sneak dice, increases the size of critical dice, or can grant advantage,  or a dagger of venom might all be good ways to go.



Damage king? Really? Talk about strawman.

Let me reassure you the Rogue would come nowhere near the damage crown with my suggestions (that you keep ignoring) and that the difference per RAW just may be LARGER than you think.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?




The medium is the message.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?






Paul Farquhar said:


> The medium is the message.



What Paul said.

Because of all the unhelpful, unnecessary, and yet ever-present blech included, I can't even be sure what the "message" really is.

If you don't find my suggestion of altering the way you choose to communicate in order to alter the responses you receive helpful, that's on you - I can't force you not to create the situations you "sigh" about being in, I can only say "Hey, horse, here's some water." and see what happens.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Damage king? Really? Talk about strawman.
> 
> Let me reassure you the Rogue would come nowhere near the damage crown with my suggestions (that you keep ignoring) and that the difference per RAW just may be LARGER than you think.




I can only say that when I ran the test, the difference was less than I thought but we have no single classed rogues so I'm not in a position to run the test to address your issue, only you can do that.  In our test,  the cleric came out lowest most often,  except for a fight with mooks and a firestorm,  where he came out top.

If you already know your changes will fix your issue then you don't need validation from us.  We're only saying it's not an issue that we're seeing so here are some alternative possible solutions.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 31, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> What Paul said.
> 
> Because of all the unhelpful, unnecessary, and yet ever-present blech included, I can't even be sure what the "message" really is.



Read my second post in this thread. (I think it's post #4)

To me, the message is crystal clear: what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?

Are there any unforeseen consequences I've missed? Any loopholes or abusive combos I need to patch up?


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Read my second post in this thread. (I think it's post #4)
> 
> To me, the message is crystal clear: what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?
> 
> Are there any unforeseen consequences I've missed? Any loopholes or abusive combos I need to patch up?




Could you also address the suggested solutions to your perceived problems of the rogue at your table?


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Read my second post... To me, the message is crystal clear...



You really don't see how those two details are at odds, do you? Your message could have been crystal clear in the title of the thread, and if not there, then definitely in your first post in the thread - which was not the case this time around.



CapnZapp said:


> what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?



I think it seems like there are significant enough differences between our at-the-table experiences that my thoughts on your house-rule are almost assuredly going to be irrelevant, because you're talking about enhancing the damage output of one of the classes I've seen lay out consistent high damage on a regular basis (both relative to the other characters, and relative to the monster hit point totals) _without_ the player of the rogue managing many off-turn sneak attacks.

So to me, it sounds completely unnecessary and like it's not the unforeseen consequences, but your deliberately intended consequences, that would be the cause of any problems that would arise.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 31, 2018)

Another way of "fixing" the rogue would be to eliminate sneak attack entirely but give them extra attacks at 11 and 18.  Which means they could use 2H weapons and thus could get the good damaging feats.  To compensate we would have to remove a bunch of their special abilities, especially the defensive ones, which means we would then need to give them heavy armor proficiency.

There, fixed.


----------



## Krachek (Mar 31, 2018)

Simply stop giving xp points based on damage per encounter, and rogue will be fine.


----------



## gyor (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry that's just a  argument.
> 
> I want a rogue that too can "double up on the DPR". Then you can choose to not do that, that's fine.
> 
> ...




 Arcane Trickster, take the Shadow Blade Spell, use a 4th level slot that will be an extra 4D8 pyschic damage and automatic advantage in darkness or dim light, can be thrown and summoned back. Still not enough? Take the absorb elements spell as well, its a cross between protection from energy and smite, but for the Wizard/Arcane Trickster/Eldrich Knight.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> My real question is, why is thread apparently filled with people who absolutely insist the Rogue of all classes be shackled to a very harsh system mastery requirement...?
> 
> What is inherent to the Rogue's theme that just screams "straight-forward players shouldn't bother! Go play Champion or something!"
> 
> And of course I'm sarcastic. They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all.



 You're evidently entitled to your own opinions about 5e, the designers, and the design decisions made. And ENWorld gives you a platform to air those. And those who read your title and original post are free to look at the language and tone used, judge the post, and you yourself by the metric of your previous posts, and render their own opinions.
That their opinions don't seem to jibe with your own agenda is not cause to insult, attempt to insinuate, or assign them ulterior motives.



> Why otherwise utterly deny there is any kind of issue here, and adamantly avoid actually discussing the suggestions I've made?



 Because a lot of people do not share your opinion that there is an issue there, and it took you till the _5th post_ on the thread after your OP to actually _make _some suggestions. Your priority was obviously the points addressed in the OP and people are concentrating on that because that is where your priorities appear to lie.

Now myself, and several others are willing to accept that you need help on this issue at your table, and we accept that it _is _an issue _at your table_. Thus suggestions have been offered and analysis done on your proposals. Generally altering an entire class because of an issue a single player is having is a rather clumsy way of doing things, and opens up the risk of going haywire when an actual optimiser gets hold of it.
Hence why there are a lot of alternative suggestions to help you out as well.



CapnZapp said:


> Rogues have few synergy effects with multiclassing.



 Expertise says "Hi!" Cunning Action just just nicks your wallet and scarpers. 



> There are no Rogue feats that increase DPR.



 Alert, Sentinel, Skulker, Medium Armoured and Shield master. Sharpshooter, Crossbow expert. 




CapnZapp said:


> Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?



 Practise what you preach. Quit trying to make grand sweeping claims about the _people _responding to your OP and instead look at what they're _actually saying_.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Read my second post in this thread. (I think it's post #4)
> 
> To me, the message is crystal clear: what do you think about changing the base class to one "full" sneak a round instead of two "half" ones?
> 
> Are there any unforeseen consequences I've missed? Any loopholes or abusive combos I need to patch up?




I think it is fine as is. If it aint broke don't try to fix it.

But then no one in either of my groups measures their contribution to the group by the size of their DPS, so "my opinion" is of no value to you.

But you haven't justified your use of the words "miserly" and "begrudging" in the thread title. You can't separate the words in the title from what you claim your "message" is.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 31, 2018)

So let's get this straight.

Non-rogue characters are doing higher damage per round than most people experience.  This is possibly because it's focused on situational, nova damage and definitely because the players in question have used feats and optimized their characters.  

However, rogues can't take feats such as sharp shooter, sentinel, hide during combat, do anything to get attacks (and sneak attack damage) outside of their turn or do anything to optimize their characters because for the rogue those options are too "byzantine". 

Suggestions on how to increase the rogues damage such as increasing the sneak attack die to a d8 or d10 (a very simple fix) or give them magic weapons to help out are ignored.  The solutions you suggested seem to be more complex.

Then 98% of responses say that there's not a problem, that the answer in the title of the thread is a simple "NO".  All of those responses get attacked because they don't agree 100% with the OP.

But let's talk about (an abbreviated version to bypass some of the bluster) first posts.


CapnZapp said:


> ...
> But in games with feats the fighter get upwards of 35 or more damage a round, along with a host of other tricks.
> ...
> There is no burst/nova capability.
> ...




I don't see the fighters getting 35 or more damage per round consistently without using limited resources, and rogues have their own tricks if they want.

True, rogues don't have burst/nova capability.  Unless of course they're an assassin or a trickster rogue.

In order for your fighters to be getting sky-high damage, they have to have quite a bit of system mastery as well. What's your point?  As far as being a combat-heavy game, it depends on your DM and player.  There's another thread where people are posting that combat takes up half or less of game time for many people.  I know in my current game, the rogue has been quite useful out of combat. YMMV



CapnZapp said:


> Change sneak attack from once per turn into *once per round*.
> Instead, grant one sneak d6 *each level* instead of every other.




Why take away something only to make people take a feat later on to get it back?

It would be easier to just give the +_n_ damage on a sneak attack or change the sneak attack die to d8 or d10.  I think it's a pretty huge increase in damage.



CapnZapp said:


> You gain one *"backstab die"* every other level, which are regained during a short or long rest. You may use any or all of your backstab dice on any attack that qualifies as a sneak attack. Each adds 1d6 to the sneak damage. You can decide how many backstab dice to use after you see whether you hit or miss.




You think this is simple?  OK ... I don't see a need for it.  But depending on your game your just piling on and if you don't have many fights between rests then the rogue is suddenly out-damaging everyone.



CapnZapp said:


> Opportunist. You may sneak attack *once per turn* instead of once per round. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
> This feat reinstates the raw rule, in the anticipation that regular players won't bother, and thus, that the feat won't be considered a feat tax.





CapnZapp taketh away so that CapnZapp can giveth?  I don't see the point.  If I want to play a swashbuckler rogue, this becomes a feat tax for no reason.

Then throw in a few things like rogues have to be better than everyone at damage, better survivability in melee compared to a bear totem barbarian all while insisting that everyone else is wrong unless they agree with you 100%.

I could see some minor tweaks to make a more combat effective rogue here and there depending on type of rogue, but why bother?  Anything that doesn't just agree with the mighty Capn is ignored or flamed.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> My real question is, why is thread apparently filled with people who absolutely insist the Rogue of all classes be shackled to a very harsh system mastery requirement...?
> 
> What is inherent to the Rogue's theme that just screams "straight-forward players shouldn't bother! Go play Champion or something!"
> 
> ...



I find the frequent forum jump to "They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all." to be a very simplistic broad brush disnissal often throw when foljs just disagree, especially when married with broad sweeping grouping like "thread filled with."

It often is used to dismiss what are actually cogent positions that jyst happen to disagree with the presumptions or conclusions.

But let me tackle your bait...

Item 1 - is the rogue "shackled to a very hard system mastery requirement"? Not in my experience. In your own case, you said the player did not want to or prefer to opyimize iirc. You characterized the minmaxing options as byzantine, a matter of taste. I suggest that, in fact, there are quite a few builds to optimize two-sneaks available. I have not seen them to be more onerous to construct. How hard are they to play compared to the -5/+10... a lot of that depends on the combats put in play by the Gm. -5/+10 math for extra damage only works out to be a bonus if the hit odds are really high **and** predictable. 

Item 2 - Should it be "harder" at all to get the rogue dpr to match the barbarian or fighter? Yes. Because the class rogue gets more out of combat stuff. They get more skills, more expertise, etc. Of the got all those things and easily matched (or got close enough it does not matter) they would be OP by comparison in a game where both mattered.

Now, the key thing is once a GM table decides to throw out (effectively) those other things and drive to as much as 90% combat, that goes away.

But, like the original title,  the post above characterizes this in terms relating to system and edition, not the half-dodge "its about my table" revisionist repackaging mentinoned along the way. 

More and more, this is clearly seeming to be a vehicle to gripe about 5e than a seeking house rule thread.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 31, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Maybe if you stop focusing on the messenger and instead respond to my message...?



Is this an example of you focusing on the message?

"They just hate change and the notion their edition is not flawless, that's all."


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 31, 2018)

I disagree that the rogue requires system mastery to be effective. I’d be willing to accept the notion that the swashbuckler subclass has a higher bar, but that subclass came with that exact warning (see the sidebar on page 136 of the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide).

If we just want to talk about 1d6 of sneak attack per level, here are some quick numbers (I’ll update my original numbers posted from early in this thread):

5th level rogue (18 DEX), no magic weapon or feats averages 19 on a hit (crit 34).
5th level new rogue (18 DEX), no magic weapon or feats averages 26 on a hit (crit 48).
5th level fighter (18 STR), no magic weapon or feats averages 22 with two hits of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 29).

11th level rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 30.5 on a hit (crit 56).
11th level new rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 48 on a hit (crit 91).
11th level fighter (20 STR), no magic weapons or feats averages 36 with 3 attacks of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 43).

91 points of damage on a critical is ludicrous. Consider that the 11th level fighter is going to average 72 points of damage with use of their Action Surge.

Let’s push forward to 15th level…
15th level rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 37.5 on a hit (crit 70).
15th level new rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 62 on a hit (crit 119).
15th level fighter (20 STR), no magic weapons or feats averages 36 with 3 attacks of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 43).

Note that the numbers for the 11th and 15th level fighters haven’t changed (they’re still sitting at 3 attacks). The base rogue has now closed the 6 points of damage per round “gap” that is the crux of your complaint and their critical hits spike way above that.

Now to the point of my contention with the proposed idea of 1d6 sneak attack per level of rogue. The 15th level fighter is doing 58% damage of the rogue on average.

We could give the fighter Great Weapon Master and assume that he hits all three times still even with the -5 to hit. That would increase his damage from 36 to 66 and put him back on par with the new rogue. Then again, we could give the rogue those feats that we’ve talked about many times during this thread and he’d race out ahead again.

Let’s push to 20th level (so the fighter can get that 4th attack)… 
20th level rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 44.5 on a hit (crit 84).
20th level new rogue (20 DEX), no magic weapons or feats averages 79.5 on a hit (crit 154).
20th level fighter (20 STR), no magic weapons or feats averages 48 with 4 attacks of a greatsword (1 crit brings this to 55).

Once the fighter grabs that 4th attack, they get back up to inflicting only 60% of the new rogue’s damage.

I think your proposed house rule would prove bad for your game, which is why I’m trying to warn you off of it.


----------



## rgoodbb (Mar 31, 2018)

If you wish another way to spice your up party’s Rogue, howzabout something like:

On a sneak attack hit, roll a d4:

1-2 – Nothing extra happens. 
3– BLEEDER – roll half your sneak attack dice again (rounded up) or some form of other extra damage that will attempt to equal the rest of your party. You have hit their main artery etc. 
4 – HAMSTRUNG – The creature is Incapacitated/restrained/stunned or some other status effect

If the rest of the party is kicking DPR ass, then landing a status effect or two in during a combat might be quite interesting and/or fulfilling to your player. It also gives them the occasional damage boost to help keep up with the others. 

Didn’t 4e rogues land status effects or ongoing damage? I can’t remember.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

I dislike the off turn sneak attack junk.  Essentially doubling the rogues combat ability by allowing him to get 1 off turn attack per round is just bad in multiple ways.  

 [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] proposed solution is to just give that to the rogue all the time because he believes that even with it all the time that the rogue won't keep up.

I believe this is gravely mistaken.  I believe there would only be a handful of builds at that point that could ever with the most optimization imaginable do more damage than the new suggested rogue.

That to me is a problem.  I wouldn't mind making sneak attack slightly stronger and eliminating the chance for off-turn sneak attack.  But to double it outright is making the rogue base class do what only very optimized builds can do.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 31, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> We could give the fighter Great Weapon Master and assume that he hits all three times still even with the -5 to hit. That would increase his damage from 36 to 66 and put him back on par with the new rogue. Then again, we could give the rogue those feats that we’ve talked about many times during this thread and he’d race out ahead again.




About that:  I've done some pretty extensive math analysis, and greater weapon master gives a bonus in the range of 2-4 to your damage per hit, depending on the foe's AC and other factors.  The -5 penalty can be overcome, but the things you do to overcome that penalty also would boost the chance to hit of a non GWM fighter.  

So you could roughly estimate that, on a 3 attack fighter, increase DPR by 10 is a realistic outcome of having that feat available.


----------



## Hjorimir (Mar 31, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> About that:  I've done some pretty extensive math analysis, and greater weapon master gives a bonus in the range of 2-4 to your damage per hit, depending on the foe's AC and other factors.  The -5 penalty can be overcome, but the things you do to overcome that penalty also would boost the chance to hit of a non GWM fighter.
> 
> So you could roughly estimate that, on a 3 attack fighter, increase DPR by 10 is a realistic outcome of having that feat available.




Good stuff. Thanks, Mr. Black.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

Amiel said:


> Could you also address the suggested solutions to your perceived problems of the rogue at your table?



Only in the context of you having read my suggestions, and providing the feedback "I think this would be a better solution".

Also, I'm interested in the opinions of people sharing my belief it's a general problem deserving a general solution.

Not interested in "solutions" that mostly are meant to shunt away the issue to "my table" only.

Thanks


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> You really don't see how those two details are at odds, do you? Your message could have been crystal clear in the title of the thread, and if not there, then definitely in your first post in the thread - which was not the case this time around.



You're really going to spend an entire post bitching about the fact a few posters managed to insert their replies between my two posts?

Check the post timestamp. It can't have been more than ten minutes. 

Why do you always insert yourself in threads I start only to never discuss in the spirit of the thread? I'm sick and tired of you Aaron; you are uniformly unhelpful.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

gyor said:


> Arcane Trickster, take the Shadow Blade Spell, use a 4th level slot that will be an extra 4D8 pyschic damage and automatic advantage in darkness or dim light, can be thrown and summoned back. Still not enough? Take the absorb elements spell as well, its a cross between protection from energy and smite, but for the Wizard/Arcane Trickster/Eldrich Knight.



Thank you for pointing out there are ways to scrounge out a few more DPR. 

Now please address my issue of this thread: what about simplifying and un-byzantifying the class design?

Wouldn't it be great if the Rogue got one full sneak attack instead of two half ones?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

Oofta said:


> So let's get this straight.
> 
> Non-rogue characters are doing higher damage per round than most people experience.  This is possibly because it's focused on situational, nova damage and definitely because the players in question have used feats and optimized their characters.
> 
> ...



I'm not ignoring their suggestions as much as they're ignoring mine.

I consider it uncouth to not mention my suggestion with a single word. Having the temerity to suggest I'm ignoring them when they are the ones ignoring me is worse.

One full sneak instead of two half sneaks - what's so complicated about that?

I'll tell you what: it's not. It's more probable you didn't read my suggestion in your eagerness to tell me I'm wrong and there is not a single thing at fault with this pristine perfect edition; the same message you always post in threads I start.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> About that:  I've done some pretty extensive math analysis, and greater weapon master gives a bonus in the range of 2-4 to your damage per hit, depending on the foe's AC and other factors.  The -5 penalty can be overcome, but the things you do to overcome that penalty also would boost the chance to hit of a non GWM fighter.
> 
> So you could roughly estimate that, on a 3 attack fighter, increase DPR by 10 is a realistic outcome of having that feat available.



I have seen plenty of Nova rounds where the fighter hits with all five attacks for +50 damage. 

Faced with the choice on what to believe: my own play experience with ruthless minmaxers or your white-room calculations, I have chosen the former, and removed/reworked the feat from my games.

The main flaw of average numbers is, nobody cares for average numbers, if you can ensure nova output NOW, and low output later, when you probably get a long rest instead of trudging along to lower the average to your numbers.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You're really going to spend an entire post bitching about the fact a few posters managed to insert their replies between my two posts?
> 
> Check the post timestamp. It can't have been more than ten minutes.



Look at threads started by other people; the ones that actually go somewhere useful is because their _first post_ - the one that sets the tone for the entire thread for everyone reading it, especially those people that assume "They hit the post button, so they must have included everything they meant to say to open the conversation" instead of assuming that the important information is going to be made in some follow-up post that there is no indication is coming along, even if it is in less than ten minutes.

Then look at threads started by you and see what is different. It isn't just that it's you making the posts - it's the tone and context created by your word choice and phrasing. If you want a different outcome, you have to make different efforts - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to work out differently is just going to lead you to disappointment.

Also, stop your lying about me. I did not "spend an entire post bitching" - not only because I wasn't "bitching", we're just having a conversation despite your attempt to paint my participation as something negative - but also because my comments aimed at helping you avoid things you express dislike of in the future were only a portion, not the entirety, of my post.



> Why do you always insert yourself in threads I start only to never discuss in the spirit of the thread? I'm sick and tired of you Aaron; you are uniformly unhelpful.



If you think I'm doing something wrong, then hit the report button. If you can't handle someone posting in a public forum having different opinions than yours and not just sitting by and letting it slide that you constantly equate 'doesn't agree with me' with BS like 'are ganging up on me' and 'won't admit the edition isn't perfect', then hit the ignore button (you wouldn't be the first person here to use it as a means to turn this forum into their own personal echo chamber)

But as far as calling me "uniformly unhelpful" - it takes two to tango. You've got no clue whether or not my advice and input is helpful because you've never tried it out - usually because of your attitude that keeps you too busy getting hung up on useless stuff like whether or not the problem you are having is or isn't pretty much only happening at your table to notice when people (not me, in this case, I'll admit) give solutions to the problem.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Look at threads started by other people; the ones that actually go somewhere useful is because their _first post_ - the one that sets the tone for the entire thread for everyone reading it, especially those people that assume "They hit the post button, so they must have included everything they meant to say to open the conversation" instead of assuming that the important information is going to be made in some follow-up post that there is no indication is coming along, even if it is in less than ten minutes.
> 
> Then look at threads started by you and see what is different. It isn't just that it's you making the posts - it's the tone and context created by your word choice and phrasing. If you want a different outcome, you have to make different efforts - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting it to work out differently is just going to lead you to disappointment.
> 
> ...



Sorry, by now I recognize your game: wrest away the discussion from the topic at hand onto a personal focus.

I won't go there.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I dislike the off turn sneak attack junk.  Essentially doubling the rogues combat ability by allowing him to get 1 off turn attack per round is just bad in multiple ways.
> [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] proposed solution is to just give that to the rogue all the time because he believes that even with it all the time that the rogue won't keep up.
> 
> I believe this is gravely mistaken.  I believe there would only be a handful of builds at that point that could ever with the most optimization imaginable do more damage than the new suggested rogue.
> ...



Thank you for at least recognizing my perceived issue and reading my solution. 

Yes, in unoptimized games the Rogue needs no help (and I believe I said as much).

But I would be interested in you taking your analysis one step further: already in the core game the Rogue can achieve his level in sneak dice, only distributed over two, not one, successful sneak attacks.

You say you dislike that, but apparently you're more worried about the damage than the delivery.

Have you taken any steps to remedy that, is my question since it seems we could benefit from the same solution (only with different amounts of sneak dice).

Regards

Ps. From my point of view you don't need "very optimized builds", but judge for yourself:

The Druid gets there any time he summons eight Velociraptors. I've actually nerfed these spells by having the player roll a die each time: rill high, you get the exact critters you want; roll low, you get weaker specimens. Otherwise the Druid isn't geared towards DPR which isn't a problem since he's a support class.

The Paladin is an obvious nova'er.

The Barbarian also has it easy, with rage and reckless. 

The Sorcerer is a DPR beast and King of novas, as would be expected for a class capable of twinned cantrip plus quickened Fireball in the same round.

The Monk gets excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks and Stun remains the best debuff in the game (except possibly a twinned Hold Monster, but that's expensive) 

All five are capable of 60+ damage with effort and luck.

In this perspective, granting the Rogue a single helping of 9d6 doesn't raise any eyebrows. 

In fact all the players agree the Rogue falls behind and that half level in sneak dice is rather timid and conservative (or in my words, miserly and begrudging).

Of course, had the player maximized play and pulled off two sneaks a round with any consistency, the issue might have not been pressing at my table.

But that does not change my main criticism: Why is the Rogue one of the most difficult classes to play? Nothing in the class description suggests a reason why the current byzantine implementation is a good or proper one.

And very few of you have actually responded to the question: how would it be a bad thing to make the Rogue simpler? To me, the Rogue is an excellent candidate for Champion levels of straightforwardness.

In combat, mind you. Out of combat it can be as intricate as the traps it overcomes! ☺


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you for at least recognizing my perceived issue and reading my solution.
> 
> Yes, in unoptimized games the Rogue needs no help (and I believe I said as much).
> 
> ...




Is part of the problem a lack of synergy with other players?   Rogues find it far easier to gain advantage,  which doubles their chance of a critical,  which will include sneak attack.  If the other players are not working with the player to maximise that tactic, maybe that's part of the problem?  

If the player really struggles, then just take 3 levels of Rogue for the expertise and subclass and then choose champion for the remainder.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I have seen plenty of Nova rounds where the fighter hits with all five attacks for +50 damage.
> 
> Faced with the choice on what to believe: my own play experience with ruthless minmaxers or your white-room calculations, I have chosen the former, and removed/reworked the feat from my games.
> 
> The main flaw of average numbers is, nobody cares for average numbers, if you can ensure nova output NOW, and low output later, when you probably get a long rest instead of trudging along to lower the average to your numbers.



I recall an internet discussion once where i think it was different weapon attack options were being discussed. 

One guy was on quite a tear and it was not quite possible to figure out how they got to their conclusions which were decidedly different than others.

Then they got into the core math and showed and stated that they believed that for estimated oututs it was not the mean die roll or even the probable die rolls that should be used.... He saw the "mode" (number most frequently rolled) as the key and since on "his" d20 the most oft rolled number was a 17, that was the assumed die roll for all his math calculations.

And yes, optimized fighters in optimized teamplay on low AC opponents with lucky rolls can get 5 hits in a turn even with GWM and -5 to hit. 

But using that as a significant part of the other side of the scales for balancing dpr with the assumption of a non-optimized rogue who eschews optimized play **while** at the same time dismissing claims that choose to not trest it as a general problem or see it as "your table issue" is very... trollish.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm not ignoring their suggestions as much as they're ignoring mine.
> 
> I consider it uncouth to not mention my suggestion with a single word. Having the temerity to suggest I'm ignoring them when they are the ones ignoring me is worse.
> 
> ...




So I took the time to go back and quote your text, but you simply can't accept that the vast majority of people disagree with you, or that there may be simpler solutions.  Sorry my response wasn't just gushing praise for your brilliance.  I, along with several others, would be more than willing to discuss the topic but you aren't interested in a discussion. You simply want to rant and have everybody agree with you.  That or you're just trolling, I can't tell any more.

As far as 5E being perfect, that would be impossible.  No game system is perfect, no game system is for everyone. I've given my list of complaints more than once, I'm not going to bother again.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I have seen plenty of Nova rounds where the fighter hits with all five attacks for +50 damage.
> 
> Faced with the choice on what to believe: my own play experience with ruthless minmaxers or your white-room calculations, I have chosen the former, and removed/reworked the feat from my games.
> 
> The main flaw of average numbers is, nobody cares for average numbers, if you can ensure nova output NOW, and low output later, when you probably get a long rest instead of trudging along to lower the average to your numbers.




Could you post the stats for all PCs involved?


----------



## Ash Mantle (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Only in the context of you having read my suggestions, and providing the feedback "I think this would be a better solution".
> 
> Also, I'm interested in the opinions of people sharing my belief it's a general problem deserving a general solution.
> 
> ...




The others have read your suggestions and offered solutions in context to your perceived issues with the rogue. I don't have an issue with the rogue in play, and find it one of the more mechanically compelling and competent classes - especially with its mostly on active sneak attack and it's ability to get out of dodge at no opportunity attack cost. I've read the solutions offered, they don't merely shunt your perceived problems aside but actually offer meaningful solutions. 

If you're interested in the opinions sharing your belief that it's a general problem deserving a general solution and dismiss the opinions of others who do not share that opinion and actually find the rogue as is to be a good class, then you're being remarkably disingenuous and biased.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Ps. From my point of view you don't need "very optimized builds", but judge for yourself:
> 
> The Druid gets there any time he summons eight Velociraptors. I've actually nerfed these spells by having the player roll a die each time: rill high, you get the exact critters you want; roll low, you get weaker specimens. Otherwise the Druid isn't geared towards DPR which isn't a problem since he's a support class.
> 
> ...



 The sorceror obviously can get there by dropping fireballs into large tightly-packed groups and/or by twin hasting the melee heavy-hitters.

Barbarian? Has two attacks. May get a bonus weapon attack if optimised. May get a reaction attack with DM collusion. If they're taking the -5 to hit, then even with advantage they're unlikely to land all of them. Their attack bonus is what? +9? With the usual adventuring day, they're only going to be raging maybe half the time as well.
Plus, from your previous threads on Crossbow expert, we know that a high proportion of encounters start at range. The barbarian's ranged damage isn't going to get them anywhere near 60+ consistently.

Druid: DM gets to choose what creatures turn up of the CR that the caster specifies in Summon spells. If the DM is consistently giving the best options available, then the Druid is going to perform consistently better than using the default 5e rules.

Monk: Only gets to use their weapon plus on two of their attacks. The other one or two are unarmed and so won't get that bonus. Damage will be less than 10 per hit, so I'm unsure of how they're hitting 60+ DPR. Could you elucidate please?

In short, hitting 60+ DPR should not be possible for all of them without DM collusion from what you've told us. Unless by "effort and luck" you mean "multiple natural 20s".

*In the majority of tables with default 5e rules and basis, this level of consistent damage would be not just unlikely, but actually impossible. Thus why bringing the rogue class up to 50 DPR would be neither necessary, not even desired.* This is why a lot of people aren't agreeing with your OP. No grand conspiracies to keep the rogues down. Just people playing with different groups.

OK. This is the bit that you're interested in  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION].If you want to make the Rogue simpler and allow a rogue whose player optimises at a similar level to where your other players are to do a similar amount of damage, then I have a suggestion:
*Remove the round/turn limitation of Sneak attack completely.* No fiddling with extra dice or short-rest replenishing pools. _*The Rogue simply gets to deal sneak attack on every hit that qualifies. *_
At base that allows a dual-wielding rogue to deal sneak attack twice. Plus it allows a feat taken and/or DM fiat to get an additional sneak attack as a reaction. And finally it provides a good incentive for the sorceror to buff their own damage by providing the Rogue with haste or similar spells rather than just the heavy melee types.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 1, 2018)

Note much can hit 50 dpr consistently, nova damage is easy though (action surge,smites etc).

 A Sorlock at higher levels and GWM fighter+ PAM would do it level 11 perhaps. 

 Kinda have to expect that when you allow feats and MCing into the game the designers missed a few combos.
There is no dex based melee feat that can compete with the -5/+10 feats.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you for at least recognizing my perceived issue and reading my solution.
> 
> Yes, in unoptimized games the Rogue needs no help (and I believe I said as much).
> 
> ...




Yes, but delivery is also considered.



> Have you taken any steps to remedy that, is my question since it seems we could benefit from the same solution (only with different amounts of sneak dice).
> 
> Regards




I have not.  In games where most other players highly optimize I'll either play something else if I want to keep up with them in combat or I'll highly optimize my rogue toward out of combat purposes and be the best of the best at those.  It helps that I know optimization when I see it.



> Ps. From my point of view you don't need "very optimized builds", but judge for yourself:
> 
> The Druid gets there any time he summons eight Velociraptors. I've actually nerfed these spells by having the player roll a die each time: rill high, you get the exact critters you want; roll low, you get weaker specimens. Otherwise the Druid isn't geared towards DPR which isn't a problem since he's a support class.
> 
> ...




A few things.  I only really look at single target damage potential not AOE potential as the impact of AOE's can be so variable.  I wouldn't compare it to NOVA damage without at least looking at how much daily damage in total the NOVA character can do as well.

1.  Paladins can occasionly NOVA for a lot of damage.  They don't get anywhere near 60 DPR even with GWM and PM and smites.
2.  Monks get much less damage than even the Paladin (unless maybe you are counting the advantage he can grant into his damage?)
3.  Barbarians are great at damage when optimized.  Even a Zealot Barbarian struggles to break 60 DPR.
4.  I have no idea what Velicoraptors are capable of right off.  So I can't really comment on your Druid.
5.  Sorcerer does good AOE damage.  As I mentioned before though I really don't compare single target vs AOE.

Anyways out of your current party (barring magic items), no melee character you listed gets near 60 DPR.



> In this perspective, granting the Rogue a single helping of 9d6 doesn't raise any eyebrows.
> 
> In fact all the players agree the Rogue falls behind and that half level in sneak dice is rather timid and conservative (or in my words, miserly and begrudging).




Rogues are one on my favorite PC's in 5e.  I've never felt like I'd be behind on damage unless it was GWM and PM style shenanigans.  I've never yet used off-turn attacks as a rogue.  



> Of course, had the player maximized play and pulled off two sneaks a round with any consistency, the issue might have not been pressing at my table.
> 
> But that does not change my main criticism: Why is the Rogue one of the most difficult classes to play? Nothing in the class description suggests a reason why the current byzantine implementation is a good or proper one.




Well, rogues are hard to "play" because most players either suck at tactics or don't want to engage in them regularly.  My rogues all approach combat very tactically and always either try to hide for advantage or two weapon fight and maximize hit and run style tactics.  Generally I'm assassain's or swashbucklers.  

As long as you can attack twice or get advantage on most of your turns then rogues compete well with all but the most optimized builds IME.  



> And very few of you have actually responded to the question: how would it be a bad thing to make the Rogue simpler? To me, the Rogue is an excellent candidate for Champion levels of straightforwardness.
> 
> In combat, mind you. Out of combat it can be as intricate as the traps it overcomes! ☺




I like the tactical aspects of the rogue.  I don't want him straightforward like a champion in that regard.  In terms of damage, every rogue I've ever played was straightforward in damage.  Play for advantage as often as possible or use two weapon fighting to maximize your chance of sneak attack landing.  No off-turn shenanigans etc.  (Not that I'd be above using them but I haven't yet).

I think for most of us the rogue plays very simply.  That's the real answer I think.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The Monk gets excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks and Stun remains the best debuff in the game (except possibly a twinned Hold Monster, but that's expensive)




I agree that the monk is a great class BUT, the monk does NOT get excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks.  Only 2 may be performed with a monk weapons, the others are *unarmed* attacks.  

I just re-checked the rules btw, because one of my players is a monk with a +1 spear.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I have seen plenty of Nova rounds where the fighter hits with all five attacks for +50 damage.




Well... in a super optimal occasion to do this (say you need 5 or above to hit), the odds of hitting 5 out of 5 times are 32%.  In a more normalish situation (your odds are hitting are about 50%), your chance of hitting 5 times are 3%



> Faced with the choice on what to believe: my own play experience with ruthless minmaxers or your white-room calculations, I have chosen the former, and removed/reworked the feat from my games.




There is a danger with relying on self experience without careful documentation, because recall bias etc can warp your perception - those "the fighter just hit five times!" are certainly very memorable!  On the other hand, white room calculations are not always sound either.  Anyway, I don't allow feats in my game in part because of GWM so... 



> The main flaw of average numbers is, nobody cares for average numbers, if you can ensure nova output NOW, and low output later, when you probably get a long rest instead of trudging along to lower the average to your numbers.




I readily conceded that the rogue has next to no nova capacity.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Apr 1, 2018)

In a game that functions as te core rules of 5E seem to suggest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Rogue. I’ve seen a coupleof pure Rogues, and also a multiclass Rogue/Ranger that were all functional characters with much to offer their party. 

In a game that is more combat focused than the rules seem to expect, the Rogue does a bit less damage than the classes designed more for martial capability. The difference is more notable the more the focus shofts toward combat and away from the other pillars, and also the fewer combats per day that the party faces. This is offset at least a but by its ability to avoid damage and its performance outside of combat. 

In CapnZapp’s game, it seems that there is no reason to play a Rogue and the player in question would be better off playing a Fighter with the Criminal background. He could then take the same exact feats the other players have taken for their characters, and match their DPR exactly.

If for some reason the player still wanted to play a Rogue, then just grant Extra Attacks at the same level as the other classes, and remove the Once Per Turn restriction on Sneak Attack.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Apr 1, 2018)

I also find the 5e rogue disappointing, and less fun to play than in previous editions. In part, this is because I want specific things from my thief/rogue, and they are not measured in DPR:

(1) *a (mostly) non-magical class*. Arcane Trickster aside, rogue is the only class that is spell-less by design apart from the fighter. 
(2) *skill monkey*. Able to do more non-combat non-magical things than other classes. 
(3) *a class capable of excelling in the exploring and or social game*, while holding their own in combat. 
(4) *diversity of builds*. I want viable charisma rouges, intelligence rogues, strength rogues, wisdom rogues. Not just Dex rogues.

In my view, the 5e rogue delivers (1), but not (2)-(4); I recognize that my desires might be the problem here. 

Nevertheless:
(2) Two extra skills and expertise should deliver, but bard and ranger also get one extra skill, and bard gets expertise from level 3, as well as Jack of all trades at 2. From levels 3-11 (when Reliable Talent kicks in), then, the Rogue is not more versatile in skills as a bard, who is additionally a full caster with tons of utility. The only thing that distinguishes Rogues is the ability to apply expertise to Thieves' Tools, which Rogues can't do.

(3) The Ranger has a better exploration game (as does the Outlander background for outdoor games); thieves' tools proficiency are easily acquired in background. Three spellcasting classes use charisma as a prime stat (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock), and two use it as a secondary stat (Cleric, Paladin). With backgrounds, any of these can naturally be a party face. 

(4) Without multiclassing, I think I have yet to see a rogue with less than a 14 dex. I recognize I may want a diversity of builds that doesn't exist for other classes, but since this is the only non-fighter non-magical option, and since fighters can do equally well with Strength or Dex, I would like the ability to have viable builds favoring mental stats. Things have begun to change. XGTE does have subclasses that favour these stats, but I don't think  they can do so without at least a +2 Dex modifier.

The problem for me, then, isn't that the rogue can't hold their own or be almost as good as someone else; but that there is nothing they can do that is distinctly theirs. (2) and (3) point to *niche erosion* -- you need to make some pretty focussed choices in order to hold on to any edge. And those choices (4) don't allow a wide variety of builds.  

I know these aren't [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] 's issues. I agree that the rules for Sneak Attack are byzantine and non-intuitive, but that's not where I see the real fix being needed.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 1, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you for pointing out there are ways to scrounge out a few more DPR.
> 
> Now please address my issue of this thread: what about simplifying and un-byzantifying the class design?
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if the Rogue got one full sneak attack instead of two half ones?




You are missing the point: people who like rogues like them _because_ of the complexity.

If you want simplicity play a fighter.

So no. It wouldn't be better. Some players like simplicity, some like complexity and some prefer non-combat encounters. the game should accommodate all types of player.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - you are already pretty convinced of your fix.  So, what's the problem here.  Institute your fix and have at it.  Take the time to actually track damage done for a couple of sessions (just to do away with confirmation bias) and you're golden.

I know that I had a heck of a time convincing my group just how far behind my fighter was than the rest of the group until I actually tracked the damage done.  It really is eye opening to be able to point to actual empirical evidence, rather than "I remember that one time the fighter hit five times!" because, I guarantee, you don't remember the times that he or she didn't.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - you are already pretty convinced of your fix.  So, what's the problem here.  Institute your fix and have at it.  Take the time to actually track damage done for a couple of sessions (just to do away with confirmation bias) and you're golden.
> 
> I know that I had a heck of a time convincing my group just how far behind my fighter was than the rest of the group until I actually tracked the damage done.  It really is eye opening to be able to point to actual empirical evidence, rather than "I remember that one time the fighter hit five times!" because, I guarantee, you don't remember the times that he or she didn't.




I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same.  What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM).  So a fix that works for one table won't for another.

I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter).  But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 2, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same.  What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM).  So a fix that works for one table won't for another.
> 
> I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter).  But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.




This is pretty solid.  Our table's Paladin and Cleric spike way harder than the Rogue, but once the spell slots and channel divinity are gone the rogue's sneak attack on every turn is better damage.  The Wizard just has no idea what he is doing.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same.  What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM).  So a fix that works for one table won't for another.
> 
> I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter).  But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.




Oh, for sure.  

That's why I always suggest tracking this stuff for a few sessions before you do anything.  Is this actually a problem?  Or is it simply perception?  How much of a problem is it?  Are we talking a 10 point spread over the course of a session or a 100?

IME, so much of this is tied up in confirmation bias that without actually tracking the numbers over a reasonable set of time (say, 1 level, or maybe 3 or 4 session - at least 20 or 30 round of combat at a minimum), that any complaints and fixes are just stabs in the dark.


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 2, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I think a big part of the issue is that no two tables are the same.  What works in one table may not work in another (even with the same DM).  So a fix that works for one table won't for another.
> 
> I've tracked damage done by different classes in home games and they're reasonably close given that I don't expect the same damage output from every class (out of combat and support options matter).  But there will always be different spikes and valleys at different levels, and different campaigns will have different combat and out of combat expectations.




This is what I found by tracking only damage that removed hit points.   Novas feel great but the damage that,matters can be illusory.   Your paladin can roll 101 damage on his crit but if the thing had 5hp left, he did 5hp.

Also,  mix up your encounter building,  some big monsters alongside some mooks.   Add scenarios with time limits or where time flows faster to discourage long rests.  Add monster patrols to make short rests more tricky.   All these variations will produce roller-coaster damage outputs where your fighter and Rogue types will be more consistent than the other classes.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> This is what I found by tracking only damage that removed hit points.   Novas feel great but the damage that,matters can be illusory.   Your paladin can roll 101 damage on his crit but if the thing had 5hp left, he did 5hp.
> 
> Also,  mix up your encounter building,  some big monsters alongside some mooks.   Add scenarios with time limits or where time flows faster to discourage long rests.  Add monster patrols to make short rests more tricky.   All these variations will produce roller-coaster damage outputs where your fighter and Rogue types will be more consistent than the other classes.




Heh.  See, this is the direction I was going with when I pointed out that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has a very, very specific playstyle and a strong aversion to any suggestion that it's that very playstyle that is the source of pretty much all of his problems.  In a group where you only have 1-3 encounters per day, allow for the players to buy magic items and have a group that is heavily into optimization, some classes are just going to get left by the wayside.  It's inevitable.  I mean, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s main complaint (or at least one of them) is the lack of feat and multiclassing synergy which, by and large, only matters to people on the bleeding edge of optimization.

So, sure, whatever solution [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] fancies is probably going to spackle over the issues at his table.  Fair enough.  AFAIC, it's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Without addressing the core issues, any solution is going to be a stopgap at best.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Apr 2, 2018)

I've played a 5e thief rogue and found it excellent fun. Their abilities are "always on", they dont need short rests or long rests to refresh their abilities. I dont think they need any buffing. Of course we play without the broken -5/+10 feats (broken) and no paladins (borderline broken).


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll (Apr 2, 2018)

Late to the party but you lost me at ‘correct play’.

No such thing.


----------



## WarpedAcorn (Apr 2, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...





If you are still looking for simple house rule solutions I might suggest a simple one of, depending on his Archetype, adding in a Bonus Attack around level 5-6. This is a fairly simple solution that allows him 2 opportunities to hit that Sneak Attack damage while keeping his Bonus Action free to do something Cunning.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 3, 2018)

This thread has got nearly two hundred responses, and I have been quoted dozens of times.

So apologies in advance - I cannot reply to each one individually.

If you have provided genuine feedback on my suggestions back in post #4, feel free to "mention" me like so: [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] and I shall reply.

Thx


----------



## Horwath (Apr 3, 2018)

I played Wood Elf rogue with Elven accuracy + longbow.

Take one level of fighter sometime for +2 attack.

with that and having range + Hide and rolling 3d20 for an attack, you will hit 90% of the time without being in too much danger.


----------



## JonnyP71 (Apr 3, 2018)

I care little for pure combat mechanics when I choose a character, and I love the Rogue - just started played a stereotypical Swashbuckler pirate-type (complete with fake eyepatch) and he's a lot of fun.  Also there's the totally brilliant Arcane Trickster, which harks back to the old Thief/Illusionist combo from days of yore,which was very versatile and entertaining.

Rogue or Wizard or something in between for me, for versatility, for flavour and for FUN.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Apr 3, 2018)

JonnyP71 said:


> I care little for pure combat mechanics when I choose a character, and I love the Rogue - just started played a stereotypical Swashbuckler pirate-type (complete with fake eyepatch) and he's a lot of fun.  Also there's the totally brilliant Arcane Trickster, which harks back to the old Thief/Illusionist combo from days of yore,which was very versatile and entertaining.
> 
> Rogue or Wizard or something in between for me, for versatility, for flavour and for FUN.




I think this is an important point.  The Rogue provides excellent play possibilities beyond DPR Monster for many, many players.  To infer that the class is 'broken' based on that one criteria lacks insight into how the player base utilizes and enjoys the class.


----------



## jasper (Apr 3, 2018)

I AM HAPPY WITH THE ROGUE DPR. REPEAT AFTER ME.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.
A TANK IS A TANK, AND THE THIEF AIN'T A TANK.

While 5E has increase the DPR of a thief, I will state. D&D was always set up as a group/squad game. Use good tactics to set the best combo of group DPR. Or just go play another system.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Apr 4, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...




In my 35+ years of D&D it has been anything but a combat heavy game. I’d say it has generally been 80% exploration (including social interaction which varies a lot depending on circumstances and scenario), 20% combat. 

I realize that for folks that started in 3e or especially 4e that combat plays a much bigger role. But that has never really been the case for us.

Rogues are (and have always) been among our most common character classes, along with fighters, rangers and bards. It’s quite common for us to have at least two bards and two rogues. In fact, at this point right now, all of the players have three characters each and we have no wizards, clerics, barbarians, druids, monks, or warlocks at all.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> In my 35+ years of D&D it has been anything but a combat heavy game. I’d say it has generally been 80% exploration (including social interaction which varies a lot depending on circumstances and scenario), 20% combat.
> 
> I realize that for folks that started in 3e or especially 4e that combat plays a much bigger role. But that has never really been the case for us.
> 
> Rogues are (and have always) been among our most common character classes, along with fighters, rangers and bards. It’s quite common for us to have at least two bards and two rogues. In fact, at this point right now, all of the players have three characters each and we have no wizards, clerics, barbarians, druids, monks, or warlocks at all.




This really, REALLY has nothing to do with when you started playing.  Honest.  Look at all those 1e modules.  Towers of orcs for killing.  Combat has ALWAYS been a huge part of the game.  Maybe not for you, but, please, try not to project your experience onto others.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 5, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> In my 35+ years of D&D it has been anything but a combat heavy game...



Whippersnapper, I've been playing for nearly 39 years, and I will confirm the opposite: Combat has always been an essential and substantial part of the game.  Balance between the classes was historically far less of an issue, and characters had more ways to shine in their roles, but it always was felt when a character was incapable of competing with their allies on the battlefield.  

That is not to say that every player cared that much about what they felt, but they did feel it.  And *most* players cared about it, in my experience.

5E would have been better if the rogue had a little bump in power to make them competitive.  There are a lot of ways to get there, and is is far from strictly necessary, but it would be an improvement.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> 5E would have been better if the rogue had a little bump in power to make them competitive.  There are a lot of ways to get there, and is is far from strictly necessary, but it would be an improvement.



Thank you. 

All of you arguing the Rogue is fine because there's little combat in your games...

Since combat is not paramount in your games, your games would not break by giving the Rogue some extra DPR oomph. 

And since that would unbreak my Rogue, the conclusion is clear: a more generous Rogue design would benefit everybody 

(Again, since I'm talking games with "all options on", the one argument I will concede is that any such bump probably should rely on feats or multiclassing, so it remains unavailable for "options off" games)


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Again, since I'm talking games with "all options on", the one argument I will concede is that any such bump probably should rely on feats or multiclassing, so it remains unavailable for "options off" games



While I believe a feat that doubles the sneak dice of a Rogue would not be imbalanced, it is of course much too much of a feat tax. 

That is why my suggestion change the base class, even though I already in my first posts said the "options off" rogue probably doesn't need any help.

It is also why I changed "once a turn" into "once a round". For the "options off" game the total output remains unchanged. 

It also allows the "you may sneak attack once a turn" feat, which feels much less like a feat tax (than a "double sneak dice" feat) even though it's key to actually increasing Rogue DPR.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2018)

Why are you concerned about other tables?  No one else, apparently, is having this issue.  Or at least, very, very few people are.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Apr 5, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> ...And since that would unbreak my Rogue, the conclusion is clear: a more generous Rogue design would benefit everybody



No. What you mean when you say "a more generous rogue design" would absolutely not benefit _everybody_ - there are those for whom your proposition would _cause_ an issue if we were to implement it.

Which is why you should stop trying to "benefit everybody" and focus on benefiting your own table; You are experiencing a problem, you fix it - and stop telling other people they need your fix too like the fix somehow won't work for you if other people don't need to use it too.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> So you have survivability closer to a Fighter or Barbarian.
> 
> The player chose to prioritise Int over Con because they wanted to play someone who was intelligent, but not as tough. Presumably for the same reason that they chose to actually play a Rogue rather than a Fighter with a criminal background. As soon as the DM mentioned that their style was going to disadvantage the Rogue compared to purely combat-focused, resource-based classes, that would be a definite option for someone wanting to shine more in combat compared to out of combat.
> As it is, the player went ahead and made the choice to play a less-combat-focused class, and assign abilities in a less combat-focused distribution.
> ...



Good call adding a mention.

Thank you for coming up with these 46 vs 44 numbers. They tell me my suggestions aren't far off the mark. 

The point is, the Rogue's particulars scream for it to be a glass cannon. It should be able to make alpha strikes like no other class in order to justify it being squishy and have no magical tricks up its sleeve.

Ideally the Rogue class design is remade entirely, and a clear demarcation is done between ranged and melee builds. At range, the ability to sneak and hide is a clear advantage, and I wouldn't want to add an alpha strike to that class. 

But in melee, where the bonus action is needed to dual-wield, and where you can't escape the monsters and can't easily hide, it's another story.

So thanks. Overall the simplification of the sneak dice (one full helping instead of two half helings) seems to do the trick. 

By your feedback, I'd say the "backstab" ability needs a bit of a boost, but making it melee or thrown weapons only.


Regards
Zapp

PS. Why are you okay with the Rogue out of all classes lacking a combat-focused build?

All the other classes (to my knowledge) can be built for combat. Party-focused combat even (that is, disregarding the "the Rogue does perform well in combat, assuming it gets to sneak around on its own" argument).

Most complaints (that I've seen around here) are directed towards beastmaster ranger, four elements monk and sorcerer. But it turns out ranger multiclasses excellently with fighter, the beastmaster is the sole class WotC have conceded needs an upgrade, you can choose another monk subclass, and as long as you choose red draconic the sorcerer does splendidly (and in fact rises to the DPR top on any short adventure day, converting most low-level slots to sorcery points to twin or quicken spells or even both in the same round).

But the Rogue is expected to work its ass off, and for what? Byzantinely scrounging a second sneak out of it? That's not good enough - that level of play expertise plays off much better with any other class.

Even if I buy your numbers right off the bat, the thing is, no class as squishy as a Rogue will "dominate" combat with a mere 2 points advantage over the sturdy Fighter. What it does imo is just barely justify why any party would invite a rogue - sure it's squishy, but at least it now pulls its own weight (dealing competitive damage), and it's useful to bring along for hidden traps and treasure.

It is, after all, "just" a martial. Imo all martials need to do well in combat, since they don't have nearly the same amount of doodad magics as the full casters.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> OK. This is the bit that you're interested in  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION].If you want to make the Rogue simpler and allow a rogue whose player optimises at a similar level to where your other players are to do a similar amount of damage, then I have a suggestion:
> *Remove the round/turn limitation of Sneak attack completely.* No fiddling with extra dice or short-rest replenishing pools. _*The Rogue simply gets to deal sneak attack on every hit that qualifies. *_
> At base that allows a dual-wielding rogue to deal sneak attack twice. Plus it allows a feat taken and/or DM fiat to get an additional sneak attack as a reaction. And finally it provides a good incentive for the sorceror to buff their own damage by providing the Rogue with haste or similar spells rather than just the heavy melee types.



But doesn't this make the base Rogue too good?

Now its damage is doubled (or tripled or even more: Rogue with Action Surge FTW!) even in games where the fighters have no feats.

My suggestions aren't that simple, granted, but for a reason: to gate the improvements behind a feat (so that only those Rogues that compete with feat-fighters* can unlock them).

_*as opposed to foo-fighters
_


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Apr 5, 2018)

Do you feel the ''sneak-y attacker'' feel with only one attack that may/may not deal a bunch of damage should be kept at all price? Because I have the feeling that the ''rogue'' may be built on the ranger chassis as a stealthy martial option who deal damage through multi-attacks, but instead of spells and a nature feel, you get cunning actions and  an urban/dungeon feel. I'd go back to the old Backstab multiplier on first round of combat to add a big damage spike then rely on multi-attacks for the damage. Add a melee heavy option that works like the hunter ranger, a marksman archetype (I usually refluff the gun artificer), an assassin with extra backstap multiplier and illusion spells on Cunning Action x/long rest and an arcane trickster that can actually steal spells and backstap with attack spells.


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 5, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Why are you okay with the Rogue out of all classes lacking a combat-focused build?
> 
> All the other classes (to my knowledge) can be built for combat. Party-focused combat even (that is, disregarding the "the Rogue does perform well in combat, assuming it gets to sneak around on its own" argument).
> 
> ...




I think the fundamental conflict on that is opportunity cost.  For any of the casters to have a high-damage combat build they generally have to give up a lot of their other options, this hurts less for the big three classes that can rechoose spells each day but still exists.  

A bard who goes all-in on damage probably stops healing or inspiring teammates as much, using their dice and buff spells on themselves, and still won't be good at it compared to a real combat class.

A sorcerer is a bit more obvious because they have so little for features beyond spells. If they pick for combat focus they give up almost all of their potential utility out of combat, and are probably hosed if something is resistant or immune to fire.

The martial classes are limited because they don't have a big pool of features to pick from to determine their focus, it is chosen to a large extent at class selection.  

A fighter is good at fighting because his base AND subclass features are all aimed toward combat, the same reason he is never going to be as useful outside of combat as a rogue, bard or ranger.

A rogue will often be a bit behind the fighter in straight-up combat because the out-of-combat part is baked into the base class features so you can't give those up for more fighting like you can in some other classes.  Much like the bard they can't really go for a true 'combat build' because their utility comes from a part of the class you can't exchange for combat options.

Many people see this as a feature.  Your class determines your outlook. A fighter will focus on main combat in some form.  A rogue will be utility with a strong dose of (common) situational damage. A ranger will have more utility than a fighter (especially in the wilds) but will have fewer combat options.

Other perspectives see it as a bug, where all classes should have the option of ditching more of the utility aspect of their class to focus primarily on combat, instead of having the mix dictated by class choice.  In this specific example it would probably involve ditching the skill focus of the rogue to up their combat gimmick of sneak attack.



I do suspect the Great Weapon Master feat in particular was built to help strength fighters and barbarians not get completely left behind by rogues and other DEX heavy builds shot got accuracy, damage, initiative, defense, and some useful skills from one stat.  
I also think people really underestimate the potential impact of that -25% chance to hit that comes with those feats against less mookish opponents, but I have limited experience to say for sure so do not wish to imply it is anything but theory and a gut feeling.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 5, 2018)

If you argue that a rogue should be as good as any other class in combat, then the converse also applies: all classes should be as useful as a rogue out of combat.

Personally. I don't see why someone who just wants to smack things round the head shouldn't just play a Barbarian. Choose a class that suits your playstyle, don't choose a class and then try and change it to suit your playstyle.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 5, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you argue that a rogue should be as good as any other class in combat, then the converse also applies: all classes should be as useful as a rogue out of combat.



Yes.  That way it doesn't matter if a campaign gets into a mostly-combat rut, or goes off on a diplomatic tangent, or stays in a dungeon exploring 80% of the time...  

...and, given a fairly diverse set of spell choices, most classes can be reasonably good in each pillar.


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes.  That way it doesn't matter if a campaign gets into a mostly-combat rut, or goes off on a diplomatic tangent, or stays in a dungeon exploring 80% of the time...
> 
> ...and, given a fairly diverse set of spell choices, most classes can be reasonably good in each pillar.




It often comes down a lot to skills, background and luck.  If all you have is athletics, acrobatics, perception and survival you are probably not adding a lot to any court or merchant scene.  On the other hand I have never seen a wizard make a jump or climb out of a pit on their own.  Shows the value of always grabbing a slightly off-core ability.  As Elan said cross-class learning is the key to a rich and fulfilling life.  In this case that means being able to at least participate while the guy with expertise and 6 skills goes to town.  Often literally.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 5, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Good call adding a mention.
> 
> Thank you for coming up with these 46 vs 44 numbers. They tell me my suggestions aren't far off the mark.
> 
> The point is, the Rogue's particulars scream for it to be a glass cannon. It should be able to make alpha strikes like no other class in order to justify it being squishy and have no magical tricks up its sleeve.



 I don't really see it like that.
The Rogue isn't a tank, but it has 2nd-best AC and HP, and class abilities that allow it to avoid damage and/or reduce it effectively. Its generally the most squishy of the martials, but tougher than most of the casters. Not glass by any means.
Its offensive capabilities aren't as high as DPR-focused fighters for example, but are consistently good and certainly don't embarrass it in combat. Over the course of a day, it tends to edge out the casters in damage done. It doesn't have massive nova: its not a cannon. But when the wizards and sorcerors are down to cantrips, and the barbarian is out of rages, the rogue is still stabbing away consistently.

And what it loses in combat capability compared to fighters, it massively gains compared to them in out of combat capabilities.

Of course this isn't helpful to _your _game, which is high-combat, but concentrated into few encounters. The rogue isn't going to be able to catch up with the casters if the casters aren't going to run out of high-end spell slots, and the rogue's out of combat supremacy doesn't help if there isn't out of combat moments for it to shine. 
Add to that that the rogue player prefers not to optimise, but the players that their performance is being compared to like to optimise a lot, and ts not surprising that there is a perceived discrepancy in performance.


> By your feedback, I'd say the "backstab" ability needs a bit of a boost, but making it melee or thrown weapons only.



 Maybe rather than a dice pool, just tweak the Assassin's ability: Once per short rest, you can turn a successful normal sneak attack into an automatic critical hit. Or something similar.



> PS. Why are you okay with the Rogue out of all classes lacking a combat-focused build?
> 
> All the other classes (to my knowledge) can be built for combat. Party-focused combat even (that is, disregarding the "the Rogue does perform well in combat, assuming it gets to sneak around on its own" argument).



 Mostly because I don't regard the rogue as a combat-focused class. It can hold its own, but it is emphasised much more towards out of combat capabilities. The same character concept could be expressed by a dex-based fighter if combat focus over out of combat capability is the preference.



CapnZapp said:


> But doesn't this make the base Rogue too good?



 Oh. Absolutely.
But remember that this isn't a general fix for a general issue. Its intended to fix the issue with your player's rogue in your game, compared with your other players.
Its a houserule that isn't going to be applied to any other games outside yours, so its behaviour outside the idiosyncrasies of your game isn't a problem.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 5, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Mostly because I don't regard the rogue as a combat-focused class. It can hold its own, but it is emphasised much more towards out of combat capabilities. The same character concept could be expressed by a dex-based fighter if combat focus over out of combat capability is the preference.




So in other words a Fighter is better at fighting, and a Rogue is better at roguery.  

...

Frankly I'm shocked.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 5, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> So in other words a Fighter is better at fighting, and a Rogue is better at roguery.
> 
> ...
> 
> Frankly I'm shocked.




Almost like they serve different niches in a campaign that's not completely a table top combat simulator.  Sacrilege.


----------



## pming (Apr 5, 2018)

Hiya!



CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.




We've never had a problem with it. <-- that statement is pretty much the reply to everything below, just FYI. 



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.




No Feats in my game (or MC), and an adventure day is however many combats they get into. Maybe it's 8, maybe it's 0, maybe it's 15. And as long as the Rogue can hold his own for one or two rounds, that's all he needs. The Fighter, Barbarian, War Cleric or Ranger can step in and help/save the Rogue. But if you see a Rogue as a "stealthy fighter", well...



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> But in games with feats the fighter get upwards of 35 or more damage a round, along with a host of other tricks. That's 10d6! There is no feat to meaningfully increase sneak attack damage.




...and one reason (a major one, actually) why we don't use Feats.



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> And in games where the Sorcerer can cast a Fireball together with two Firebolts each combat (for something like 8d6+3d10+3d10+10 damage) the Rogue's so-called "alpha strike" looks just sad.




Ok, and? A Sorcerer geard to the DPR side of things can do a lot of damage. It's one of their possibilities. A Rogue is not a Sorcerer...so why do you think a Rogue should be able to do the same thing? If you want to do lots of damage, play a Sorcerer or twinked-out-Feat-Fighter. If you want a character who is good a detecting, infiltrating and avoiding combat, then you play a Rogue.



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> But the design is not only too stingy with damage. It is poor and counter-intuitive. There is no burst/nova capability.




Er...why does a class that focuses on "avoiding" even need a big 'burst/nova' capability? If the enemy doesn't even know you are there... 



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> Correct play requires absolute system mastery, to gain two sneak attacks in as many rounds as humanly possible.




Hold the phone! ... Just what does "correct play" mean? That's like asking someone their favorite flavour of ice cream, and when they say Strawberry you yell out "INCORRECT!". 



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> The Assassinate ability is just mean to the Rogue player, enclosed in so many requirements it basically never happens in games where the party consensus is that solo raids are boring for the rest of the players; much more fun if everybody joins in to the combat simultaneously!




Holy molly! I think we agree on something!  I looked at the Assassin stuff too to see if they 'fixed' it from 3.5e. Nope. It, at least in our playing, virtually *is* impossible to get a situation where you can use it, let alone have any chance of actually pull it off. It's like they said "An assassin can kill in one blow! ... Well, at least paraplegic beavers. And maybe the occasional drunk goblin. I mean, it's not like an assassin is supposed to infiltrate a castle, find the general of the army, and then kill him. LOL! That would be silly!" :rolleseyes:



			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> Sure the Rogue has its uses outside of combat, but let's be honest - D&D is a combat-heavy game, and there needs to be a straightforward way to build a Rogue that is competitive in combat.




...and we're back to disagreeing.  In my opinion, a Rogue is MOST USEFUL _outside of combat_. That's where they shine. That's their "thing". A Rogue should not shine in combat any more than any other non-fighter type. 

A Rogue is best when striking from the shadows. Backstab, missile weapon, etc. Setting traps and luering his opponent into them, and then pouncing. And a companion. It can't be stated enough just how damn useful it is to have another Rogue "partner in crime"! You want sneak attack damage all the time? Get another Rogue partner. Hell, get two! I ran one game where there were THREE Rogues in the group. If/when they ganged up on one guy it was brutal!  But a Rogue all by his lonesome, standing toe to toe with an ogre, looking up at him, the Rogue shouldn't be thinking "How can I do the most damage to end this fight quickly?"...he should be thinking "Crap-dogs-on-a-stick! How did I end up here? Mother, you were right; I should have stayed in fighter school...".

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 5, 2018)

Could also be a problem related to that space between the keyboard and the computer chair.


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 5, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Could also be a problem related to that space between the keyboard and the computer chair.




"Damn cat! Get outta my way!"


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Hold the phone! ... Just what does "correct play" mean?



 In his case, "absolute system mastery," in your case "No feats or MC, 0-15 encounter/days, etc..."


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Rossbert said:


> I think the fundamental conflict on that is opportunity cost.  For any of the casters to have a high-damage combat build they generally have to give up a lot of their other options, this hurts less for the big three classes that can rechoose spells each day but still exists.
> 
> A bard who goes all-in on damage probably stops healing or inspiring teammates as much, using their dice and buff spells on themselves, and still won't be good at it compared to a real combat class.
> 
> ...



To me that reads more like a wish list of how the game should work, than how it actually does work.

Casters are not "hosed" because they choose to focus on combat. It is a class strength, not drawback, that they can be good at what the player wants to be good at.

You use many words but as far as I can see you really never refute my basic accusation: that the Rogue is especially bad at focusing on combat. 

So let's talk about that. How successful do you think my suggested changes are in fixing this?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you argue that a rogue should be as good as any other class in combat, then the converse also applies: all classes should be as useful as a rogue out of combat.



No, since combat is by far the most important pillar.

I'm okay with one class being "simple" in that it does only this pillar well. I'm okay with Fighters being a non-optimal choice in heavy social or exploratory campaigns.

But more importantly, don't change the subject, thank you. This thread is about Rogues in combat, not everything else.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Personally. I don't see why someone who just wants to smack things round the head shouldn't just play a Barbarian. Choose a class that suits your playstyle, don't choose a class and then try and change it to suit your playstyle.



I really don't think this thread is for you then. Good luck in your gaming!


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> ...and, given a fairly diverse set of spell choices, most classes can be reasonably good in each pillar.



You're not answering the central issue.

Why is one class especially bad at this, or rather, why are anyone okay with the byzantine manner in which the Rogue must act in a friendly simple game like this?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I don't really see it like that.
> The Rogue isn't a tank, but it has 2nd-best AC and HP, and class abilities that allow it to avoid damage and/or reduce it effectively. Its generally the most squishy of the martials, but tougher than most of the casters. Not glass by any means.
> Its offensive capabilities aren't as high as DPR-focused fighters for example, but are consistently good and certainly don't embarrass it in combat. Over the course of a day, it tends to edge out the casters in damage done. It doesn't have massive nova: its not a cannon. But when the wizards and sorcerors are down to cantrips, and the barbarian is out of rages, the rogue is still stabbing away consistently.
> 
> ...



Sorry but now you're wilfully ignoring the question posed in the very thread title.

I am not interested in you reducing the issue to my table.

If I answered rule and balance questions with a focus that narrow, I could just rubber-stamp "do whatever, it's only your table" and be done with it.

So if you don't have any generally applicable feedback I'll say thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Apr 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> This really, REALLY has nothing to do with when you started playing.  Honest.  Look at all those 1e modules.  Towers of orcs for killing.  Combat has ALWAYS been a huge part of the game.  Maybe not for you, but, please, try not to project your experience onto others.




That was exactly my point. Don't project YOUR experiences on others either. Not everybody has a combat heavy game. That's what the OP did, and I responded specifically to that projection.

I certainly won't disagree that the current design might not work well for all combat-heavy games. But there are many threads like this that make an assumption that there is something broken with the game, when the real point is that in that particular person's game, there's a problem. Every game is different. Saying, "hey, I find the rogue problematic in our combat-heavy game, and more specifically the way _we_ play that game. Is anybody having the same problem? Any suggestions on how to adjust it?"

That's fine. But he ended with "Let's be honest - D&D is a combat heavy game." No, it's not. At least not always.

The time playing I think is important only because the focus on combat and other things has shifted quite a bit over the editions. If you started with 4e, then you're probably playing a fairly combat heavy game. But even then, not always.

So I totally agree with you, and presented my projection as a counter-projection to the original projection.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you.
> 
> All of you arguing the Rogue is fine because there's little combat in your games...
> 
> ...





Although in a game that is not as focused on combat, the rogue is often a central character through the non-combat encounters. So bumping them up to be as good as the others in combat unbalances those games.

Another option would be to look at the other options and consider reducing the damage of others. 5e combat is often very quick, over in a matter of a few rounds. Bumping up the damage output of the rogue would probably shorten it more.


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> To me that reads more like a wish list of how the game should work, than how it actually does work.
> 
> Casters are not "hosed" because they choose to focus on combat. It is a class strength, not drawback, that they can be good at what the player wants to be good at.
> 
> ...




I didn't refute it because that was my point. It is fundamentally unable to fully focus on combat because it is written specifically not to.

The hosed part was because fire sorcerers tend to be the damage build. If you something can't be hurt by fiee most of their attacks are meaningless.

Backstab dice feel like you wanted to play a paladin, which is actually a fairly good example of a burst heavy damage precise strike could look, so may not be a bad starting point

I think the easiest thing is to just make sneak attack the class' whole gimmick.  I think one of the design principles was that each level brings a new thing (new class feature, class feature improvement, ASI, new level of spells).   So if it is your goal pull some class features you don't like and add a sneak attack die there.  While at it you should probably put in extra attack somewhere between 6 and 10 so they can have as many as three chances to get the sneak attack damage off.  

Probably avoid pulling too many of the defensive abilities, but then you will not have as many places to put in more dice.  You still need to be aware this keeps the rogue an accurate, sustained damage source, not a burst and going overboard will swing it the opposite way because the rogue will reliably be putting out this damage since they won't miss as much as a great weapon fighter and it only takes one hit out of two or three to do all the damage, instead of needing to hit with multiple attacks.

It has the advantage of being easy to implement, frees up the subclasses to add other directions and if you wanted to, it allows for an easy way to consistently add more dice if you wanted to swap out subclass features too.  In addition it is very easy to tweak as desired by just altering how many abilities you switch.

It makes it less rogue-like but boosts the damage in approximately a fair way comparatively for this type of campaign.

On the first hand, if you can list what things this player really needs to make it be a 'rogue' to them, it might be worth looking at a major overhaul using the paladin, ranger, or warlock as a base mechanic.


PS: I keep finding this thread (title especially) humorous personally because just about a month ago I was thinking that the rogue class was given way too much and I wished other classes had stuff to let them keep up.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 6, 2018)

Rossbert said:


> Backstab dice feel like you wanted to play a paladin,



 That's s tad ironic...


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 6, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's s tad ironic...




In hindsight it is, but they are the best example of having a pool of extra dice to throw on damage rolls.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 6, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> But there are many threads like this that make an assumption that there is something broken with the game, when the real point is that in that particular person's game, there's a problem. Every game is different



 Games are balanced or not along a range of campaign emphasis and playstyle, so, yeah, bits of 5e are 'broken' in a game with too much combat emphasis, or too much exploration, or too much interaction, or the wrong mix of those three for the mix of classes in the party, or too few encounters per day, or too few short rests between long rests, or...



> But he ended with "Let's be honest - D&D is a combat heavy game." No, it's not. At least not always.



 Its long been an overblown criticism of D&D, and RPGs in general, that they're 'violent,'  so pushing back against 'combat heavy' is understandable. 
But, yeah, a disproportionate fraction of the rules touch on combat, and, as potentially imbalancing as focusing too much on combat may be for the rogue, skimping on combat emphasis will be equally deleterious to the even more popular fighter.



> . If you started with 4e, then you're probably playing a fairly combat heavy game. But even then, not always.
> .



 4e was the only ed with substantial, structured, rules and guidelines for creating and resolving non-combat challenges and giving them importance and exp awards proportionate to combat encounters.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 6, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> "Damn cat! Get outta my way!"




I have that problem playing Thrawns Revenge.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, since combat is by far the most important pillar.
> 
> I'm okay with one class being "simple" in that it does only this pillar well. I'm okay with Fighters being a non-optimal choice in heavy social or exploratory campaigns.
> 
> But more importantly, don't change the subject, thank you. This thread is about Rogues in combat, not everything else.




You have said that before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The core rulebooks present the three pillars as of equal importance, and that what informed class design.

If you choose to play the game differently, that's fine. However, by implying that it is the core design of the class that is at fault you are implicitly attacking everyone who plays the game differently to you, and so it is unsurprising that your comments are met with hostility.

If you consider all three pillars you cannot discuss the combat performance of the rogue without taking its performance in the other two into account.


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry but now you're wilfully ignoring the question posed in the very thread title.
> 
> I am not interested in you reducing the issue to my table.
> 
> ...




If you dial this back just to damage,  the problem seems to be that your campaign doesn't vary the encounter ratio between rests often enough to give at-will damage dealers a chance to increase their average damage compared to spike damage dealers like spell casters and paladins who run out of resources in a longer day.  It's easy to resolve within the rules but if the goal is to keep encounters as is, you could grant them a daily resource. 

Why not give the Rogue a daily resource like the paladin to increase sneak attack by 1d6 for each point spent.  You'd need to balance out that paladins have competition for that extra damage so a rogue should get fewer points to spend, over the day.  This seems an easier way to keep Pandora's box closed with multiclassing and retains some tactical choices for the Rogue.  Maybe start with arcane trickster spell progression and see how much that gives you.  Looks like 14 dice if you award 1d6 every time a spell is granted or 20 if you count the spell level like the paladin. 

So a backstabbing pool of 1d6 per Rogue level, usable only with sneak attack, chosen after a successful hit, maxed at no more than half? the Rogue's level in any one hit.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 6, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Although in a game that is not as focused on combat, the rogue is often a central character through the non-combat encounters. So bumping them up to be as good as the others in combat unbalances those games.
> 
> Another option would be to look at the other options and consider reducing the damage of others. 5e combat is often very quick, over in a matter of a few rounds. Bumping up the damage output of the rogue would probably shorten it more.



I refuse the argument "you need to remain weak, little rogue, so us others can have enough combat time".

The rogue isn't "as good as the others", you yourself said it. But there is nothing the Rogue can do out of combat that is qualitatively better than what a Druid or Warlock or Bard can do out of combat. They don't do the same things (at least not in the same way), but they can all pick ooc tasks and be successful at them.

---

So I ask again - why *single out the Rogue as the sole class* with no or little build flexibility to contribute in combat especially given its class description *which suggests it should be excellent in combat* (fearsome assassin, etc) ?

Again, if you want to be able to murderize your foes, why play a rogue when a fighter (or sorcerer) is much better at the job, which isn't just "killing the mark quickly" but also "...with as little risk of dropping yourself as possible"?!?

And again, those of you answering "I don't mind my rogue being weakish in combat, he's excellent out of it" - you are not answering the core question!! 

If you don't mind its combat capability then you won't mind if we boost that? *Right?*

And don't come running with "if you boost combat, you need to take away from out-of-combat, and I'm not having that" - I am not taking away anything from you. If the player chooses a combat focus, it is *not a problem* that this becomes the focus - *it is the answer*. 

And if you answer that with "but I need my rogue to be a weak combatant" I'm saying "but I'm not removing the possibility to build such a rogue, I just want to add a combat build".

Only if you answer that with "but I need Rogues to be the only class that *isn't* and *can't* be built for combat, despite being a martial class clearly advertised for precise strikes" are we done, because then you are clearly unreasonable. 

So what it is? Where do y'all stand?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 6, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You have said that before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The core rulebooks present the three pillars as of equal importance, and that what informed class design.
> 
> If you choose to play the game differently, that's fine. However, by implying that it is the core design of the class that is at fault you are implicitly attacking everyone who plays the game differently to you, and so it is unsurprising that your comments are met with hostility.
> 
> If you consider all three pillars you cannot discuss the combat performance of the rogue without taking its performance in the other two into account.



No. 

Just because WotC wants it does not make it so. Don't you see it's a sales pitch?

You really should start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting the company line.

Don't claim the three pillars are of equal importance. It's laughable. 

Just look at the rulebook. It's all about combat, and other action sequences. 

_Note: they might be equal in your games, but I'm not presuming to talk about your games._

There are rpgs with detailed exploration rules, but D&D aint one of them. The sections specific to this pillar number in the single pages.

And when we come to social, come on. About the only specific rules I can even think of is "npc interaction" which is about as simplistic and unsatisifying as I can think of, in any rpg.

D&D is a finely tuned combat engine, with a few extra bells and whistles. 

If you truly can't see that, you _really_ need to try out other rpgs - where the combat focus is massively reduced (some games even resolve an entire fight with just one opposed roll!), and where the social and exploratory (but mostly social) pillars might even be something more than rudimentary (and that's a very charitable description of these pillars in D&D).

Sorry, but don't expect me to discuss this issue further because I won't.

Have a nice day


----------



## Krachek (Apr 6, 2018)

There is enough space in 5ed design and philosophy to allow damage increase to rogue.
Find a way.
But if you desperately need that all the community agree on your needs, that is a silly wish.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry but now you're wilfully ignoring the question posed in the very thread title.



 I've already answered that question. The post you're responding to post was answering the questions you asked me in the post that it quoted.
Much of that post was you giving your personal opinions on what you thought the rogue was, ands asking why my opinions differed.
 So I explained. 



> I am not interested in you reducing the issue to my table.



 The issue exists at your table. Your rogue player is unhappy at your table because some of the ways that other players at your table play, and the adventure structure and emphasis at your table mean that they feel they aren't contributing. 

At a more default table, it sounds like your rogue player would be happy, but you're asking for help at your table, and so telling you and your players to play differently wouldn't be very helpful to you. 
So when responding to your asking for help with a table-specific issue like this, I'm going to give table-specific help.



> If I answered rule and balance questions with a focus that narrow, I could just rubber-stamp "do whatever, it's only your table" and be done with it.



 You're right: I could have answered "Nope. Your issue is entirely due to the way that you and your other players play the game. Do whatever."
But that wouldn't have helped your player who is currently not enjoying the game much would it?



> So if you don't have any generally applicable feedback I'll say thanks but no thanks.



 You're the one who is asking for help. Whether you choose to accept it or not is entirely your prerogative.

I've given 'generally applicable' feedback, but its not helpful to your actual issue because your issue is not a 'generally applicable' problem. Most classes have assorted hoops to jump through in order to optimise. Martial classes' hoops involve assorted shenanigans generally related to feats in order to gain additional attacks for bonus actions and reactions. Rogues weight those feats differently but the basics are pretty similar: get a bonus action and reaction attack.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Apr 6, 2018)

Every time I set fire to my head, it catches fire.

Anyone else tired of the flammability of heads?

Obviously, heads are the problem.

Correct suggestions? Anyone?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> . But there is nothing the Rogue can do out of combat that is qualitatively better than what a Druid or Warlock or Bard can do out of combat



 Quantitatively, though the Rogue's expertise will be better than the Druid or Warlock with the same skill.


> So I ask again - why *single out the Rogue as the sole class* with no or little build flexibility to contribute in combat



 Its not singled out: the fighter also has little or no flexibility to contribute in combat, it's just locked in high.



> especially given its class description *which suggests it should be excellent in combat* (fearsome assassin, etc) ?



 Assassins murder by stealth or surprise, that doesnt require excellence in combat.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Apr 6, 2018)

I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.

Never mind how the book says to actually play the game or what the book says the focus of play is meant to be on - only page count means anything!

Which is made even more hilarious by the fact that even Call of Cthulhu, a game that explicitly tells you that if you are in combat you are likely to end up with your character dead so you should seriously avoid combat - especially with actual monsters - spends more page count on combat rules than other sorts of rules, so this failure of logic that equates page count with "what the book's about" would say that Call of Cthulhu is "all about combat."

And if you don't think so, you must not be "thinking for yourself."


----------



## EvilGeniusPrime (Apr 6, 2018)

Yeah, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon here and defend the rogue class.  This is D&D, not WoW.  Some people want to make the Rogue a DPS character but that's not their role in D&D.  They're designed to be the skill class, do some cool things in combat, including damage mitigation, and be the stealthy-scout/trapfinder/unlocker-of-things.  

If you want a DPS style rogue, then multiclass with fighter.  The two classes work very well together and you get a big boost to combat abilities (Champion is great for increased crit range which also doubles sneak attack dice). 

But this is a similar argument that we always hear about the ranger being underpowered in combat.  The ranger is supposed to be less than a fighter in combat because the ranger gets spells and shines in the Exploration pillar of the game.  Well, the rogue is supposed to be less of a combatant than a fighter and shines in the Exploration pillar of the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 6, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.



 You could spill a lot of ink on detailed rules for trade & economies, but D&D doesn't.  So, it's not an unfair measure.  
But, it's not the whole story, either.  Importance and emphasis are not quite the same thing.  Combat is life & death, so it's important to resolve it fairly, and that can include resolving it in detail - that doesn't mean a given campaign has to have a lot of combat, it could be very rare, it's just that, when it happens, it's important to resolve it completely & fairly.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Apr 6, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> You could spill a lot of ink on detailed rules for trade & economies, but D&D doesn't.  So, it's not an unfair measure.



It absolutely is an unfair measure - specifically because of the next bit you say:  


Tony Vargas said:


> But, it's not the whole story, either.  Importance and emphasis are not quite the same thing.  Combat is life & death, so it's important to resolve it fairly, and that can include resolving it in detail - that doesn't mean a given campaign has to have a lot of combat, it could be very rare, it's just that, when it happens, it's important to resolve it completely & fairly.



It's not the whole story, so trying to treat it like it is doesn't result in fair measure of what the whole story is.

A lot of pages are spent on combat rules, and there are reasons for that - but those reasons do not inherently include "that's what the game is about" for every game that has combat rules that take up more pages in the book the other sorts of rules do.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, since combat is by far the most important pillar.
> 
> I'm okay with one class being "simple" in that it does only this pillar well. I'm okay with Fighters being a non-optimal choice in heavy social or exploratory campaigns.
> 
> But more importantly, don't change the subject, thank you. This thread is about Rogues in combat, not everything else.






CapnZapp said:


> I really don't think this thread is for you then. Good luck in your gaming!




Replies which talk about your basic premise are fair game. For any thread. This thread title asks a question. People can answer that question in a way that differs from your answer.

I agree with Paul and you, in different respects. Let's agree that combat is a more important pillar than the other two. However, being "more important" does not mean it's "all important". Let's say it's even 10%, 10%, 80% (which I think is an exaggeration - combat is likely not as high as 80% for a majority of games, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt).

OK, then if the Rogue does very well in the other two pillars (and it tends to) and the Fighter does not (which also tends to be true) then it should be acceptable if the Rogue is only 80% as effective in the combat pillar as the fighter. 

So you can both be right - combat can by-far be the most important pillar AND Paul's point about how nobody argues for all the classes to be as effective as the Rogue in the other two pillars are both fair points.

So the question really is why do you want the Rogue to be the best at the other two pillars which is 20% of the game (or more) and also EQUAL in the third pillar? Shouldn't they see a discount in combat thanks to their effectiveness in the other pillars to some degree?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, since combat is by far the most important pillar.
> 
> I'm okay with one class being "simple" in that it does only this pillar well. I'm okay with Fighters being a non-optimal choice in heavy social or exploratory campaigns.
> 
> But more importantly, don't change the subject, thank you. This thread is about Rogues in combat, not everything else.




CapnZapp, you are in danger of being asked to leave your own thread. You're being abrasive to multiple people and - equally importantly - are still trying to tell people what they may or may not talk about (and we've talked about *that* before). To make it clear again: starting a conversation doesn't give you *control* over people who engage with it. That is not how conversation works anywhere, either online or off. Knock it off, please.


----------



## happyhermit (Apr 6, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> ...
> A lot of pages are spent on combat rules, and there are reasons for that - but those reasons do not inherently include "that's what the game is about" for every game that has combat rules that take up more pages in the book the other sorts of rules do.




Yeah I really wish the idea of "amount of rules" = "focus of game" could just be put to bed already, it simply isn't true. A good example I have seen is Poker, by that metric bluffing isn't an important part of the game... which should be ridiculous on the face of it. The amount of rules a particular aspect of a game needs varies from person to person, system to system, but need not have a significant impact on how "important" that aspect is. For example, I rarely enjoy games with a lot of rules for "RP" or social interaction, not because I don't enjoy that type of game (quite the opposite) but rather we find it more enjoyable to just roleplay it out and we feel doing so most of the time gives us the most satisfactory experience. Combat on the other hand, we find having moderately detailed resolution mechanics to be better than just abstract ones, although sometimes we do just narrate or abstract things out if that seems preferable. You can pretty much look at any game, sport, etc and find areas that have a lot of rules compared to how "important" that thing might seem to a particular game.


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 6, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Replies which talk about your basic premise are fair game. For any thread. This thread title asks a question. People can answer that question in a way that differs from your answer.
> 
> I agree with Paul and you, in different respects. Let's agree that combat is a more important pillar than the other two. However, being "more important" does not mean it's "all important". Let's say it's even 10%, 10%, 80% (which I think is an exaggeration - combat is likely not as high as 80% for a majority of games, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt).
> 
> ...




I suspect the issue is about the Rogue player's enjoyment being reduced by the perception that they are lacking so rather than saying,  they should just re-skin as another class (and the UA  scout fighter is perfectly functional for someone who wants to play a more skilled fighter - 2 levels of Rogue and the rest as a scout fighter especially with some moves from the martial adept feat might actually deliver but I digress), it's legitimate to think of options that might help.

Perception of play is a big deal and being able to damage spike occasionally might be enough to make the player have more fun.  I would say a magic item is the best way to go.  The next best is a daily pool of backstabbing  dice,  and an undesirable third option is letting them sneak attack more often.

Start low and work your way up imo.


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 6, 2018)

If I read correctly there seems some wonkiness in the request.

It sounded like the player didn't want to try to find an 'optimized' build and taking the recommend feat to increase damage was either too complicated or unpalatable for some reason. However they were feeling left out or impotent because all the other players tried to optimize for damage and took the required feat(s?) to maximize their damage output.

It does sound a little like trying to have your cake and eat it when you want the results of the other players without making similar choices.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Apr 6, 2018)

I think there's a bit of slippage going on here. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Quantitatively, though the Rogue's expertise will be better than the Druid or Warlock with the same skill.




As I pointed out above (post 185), while the rogue's skill game is stronger than most classes, the Bard does mean that the Rogue doesn't corner that niche. 



> Its not singled out: the fighter also has little or no flexibility to contribute in combat, it's just locked in high.



Flexibility to contribute in combat is not the same as build flexibility, though (or at least, it's not to me). 

The rogue doesn't have good build flexibility -- dexterity is always important, even when you want a charisma or strength-focused rogue. (Admittedly, the same accusation can be levelled against most spellcasters (Druid and Cleric I think have flexibility); but given the limited number of non-magical class options, build flexibility for the rogue is important.


----------



## Rossbert (Apr 6, 2018)

Kobold Stew said:


> The rogue doesn't have good build flexibility -- dexterity is always important, even when you want a charisma or strength-focused rogue. (Admittedly, the same accusation can be levelled against most spellcasters (Druid and Cleric I think have flexibility); but given the limited number of non-magical class options, build flexibility for the rogue is important.




I think that is not limited to the rogue. Other than the fighter and ranger, who both have DEX or STR builds, there isn't a huge amount of flexibility to most classes, you more or less pick your lead stat when you pick your class.  Your spell stat is basically essential, barbarians pretty much need strength.  

A strength based rogue is actually more viable than most other off-stat classes even if not optimal (should still use a finesse or light weapon, just use strength for the attack, use Expertise for your essential skills off the top of my head).  There are hoops to jump through and limitations to deal with, but far fewer than a DEX cleric or a CHA wizard.

I am sure there are some dual builds I am missing but it doesn't seem to be the norm.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Apr 6, 2018)

Yup, that's true. 

As I posted earlier (#185), I want to be able to create capable non-magical characters favouring Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma, as well as Str and Dex. The fighter can do both Str and Dex, the Rogue really needs at least a 14 Dex or will be felt to be behind (at least in my experience). 

For me, Cleric is the most flexible class in terms of design options (in 5e). (Moon druid is too, in part because shapechanging allows you to sidestep the issue).


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 6, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> I suspect the issue is about the Rogue player's enjoyment being reduced by the perception that they are lacking so rather than saying,  they should just re-skin as another class (and the UA  scout fighter is perfectly functional for someone who wants to play a more skilled fighter - 2 levels of Rogue and the rest as a scout fighter especially with some moves from the martial adept feat might actually deliver but I digress), it's legitimate to think of options that might help.
> 
> Perception of play is a big deal and being able to damage spike occasionally might be enough to make the player have more fun.  I would say a magic item is the best way to go.  The next best is a daily pool of backstabbing  dice,  and an undesirable third option is letting them sneak attack more often.
> 
> Start low and work your way up imo.




I agree on an individual (as opposed to a general game-wide) basis, a magic item to help this player out is probably a good idea.

I guess the question is, what magic item?

I will throw one out there. How about this:

*Schrödinger's Necklace*

This small metal box is delicately carved with the shapes of cats across it's surface, and hangs from a plain metal chain.

By expending a charge of this necklace along with an attack, you can be in two places at once. Make your attack as normal, and then you may make another attack as if you had moved to a location within range of your movement speed prior to making that additional attack. Your additional attack happens as if you had not made your first attack, so you may use any once-per-turn abilities (such as sneak attack) for the additional attack as well. Once the additional attack is made (regardless of whether it succeeds or not) you snap back to the spot you were in prior to activating the necklace. During each of these attacks, you remain vulnerable to opportunity attacks and other reactions as normal, as if you were physically in both places simultaneously. 

The necklace has 5 charges and regains 1d4 + 1 expended charges daily at dawn. If you expend the last charge, roll a d20. On a 1, the box opens revealing the figure of a dead cat, and the necklace ceases to function.


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 6, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I agree on an individual (as opposed to a general game-wide) basis, a magic item to help this player out is probably a good idea.
> 
> I guess the question is, what magic item?
> 
> ...




Genius.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Apr 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I refuse the argument "you need to remain weak, little rogue, so us others can have enough combat time".
> 
> The rogue isn't "as good as the others", you yourself said it. But there is nothing the Rogue can do out of combat that is qualitatively better than what a Druid or Warlock or Bard can do out of combat. They don't do the same things (at least not in the same way), but they can all pick ooc tasks and be successful at them.
> 
> ...




OK, I'll start with the last question. You know where I stand, I think the rogue plays just fine as it is.

And I will also state that this thread is like many others where there is a declared "problem" with the game, with the assumption that it's a problem for everybody. So when you ask for input with that approach, you'll often get a debate about whether your declaration is right or not, instead of just input about how to tweak the rules.

I don't think "it's not as good as the others" and I personally don't care whether there is balance between the classes in and out of combat. However, in my experience when I've played in games where people focus on things like DPR, they also tend to focus on spotlighting, balance between the characters, etc. So making a rogue more deadly in combat can affect how players who care about such things feel about the rogue in relation to other classes.

We don't look at "who is better at the job." The PCs are the PCs, they are people in a world that have banded together for some reason to go adventuring. If a combat ensues, their only real concern is surviving it. If the rogue takes 4 rounds to kill their orc, and the fighter only took 3, they don't care. All they care about is that the orcs are dead. The fighter might have had a round to go help the wizard with their orc, or whatever. 

Our characters aren't designed to "murderize their foes," and when they are in combat, they aren't in a competition to see who does it "best." That's not their focus. In addition, they expect that a fighter will be better than a rogue in combat, and that magic is often more powerful than mundane combat. If I was to complain about anything (and I have) it's that there are far too many spellcasting classes, and they get spellcasting at too early a level.

I haven't seen rogues dying more frequently than other classes, nor have I seen any significant difference between classes in how quickly they defeat their foes in actual gameplay. Combat is dependent on a lot of variables, and with the rogue's mobility and, as they get to higher levels, their defensive benefits make them a considerable asset in any combat. Combat is generally a team effort in our play, so it's more about each character contributing, rather than keeping track of individual kills. 

All of this comes together to a very simple conclusion. The rogue is just fine as is. For us. It meets all of our expectations in and out of combat, and considering altering the combat capability of the rogue alters the game in ways we don't want. In particular, we prefer a grittier, "normal people" doing heroic things to "heroic people" doing super-heroic things. So if anything, our approach would be to reduce damage output across the board, and if that means lowering the rogue less, that would probably be OK.

If you feel differently, then go ahead and make changes. And if nobody at your table minds boosting the rogue's combat without altering anything else in the game, then you're good. But saying that there is no need to consider the effects of balance across the entire game and all classes if you boost the rogue's combat ability can cause problems in other people's games. Because some people may like the overall balance of the classes, and boosting the abilities for only one class alters that balance. Just because you don't consider the out-of-combat abilities worthy of consideration doesn't mean that others don't.

The rogue is designed as a skirmisher. To get in, make a (big) hit, and get out of the way of danger. They can benefit from their increased damage output using ranged or melee weapons. They can help turn the tide of combat more than just about any other class with these abilities, by providing that extra damage (either before or after their ally) that pushes the total damage in that round over the threshold to drop the creature. 

Beyond that, we don't really think in terms of "alpha strikes" "burst capability" or "going nova." It's just not our playstyle, so I can't really help with those. It seems to me that Dual Wielder, Martial Adept, Sharpshooter, Skulker, and Sentinel all benefit the Rogue greatly in combat. Additional archetypes that have been published provide other ways to gain Sneak Attack as well.

Beyond that, if I were to consider altering the Sneak Attack mechanism, I might look back to earlier editions that multiplied damage instead of adding damage. This can be much more variable (not just because of the die rolls, but the die types used, etc.). Perhaps the Proficiency bonus could be used as the multiplier (x2 at 1st level, x3 at 5th level, etc.) I have no idea how the math scales out, and the damage increase happens slower. But it might address the issue that you have.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 6, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> A lot of pages are spent on combat rules, and there are reasons for that - but those reasons do not inherently include "that's what the game is about" for every game that has combat rules that take up more pages in the book the other sorts of rules do.



 We seem to be in contentious agreement on that point.



Kobold Stew said:


> Flexibility to contribute in combat is not the same as build flexibility, though (or at least, it's not to me).



 I didn't think that was the topic.  I thought it was whether the class had the flexibility to contribute more or less to combat relative to the other two pillars, thus adapting itself to the emphasis of a given campaign....


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Apr 6, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.
> 
> Never mind how the book says to actually play the game or what the book says the focus of play is meant to be on - only page count means anything!
> 
> ...




Absolutely. Not to mention the fact that the APs that have been released provide lots of exploration, adventuring, and scenarios where combat isn't the preferred option for resolution.

Designing combat rules is complex, and has a lot of parts to address. Which means more words. In addition, the combat rules are very mechanically-based, and provide a framework for the players to engage directly with the mechanical rules. On the other hand, exploration, social encounters, etc. are all dependent primarily on DM input. The mechanical aspects can be summed up fairly easily in the Using Ability Score and Adventuring chapters, and the rest of the material is in the DMG, where there is a much lower page count for combat rules.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 7, 2018)

Hey, has anyone heard whether everyone's furious arguing in this thread about the target has worked yet?  Has Mearls said anything about Revising the rogue because some people feel it could use a little more DPR?

I _presume_ that's why people are still going on about it as though there's a chance of a change being made to the Core game.  Because no one would go on this long over a pointless argument to which the result has already been determined, right?  No one would be wasting their time like that, would they?


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 7, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Beyond that, if I were to consider altering the Sneak Attack mechanism, I might look back to earlier editions that multiplied damage instead of adding damage. This can be much more variable (not just because of the die rolls, but the die types used, etc.). Perhaps the Proficiency bonus could be used as the multiplier (x2 at 1st level, x3 at 5th level, etc.) I have no idea how the math scales out, and the damage increase happens slower. But it might address the issue that you have.




Although I still think that the rogue is fine as it is, this idea caught my eyes.
20th level Assassin...
+1 Rapier, 20 dex.  14 max damage multiplied by 6. For a total of 84 dmg.
+1 Arrow, Longbow... Same results...
Factor in the SS feat... 144 dmg.

And that is just one attack. One attack that will normaly be made with advantage. That strike can kill a lot of things. That is way too much damage if you want my opinion.
At least a fighter with the PM and GWM will have to roll a few dice and might miss some attacks. Even if all attacks hit, we look at a damage range going around 79 to 124 with a +1 polearm. I am not factoring in the action surge.

The fighter will not be able to surge indefinately, but a well built rogue could go at this kind of damage for a long time (wood elf, in some woods will hide then sneak almost indefinitely.) The fighter, will be seen and attacked, the enemies still got some chance to fight back.

Nope, rogue is quite fine as is.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 7, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Hey, has anyone heard whether everyone's furious arguing in this thread about the target has worked yet?  Has Mearls said anything about Revising the rogue because some people feel it could use a little more DPR?
> 
> I _presume_ that's why people are still going on about it as though there's a chance of a change being made to the Core game.  Because no one would go on this long over a pointless argument to which the result has already been determined, right?  No one would be wasting their time like that, would they?




Well, he could be looking for a house rule suggestion. Of course, if that were his purpose, you'd think he'd mentioned in clear words....like saying he's looking for advice on a house rule.

Or he could just be looking for moral support for a rant, to experience the catharsis of similarly tormented souls over this issue?


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Apr 7, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> Although I still think that the rogue is fine as it is, this idea caught my eyes.
> 20th level Assassin...
> +1 Rapier, 20 dex.  14 max damage multiplied by 6. For a total of 84 dmg.
> +1 Arrow, Longbow... Same results...
> ...




Yeah, that's kind of where I usually land too. Thanks for doing the math, though, it helps clarify that. Although the 20th level math in D&D is still a lot higher than my preference across the board.

Really, I guess if the Sneak Attack damage isn't enough for some, the easiest option would be to increase the die size for Sneak Attack. Instead of a d6, go with a d8 or d10. Or start at 1st level with 2d4 instead of 1d6.

So I guess that's a question for [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - is it just DPR that you're looking for? If so, what's the target number? Because once you have a target number, it's easy to tweak things to meet those numbers.

If it's not just DPR, then what exactly are you looking for?


----------



## Eltab (Apr 7, 2018)

I haven't seen that a 5e Rogue under-performs in combat.  True that you only get one Attack, but you have a bunch of dice to roll (due to SA) instead of multiple opportunities to roll a few dice each.
When you watch another player roll a fistful of dice (ex: a successful Assassin attack), it isn't always obvious that a Rogue is a skirmisher first.


----------



## Oofta (Apr 7, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Yeah, that's kind of where I usually land too. Thanks for doing the math, though, it helps clarify that. Although the 20th level math in D&D is still a lot higher than my preference across the board.
> 
> Really, I guess if the Sneak Attack damage isn't enough for some, the easiest option would be to increase the die size for Sneak Attack. Instead of a d6, go with a d8 or d10. Or start at 1st level with 2d4 instead of 1d6.
> 
> ...




Apparently for people to agree with him and tell him that his solution is the best solution ever.

I'm sure we could go back through this list and there have been several suggestions.  Increasing the dice damage, making it easier to get multiple sneak attacks (via magic item or simply removing the 1/turn limit), simply adding a flat damage bonus to sneak attack, etc.

Anything suggesting alternatives has been ignored, postings that state there is no issue for other people get slammed.  Since I'm firmly in the "I don't see an issue in any games I've played" he's labeled me a WOTC apologist.  At this point he seems to be simply trolling.  He has over 260 posts, so I guess it's working.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 7, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> Although I still think that the rogue is fine as it is, this idea caught my eyes.
> 20th level Assassin...
> +1 Rapier, 20 dex.  14 max damage multiplied by 6. For a total of 84 dmg.
> +1 Arrow, Longbow... Same results...
> ...



Our rogue considered Assassin and decided against it - it simply won't happen often enough to justify the subclass. When the whole group wants in on the action, having one party member scout ahead and control when the fight starts isn't fun.

If the feature wasn't so very restricted and curtailed it might have worked, but it is. Besides, to gain it, you have to lose out on Thief things. I'd much rather give the base Rogue some oomph.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 7, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Apparently for people to agree with him and tell him that his solution is the best solution ever.
> 
> I'm sure we could go back through this list and there have been several suggestions.  Increasing the dice damage, making it easier to get multiple sneak attacks (via magic item or simply removing the 1/turn limit), simply adding a flat damage bonus to sneak attack, etc.
> 
> Anything suggesting alternatives has been ignored, postings that state there is no issue for other people get slammed.  Since I'm firmly in the "I don't see an issue in any games I've played" he's labeled me a WOTC apologist.  At this point he seems to be simply trolling.  He has over 260 posts, so I guess it's working.



You have certainly ignored the suggestions I wanted feedback on.

That is all I feel confident to say at this point.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 7, 2018)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Yeah, that's kind of where I usually land too. Thanks for doing the math, though, it helps clarify that. Although the 20th level math in D&D is still a lot higher than my preference across the board.
> 
> Really, I guess if the Sneak Attack damage isn't enough for some, the easiest option would be to increase the die size for Sneak Attack. Instead of a d6, go with a d8 or d10. Or start at 1st level with 2d4 instead of 1d6.
> 
> ...



Increasing the damage die is certainly doable... but I would say it is pretty much identical to what I suggested myself? Whether you gain one d6 each level or a d12 every other level is not important. 

I prefer a nice even progression (Nd6 at level N) over "strange" die combos myself.

But let's not forget my other suggestion - to restrict sneak to once a round unless you have a feat. (I've already explained why this gating has significance)


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 7, 2018)

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.
> 
> Never mind how the book says to actually play the game or what the book says the focus of play is meant to be on - only page count means anything!
> 
> ...



Now lets be fair, this is not about the rogue even being weaker in combat... OP has qualified the lack with player who hates optimizing the rogue **and** dismissed existing optimizations for the rogue as "byzantine" (ie not a flavor of ice cream they like, even if it is ice cream.)


----------



## Oofta (Apr 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You have certainly ignored the suggestions I wanted feedback on.
> 
> That is all I feel confident to say at this point.




I, and others have given you a lot of feedback.  Personally, I quoted your first post and gave point by point critique.  Others have suggested ways to improve damage for the rogue.

Most have answered the question of "Anyone else tired..." with a no.  

You ignore it all, praising only affirmation of your ideas.  I simply wish you would stop pretending you are seeking advice if you are not.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> But let's not forget my other suggestion - to restrict sneak to once a round unless you have a feat. (I've already explained why this gating has significance)




I like the feat idea and I agree the distinction is meaningful. So most feats have 2-3 things in them. Do you have some proposed text?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 7, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I like the feat idea and I agree the distinction is meaningful. So most feats have 2-3 things in them. Do you have some proposed text?



No final text as of yet. The idea I used in my suggestion was to make it a half feat, granting Intelligence as well. 

But I'm open to making it just the once-per-turn instead of once-per-round thing. That way, it would presumably only interest minmaxers that have set their eyes on a reliable way to do out-of-turn or reaction sneaks.

Since this would net a level 7 rogue a second 7d6 sneak attack it could be considered powerful enough. Hopefully the player seeking something straight-forward is content with getting the first helping of 7d6 simply by delivering a "regular" successful sneak attack though. That's the balance dilemma.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No final text as of yet. The idea I used in my suggestion was to make it a half feat, granting Intelligence as well.
> 
> But I'm open to making it just the once-per-turn instead of once-per-round thing. That way, it would presumably only interest minmaxers that have set their eyes on a reliable way to do out-of-turn or reaction sneaks.
> 
> Since this would net a level 7 rogue a second 7d6 sneak attack it could be considered powerful enough. Hopefully the player seeking something straight-forward is content with getting the first helping of 7d6 simply by delivering a "regular" successful sneak attack though. That's the balance dilemma.




Hmm, I will take a stab at one:

*Vital Expertise*

You are highly skilled in the anatomy of creatures, able to heal or harm a vulnerable organ or crucial portion of anatomy with a moments thought.  You gain the following abilities:

1) You become trained in Wisdom (Medicine). If you are already trained in Wisdom (Medicine), you gain expertise in it.
2) If you are able to sneak attack, you may sneak attack as many times per turn as you are able to, rather than just once per turn.
3) You may use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check to revive an adjacent unconscious ally.  The DC for this check is 10+1 for each round the ally has been unconscious. If you succeed, the ally is revived as if they had rolled a natural 20 on their death saving throw.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 7, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Hmm, I will take a stab at one:




I see what you did there. 

(Which I guess means you don't get the bonus dice against me....)


----------



## Satyrn (Apr 7, 2018)

Danggit.

I was the first one to respond to this thread, and I just realized that I squandered the opportunity something fierce. I should've made a joke about not even knowing that a miserly begrudging rogue subclass existed. 

Is it called a Scrooge?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 7, 2018)

I don't think the rogue needs any work at all.  

However, if you _are_ going to create a feat that increases Sneak Attack damage I think it's too narrow and specific to just make it a "Sneak Attack Feat".  

I'd do something like "...if you have multiple attacks, you can both take the Attack action on your turn, and Hold Action to attack again on somebody else's turn as a reaction, dividing your attacks as you see fit."  Tricky wording, but something to that effect.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 7, 2018)

Excellent stuff!



Mistwell said:


> 2) If you are able to sneak attack, you may sneak attack as many times per turn as you are able to, rather than just once per turn.



You mean round. (At least I hope you do)

The feat isn't supposed to drive all rogues to use two-weapon fighting (including its cousin, crossbow expert), only to re-enable what you can do today: sneak attack on different turns (using your reaction, most commonly).

Writing this, the section becomes:



> 2) If you have the sneak attack feature, you may sneak attack once per turn, rather than once per round.




If you go from once a round to "once per attack" I fear the feat becomes too good ("feat tax good") and that you will be compelled to maximize your number of attacks.

Your idea about Medicine is straight up better than mine.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 7, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Well, he could be looking for a house rule suggestion. Of course, if that were his purpose, you'd think he'd mentioned in clear words....like saying he's looking for advice on a house rule.




Nah, that's not it... that was the last thread Capn made, asking about canon sources for magic items that could generate additional Sneak Attacks for his player.  And he already got a crapton of suggestions over in that thread.



> Or he could just be looking for moral support for a rant, to experience the catharsis of similarly tormented souls over this issue?




This one sounds more like it.


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 7, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Hmm, I will take a stab at one:
> 
> *Vital Expertise*
> 
> ...




Rogues can already use sneak attack once per turn.  Isn't this is just a feat for dual wielding rogues or fighter/Ranger/paladin /pact blade/blade singer multiclass builds?  Plus a thief at 17th level could be getting 5 sneak attacks in a round, or 6 with 2 levels of fighter on top.  If it's a feat to improve the class overall,  it favours niche builds quite strongly.

A feat that increases the size of the sneak dice, extra sneak dice (following cantrip progression), a daily pool of backstabbing dice, or a magic item to increase crit range would all seem to be more generally applicable.   I suppose you could add your intelligence bonus to sneak damage with the feat but that seems like a small overall bonus.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> This thread has got nearly two hundred responses, and I have been quoted dozens of times.
> 
> So apologies in advance - I cannot reply to each one individually.
> 
> ...




Very well [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] 

In post 122, I gave feedback on your suggestions.  Furthermore, in post 182 I pointed out a serious rule error regarding monks you have apparently been doing in your game.

Ancalagon


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Apr 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.
> 
> In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.
> 
> ...




Am I suddenly playing a stupid MMO where DPS is all that matters?

DnD is or isnt as combat heavy as you want it to be. You want to play a game where everything is about DPS then go play a video game and do not complain about DnD not being 24/7 about combat and combat optimization.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Our rogue considered Assassin and decided against it - it simply won't happen often enough to justify the subclass. When the whole group wants in on the action, having one party member scout ahead and control when the fight starts isn't fun.
> 
> If the feature wasn't so very restricted and curtailed it might have worked, but it is. Besides, to gain it, you have to lose out on Thief things. I'd much rather give the base Rogue some oomph.




The assassination feature is as restrictive as you want it to be. By the same token, it can be as unrestrictive as you want it to be.

Imagine this: A lone unnoticed assassin, is getting into a room from one of the windows. It is the sleeping quarters of the guards. In the room there are two sentries 30 feet appart doing a surveillance round and a dozen other guards are sleeping in their beds. Can the lone assassin can assassinate the whole bunch of them as long as he do it quitely. Get to the first guard kill him quitely, take an arrow/bolt/dagger, shoot, kill the second sentry and then butcher the rest of the sleeping guards. It all depends on what you decide to consider combat. Is there combat when no one notice the dead guard? Or as soon as someone dies, combat is on? I would allow that scene without a second tought.

Second situation.
An assassin shoots with an arrow an unsuspecting guard. He is a wood elf so he uses his ability to hide in the forest. Now everyone know that an arrow came from the forest. But where exactly did it come from? Would you allow a second, third, fourth etc... assassination attempts until the assassin's position is correctly guessed? And if the assassin only attack once every three rounds so that he can manoeuver the poor search parties and starts to assassinate them at his leisure? Would you consider each assassinations as a mini combat or would you consider it the same combat? They are aware, for sure, but there is no clashing of the swords. Should combat only truly start when the assassin is caught red handed? 10 guards (whatever they are) can make a good perception check with advantage to notice where that arrow was shot from. As long as the hide roll bonus action of the assassin is higher than their perception roll, then do you consider the assassin to be out of combat or is he in combat from the very first arrow? 

Both examples assume that the target dies from the assassination attempt. This is the kind of thing we see all the time in fiction and both of these situations have happened in my game. With the result that the assassin got his way as he wanted. There were other time where he failed and a normal combat ensued. Would you allow a human assassin to do the same in a heavy/dense foliage where he could get cover? What about fog? Or in darkness where the assassin could position again and again? These are the kind of things that are part of the call of the GM. Do I make the assassin too strong by applying this ruling? And what about the thief that get such a high initiative roll that he can back stab two times before the enemy can react?

The rogue can be quite deadly when he can do his job (and he is allowed to). No fighter could do any of the scenari above. It would just be, kill the first guard and try to position himself so that he would not get flanked (if you use that rule as I do). On the second scenario, he would simply flee. Does that make it a bit dull for the other player to witness? Not at my table. They would simply congratulate the player and be thankful for the saved resources that his daring allowed.

I also saw that scenario: Your dagger cuts deep into the guards back. But he does not fall. He turns around and you see that he was already dead. His red gleaming eyes glare down at you, a fiendish grin forms into a lipless grin as the undead unsheats a black ebony sword. Your soul will be mine, little one...


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 8, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Rogues can already use sneak attack once per turn.  Isn't this is just a feat for dual wielding rogues or fighter/Ranger/paladin /pact blade/blade singer multiclass builds?  Plus a thief at 17th level could be getting 5 sneak attacks in a round, or 6 with 2 levels of fighter on top.  If it's a feat to improve the class overall,  it favours niche builds quite strongly.
> 
> A feat that increases the size of the sneak dice, extra sneak dice (following cantrip progression), a daily pool of backstabbing dice, or a magic item to increase crit range would all seem to be more generally applicable.   I suppose you could add your intelligence bonus to sneak damage with the feat but that seems like a small overall bonus.




It's a feat for CapnZapp's game. That's all. It seems to meet his needs, while adding some additional flavor from the medicine stuff.


----------



## Pauln6 (Apr 8, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It's a feat for CapnZapp's game. That's all. It seems to meet his needs, while adding some additional flavor from the medicine stuff.




Yeah, as a singular fix for a singular character it should do the trick but there was a lot of toing and froing about whether this is a campaign problem or a design problem.   I think I'm in the camp that sees it as a campaign problem.   Our multiclass battlemaster / Assassin / bladelock dishes out crazy damage in round one.  This does include the Sword of Air and Sword of Aqaa both of which can increase damage but I don't allow extra damage from magic items to double on a crit and even with that limitation he does fine (even if the rest of us take a 5 min snooze while rolls all his dice.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 8, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Yeah, as a singular fix for a singular character it should do the trick but there was a lot of toing and froing about whether this is a campaign problem or a design problem.   I think I'm in the camp that sees it as a campaign problem.   Our multiclass battlemaster / Assassin / bladelock dishes out crazy damage in round one.  This does include the Sword of Air and Sword of Aqaa both of which can increase damage but I don't allow extra damage from magic items to double on a crit and even with that limitation he does fine (even if the rest of us take a 5 min snooze while rolls all his dice.




Turns out he thought what I wrote was overpowered and he scaled it back anyway.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 8, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> The assassination feature is as restrictive as you want it to be. By the same token, it can be as unrestrictive as you want it to be.
> 
> Imagine this:...
> 
> The rogue can be quite deadly when he can do his job (and he is allowed to). No fighter could do any of the scenari above...



My Criminal Background Eldritch Knight begs to differ with your statement.  Stealth is not the exclusive domain of the ranger and rogue in 5E.  And massive damage is certainly not their exclusive area, either.  There is no point in his career, from third level on, where he could not handle the situations you describe above as well, or better, than a pure assassin rogue.


----------



## Anakzar (Apr 8, 2018)

I think the OP wants rogues to have their own thing and if other classes are doing them as well or better then something needs to change.   

I have not seen that in my games but have also not gone beyond 6th level... games in my area seem to fall apart after a month or two due to players having to move mainly (military town).

  Rogues have been the damage dealers and sneakers doing the rogue thing and doing it well.  It might be my DM style but I let rogues get their "backstab" thing most of the time.  If another player is within 5 feet of their target they get it, or if they go before the target in a round.   They may also get it again if the other PCs have provided enough distraction that I feel the rogue can re-hide in a new spot and he makes a good enough stealth roll.

 Also I have allowed the rogue to scout and then come in from a different direction, all while the other players are moving forwards as well, I just do it in turns almost like they are in combat but not so no one is sitting around watching one guy play. 

 It may not be RAW but I let a rogue have a surprise round if they have made a good stealth check and plan. 

 Example rogue sneaks ahead and manages to set up hidden and then the rest of the party comes clanking into the room.  Rogue has been there and picked his target so when combat begins the rogue gets a surprise round.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 8, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> My Criminal Background Eldritch Knight begs to differ with your statement.  Stealth is not the exclusive domain of the ranger and rogue in 5E.  And massive damage is certainly not their exclusive area, either.  There is no point in his career, from third level on, where he could not handle the situations you describe above as well, or better, than a pure assassin rogue.




You are both right and wrong. Yes, stealth is no longer the sole exclusivity of the rogue. He lost it in the second edition when the ranger could do it too. But a single powerful attack is required to do the scenari I talked about. You need to do massive damage with only one attack and not a serie of attacks. A guard is not necessarily a human with 11 hp. It can be an orog (45hp) an ogre (59hp) or even a cambion (82hp). You need to deal that much damage with a single attack to stay in stealth, otherwise, the alarm will be on (unless you have a silence spell cast as a bonus action from some source or whatever...)

Yes your eldritch knight (my personal favourite) can skulk around in a very effective way. So can the wizard, the warlock, the paladin in short, every class can do it now if you put the right background and your mind to it. But you absolutely need the sneak attack feature to deal enough damage on a target to remain stealthy.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 9, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> Very well [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]
> 
> In post 122, I gave feedback on your suggestions.  Furthermore, in post 182 I pointed out a serious rule error regarding monks you have apparently been doing in your game.
> 
> Ancalagon



If you mean* the post where you suggest to increase the sneak attack dice: thank you - noted. 

We are in agreement the monk's flurry is unarmed - maybe you took my comment to mean I let it use the magic +2 dagger on all four attacks.

*) unfortunately post counts are personal, not universal (this is because EN World does not count hidden posts, so unless you and I are on exactly the same people's ignore lists, our post count is going to differ) - better is to quote the post since links do lead you to the correct post regardless. (You do not need to do this in this case assuming I got the posts you intended)


----------



## Li Shenron (Apr 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Sure the Rogue has its uses outside of combat, but let's be honest - D&D is a combat-heavy game, and there needs to be a straightforward way to build a Rogue that is competitive in combat.




Ok let's be honest... the Rogue has never been a combat-heavy character except probably in 4e. And the whole game has become combat-heavy only in 3e thanks to gamers who wanted it to be. But the game doesn't belong solely to those gamers, and thank God 5e provides some characters also to those who don't always want to fight. 

I suggest you play your combat-heavy games without a Rogue (everyone can handle traps and exploration with the right proficiencies, but then you probably don't need much of that if you're in a combat-heavy game),  just like combat-light campaigns are happily played without a Fighter or Barbarian in the team.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 9, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> A guard is not necessarily a human with 11 hp. It can be an orog (45hp) an ogre (59hp) or even a cambion (82hp). You need to deal that much damage with a single attack to stay in stealth, otherwise, the alarm will be on (unless you have a silence spell cast as a bonus action from some source or whatever...)



To be technical, I would say "you need to deal that much damage in a single turn". 

The number of attacks is immaterial in a game where characters' turns are atomic. In reality, you might only have time for a single sniper attack, and as soon as you have made your shot you need to retreat to avoid detection.

In D&D time effectively freezes when it's your turn. All that matters is if the guard is still alive when your turn is over (and to be precise, that the guard is alive when his own initiative count comes around).

This is why sneak attack is an unimpressive assassinate ability (sneak attack itself - not the assassin's assinate boost): level appropriate guards won't go down on a single sneak attack.

In contrast: they might very well go down on a Fighter's attacks, considering Action Surge. Another class that out-does the Rogue is the Monk: stunlocking the monster is effectively the same as killing it (for purposes of preventing the alarm). Likewise for casters with spells like Hold Monster (selecting a spell targeting an expected poor save).

In short: a good assassin has a burst ability to ensure one combat round is all you need. The ability to sustain the damage without resource expenditure is irrelevant - an assassin can reasonably be expected to select only one difficult encounter per day.

In my opinion "backstab" is a better term than "sneak attack" since it implies you "fight dirty". That is: if you consider the primary function of sneak attack bonus damage is to... increase the Rogue's general DPR - that is, fighting dirty every round of every fight, then your expectations match reality. 

In my opinion, connecting this bonus damage with sneak'n'hide gives off the wrong impression. If you view "sneak attack" as making that single massive attack that takes out the enemy unseen, you're better off playing another class in many cases. 

Too many, in my opinion, for the Rogue to come across as a generous implementation given its description.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you mean* the post where you suggest to increase the sneak attack dice: thank you - noted.




You were suggesting making it 1d6 per level, which is the functional equivalent of having 2d6.  I think that it would be better to leave it as an every other level ability, to increase it as you suggest, but not as much as 2d6.

I would add to that that if you really feel that it should be as much as 2d6, make it a 1d12 - it's a more "wild" and exciting dice to use.



> We are in agreement the monk's flurry is unarmed - maybe you took my comment to mean I let it use the magic +2 dagger on all four attacks.




Well that's exactly what you *said* 







> The Monk gets excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks



  I'm not sure what other reading there is there...



> unfortunately post counts are personal, not universal (this is because EN World does not count hidden posts, so unless you and I are on exactly the same people's ignore lists, our post count is going to differ) - better is to quote the post since links do lead you to the correct post regardless. (You do not need to do this in this case assuming I got the posts you intended)




I was unaware of that.  I don't think I have anyone on ignore (I could have 1 or two and forgot)


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 9, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> I was unaware of that.  I don't think I have anyone on ignore (I could have 1 or two and forgot)



It also impacts the post count if anyone is ignoring you.  It's fairly annoying.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Apr 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> *) unfortunately post counts are personal, not universal (this is because EN World does not count hidden posts, so unless you and I are on exactly the same people's ignore lists, our post count is going to differ) - better is to quote the post since links do lead you to the correct post regardless. (You do not need to do this in this case assuming I got the posts you intended)



In the fourteen years or so I've been hanging around these boards, I don't think I ever realized this. I've hit ignore on no one, but if someone else hitting ignore takes their post out of my stream... 

Huh.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> It also impacts the post count if anyone is ignoring you.  It's fairly annoying.



That's what I meant. I don't have anyone on ignore myself and I apologize if I came across as implying Ancalagon were ignoring people.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 9, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That's what I meant. I don't have anyone on ignore myself and I apologize if I came across as implying Ancalagon were ignoring people.



I didn't take it that way, just wanted to make sure it was clear to everyone.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 9, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Hmm, I will take a stab at one:
> 
> *Vital Expertise*
> 
> ...




Is the idea to make this a 'Rogue-only' feat, that isn't going to help much if you don't have sneak attack?

I might have suggested: (Feel free to pick any of these ideas out to use yourselves.)
_You no longer need to use a finesse or ranged weapon in order to use Sneak Attack._
(I just houseruled this, but it fits as a feat option if you don't.)

_When you have advantage on the attack roll to attack an opponent, if both rolls would have resulted in a successful hit, you may apply your sneak attack to the damage of the attack. This is not considered a sneak attack for the purposes of the number of times that it can be used per turn._
(This is a little more random than flat-out removing the restriction. It also reduces the number of sneak attacks generally happening, but see below. )

_When you successfully strike an opponent that is also adjacent to an ally of yours with a sneak attack, the next attack that they make deals your sneak attack dice in addition to its normal damage._


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 9, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Is the idea to make this a 'Rogue-only' feat, that isn't going to help much if you don't have sneak attack?
> 
> I might have suggested: (Feel free to pick any of these ideas out to use yourselves.)
> _You no longer need to use a finesse or ranged weapon in order to use Sneak Attack._
> ...




I like all three of these, but I think it would be too much if all stacked on one feat. Particularly the last two combined.


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Apr 9, 2018)

I don't know the math on it really, but would a simple answer be to allow for two sneak attacks in a round, x times per short rest? This seems comparable ( once the math is tuned ) to ki points and battle master dice. Some types of rogues would have to give up a bit of the skirmish style during the rounds they use a bonus action to make a second attack which seems like a fair trade to me. I would also also limit the use of it in conjunction with assassinate because even more critical hit sneak attacks is not the intent. 

Sorry if someone already suggested this and I didn't see. There's quite a few posts in this thread and I did not read a majority of them.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 9, 2018)

Has anybody done the math on Savage Attacker for Rogues compared to other classes?  It seems intuitively to me that it's going to benefit somebody more who gets their damage from lots of dice in one attack, rather than spreading those dice out over multiple attacks.  Because more dice mean a smaller standard deviation the greatest benefit would be to mitigate really bad luck, but it _might_ give really good luck.

I'm gonna write some code.  I'll be right back.

EDIT: Ok, nevermind.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 10, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> To be technical, I would say "you need to deal that much damage in a single turn".
> 
> The number of attacks is immaterial in a game where characters' turns are atomic. In reality, you might only have time for a single sniper attack, and as soon as you have made your shot you need to retreat to avoid detection.
> 
> ...




Wrong. The turn isn't static. Time isn't frozen. That is why there is a "reaction" available so that you can answer someone else's action. Each multiple attack/spell is one attack. You can decide which one to parry/counter. So time isn't frozen and that is why you need to deal that much damage in one attack. Thus the "sneak" attack. Thus the fact that most rogues only have one attack. Thus the only one sneak per turn... (Note: I know, no action on the surpise round, but you can take a reaction at the end of your first turn. Meaning you might win the initiative but you won't be able to react until the surprising opponent acts).

Once the first attack is landed, nothing prevents the "guard" whatever it is to call in reinforcement. He might not be able to  take a reaction, but after a hit, anyone will call in for help (and that is not forbidden by the rules, unless I missed something).

Consider that what the players can do to monsters, so can the "monsters" do to them.
So there is that stealthy wood elf 12th level fighter with enough rogue level to hide as a bonus action and the Kensai archetype. He gets to smash down a player. (Two handed sword +1, GWM, uses dex to hit and dmg because he's a Kensai and advantage because he's the first to act...) First attack 33, Second attack 23, Third attack 23. Action Surge fourth attack 23, fifth attack 23 and sixth attack 23. Total of 148 damage on average which is more than enough to kill a lot of players. Then he hides if the player is still alive otherwise, unnoticed, he goes on to the next player and the next and TPK...

As soon as the second attack lands, the player will want to yell for help. Would you deny him his call for help? Would you? If so, I urge you to reconsider your position. If you allow the player a call for help, then so should a "monster" be able to do the same. 

On the other hand, if the player die on the first attack, the player won't be happy but he will abide by your ruling.  things sometimes happen. But if you had deny him his call for help, be prepare for a storm of protest (even if he died on the second attack) and a potential full quit at your game table.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Apr 10, 2018)

So, I really like how the Rogue plays. The fact that the rogue damage is middle of the road feels like a feature to me and not a bug. If the Rogue did too much more damage then It would feel like the game would be signalling me and thus compel me to take combat more seriously, in terms of dealing and optimizing damage. And then I would feel less "free" or feel guilty when I spend my turn swinging on chandeliers, pick pocketing, and pulling levers in the middle of combat, because I wouldn't be doing my "job."

That said, I wouldn't mind a tiny flavourful DPS bump. Which brings me to [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] and his request.

I really like the idea of raising the Sneak Attack dice. But turning all the d6 into d8, and then d10 feels like too big a spike in damage. So I thought of raising the dice by Tier. So the DPS scales a little slower, and it gives the impression that your getting better at Sneak Attacking then just getting more dice.

So for example, your Sneak Attack would look like this:
At 5th lvl; 2d6+1d8 (1) A general DPS increase compared to Base Sneak Attack
10th lvl; 2d6+3d8 (1, 2, 3)
15th lvl; 2d6+3d8+3d10 (5, 7, 9)
19th lvl 2d6+3d8+3d10+2d12 (12, 15)

The damage increase stays relatively linear, It doesn't surpass a Fighter with SD and AS (I think?), and it feels flavourful.

You keep mentioning that Sneak Attack on your Turn is only "half" the Rogues "true Sneak Attack damage" and only when they get their out of turn Sneak Attack in, is when they get their "whole" Sneak Attack damage. And having them reliant on AoO (DM fiat) or weird Haste/Action Surge shenanigans where you "I hold my action to attack if the Goblin does anything other then drop his weapon and surrenders" which feels really dumb.

But also you don't want to just double the Rogues Sneak Attack without some kind of cost (I think you/someone suggested a Feat?).

Well my suggestion is to give the Rogue a Feature at 5th lvl when they get Uncanny Dodge;

Uncanny Damage: On a Hit, spend your Reaction to add Sneak Attack.

If you don't want it to work with Range Weapons say 'on a melee hit"
If you don't want it to stack with Sneak Attack, don't let it. 

This way a Rogue gets their "whole Sneak Attack" every turn, but it comes at the cost of Uncanny Dodge. You decide every turn if you want to take half damage, or deal double damage, depending on the current situation. It feels like this stays on theme with the way the Rogue plays in combat due to Cunning Action. This just expands on it. And its really simple to implement.

And finally, If Assassinate doesn't work for you. why not change it to;

Assassinate: Your first Hit during an encounter is an auto critical.
If you want it to be a little harder, specify that it only works with their first attack, so if they miss, they lost it.

It's simple and straight forward. and it shifts the "meta game" from out of combat, and "how do I get a surprise round." To, in combat, and "My first hit has to go to the most important target." Which feels assassin-y.

And if your using Uncanny Attack with Assassinate, then your first hit can be 4x Sneak Attack, Which will solve your issue that the Assassin Rogue doesn't actually assassinate anything.

Finally, I see what your trying to do with your Backstab Die and its not bad. But one of the things I love about the Rogue is the lack of resource management in combat. Adding a resource burden for extra DPS doesn't feel worth it. Keep your Rogue free, don't make them have to make that scrunchy face that all the other Players have to make when they're deciding if they should Frenzy, or Spend their slot, spend a point, use a die ect. ect.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 10, 2018)

He can't take reactions until his initiative during the surprise round.

Why ramble about a "full quit"? Makes no sense...


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 10, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> Once the first attack is landed, nothing prevents the "guard" whatever it is to call in reinforcement. He might not be able to  take a reaction, but after a hit, anyone will call in for help (and that is not forbidden by the rules, unless I missed something).



 Generally neither characters nor NPCs get to do anything, including talking/shouting until their initiative comes up at the beginning of a fight.



> Consider that what the players can do to monsters, so can the "monsters" do to them.
> So there is that stealthy wood elf 12th level fighter with enough rogue level to hide as a bonus action and the Kensai archetype.



 So, a 17th level character: 12 Fighter, 2 Rogue, 3 Monk. Not exactly optimised, but an interesting concept.


> He gets to smash down a player. (Two handed sword +1, GWM, uses dex to hit and dmg because he's a Kensai and advantage because he's the first to act...)



 As a Fighter, they are proficient in two-handed swords. They can't use Dex to hit and damage with it however: its not a monk weapon for them.
Being the first to act doesn't grant advantage unless you're an Assassin (which would push this character up to at least 18th level).



> First attack 33, Second attack 23, Third attack 23. Action Surge fourth attack 23, fifth attack 23 and sixth attack 23. Total of 148 damage on average which is more than enough to kill a lot of players.



 That's really lucky to hit that many times, without advantage, using Str, and with the -5 to hit.
Its much more likely that several of those attacks are going to miss. 
Given that, and that a party for which an 18th level opponent with a terrain advantage is an appropriate encounter are going to be pretty high level themselves, the damage may well be insufficient to actually put them down.



> Then he hides if the player is still alive otherwise, unnoticed, he goes on to the next player and the next and TPK...
> 
> As soon as the second attack lands, the player will want to yell for help. Would you deny him his call for help? Would you? If so, I urge you to reconsider your position. If you allow the player a call for help, then so should a "monster" be able to do the same.



 The player won't get to call for help until they are able to take actions or reactions. Of course the rest of the party are still going to get perception checks if they're nearby since there is someone swinging a two-handed sword around in an area of dense cover and hitting armour rather than meat a couple of times.



> On the other hand, if the player die on the first attack, the player won't be happy but he will abide by your ruling.  things sometimes happen. But if you had deny him his call for help, be prepare for a storm of protest (even if he died on the second attack) and a potential full quit at your game table.



 As pointed out, the player would have to be pretty darn unlucky to actually die in that first round, and is likely to understand that.
If things happen the way you portray them however, the resulting storm or protest is likely to be more about the number of rules that were bent or broken to allow it to happen rather than anything to do with whether the player could call out when they can't act or react.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 10, 2018)

"On the other hand, if the player die on the first attack, the player won't be happy but he will abide by your ruling.  things sometimes happen. But if you had deny him his call for help, be prepare for a storm of protest (even if he died on the second attack) and a potential full quit at your game table."

Uhhh... Huh... 

By the levels you are describing the rules for off turn communications should have bedn well established long long ago. Seen many times, with tactics based around them.

So why would there be this mass outrage if it played just like it has for say a year already?

Also, by that level with such outputs known and possible, where are the counters like scouts, detects, reveal giding or whatever... Or have they not seen ambush as a possibility before?


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 10, 2018)

"That's really lucky to hit that many times, without advantage, using Str, and with the -5 to hit."

Yeah, for all the white room rage over the 5/10 feats when i solve that equation and compare to actual play the gains are rather minimal and circumstantial. You need a good hit probability to break even, very good if your base damage is high and i often wonder after they also minmax the base damage how often the gains are seen in play.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 10, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Yeah, for all the white room rage over the 5/10 feats when i solve that equation and compare to actual play the gains are rather minimal and circumstantial.



The only room that's white is yours.

When you've seen GWM give a character +50 damage in actual real play, you'll pull the plug on it too, like I did.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 11, 2018)

So apparently all you need is a Cleric of Order in your party.


----------



## CM (Apr 11, 2018)

It seems to me if you want to be a rogue that's more focused on combat than skills, you spend most of your levels on the fighter class.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 11, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Generally neither characters nor NPCs get to do anything, including talking/shouting until their initiative comes up at the beginning of a fight.




Both right and wrong. You can talk. But enemies will hear it too. 



Cap'n Kobold said:


> So, a 17th level character: 12 Fighter, 2 Rogue, 3 Monk. Not exactly optimised, but an interesting concept.
> As a Fighter, they are proficient in two-handed swords. They can't use Dex to hit and damage with it however: its not a monk weapon for them.




The kensai get to chose two weapons. These weapon become dexterity based weapons for the kensai. (XGTE)



Cap'n Kobold said:


> Being the first to act doesn't grant advantage unless you're an Assassin (which would push this character up to at least 18th level).




Surprise round, being unseen etc that it everything that come with a stealthy killing attempt.



Cap'n Kobold said:


> That's really lucky to hit that many times, without advantage, using Str, and with the -5 to hit.
> Its much more likely that several of those attacks are going to miss.
> Given that, and that a party for which an 18th level opponent with a terrain advantage is an appropriate encounter are going to be pretty high level themselves, the damage may well be insufficient to actually put them down.




Again, advantage is assumed. Surprise round, not being seen etc... That can well happen. And the enemy could have drunk a potion of haste as well adding 46 dmg.



Cap'n Kobold said:


> The player won't get to call for help until they are able to take actions or reactions. Of course the rest of the party are still going to get perception checks if they're nearby since there is someone swinging a two-handed sword around in an area of dense cover and hitting armour rather than meat a couple of times.
> 
> As pointed out, the player would have to be pretty darn unlucky to actually die in that first round, and is likely to understand that.
> If things happen the way you portray them however, the resulting storm or protest is likely to be more about the number of rules that were bent or broken to allow it to happen rather than anything to do with whether the player could call out when they can't act or react.




Do the math, it is entirely possible. Not against a barb or a heavy armor wearer. But anything on D8 is about to be toast if they don't take toughness feat and do not maximize constitution...

I am still searching for the rule that prevents verbal interaction after being attacked a first time. Could you please point it to me so that I can adjust my ruling accordingly?


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The only room that's white is yours.
> 
> When you've seen GWM give a character +50 damage in actual real play, you'll pull the plug on it too, like I did.



Nah... Especially when i see it also cost a guy three hits say costing them more 

I dont judge a feature by its exception alone. But the combined effect and sacrifices across the vast array of situations. 

Ymmv but hey, thats fantastic.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

CM said:


> It seems to me if you want to be a rogue that's more focused on combat than skills, you spend most of your levels on the fighter class.



Or at least optimizing the rogue for combat?


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> Both right and wrong. You can talk. But enemies will hear it too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You will not find a rule listing everything you cannot do on someone else's turn. That list would be too long. 

For instance, there is no rule saying you cannot take nine dinossurs out of your boot after the first attack on someone else's turn either.

What you will find during the section on combat and actions etc under other actions on your turn is...

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

I think its also repeated or referenced in the interaction chart - also during "your" turn.

If you see a rule saying you can in combat communicate during someone else's turn... By alk means show it.

But its a rather falkacious argument to try and portray the rules as written in a "list exclusions" type style.

They arent.

Of course, a gm can decide you can recite an entire sonnet between enemy swings for their games.

But for combat turn tracking, the rules seem to place it inside "your turn."

In my games, i tend to be more liberal.

I allow you to use your reaction to communicate on someone elses turn (just like a GM can have an interaction take longer). Wont help on surprise tho.

I also allow characters in combat to take an overwatch (directing traffic) action on their turn giving them free comm interactions thru the round(s) until their next turn. 

Both are house rules i use to extend the ability to coordinate and communicate - each at a cost.


----------



## ccs (Apr 11, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> The only room that's white is yours.
> 
> When you've seen GWM give a character +50 damage in actual real play, you'll pull the plug on it too, like I did.




No, I'll just design encounters to be challenging/interesting for that caliber of damage dealing.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> What you will find during the section on combat and actions etc under other actions on your turn is...
> 
> "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."
> 
> ...



We are all refering to the same rule as I see it. We only intrepret it differently.

Would a call for help count? I would certainly allow it after the first attack.

Also, you assume that the poor player lost initiative. He won it but he's on the surprise round. He can't take any action until his turn is done. He could however, use a reaction after his turn and it would be during the "non assassin''s phase whom is trying to assassinate him through a serie of attack.

A scream isn't much.

But since we are obviously talking about rule interpretation, I'll just get away from this topic.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Yeah, for all the white room rage over the 5/10 feats when i solve that equation and compare to actual play the gains are rather minimal and circumstantial. You need a good hit probability to break even, very good if your base damage is high and i often wonder after they also minmax the base damage how often the gains are seen in play.



 The only way I've seen those feats used successfully to get a large amount of consistent extra damage is with the cooperation of one or more additional party members.
At which point its no longer _one _character dealing that damage.



Helldritch said:


> The kensai get to chose two weapons. These weapon become dexterity based weapons for the kensai. (XGTE)



 Are you sure that the two-handed sword is a legal choice for this? I didn't think they could choose weapons with the Heavy property.



> Surprise round, being unseen etc that it everything that come with a stealthy killing attempt.



 I think that being in a surprise round only grants advantage if you're an assassin. You're using a melee weapon, so being unseen isn't really an option without a spell or other effect that allows you to hide in plain sight like invisibility. 



> I am still searching for the rule that prevents verbal interaction after being attacked a first time. Could you please point it to me so that I can adjust my ruling accordingly?



 Communicating is stated as an option that you can do on your turn. 
If you're taking the attitude that you can do it unless there is an explicit rule stating that you can't, then you're going to be disappointed: 5e isn't written that way. As with all things, check with your DM first and foremost.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 11, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> We are all refering to the same rule as I see it. We only intrepret it differently.
> 
> Would a call for help count? I would certainly allow it after the first attack.
> 
> ...



I an not sure how there is a different interpretation of "as you take your turn."

But hey, for some dodge is a bonus action.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 11, 2018)

Why is the scream while being hacked apart important? Even if you call for help, your friends won't be able to interrupt the attack sequence...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 11, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> Why is the scream while being hacked apart important?



 It's like the cherry atop the sundae of murder.  Sure, there's crunching and squelching and blood everywhere, but without the screaming, it's just not the same.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 11, 2018)

Helldritch said:


> The kensai get to chose two weapons. These weapon become dexterity based weapons for the kensai. (XGTE)



Kensai can't chose a weapon with the heavy property for their kensai weapon, GWM only works with heavy weapons for the -5/+10.  Believe me, I was hoping to use kensai as a pseudo-avenger, but it doesn't work.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's like the cherry atop the sundae of murder.  Sure, there's crunching and squelching and blood everywhere, but without the screaming, it's just not the same.



You know taking the Psychopath flaw is just pure powergaming, right?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 11, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> You know taking the Psychopath flaw is just pure powergaming, right?



 'Flaw?'  

I thought we were talking about a new Rogue(Assassin) feat?


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Kensai can't chose a weapon with the heavy property for their kensai weapon, GWM only works with heavy weapons for the -5/+10.  Believe me, I was hoping to use kensai as a pseudo-avenger, but it doesn't work.



Sad trumpet noise...

Although I'm not entirely sure why it had to be a kensai monk to be frank.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 12, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> Although I'm not entirely sure why it had to be a kensai monk to be frank.



Why a pseudo-avenger had to be a kensai monk, or the build from earlier in the thread that started this tangent?


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Why a pseudo-avenger had to be a kensai monk, or the build from earlier in the thread that started this tangent?



Build from earlier


----------



## Razamis (Dec 14, 2018)

Hjorimir said:


> Rogues are amazing because they escape so much damage. Between Cunning Action (disengage as a bonus action) and Uncanny Dodge/Evasion ("What is half damage, Alex?"), they laugh off the big stuff. Also, consider Sentinel as a feat for a rogue, to trigger an occasional extra sneak attack. You can attack the rogue, who will use Uncanny Dodge for half damage, or attack his friend leaving you open to the rogue's Sentinel attack. Yummy.




No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky and so being amazing at taking less damage is not something that is relevant to a rogue player. Rogue players want situational nova damage to simulate the sneaky stab you in the vital spot aspect of a rogue, and of course the skill-lord aspect. The skills are mostly correct, although the bard really steps on a rogues toes in D&D5e which isn't good, and the damage aspect is miles behind a good martial character build.


----------



## Satyrn (Dec 14, 2018)

Razamis said:


> No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky




I accept your challenge, good sir!

*adds tanky rogue to list of future characters*


----------



## Razamis (Dec 14, 2018)

Rossbert said:


> The true strength of a rogue comes from having around a good third more skills than anyone else and among those several that almost cannot fail.




Lore bards get more skills.

Also the skilled feat allows fighters (who get a lot of feats) to take 3 additional skills each time they take the feat, even ones that are not on their list. This means that even though Fighters only get 2 skills to start, 6 potential feats, where as rogues only get 5. The fighter could use this extra one feat for skilled and have a total of 5 skills... which is one MORE than the rogue. The fighter could then take ONE SINGLE level of rogue and gain a 6th skills freely, and gain expertise in 2 of his skills, including thieves tools. The fighter can rather instantly become about as good as any rogue with skills while retaining his position as a complete combat dominator.

As for the skills almost not failing, that only comes into affect at level 11+, which a lot of players often don't see. For the other half of the rogues career, they can fail just like everyone else.


----------



## Razamis (Dec 14, 2018)

Jester David said:


> If your table is doubling up on the DPR role, the rogue will fall behind. But that’s the nature of the beast: there will always being someone at the bottom. If you buff the rogue then we’ll start talking about the warlock or sorcerer...
> 
> And, as stated, the rogue gets a lot of useful stuff other than dealing damage. D&D is a combat heavy game, but it's not a combat ONLY game.
> And if you've every had an adventure come to an abrupt halt with a locked door, the rogue doesn't seem underpowered.




I really hate comments like this because it refutes some pure idealistic version of the classes but not the reality at the table.

The fact that a Fighter can use one of their extra feats to take Skilled and take Lockpicking, Stealth, Sleight of Hand means that he's more than capable of performing out of combat if he choses. Additionally a single level of rogue provides thieves tools and expertise in 2 skills. Also, who gets stopped by a locked door in D&D? It's not a single player game, isn't there a wizard or barbarian in your group?

Finally you do not take a rogue for utility... that is what spell casters are for, they have vastly more utility than a rogue, especially if that spell caster just happens to be a bard... even more so if they are a lore bard.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 14, 2018)

Razamis said:


> No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky and so being amazing at taking less damage is not something that is relevant to a rogue player. Rogue players want situational nova damage to simulate the sneaky stab you in the vital spot aspect of a rogue, and of course the skill-lord aspect.



Speak for yourself. When I play a rogue, I want an evasive striker, and the lack of Cunning Action or Uncanny Dodge would render the class into a second-rate glass cannon.


----------



## Henry (Dec 14, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Speak for yourself. When I play a rogue, I want an evasive striker, and the lack of Cunning Action or Uncanny Dodge would render the class into a second-rate glass cannon.




In every game I've played, even games with the Great Weapon Master Sharpshooter types running around, Rogues are among the top damage dealers in the party every time (not the top, but among the top, usually #2.) In my table experience, they don't need the extra damage. If they did, fighters would cease being played immediately, because then the rogue would have tons of damage evasion, high skills, AND the top damage in combat.

In a recent arena-style combat between our party barbarian and party swashbuckler, the barbarian did win, but it came down to one unlucky roll from the rogue as to why he did so - he held his own quite handily. I have seen a rogue in nearly every table, and I expect I'll continue to do so, with happy players sitting behind them, and ultimately that's what matters to me.


----------



## Salthorae (Dec 14, 2018)

Razamis said:


> Lore bards get more skills.
> 
> Also the skilled feat allows fighters (who get a lot of feats) to take 3 additional skills...




OK? Lore Bards get 1 more skill than standard rogues. Rogues get Expertise much earlier than Bards, so they're better at their skills from day 1 and Rogues are the only class to can get Expertise via class feature in Thieves Tools. 

And... Rogues get more ASI than any other class besides Fighter, so they could also take the skilled feat to get 3 more skills...?

My rogue stacks up just fine with our Dual-wielding Fighter in combat because there are so many ways to gain sneak attack damage, and he outshines the fighter in non-combat because of skills/tools.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 14, 2018)

Another necroed thread!

I feel special.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 14, 2018)

Razamis said:


> Finally you do not take a rogue for utility... that is what spell casters are for, they have vastly more utility than a rogue, especially if that spell caster just happens to be a bard... even more so if they are a lore bard.




Maybe you don’t. 

I don’t have any players who play rogues for situational nova damage. They play rogues to play a mundane, at-will utility expert. 

Also, everyone of them plays rogues to play the guy who can’t be pinned down and wastes enemy actions by completely or almost completely negative the consequences of their attacks and spells.


----------



## Ashrym (Dec 15, 2018)

I play rogues for the class abilities and skill benefits.  Reliable Talent > Peerless Skill because BI dice go fast.  Reliable Talent is also there regardless of subclass. The skill benefits and cunning action are the best reasons for the class.

Beyond that sneak attack is easy to get, a bonus ASI is great, uncanny dodge and evasion are solid defensive benefits, and a free third save proficiency in WIS gives better saves than most classes.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 15, 2018)

Ashrym said:


> I play rogues for the class abilities and skill benefits.  Reliable Talent > Peerless Skill because BI dice go fast.  Reliable Talent is also there regardless of subclass.



You are comparing abilities gained at levels 11 and 14. This is meaningless for most rouges being played.  



> The skill benefits and cunning action are the best reasons for the class.



This is true, but it doesn't mean that the Bard isn't outclassing the Rogue until level 11 at skills. 



> Beyond that sneak attack is easy to get, a bonus ASI is great, uncanny dodge and evasion are solid defensive benefits, and a free third save proficiency in WIS gives better saves than most classes.



The wisdom proficiency comes at level 15 -- again, outside of the reach of most rogues being played. I've seen a rogue take Wis proficiency through the Resilient feat, since level 15 is so far away. 

YMMV, of course, but what you are describing is not true for rogues played from level 1.


----------



## Hjorimir (Dec 15, 2018)

Razamis said:


> No one picks a Rogue to be more tanky and so being amazing at taking less damage is not something that is relevant to a rogue player. Rogue players want situational nova damage to simulate the sneaky stab you in the vital spot aspect of a rogue, and of course the skill-lord aspect. The skills are mostly correct, although the bard really steps on a rogues toes in D&D5e which isn't good, and the damage aspect is miles behind a good martial character build.




The delta isn't nearly as large as you state on damage (if you're including feats for your "good martial build," I get to include them for my rogue build too). Also, I'm okay with fighters being the best fighters. Rogues are groovy in- and out-of-combat. They bring a ton to a group. Rogue in our 13th level group averages low 40s damage per hit (w/ sneak attack, of course) and coupled with evasion, cunning action, and uncanny dodge is extremely durable. You say "no one picks a rogue to be more tanky," but you and I both know that no group of people is monolithic and I'm sure people have all kinds of crazy reasons for choosing whatever class they want.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 15, 2018)

Kobold Stew said:


> This is true, but it doesn't mean that the Bard isn't outclassing the Rogue until level 11 at skills.




Rogues get Expertise at Lv. 1 and 6. Bards at 3 and 10.

So that makes Rogues better with skills at Lv. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. That's 6 out of the 1st 10 levels that the Rogue is better with skills. Including 4 out of the 5 levels of Tier 2. Not a bad deal.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 15, 2018)

Razamis said:


> Lore bards get more skills.
> 
> Also the skilled feat allows fighters (who get a lot of feats) to take 3 additional skills each time they take the feat, even ones that are not on their list. This means that even though Fighters only get 2 skills to start, 6 potential feats, where as rogues only get 5. The fighter could use this extra one feat for skilled and have a total of 5 skills... which is one MORE than the rogue. The fighter could then take ONE SINGLE level of rogue and gain a 6th skills freely, and gain expertise in 2 of his skills, including thieves tools. The fighter can rather instantly become about as good as any rogue with skills while retaining his position as a complete combat dominator.
> 
> As for the skills almost not failing, that only comes into affect at level 11+, which a lot of players often don't see. For the other half of the rogues career, they can fail just like everyone else.




And Scout rogues get 2 more skills and 2 more expertise, making them again equal to lore bards and with more expertise and sooner expertise.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 15, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Rogues get Expertise at Lv. 1 and 6. Bards at 3 and 10.
> 
> So that makes Rogues better with skills at Lv. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. That's 6 out of the 1st 10 levels that the Rogue is better with skills. Including 4 out of the 5 levels of Tier 2. Not a bad deal.




We can disagree. 
For a player who wants to be a skill monkey, the Bard also gets Jack of Trades at level 2, which helps with all non-proficient skills, and using only the PHB the option of the Lore bard, in my view, makes it zero out of five levels at Tier 2. 



Horwath said:


> And Scout rogues get 2 more skills and 2 more expertise, making them again equal to lore bards and with more expertise and sooner expertise.




Admittedly, the Scout does go some way towards fixing this, and there's no choice in the "two more expertise" (and it assumes you did't have the skills from a background, or whatever). Regardless, and leaving aside the flexibility of also being a full caster, "equal to lore bards" shouldn't be the target, if you want to believe that the skill monkey archetype naturally falls on the Rogue.


----------



## Ashrym (Dec 15, 2018)

Kobold Stew said:


> You are comparing abilities gained at levels 11 and 14. This is meaningless for most rouges being played.




It isn't meaningless to me and given that reliable talent comes significantly sooner than peerless skill for lore bards (don't apply a subclass benefit to all bards) it's clear to see rogues have it better from level 11 on.



> This is true, but it doesn't mean that the Bard isn't outclassing the Rogue until level 11 at skills.




It hasn't been demonstrated that the bard outclasses the rogue up until level 11 yet.  Rogues get another skill proficiency and expertise at 1st level while bards wait until 3rd.  Rogues gain more expertise at 6th level while bards wait until 10th level when rogues get the bonus ASI.

The progression gives rogues benefits faster than bards to keep rogues ahead.



> The wisdom proficiency comes at level 15 -- again, outside of the reach of most rogues being played. I've seen a rogue take Wis proficiency through the Resilient feat, since level 15 is so far away.




I would take resilience in CON instead and wait for WIS unless I knew we would not play those levels.  What you've seen is anecdotal at best and countered by my having seen many high level campaigns with several starting as high level campaigns.

Don't assume everyone is starting at low levels.



> YMMV, of course, but what you are describing is not true for rogues played from level 1.




My mileage definitely varies because other than levels 3-5 (which are similar sans the extra rogue skill proficiency) the rogue always has more skill benefits.

A bard subclass knows 2 more proficiencies and that still doesn't add reliable talent or gain expertise at the same rate.  I take the skilled feat on every rogue (because I have an extra ASI and it pairs well with reliable talent) and never on lore bards (because 1 less ASI, jack of all trades gives breadth, and peerless skill can be used in a pinch later).

Additionally, cunning action allows for hiding as a bonus action (an early skill mod all rogues gain) and rogue subclasses grant additional skill benefits.  For example; fast hands,  second-story work, and supreme sneak modify rogue skills for the thief subclass over what bard skills gain.

It's inequitable to compare rogue base class abilities to bards with loremaster benefits.

Bards defeinitely have skill benefits as part of the class but at no point are they superior.  Generally they are behind.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 15, 2018)

Ashrym said:


> It isn't meaningless to me and given that reliable talent comes significantly sooner than peerless skill for lore bards (don't apply a subclass benefit to all bards) it's clear to see rogues have it better from level 11 on.<snip>
> Don't assume everyone is starting at low levels.
> <snip>



We can disagree. You are certainly correct for high-level play. 

I stand by the claim that weighing in benefits that come at levels 11, 14, and 15 does not reflect most rogues being played, and so is meaningless for them.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Dec 16, 2018)

Kobold Stew said:


> We can disagree.
> For a player who wants to be a skill monkey, the Bard also gets Jack of Trades at level 2, which helps with all non-proficient skills, and using only the PHB the option of the Lore bard, in my view, makes it zero out of five levels at Tier 2.



Jack of All Trades bonus is +1 from Lv. 1-8. It doesn't become +2 until Lv. 9. I'll take a +4 to +8 over the same span to two more skills of my choice for those levels any day.

Lv. 10, Bard wins outright, of course. For one level, yipee. Then Rogue takes back over at Lv. 11 with Reliable Talent.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 16, 2018)

IME the Rogue seems viable in play; Cunning Action is very powerful, and then taking half damage from the first hit every round makes them more durable than some warrior types.

There are some more powerful and popular classes - Forge Cleric and Zealot Barbarian seem overpowered - but Rogues definitely aren't at the bottom.

They aren't the top fighty class, but in the dungeon environment they tend to get a lot of play focus, and they can be good in an intrigue game too. If a game is centred on 1 fight per day then they won't do well.


----------



## Damon_Tor (Dec 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Opportunist. You may sneak attack *once per turn* instead of once per round. Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.




Too many dice. You really want the player sitting there adding up 12 dice results every turn at level 11? Or god forbid they crit; everybody at the table would groan in unison. It would make a dice-rolling simulator app damn near essential. And besides, the more dice you roll the less random the result becomes, so they'd be spending all that time just to figure out if their sneak attack damage was exactly 42 or whether it was +/- 5 or so. Enough to make you beg for static modifiers again.

I'd go the other way, and remove the dice progression entirely. The feature would read: 



> "*Sneak Attack* Once per round when you hit a creature with an attack using a ranged weapon or a weapon with the finesse property, roll 1d6 and add then result to the damage dealt. Starting at level 2, multiply this extra damage by your rogue level."




There, dice problem solved, and it's really swingy now, which feels right for a rogue for some reason. If you don't want it swingy then just add a big static modifier or something.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2018)

Damon_Tor said:


> Too many dice.
> <snip>
> 
> If you don't want it swingy then just add a big static modifier or something.




Maybe just add Dex to each SA die, and use a reasonable progression of number of dice. 

could work. 

or, less change, just give a level 10 feature that lets you add SA up to twice per turn, and give extra attack at level 17? it'd lock you into either dual wielding or using crossbow expert, but if someone wants that, so be it. 

but honestly, the idea that rogues need to do more damage is completely silly, to me. Assassins need a less situational benefit, and Swashbucklers are great. Maybe let them add CHA to damage at some point. Or maybe make a Brute Rogue that is all about being a big damage dealer. 

But the core class is really good.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 18, 2018)

Hello again. Since I was quoted directly...



Damon_Tor said:


> Too many dice. You really want the player sitting there adding up 12 dice results every turn at level 11? Or god forbid they crit; everybody at the table would groan in unison. It would make a dice-rolling simulator app damn near essential.



This is a good example of what I'm talking about. This poster speaks as if a good rogue player aren't already gaining sneak attack damage twice a turn, and completely misses my (old) point: 

_Why make it the most difficult damage potential in the game to reach?_

Compared to pulling off other combos or build choices, I'd say the Rogue's job is the most difficult in the game. And it's not like Rogues are particularly deadly, sturdy or otherwise strong combatants, that might justify being so stingy. So why allow two sneak attacks a round, but then make it so hard that lots of newbs can't pull it off, essentially gimping themselves?

After all, if you only achieve six sneak dice a round @ L12, you're only reaching *half* the class' full potential.

So, even after all this time, and well over three hundred posts, the question burns as bright as ever:

*Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?*


----------



## Damon_Tor (Dec 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Hello again. Since I was quoted directly...
> 
> 
> This is a good example of what I'm talking about. This poster speaks as if a good rogue player aren't already gaining sneak attack damage twice a turn, and completely misses my (old) point:
> ...




Seems like you didn't read my proposal: I don't disagree with the central premise, that an increase to damage alongside a restriction to 1/round is a good idea. My proposal was (1d6)RogueLevel (ie, roll one dice them multiply it). I don't object to more damage, I object to having to count so many dice.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 18, 2018)

Damon_Tor said:


> Seems like you didn't read my proposal: I don't disagree with the central premise, that an increase to damage alongside a restriction to 1/round is a good idea. My proposal was (1d6)RogueLevel (ie, roll one dice them multiply it). I don't object to more damage, I object to having to count so many dice.



Apologies if you feel unfairly singled out. 

My argument is: the game _already_ makes a level 11 Rogue roll twelve sneak attack dice, per the Rules as Written, so I'm not adding any. All I'm doing is meant to narrow the gap between optimal and average players.

Of course you are free to suggest a reduction of the number of sneak dice regardless.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Apologies if you feel unfairly singled out.
> 
> My argument is: the game _already_ makes a level 11 Rogue roll twelve sneak attack dice, per the Rules as Written, so I'm not adding any. All I'm doing is meant to narrow the gap between optimal and average players.
> 
> Of course you are free to suggest a reduction of the number of sneak dice regardless.




It is possible that he dislikes that part of the rules as written as well. Just because the rules as written allow something doesn’t necessarily mean that they should.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> It is possible that he dislikes that part of the rules as written as well. Just because the rules as written allow something doesn’t necessarily mean that they should.



Sure.

It did come across as a reaction on my suggestion, though.

Plenty of gamers are completely unawares that already by the rules in the PHB they can make more than one sneak attack each combat round, after all.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> So, even after all this time, and well over three hundred posts, the question burns as bright as ever:
> 
> *Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?*



I guess I don't understand the question. 

The rogue might not be able to match the damage output of other classes, but I wouldn't say it's _low_.  And not many character classes can match the rogue's durability, skill, and speed; certainly not as effortlessly.  There's more to a character design than its damage output, and the rogue class does a decent job of balancing everything out.  (I didn't read the other 350 posts, maybe this was already mentioned.  If so, sorry for beating a dead horse.)


----------



## Slit518 (Dec 18, 2018)

Rogue gets Sneak Attack when an ally of their's is within 5 feet of a target they are attacking, correct?

In that case, attack the same targets as allies or coordinate with allies to take out targets you feel are bigger threats.

I've had no problem dealing damage as a Rogue.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 18, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Hello again. Since I was quoted directly...
> 
> 
> This is a good example of what I'm talking about. This poster speaks as if a good rogue player aren't already gaining sneak attack damage twice a turn, and completely misses my (old) point:
> ...




Nope, I don’t even agree with the premise of the question. 

The rogue isn’t “meant” to get SA twice a round, it’s built around getting it once a round. Twice a round is an extra. Mearls has confirmed this (on MMHFH, I think), but he didn’t need to. 

The Rogue’s job isn’t to deal as much damage as a fighter at high levels. 

If you want rogues to do that, you need to build for it, or make/find a subclass built for it. 

I **am** tired of the overcautious design of the Assassin subclass, though. 

Requiring surprise is just silly, mechanically, and if you’re gonna make something that situational, it should be a big bright 100 LED spotlight moment when it happens. At level brute style enemies should drop reliably. 

To avoid that assymetry of spotlight, I’d have given them the ability that leaving a position of cover doesn’t lose stealth unless they end their turn in plain sight, and allow them to surprise enemies in any fight where they are hidden when combat starts, and then give them everything they’ve already got. Or something along those lines. 

But the core class? Nah. It’s great.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Dec 19, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nope, I don’t even agree with the premise of the question.
> 
> The Rogue’s job isn’t to deal as much damage as a fighter at high levels.




I think a lot of this stems from people used to MMOs and CRPGS that draw on MMOs for mechanics instead of traditional D&D. In MMOs, rogues are typically raw damage dealers, designed to just deal out raw DPS with maybe some minor stuns or poison effects, while 'fighters' are more stereotypes as 'tanks' who soak up damage but don't do that much (lots of fighter/warrior/paladin/etc. classes actually do pretty good damage, but that's not the stereotype). Old D&D didn't fit the Tank/Healer/DPS trinity that MMOs love so much, using tactical positioning with absolutely no aggro mechanics at all. Fighters (and the other fighter-types) were the consistent damage dealers who could stay in the fight and keep doing damage. Thieves were utility characters as they were the only ones with find/remove traps and the best at sneaking, and could do big burst damage on occasion with a backstab. I think 4e may have made them into a straight 'DPS' class (I never played 4th), but 4e is an aberration in a lot of ways, and other than possibly 4e they aren't really meant to consistently out damage fighters. I think there's a decent number of people who expect rogues to consistently out damage fighters because of MMOs, when in reality the D&D rogue is made to do good (but not consistently the best) damage with really good sneaking and survival abilities.


----------



## Krachek (Dec 19, 2018)

Agree.
Rogue alpha striker come from WoW and some other games.
DnD classic rogue is an explorer, sneak, utility character.
5ed Design is ok for that role.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 19, 2018)

Honestly, without GWM and PM or CE and SS I don't think rogues really do less damage than fighters, at least not in a standard adventuring day.  They do have a worse alpha strike though as action surge and superiority dice expenditure can do a lot for an alpha strike

That said, a rogue does more damage than a fighter at level 1 (about 10% to 20% more to be exact).  By the time you hit level 3 a rogue does is doing similar daily damage to a battlemaster fighter.  The rogue lacks a good alpha strike though.  By level 5 the rogue is still only doing somewhere between 1% and 9% less damage than battlemaster fighter.

By level 7 the rogue is again doing more than the battlemaster fighter at the same level (about 5% to 13% more).

The only issues with this analysis are:
1.  Many people experience much shorter adventuring days than standard 5e calls for.  This significantly helps the battlemaster fighter.
2.  Rogues get no NOVA capabilities.
3.  Fighters taking damage feats is generally a good assumption (and there are no good damage feats for a rogue)
4.  Rogues will occasionally be unable to sneak attack

Sometimes actually running an analysis is quite enlightening.  Rogues are better than fighters IMO, at least until you start comparing to a fighter with GWM, PM, SS, CE and such.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 19, 2018)

Krachek said:


> Agree.
> Rogue alpha striker come from WoW and some other games.
> DnD classic rogue is an explorer, sneak, utility character.
> 5ed Design is ok for that role.




Yep. Even 4e had them with more skills and a lot of really good utility powers, and fighters were the hardest hitting defender, who could be built to rival strikers for damage in all but the most optimized parties. 

Rogues were damage dealers, but could easily be built more like underhanded bastardsthan DPR junky lethal killers.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Honestly, without GWM and PM or CE and SS I don't think rogues really do less damage than fighters, at least not in a standard adventuring day.  They do have a worse alpha strike though as action surge and superiority dice expenditure can do a lot for an alpha strike
> 
> That said, a rogue does more damage than a fighter at level 1 (about 10% to 20% more to be exact).  By the time you hit level 3 a rogue does is doing similar daily damage to a battlemaster fighter.  The rogue lacks a good alpha strike though.  By level 5 the rogue is still only doing somewhere between 1% and 9% less damage than battlemaster fighter.
> 
> ...




TWF and CE are both actually good for Rogues, and they open up more reliable Sneak Attack and don’t require any suboptimal weapon loadouts. 

The game really needs a good feat for thrown weapons, and for dueling combatants to boost damage, but Rogues also have the freedom to take things like Mage Slayer, and oddball feats, bc feats just aren’t a big part of their combat builds.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 19, 2018)

Yes, that's part of my point.

Without feats - okay. 

Then you add feats. Fighters get to double their damage (roughly speaking). Rogues don't get anything that isn't available to everyone. 

The fact remains: there is no feat to make you deadlier in martial combat that doesn't rely on per attack scaling. 

An obvious deficiency that make you think the game designers went "the rogue is crazily overpowered in the feat-less game, so we'd better not give it a feat."

But the rogue isn't crazily overpowered in the featless game. Remember cantrip users? They're just as good. 

Sure, they can't use feats to improve their abilities either, but unlike rogues that's okay, since they've got so much else going for them. (Plus cantrips are probably too good in featless games)

(In fact, if anything, it's that fighters are offensively weak without feats. Paladins still get their smites. Rogues have their sneak. Cantrips are excellent for Warlocks and Sorcerers.)

But add feats, and the sole loser is the Rogue, that remains frail. If it was a glass cannon, fine, but as a glass pea shooter in feat-enabled games, it's not fine.

At least with my suggestion the Rogue doesn't need to bend over backwards to enable what the game does already provide the potential for, which is dual sneaks per combat round.

It is a feat that doesn't actually add anything, but makes the Rogue class much more relaxed and therefore fun to play


----------



## S'mon (Dec 19, 2018)

I see a good number of 5e Rogue PCs, but I've almost never seen an off-turn sneak attack. The class definitely seems built around 1 sneak attack/round. I think the difference between well played/built & mediocre is just that the well played/built Rogue usually has Advantage or an off hand attack, so rarely misses.

I don't think 5e Rogues expect to be particularly great in combat, but they get a lot of spotlight time in exploration & social areas, and players tend to enjoy playing them.

Re Feats - a Rogue can use Sharpshooter just as well as a Fighter can; probably better, since the Rogue sniper can reliably get Advantage via the Hide bonus action.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 19, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Yes, that's part of my point.
> 
> Without feats - okay.
> 
> ...




So, then, what you're saying isn't that your tired of the miserly design of the rogue class, but instead tired of the miserly design of feats.  It's taken 350+ posts, but this is really good progress!


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Dec 19, 2018)

Just to throw in my own experience: I think rogues are the most fun class in the game.  My damage output was on par with most of the group, other than the paladin but Rarely got hit and, when I did, I took almost no damage.  I played in Curse of Strahd and got hit once in 5 or 6 levels.  And it was an AoE sent out by my own party member.  

They just have such tactical superiority on the battlefield and with the climb speed that a thief subclass gets, you have that many more options. 

Edit:  Once I had uncanny dodge, I had little to no fear of being hit.  If I needed to draw attacks to help allies, I could.

And that is in combat.  Outside combat there is so much fun to be had.


----------



## Krachek (Dec 19, 2018)

At an optimizing table remove the -5/+10 feats,
Remove mc for paladin, warlock and sorcerer.
Suddenly rogue will do decent damage.


----------



## jayoungr (Dec 19, 2018)

I don't know why anyone is complaining about rogue damage.  With flanking and sneak attack, the rogue in my game dished out _scary_ damage at high levels.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 19, 2018)

jayoungr said:


> I don't know why anyone is complaining about rogue damage.  With flanking and sneak attack, the rogue in my game dished out _scary_ damage at high levels.




Nearly no one uses flanking


----------



## jayoungr (Dec 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Nearly no one uses flanking




All it does is increase your chance to hit, so I don't know how big a difference it made to the rogue's DPR anyway.  But if people think it is significant, maybe they should consider using flanking to buff their rogues?


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> So, then, what you're saying isn't that your tired of the miserly design of the rogue class, but instead tired of the miserly design of feats.  It's taken 350+ posts, but this is really good progress!



If you had actually read the thread, you would know that my recent post is just a summary. This thread was recently necroed, but feel free to actually read - and not just count - my earlier posts


----------



## 5ekyu (Dec 19, 2018)

i dont run flanking for non-rogue reasons but the rogues have not had problems because of it. hits are not automatic but they often arrange dual wielding or some other edge to make the hits in a turn more likely. If they need help, often as not some other combatant will use HELP to get them the edge to hit - a cleric running multiple DoT type effects might use their action to HELP the rogue if the rogue needs help in the actual to-hit department *or* to counter disadvantage. 

Not sure what the basis for the idea that not using flanking hurts rogues is.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 19, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you had actually read the thread, you would know that my recent post is just a summary. This thread was recently necroed, but feel free to actually read - and not just count - my earlier posts




Why you trying to be so dismissive?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 19, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you had actually read the thread, you would know that my recent post is just a summary. This thread was recently necroed, but feel free to actually read - and not just count - my earlier posts



Ah, good, you think the rogue is fine and have pivoted (again) to feats as the culprit of miserly design.  Glad to understand you.


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 19, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, good, you think the rogue is fine and have pivoted (again) to feats as the culprit of miserly design.  Glad to understand you.




In his defense it’s not just feats. He still right thAt good high level rogues can get 2 sneak attacks per turn in. That’s nearly doubling their damage. 

Feats are an issue in that the rogue either needs balanced for a fearless game or balanced for a feared game. But the issue with the rogue doesn’t go away with it without feats. 

My solution would be to limit sneak attack to once per turn AND create a feat that vastly improved sneak attack. That way it remains balanced in both featless games and feated games.


----------

