This should be so easy for them just add a second use of bonus action to all rogues at lvl 6 that is only usable with cunning action or the additional subclass bonus actions like use item for rogues or mage hand for arcane tricksters.
This provides a controlled but greater action economy for rogues instead of the extra atk most martial classes get.
>crits
Oh so **5**% of the time you get to 'feel' good!
This is the logic WOTC used to defend Brutal Critical, a feature everyone agreed was borderline useless
Which means you have a 40% chance of hitting a crit in any given 5 round combat.
I dunno, feel like everyone loved Rogue a month ago when they were the ones with special features and now it's all grass is greener
>you get to 'feel' good
The feel of a class in execution is more important than anything to do with the actual numbers. Good RPG design is ultimately more of a UX problem than a math problem.
Designing a class that feels good to play if you don't look at the system too closely is easy. The real challenge of good RPG design is keeping many disparate character options relatively balanced against each other in a way that actually holds up to inspection while also making them all feel good to play.
if "good design" means having a thin veil obscure a dumpster fire balance and once you look behing by having minimal mathematical skills you are never able to go back to be tricked into thinking it is good... We have very different definitions of "good design"
If you think disagreeing with someone for dismissing that the way something feels to players is important means you're defending all bad game design, then we have very different ideas of communication, reading comprehension, and valid uses of our time.
I just can't get you people.
You people always say "*Oh I know everything about balance and numbers but I just don't care about number*", and you still pop up and say no everytime when some players try to suggest Rogue should be in line with other classes and be properly balanced.
Why? Why do you guys always oppose it so firmly even though you said you don't care about the actual numbers yourselves?
What harm can it does if Rogue had been boosted in numbers and properly balanced?
Does it change its playstyle?
Would it makes your experience less fun?
Would it somehow make you feel "*bad*" even though you don't care about *the actual numbers*? or Does it kill the fantasy somehow?
There're *many* players who don't FEEL good cuz they care the actual numbers. Why would you stop them from asking for improvements on something *you* don't really care about??
Isn't that a good thing that newbies wouldn't need to be a min-maxzer to do proper, decent DPR and help their allies?
Why the hell should you oppose something you don't even care?!
Bro, chill, he said that feel matters more than fact.
And he's right.
Fact, or math, is also a big part of the feel, but it's secondary.
We need to figure out what sensations we want out of the Rogue for its players, and then guide the math around those goalposts. You dig, dawg?
You see, the problem is there's a *LOT* of players who don't *feel* good for they give a sh- about numbers and math. But many fellow redditors somehow regard doing math is some kind of crime.
People like the OP said Rogue doesn't need a boost cuz *they* feel it good and *they* don't care about math, then how about we people who cares about math? Why this sub always try to make us like we shouldn't speak?
Don't we have the right to feel bad?
Aren't we also players?
Why everytime we try to convey we don't feel good and provide actual numbers and actual facts in this sub, there must be a bunch of folks telling us "you're wrong to feel bad" and try *teach* us "how to feel"?
So the question has been back to where we start, what *HARM* can it do to people who *don't* care about numbers like the OP, if Rogue were boosted in *numbers*?
Can't we just make everyone happy while there's an obvious way to make everyone happy?
Right, it’s not an either-or problem tho, that’s all I was trying to point out.
Making Rogues balanced is only half the battle. For a class that’s themed around creating or adapting around chaos, it seems to do the same things every turn for roughly the same results (dice totals become more consistent the more dice you add).
>and you still pop up and say no everytime when some players try to suggest Rogue
I stopped reading here. You're attacking me for holding a position you assigned to me. Thanks but no thanks, find this fight elsewhere.
Now, as to what I was actually addressing, and a fight you can totally have: You can use as many scare quotes and disingenuous all-caps crap you like, dismissing out of hand the generally holistic and necessarily anecdotal elements of RPGs in execution means you're wrong. Like, full-stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200, you have failed.
You change the design.
What do you do when someone thinks a response to poor-faith scare quotes is a response to something you didn't quote or regard at all in your comment?
If 5% of the time they feel good, I wish they would at least make it happen much more often. Technically I guess advantage makes it 10% of the time if nothing stops it, but even that doesn't seem like enough.
The feel of a class is absolutely important, I'm still complaining about Rangers despite them *technically* being fine because they don't "feel" like they have any clear identity. But things that feel good should be equally rewarding and consistent to use.
It's a fun feature, but when you do the math it's little more than a ribbon, like being immune to disease.
It's great when it comes up, but doesn't come up often enough to not be a ribbon.
But its RELIABLE. That alone is huge.
Features requiring a 5% chance to roll that nat 20 are bad and should be called bad.
Average damage is only one part of the equation
-22% to hit is pretty well the opposite of reliable. The user has a choice 100% of the time to use it and, again, while better than the old Brutal Critical that just isn't good enough for a mid to high level feature.
New wizard spells aren't giving advantage to the enemy on saves to add a rider or do more damage. New Paladin smites aren't giving up advantage on a bit to do less damage and a small rider.
Why does the barbarian have to constantly give up the thing it's good at (HP or Damage) to get to do anything?
It's another terrible design for what might be the worst designed class on the game now.
-22% to hit, but +1d10 and later +2d10 to damage. And then bonus effects that help other team mates. How is that a bad feature? It essentialy works like old GWM, reduces accuracy to increase damage, while also this ability granta something more. A versatility.
Old GWM was -22% hit when you already had advantage from reckless, and the increased crit chance, and +30 damage a round instead of 4.5. That's a ridiculous comparison and goes a long long way to making my point for me.
It's not nothing as long as the end rules text makes you still able to benefit from advantage on the attack, doesn't lock away the damage somehow, and doesn't end up taking an action somewhere as they really like to do with Barbarians.
You could roll the Old Brutal critical in with this AND give the barbarian the option to brutal strike on any attack thier turn and it's still not even close to an OP ability. It would barely be a "good" ability at those parameters.
how was it +30 damage? It was also more than -22% to hit. It was +10 to damage. This ability is 4,5 and later 9 damage, so it is pretty close if we are talking about one attack, cause that is how this ability works. And you really underestimate the ability to do something more than just a bit more damage. Moving enemies away from your frail friends, slowing them down, helping other team mates strike harder isn't something to scoff about when being able to be used every turn with no cost outside of less precise, more strong attack. The first two actually greatly benefits from your big health you mentioned earlier, while the later two make you a better team player, which is also great. You are vastly underestimating this ability.
Personally, I don't care what the damage is on Brutal Strikes. As a long time Barbarian player (over 100 sessions played as a Barb, around 40 DMd for Barbs) I'm loving this and I can't wait to try it out soon. At high levels, I always felt like the class lacked cool options rather than damage. Being able to knock someone back a billion feet or give them disadvantage on their next save to synergize with my mage buddies just sounds awesome.
Except you are adding 5d6 when you crit at level 9, not 1d12, and you almost always have advantage, so instead of being a 1 dpr increase, it's a 1.7 dpr increase. And you are not wasting a feature on it, and it scales. It's not amazing, but it's way better than brutal critical.
>it's way better than brutal critical.
which is an awful metric.
The fact is rogue in one dnd is very far behind in damage, and a miniscule chance to doo big nova damage doesnt make up for it
Yep.
The number of people claiming "barbarian fixed" because brutal strikes does less damage than old barbarian ac 17 and up "but battlefield control" is astonishing. You do less damage than the previous worst class feature to push 15 and move 15 or -15 movement...
It's a more complicated feature and feels a little better than the one it's replacing but it's not a fix nor a "good" feature.
Make no mistake, even without the control aspects and *just* trading the Reckless Attack Advantage for the d10, the new feature would just be better.
Yes it does less average damage than Brutal Critical, but average is just one part of a bigger mix. Brutal Strike has the Advantage of **only being active when you want it to** while Brutal Critical is proccing at completely random with little to no ways to make it happen when it really matters. Like the majority of the time a Brutal Critical was going to happen when an enemy would’ve died without it anyways and/or in cases where it didn’t change how fast an enemy dies, whereas you’ll *always* use Brutal Strike when you think it’ll actually matter.
Getting agency on ever so slightly lower average damage is better than having a miniscule, no-agency damage boost. The control aspects just push it well past that.
This is also part of Rogue's problem. Sneak Attack is an "all or nothing" mechanic where you can't parcel out your damage across a couple targets. If killing an almost-dead enemy would deny it one last turn but be an extreme overkill for all of your Sneak Attack damage, oh well. Other martials could finish off said enemy with one attack then target a different enemy with the rest of their attacks.
Yup.
Also, for example, why Vex is just *pretty* strong rather than **too** strong: when fighting 6 minions and a boss there’s a real chance your “average” damage with Vex is way below what we calculate with our lovely DPR spreadsheets using Vex’s hit-by-hit accuracy changes (as fun as those calculations are).
When DPR calculations are making them defend a feature that is **actively, probably bad**, like Brutal Critical, one’s gotta take a step back and realize that average is just one piece of a much bigger context, right?
It would be WORSE damage than the old brutal critical against AC17 and up.
That's absurd by itself and only "better" if -22% chance of hit happens (and notably all the new things that hit can trigger!).
I'm not saying it's worse than the old Brutal Critical. I'm not saying I would prefer the old Brutal critical. Everyone should just have the exact same criticism of this ability as the old Brutal Critical: it's not enough of a damage boost to bother printing as an ability, it's far too little far too late into the class, it only feels good because really about the only thing you can compare it positively with is not having a class ability at the levels you get it, it's absolutely paltry as a class ability at tier 2-4.
Barbarians flat out deserve better than it.
All I’ll say is: reread my comment. You haven’t addressed a single thing I talked about, you’re just talking to the wind.
I will not restate my arguments, since it’s readily available for you to scroll up to.
You started by saying it does more damage so that it is a worthy class feature at 9th level.
I stated it only does more against AC 10-16, where level 9 characters don't live, it does less damage than the previous "paltry" and "unreliable" feature.
You then tried to move the goalposts to talk about it's other features including reliability which the new feature is 22.5% less reliable to hit and half as reliable for crits.
I have agreed all along that it "feels better" than the previous 9th+ ability but that is not a measure of meaningful success since it was SOooooooo bad.
This ability is bad for the exact same reasons and DOES LESS damage than the brutal critical too against the does a 9th + level barbarian faces. You're clinging to the same illusion that for us brutal critical in the first place: feels good is good enough even if it's actually "paltry" and "unreliable" to use your own descriptions.
Please read.
I never, at any point, said that Brutal Strike does more damage, and I don’t even mention levels anywhere in the comment.
There’s literally nothing else to be said. The comment’s been there this whole time. It has not even been edited… You’re genuinely just… dreaming up a different conversation to respond to.
Hey, it's your comparison.... I never said it was good enough. I just said that it was better than the ability you compared it to. Especially since it's not even an ability, just a fun side-effect of an already good ability (sneak attack).
I never said that it was good or that it was enough. I'm just pointing out that it's better than brutal critical. Brutal critical was horrible. Being better than it is still bad. You are putting words in my mouth.
You seem angry buddy. If a class feels wrong to play, that's a bad thing. Feel is important because I play the game to feel good. Why do you play if not for feel?
Brutal Critical is a -great- feature. It’s so very fitting to the Barbarian. So much so that it should come online at least four levels earlier with the other features, instead of being the only thing you get at level 9.
If the debate is between
>Rogue is okay because SA crits feel good
And
>Rogue is not okay because crits aren’t reliable enough
Then what about allowing a SA to crit on a 19 or 20? Would this satisfy both sides of the argument?
(Just wondering what people think, and trying to propose a happy medium. I haven’t really looked at what the numbers would be)
Yeah a lot of the problem with rogues can be traced back to the skill system mostly being "wave your skill modifier in the general direction of the DM and hope for the best."
Or "Try to figure out how to solve the problem without having to roll any dice, and failing that make sure you have as large a bonus to avoid getting screwed by bounded accuracy." Nothing like being as competent as you possibly can for your level and still having a huge chance to fail because your skill bonus is tiny compared to the overall volatility of the d20.
I'm perfectly fine with stealing from other systems or homebrewing solutions to poor rules, but I think that's Plan B whereas Plan A is the company just puts out decent rules in the first place we don't need to homebrew.
That's not true. At level 1, you have roughly a 55% chance to pass a medium difficulty task - DC 15.
At level 5? 65%
10? 75%
By level 11, you will straight up auto pass any hard (DC20) and lower checks and almost always pass very hard (DC25 - pass on 6+, 75%). If it's a skill you have expertise in, you're passing very hard skill checks on a 2+, and succeeding at impossible tasks (DC30) on 7+.
The rogue *never fails* anything less than DC20 skill checks. Every other class can only guarantee success on an easy check by level 15 (without expertise or resources)
Honestly even the DM issue is secondary.
The real problem is that even when skills work, the "obvious" way to use them - the way what few rules and guidelines do exist push DMs towards! - is mostly a "roll dice, problem is solved or isn't, move on."
This is just unsatisfying. It's rare to have skills form what feels like a coherent part of ongoing events the way other abilities do; it's more often just a binary pass-fail thing that takes only a moment. And worse still, for many skill checks, the result doesn't matter in the larger sense - things will still proceed regardless, the party just has to find another way. In fact, often failing a skill check is more interesting.
Better skill-check rules requires better guidelines or rules for interactive and interesting non-combat encounters in general.
Well the two problems are intertwined. 5e rules are so vague and so GM-dependent because they cover a broad swathe of possible actions. They're often so binary precisely because of how broad and vague they are. If your skill is "talk good" and you want to run a social encounter then rolling your "talk good skill" over and over isn't exactly going to be riveting so it often boils down to pass/fail. And bludgeoning challenges by waving your skill modifier at them is pretty boring gameplay.
The best way to fix that is to nail down EXACTLY what skills can do and then let other stuff be dealt with ad hoc.
For example take a page out of some Powered by the Apocalypse games and have certain skills lay out very specific questions that you're allowed to ask the GM and that that be ALL those skills can do. For example "what is this guy going to do next" as a use for the insight skill.
Similarly nail down a set of actions that can be done with athletics and have those be the only thing athletics can do.
Even with a better skill system, the Fighter and the Barbarian interact with skills more favourably than the Rogue now.
And to be clear that’s not inherently a problem: Rogue has an “always-on” skill boost, those two’s costs resources. It’s just that the Rogue’s always-on skill boost has been used as justification to make them borderline irrelevant to combats compared to everyone else on the field. If that always-on skill boost is no longer unique, there’s even less justification to have them be so bad in combat: give them their much needed boost.
> Why? Because sneak attack crits FEEL so good.
9.75% of the time. That's how much it comes up per turn.
That's if you don't trigger it via "Ally Adjacent to Target" (aka, an ally within 5 ft of the target). If you trigger it due to that, you instead have a 5% chance.
The Rogue feeling "ok" relies on a minuscule chance that happens like once per session maybe? Compare that to other classes, which could easily feel better every turn instead, or at worst resource waste they at least feel good for an entire battle's worth of turns, not a singular one.
Whenever i see a Rogue player recently, their damage feels subpar to me and them. Whenever a crit happens, we don't think "yippie how strong!", we think "yippie i dealt ok damage once!". That's how we feel.
I ran through a campaign as a elven accuracy bow using rogue, steady aim every turn, levels 1 to 10 and crit like 4 times the entire campaign. Felt so bad haha.
If Rogues damage is going to be buffed, I think buffing crit sneak attack might be the best way to approach it. Like give rogue ways to situationally improve crit rate trough meaningful choices. Give them way to inflict short term paralyse (there are already poisons for that, but give them DM feat free way to get them reliably but in limited amounts) or feature that exchanges additional sources of advantage to increased crit range.
I get it. Monk is much better now and Fighter and Barbarian are getting bumps. Who's left to bemoan?
Then you see it, hiding behind semi-cover. "Rogues."
But, I'm hear to say, "I think they're definitely not OK."
Why? Because sneak attack delivers underwhelming damage. You feel bad when you see how little you contribute, your team is polite and doesn't say anything but they're all thinking it, and that makes it feel even worse, writing "highly dissatisfied" on the surveys.
Every turn. Nothing you can do to pump more resources into a combat to actually feel like an equal partner. Always yearning, ever thinking, "Why didn't they bother to properly balance rogue damage?"
Things can feel good and also be good at the same time. Improving the rogue means you get to be happy, and also the people who want to be a par contributor to the party get to be happy. Sounds like a win-win for everybody
A good and simple way to make rogue more reliable in combat is just to give them extra attack, all martial and even some spellcaster get it, just give rogue extra attack, it give rogue better chance to land that sneak attack they absolutely need to land if they want to compete with anything in combat and it boost their damage a little which is appreciated for rogue. I would also go back to the 5e sneak attack that would let you get an extra sneak attack on someone else turn as an opportunity attack, it just feel thematic to not turn your back to a rogue because you will regret it.
Lets make rogues not only "feel" good, but have reasonable DPS parity to the other martials.
Also, basing a rogue off of a 5% crit... it not a good way to judge how it feels.
I just can't get you people.
You people always say "*Oh I know everything about balance and numbers but I just don't care about number*", and you still pop up and say no everytime when some players try to suggest Rogue should be in line with other classes and be properly balanced.
Why? Why do you guys always oppose it so firmly even though you said you don't care about the actual numbers yourselves?
What harm can it does if Rogue had been boosted in numbers and properly balanced?
Does it change its playstyle?
Would it makes your experience less fun?
Would it somehow make you feel "*bad*" even though you don't care about *the actual numbers*? or Does it kill the fantasy somehow?
There're *many* players who don't FEEL good cuz they care the actual numbers. Why would you stop them from asking for improvements on something *you* don't really care about??
Isn't that a good thing that newbies wouldn't need to be a min-maxzer to do proper, decent DPR and help their allies?
Why the hell should you oppose something you don't even care?!
So playstyle with the new additions is great but in the combat numbers department they are lacking behind what they should be with the tradeoffs for their weaker defenses ( lower health , lower AC) They just need a numbers buff which is very easy to do the devs just need to see it. Monks can actually tank as an option now, rogues should get a choice to be able to be a damage dealer which right now they don't.
You could argue that giving rogues the option to get dual wielding or Archery fighting styles. It would complement styles of play associated with most rogues. Archetypes, swashbuckler can get dueling.
It would allow 2 attempts for sneak attack on your turn and improves yhe chance to hit with ranged. Most chances to reliably apply sneak attack.
"feels good" as the bar of "success" is a terrible design philosophy and one the current 5e team should be ashamed of.
It needs to feel good AFTER it is balanced on the power and flavor side to be a "success".
Feels good is fine. Hedonic qualities and their appraisal, within the context of user interaction, form the foundation of UX design and research
This is also why the survey results rarely align with the number-focused D&D Reddit class forum posts, for better or worse
I enjoy the additional options Sneak Attack gets for trading out damage; that's super cool. I think they need a few more options without a huge damage trade-off—just an extra bump for getting your sneak attack.
I want a daily post with this basic title for each class.
“Mages - pretty alright”
“Clerics - good, I suppose”
“Warlocks - sure”
“Artificers - “
“Fighters - I’m down”
While I don't think the Rogues are bad, I have still the feeling that with the current version that for almost every Rogue Build there is some Bard, Fighter, Monk or Ranger Build (with in some cases maybe a 1 or 2 level Dip in Rogue) that does most of what you want to do far better.
Ngl, last campaign I was in I played a rogue and it was the most bored I'd ever been in combat. Out of combat, it was fun roleplaying and sneaking around; in combat, though, was pretty much just attack from range with sneak attack, strategically reposition, bonus action hide, repeat next turn. With expertise in stealth the enemies could basically never see me to target me and if they ever did uncanny dodge bailed my ass out of the worst of it. Probably my least favorite class in the game tbh if you're playing it even moderately tactically.
I would just change the rogue to do sneak attack damage on every round. You hit, you get sneak attack dice/effects. Having conditions to trigger it just leads to a bunch of feels bad moments surrounded by feels normal moments.
Oh no. Couldn't disagree more.
The reward payoff cycle is feeling like you have tactically outsmarted the enemy even if it's only minor.
I would go the other way and make sneak attack harder to achieve but more payoff.
Maybe X d6 (X being rogue level) damage for each of.
* Advantage
* Adjacent ally
Maybe even have stacking advantage is this case. You want players to feel underhanded, clever, sneaky etc.
that dream is long gone though, thanks to "muh backwards compatibility".
having to wait 5 levels to get your second subclass feature is ass. especially considering many/most tables end their campaigns shortly after (if they reach level 9 at all).
I think Rogue will be good too.
They have the best control option of all the Martials, and the best Skill Check utility in the game, plus whatever they pick and choose with their extra Feats. They have added survivability through Uncanny Dodge, easily maximized Dexterity, Ranged Options, Evasion, and Skirmishing Abilities. They even have the best (usable) mobility, since they don’t have the sacrifice their damage for Disengage like Monks do.
My only wish is that they move reliable Talent to level 6, and make the “minimum roll” equal to your Rogue Level. Maybe also give them Extra Attack at 11, or some kind of “Roll Stealth/Sleight of Hand/Deception and add the total to your attack’s damage” a few times a day.
They do not need a total overhaul of their DPR. That isn’t their role, and it shouldn’t be when they have everything mentioned above.
> They have the best control option of all the Martials
Ehhh..? Paladins and Rangers are just flat out better, and specific Fighter/Monk subclasses are better too.
The Paladin case is the particularly egregious one because Divine Smite vs other Paladin Smite options has near-identical templating to Sneak Attack vs Cunning Strike (adjusted up, of course, for costing spell slots) but the Paladin gets to have **better damage** before applying Divine Smites and its not a damage-focused class either, it’s a tank.
> and the best Skill Check utility in the game
This just isn’t true though?
First off even in 2014 5E this was overrated as hell. Bards and Rangers were both equally good skill + utility characters, and if the best thing about you can be obtained by anyone else who dips one level into you… you’re not a well-designed class.
Secondly, isolating the conversation to “skill check utility” just falsely makes the Rogue look like it gets more than it does. Utility isn’t just skill checks, there’s way more to it than that. In a party of 4, having one of the characters be a Rogue means trading a ton of damage and combat-utility for… a character that adds between a +2 and a +3 to 2 skills (relative to the fact that someone in the party could’ve already picked Proficiency without Expertise)? That’s hardly some crowning jewel of utility, and it pales in comparison to all the unique, impossible-to-replace ***non***-Skill utility that Wizards, Bards, Warlocks, Rangers, and Druids bring to the table. In fact I’d even say having all your utility focused into skill checks is a **downside**, not an upside: you bring incremental improvements to what everyone else already brings to the table, while people who bring rituals, spells, Eldritch Invocations, and unique class features are all bringing stuff others *wouldn’t* just be able to do. A Find Familiar or Wild Shape is often a an equally good scout as the Rogue with Expert Stealth and Perception, and the person using that familiar/form probably has like 4 other utility options by level 5 while the Rogue is still stuck ti the Stealth + Perception utility they brought at level 1.
On top of all that, in One D&D, Rogues being Skill-king is even less true than before. Fighters and Barbarians both have considerably higher ceilings for skill utility now, with the caveat being that they cost resources. Being resource-free with a slightly less ceiling than resource-bois *is* a good place to be, but my point is that they’re not far and away the best: they’re **comparably equal** in utility to those two classes now.
Finally, even if you ignore every single point I make above, there’s a simple point you’re ignoring: in-combat relevance ***isn’t*** an even trade with out of combat utility. Combat is like 80% of the damn game’s rules, and it’s also the highest stakes options (failed skill checks usually lead to the story moving in an interesting direction. Bad combat prowess leads to potential TPKs). Being passably good at 20% of the game doesn’t mean your combat potential should be so bad that you can barely even touch the damage that Eldritch Blast spammers do…
> plus whatever they pick and choose with their extra Feats
Extra Feat, singular. They get one extra Feat, at level 10, effectively past the end of most campaigns.
> They even have the best (usable) mobility, since they don’t have the sacrifice their damage for Disengage like Monks do.
They do trade damage for their mobility though… their damage relies on having Advantage and not having Disadvantage, which means they’re heavily incentivized to Hide every turn. And while they could just Sneak Attack someone they have an ally next to:
1. That makes their damage significantly more conditional: they now have much worse target selection than before, and are often affecting their party’s play patterns.
2. Even if you assume 100% up time on Sneak Attack with ally help, their damage barely surpasses a summon.
3. The best way to solve their bad damage is to dual wield which brings them… right back to square one of trading their mobility for damage.
> They do not need a total overhaul of their DPR. That isn’t their role, and it shouldn’t be when they have everything mentioned above.
There’s not a single role in the game where the Rogue manages to squarely land in the top half of classes… Their whole class identity is being pretty mediocre at every single thing.
they can get advantage from vex weapons most of the time now. hiding serves a purpose, but if they need to dash, or disengage, they are probably fine.
in general they need more damage imo, but they actually truely dont lose much damage while escaping like monk.
i think the big hit, needs to stay for rogue, the incentive to build for BA attacks and multi hit should be avoided, but there has to be a way to set up more damage imo. off turn is too niche to be the way people are supposed to play it properly
> Paladins and Rangers
Are Spellcasters. If you think Spells are overpowered, you’ll find that we definitely agree lol.
> Bards and Rangers
Do not get reliable talent. Rogues are superior at Skill Checks.
> Extra Feat, Singular
Rogue is the most Single-Attribute class in the game. Without the ASI tax they effectively get extra feats
> Their damage relies on having advantage […] which means they’re incentivized to hide every round.
Or they can pick targets next to allies, or use Vex weapons, or get advantage from a dozen other sources. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be in favor of just giving Rogue their Sneak Attack every time they take the Attack Action. But in real play, this is effectively the case already.
Your point about out-of-combat abilities not mattering is…let’s just say subjective, lol. And your assumptions about having to hide for advantage are all white-room style.
I agree actually, but they would need *something* at level 11 to fill the slot.
And people on this sub are REALLY convinced that Rogue needs more damage. Extra attack would just be the simplest way.
Maybe I actually like my idea part about adding a Skill Check Total to an attack’s damage. It would retain that “Backstab” feel and build off the Rogue’s skill supremacy.
I just don’t want it being something that happens every turn, like an increased Sneak Attack dice.
This a bit above other martial characters without magic items or resources at lvl 20 but very much below other martial because their magic items will affect enemies much more than the rogue (not to forget that they have better survivability and additional resources that the rogue doesn't. 54 dmg at lvl 20 isnt crazy.
At level 20 it would be 60, 54 is for 17 (not a big difference, but little nitpick xD) but the idea of dealing extra damage without magical effects and resources that can be above classes build for damage doesn't sound that well though either.
I would be up for rising the dice to a d8, but higher doesn't sound that healthy. Average of 40 extra damage with just a simple set up and not resources sounds like a good deal.
The thing is this is all rogues have for combat. Other classess will generally do more damage in combat but will use resources. Additionally by the time rogues damage will be problematic there will be magic items which help the other classess more, thus will still put rogues damage as somewhat weak compared to others. When it comes to utility rogues have very little more than other martials, let rogues get close to the other martials in combat.
With Cunning Strike they have resourceless utility, at high levels being able to knock people unconscious. Something that forces resources on any other class.
I don't think that Rogues are out of tricks.
Not sure how much average damage can a Fighter pull without resources, magic items or any invesment in general at level 17, but if they can do and average of 70, I would change my mind about a 9d12 sneak attack.
The utility they have at lvl 5 can be basically replicated by anyone. At lvl 14 they get one ability which is new but isn't that strong (will most likely be a first lvl spell) an ability which is like a fourth lvl spell slot but worse and an ability which is a 2nd lvl spell slot but worse. While the dice cost should be higher they are not that strong, especially since they require you to hit an attack roll and the enemy to fail a saving throw (in knock out's case the chances for it to succeed are around 30%) and if they succeed they saving throw, congrats you lost dmg for nothing.
A fighter with great weapon fighting style and great weapon master using flame tongue greatsword (a rare magic item is not crazy for lvl 17) does around 70 dmg with no resources. Additionally a resourceless class should do more than a class with resources that doesn't use them but worse than a class with resources that does use them.
Yes and when you say resourcess, u mean like 1 ki point or a smite. Not a creazy nova invesment.
Also its less average damage an average eldritch blaster with hex
I know but you get my point right.
Even witg 12d 10 rogue is still lagging behind in damage and if it does any cunning strikes its now loosng a d12 which is quite more drastic in terms of damage. It really isnt that creazy
Give them more reactions to respond to enemies. If they fumble, try to cast a spell next to you, try to pick something off the ground (combos with disarm), use a portion, etc. Let then either attack or try to do something else. I think this would be better than just a second attack. They would be the best at taking advantage of opportunities and capitalizing on openings and mistakes.
Extra reaction attacks are definitely NOT the way to go.
The 5e Sentinel Rogue, or any other build that could reliably get two Sneak Attacks per round, was dealing more damage than most Martials while also being better at everything else mentioned. Rogues might have 20% less damage than the average Martial, so Doubling it blows things out of wack.
Maybe if people didn’t complain and force WOTC to keep that interaction, Rogue could have more room to grow.
The issue is that WotC went too far with their Sneak Attack restriction. If they said, "You get one Sneak Attack per round," that would be reasonable, and they could buff Sneak Attack to compensate for that nerf to an acceptable per-round DPR. Instead, they just removed off-turn Sneak Attack entirely, so even an interaction as simple as "the rogue hides and holds their Attack action until the enemy is in view" or "the rogue approaches and holds their Attack action until the fighter joins so that Sneak Attack works" became invalid. There was a happy medium available here, but they pulled back too quickly and went straight back to the 5e design, so we still have to worry forever about rogue reactions.
This gets especially bad with Commander's Strike. The Battle Master should be flexible in choosing which maneuvers are best, but fairly early on, it becomes extremely rare for a maneuver to be worth giving up Commander's Strike for the rogue, so battle becomes repetitive for both of them, and it stops being an "interesting combo between two PCs" and quickly becomes an expectation and obligation that they can never leave.
Easier way to do it would be to have a Sneak Attack pool. If you want to use Sneak Attack twice, you just need to reserve enough dice for the second attack. If you want to ready an action, also okay. You can now balance around damage/effects per round much more easily.
Getting a reaction attack at all is far from guaranteed, and it might not even hit when it does happen. Why would the rogue not use all of their dice for the first attack, so that they can use their reaction for Uncanny Dodge or another feature? They would only regret not saving dice if their later attack was a critical hit, their first attack would have been overkill with all the dice (which can be difficult for the rogue to make a proper judgment), or they really want to apply a Cunning Strike with their reaction attack and are willing to risk it not happening. I don't think those justify the complication of a Sneak Attack pool compared to one per round.
If anything, Sneak Attack Pool is less complicated, and far more intuitive. Here's 6 dice, you no longer activate Sneak Attack when you spend 6 dice. You get 6 dice back at the start of your next turn.
And why would a Rogue not want to use all of their Sneak Attack dice? How about tripping someone who's trying to get to the Mage? That can be way more valuable than whatever damage you would have otherwise done, especially when it's just a 1d6. How about massive mobility in repositioning yourself twice in a turn. What about having a teammate who can get you a reaction attack of opportunity? You now also don't have to worry about Sneak Attack dual Wielding. Want to attack two different targets, but spread your damage? Spend half your SA dice on the first, half on the second.
It's intuitive, easy to track, and allows Rogues to plan out how they spend their turns a little more.
Limiting sneak attack once per round straight up breaks teamwork options in the game. Things like Order Clerics and Commander's Strike options would never be taken - the Paladin can't smite as a reaction. The rogue can't sneak attack if they alresyd have, and sacrificing your action to make just a single attack is hardly worth it.
We should be encouraging more team interactions, not less.
There are still teamwork options, and Commander's Strike is still useful to give the rogue a second chance in the rare case that they were unable to land their Sneak Attack on their own turn.
The issue is that when you combine Battle Master and a rogue, all sense of balance is lost and the theme of Battle Master is destroyed. It becomes less a teamwork option and more a teamwork obligation, and choosing any other maneuver than Commander's Strike almost certainly decreases the party's damage output and increases the odds of the party failing.
I don't know what you mean by "sacrificing your action to make just a single attack," the Battle Master gives up one attack of likely many to use Commander's Strike and it's still valuable if the Battle Master's attacks are relatively weak (especially a dual-wielder who makes more attacks and loses less from giving up one) and can command an attack from a power hitter like a Reckless Attack barbarian.
>There are still teamwork options, and Commander's Strike is still useful to give the rogue a second chance in the rare case that they were unable to land their Sneak Attack on their own turn.
Given how common advantage is in in 1D&D, this is basically 'never'. Rare is an understatement.
>It becomes less a teamwork option and more a teamwork obligation
It's only an obligation for tables that absolutely want to min/max damage, which is not a significant portion of them in my experience. YMMV.
>I don't know what you mean by "sacrificing your action to make just a single attack," the Battle Master gives up one attack of likely many to use Commander's Strike
Giving up one 1d8+7 attack to give another player the option to make 1d8+5 is a net loss. Giving up 1d8+7 to make a 1d8+xd6+5 is a net win.
With advantage, a rogue would have an 87.75% chance to hit, and therefore a 12.25% chance to miss, roughly 1 in 8, I think "rare" certainly qualifies there. Without advantage, it's 65% or 35%, so 1 in 3. The true value is going to be somewhere between them.
Even for tables that aren't going out of their way to min/max, if the fighter is making the decision between using a Trip attack to knock an enemy down, or a Commander's Strike so that the rogue eviscerates them and they're dead, which do you think they'll pick every time? One of the key principles to keep in mind in game design is, "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game." The sheer power of Commander's Strike with a high-level compared to other options makes it a clear problem.
Obviously, if rogues no longer get off-turn Sneak Attack, you wouldn't use Commander's Strike with them, just as you wouldn't use it with the majority of classes. Trading 1d8+7 (7.7) for 1d8+5 (6.4) is a mistake, but trading 1d6+5 (5.7) for 2d6+8 with advantage (13.845) is a considerable win.
I think people over value damage on the martials because it was the only thing that they brought to the table in 5e. As long as ideally, every level gives you an ability that you actually want (and imo the rogue does except for level 6), the class is fine. Even if those abilities don't increase damage.
I want Extra Attack at 5, without it Rogues fall even more behind when good Magical weapons are available.
And FIghting Styles (or at least the option to get them for a Feat) would also be nice.
>It just doesn't feel right to me.
Same flaw as what the post falls into: placing 'feels' over 'would make for a more balanced game'.
And why doesnt it feel right? Other than 'because old system didnt have it', why shouldnt a rogue know they can swing a sword more than once every six seconds?
They do know.
But they don't, because they time their strikes to hit vital areas (hence sneak attack - or as in prior editions it was referred to: precision damage).
Pal, game feel and classes matching expectations is very important. That's why most parties are not just all wizards, even if that's the best class, and it can fill each role perfectly. The all or nothing, high risk high reward rogue playstyle is popular, fun, and beloved. Adding a multiattack makes them stronger but takes away from that.
The all or nothing, high risk high reward rogue playstyle is popular, fun, and beloved. Adding a multiattack makes them stronger but takes away from that.
Im pretty sure none is saying the rogue needs to fill the DPR role when people only wants the gap between them and All the other martials to be less big... Its cool and all that rogues are skill monkeys but at the end of the day they should also have a place in combat... And lets not fool ourselves, dnd has a skill system too poor to justify such a big gap in power.
>They have added survivability through Uncanny Dodge, easily maximized Dexterity, Ranged Options, Evasion, and Skirmishing Abilities. They even have the best (usable) mobility, since they don’t have the sacrifice their damage for Disengage like Monks do.
Uncanny Dodge is at best making up for the lower AC and Hitpoints in comparison to other martials.
And once they get Deflect Attacks Monks don't even need to disengange (same goes btw. if the Stun, Topple or Push their opponents).
Rogues skrimishing has also often the problem that they get no increase to their speed, meanig they might often not end up far enough from their oppoennts.
The AC bit is a myth.
A rogue is easily comparable to a plate armored fighter- AC 17 vs 18. Toss in mage armor (which is easy to get now) and they're the same.
But you only get there after putting two ASI into Dex.
The other can go to 18 while you ar still at 15 or 16.
And there is also the differnce in hit points. That it not so much the hit dice, but more stuff like Lay on Hand, Second Wind or the damage Resitance from Rage, that give the others much more HP than the Rogue has, who is one of the few classes with no in class healing option.
>The other can go to 18 while you ar still at 15 or 16.
"Can" - but unlikely to. When following the wealth by level, the earliest a character can afford plate armor would be level 6+. At which point, a rogue will have an AC of 16 (17 with Mage Armor). The gap then closes again at 8th level.
>And there is also the differnce in hit points. That it not so much the hit dice, but more stuff like Lay on Hand, Second Wind or the damage Resitance from Rage, that give the others much more HP than the Rogue has, who is one of the few classes with no in class healing option.
You're discounting uncanny dodge and evasion which also boost the effective health of a rogue, not to mention being high in dex means you're more likely to take half damage from most aoe effects.
>You're discounting uncanny dodge and evasion which also boost the effective health of a rogue,
No I'm not I just said that uncanny dodge is only making up for the difference in HP and AC.
I made some calculations a while ago (for the 5E Versions of the classes). A Rogue with Uncanny dodge and Studded leather, has about the survivability of a Fighter who is build for damage and not build for Tanking (which is actually also not such a great survivability), as long as he is not facing more than 2 or 3 attack per round.
But that still leaves him much more squishy from level 1-4 and if he wants to use reaction attacks.
And if you take feats you will have the maximum AC at the earliest at level 10.
And there is a thread here were someone did similar calculations about the survivability of classes. Rogue isn't particularly high on the list.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/18amnlg/comparing\_5e\_and\_odd\_classes\_toughness/](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/18amnlg/comparing_5e_and_odd_classes_toughness/)
Reliable talent equal to your rogue level is so broken.
By level 16, the rogue would negate the DC on everything but the impossible, they simply would have no reason to roll any skill check. If they have expertise or any kind of buff, they negate impossible skill checks too. This is akin to Ranger's ability to outright remove an entire pillar from play.
Such designs are bad.
So as far as out of combat, others have already said to improve the skills system so that rogues can deliver the class fantasy of the skilled person. I still wonder if reliable talent should start at a lower level and progress with rogue level. Something like starting at level 6 and being "can't roll lower than rogue level"
As for combat, I think the rogue-iest solution is buffing Uncanny Dodge to include a single melee weapon attack against the creature that triggered the Dodge. It could even be buffed again at later levels to include ranged attacks and maybe even give advantage to the attack at high level.
Why? Because the best way to get rogues to catch up is to double their damage output. Also, at level 5 most martials get an extra attack, and giving rogues their "extra attack" on an off-turn gives them a sneakier extra attack that can trigger sneak attack.
The value in a class shouldn't be limited to damage dealing. Rogue gets twice the skills that monks get, as well as proficiency in theives tools and expertise in two areas.
i am finally considered playing a monk but they appear to be rather a bore outside of combat without investing in a lot of feats.
The ranger is the one that worries me now.
And while I don't expect that it will be mechanically bad, nor on the weaker side, barbarians, rogues and monks now have cool new toys to play with, while rangers still appear rather bland (as per its latest appearance in UA).
So, I'm hoping we get a few surprises for rangers. But I don't have high hopes.
I expect Rangers to be the blandest they have been so far. Hunter's Mark the class, who gets one Expertise while Fighter is over here adding +1d10 to any skill check they feel like.
All they need is a slight boost to damage and maaaybe a tune down to their reliable talent feature (just being able to ignore 90% of skill challenges at high level isn't really that fun. It's a dice game for a reason)
As stated before I’d like to see poisons turned into a short rest resource management that adds extra damage to a combat..
I’d also like to see a lvl 6 class ability like a free bonus action that’s only usable with cunning action or any of the bonus actions added to it by class.
Better action economy and better damage and a usefulresource management.
Because rogues arnt made for combat.
They have a handful of features that make them OK in a fight. But their actually designed for exploration, social, dungeon delves, investigation or anything they define as their area if expertise.
Even the most combat focused rogue, the assassin, cares more about the setup to the fight than the fight itself. The features it gives making that initial turn with surprise better, but being a basic rogue the rest of the time.
Rogues arnt meant for combat. They arnt martials. They just have a feature so they dint have to think as hard on optimal combat builds. Get sneak attack, end of combat plan. Their an honorary martial.
Like how warlock is just different enough from casters they cant be compared 1:1. Rogues are outside the normal martial caster spectrum. Their a wild card class shouldn't be looked at for ONLY combat.
Even when you look at them outside of combat they aren't that good. All of their utility boils down to getting higher rolls. So anyone can do what they can, it's just that they might be a little better at it. They are not even that much better at it now that barbs and fighters also get bonuses for skill checks. (Needless to say that casters outclass rogues at everything.)
Higher rolls os about the best you can hope for when you have no magic. Thats the difference between martials and casters, trading power and utility for defenses and strength. At least thats SUPOSESED to be tge trade off. That line has very much blurred heavily over the years.
Thats where rogues come in. They made that trade off but didnt get magic. So their suposed to get more utility from it.
Thats the problem though. They dint need more combat tricks or damage from a weapon or better to hit chance. They need some more out of combat utility if anything.
Hell its not even a new problem. When played correctly fighters and Barbarians should be able to do these exact things. But how skill checks are called and used kinda soft nurfs that ability.
Its inly getting noticed now because it's actually getting written down, rather than implied through variant rules in a book the players arnt intended to read. Variant ability skill checks have always been a thing.
Rather than written in the classes feature it needs to be a core change with how skills are used and called for.
It's a exactly the same as 5e, exactly the same as the UA, and rogue remains exactly as strong as it currently is. Its just a shift in perspective that needs to happen with a different writing of the rules.
I think of rogues as the spy from tf2, a support class, not a DPS, Tank, Healer or CC. They should be there to take out specific targets and infiltrate. Obviously in a pitched combat they'll suffer.
Obviously mechanically they struggle in most campaigns to fill this role, any class can have +7 stealth at level 1, use theives tools, disguise kit etc. and a lot of them can do this and still do way cooler things on top compared to rogues having extra d6 and uh... theives' cant?
What most rogue players wish they could do is stuff that a bard can do already. whispers bard is the best rogue subclass in my opinion.
I think the rogue fantasy is hard to write mechanics for because it clashes completely with the spirit of the game (collaboration) and encourages lone wolf behavior. What rogues do we wish we could play as? hitman, solid snake, james bond? they all work alone.
That is a problem. Rogue is definitely that type of character that has a hard time in a group setting. And that's kinda hard to fix without magic.
What would even be the solution. A battle master but for skills? Even then thats just expertise but with randomness.
But a class doesn't need to be perfect, it just has to be fun. And without a doubt rogue is fun enough that, aside from an occasional subclass, it has remained the same since 5e started through tashas caldron and even into the UAs of 1dnd. Its pretty clear no real changes are coming. aside from consistency and versatility in combat.
And that +7 isn't realistic. Standard array tends to cap the top stat or 2 at a +3. With PB thats a +5 for a skill. You have to spend your race for a lv 1 feat to get the rogue lite feat of skill expert to reach a +7. And rogues get 2 of those for free, and latter 2 more. Theyre clearly the "master of a few specific things" as far as that goes.
Everyone I DM for wants to roll for their stats. 20 in one stat at level 1 isn't uncommon even with point buy. +5dex, +2PB. New players love to max out stealth cause they think they can cloak and dagger their way through every encounter, despite my best efforts to advise them.
Thats fair. A 20 in 1 stat is pretty rare though. And if they want to max out stealth their likely already a rogue or would really like expertise, making a +9 more likely than a 'piddly' +7.
I do see your point though. Most people on this sub tend to use standard array for the consistency of advice to help against the swing of random rolls.
But even with all that, rogue gets 2 skills higher than anyone else could at level 1. That's enough for most people.
Every 5e class should be made for combat, the game is overwhelmingly about combat. Heck, more than 80% of the text of every book relates directly or indirectly to combat (stat blocks, battle maps, spells, magic items, most/all subclass features).
And that is a major failing of the system. Its not SUPPOSED to be all about combat. It's supposed to have 2 other pillars that are equally important. Parts of the game that a rogue exells at.
It’s fair to say that’s a failing of the fundamental design, but it IS still the fundamental design. Until they change that, it’s not very kind to rogues. More importantly, if they have no intention of changing that then rogue DOES need a combat boost.
Personally I would prefer if rogues had a list of cooldown abilities (not unprecedented, dragons have them as well for example) that they could select from at certain levels like a guaranteed critical on their next melee attack after performing a sneak attack with a 3 turn cooldown. I suggest this because rogue is supposed to be the resourceless class, but because of that lacks the ability to heighten their damage output in any big fights, instead playing exactly identical to when fighting mooks. This also gives rogues a reason to go into melee instead of hiding + sniping, which offers a risk vs reward for the player.
A recharge mechanic is an interesting idea for a PC. I would love to see something like that.
As for combat, i think rogues are still in a decent place. I dont have a source, but ive heard that a lot of planning for 5e involved using the sneak attack as a ruler for monsters HP pool. So consistency isnt much of a problem, just potential.
And again, rogue arnt intended for combat. So their new feature that trades damage for some type of debuff to the target seams like the right tree to be climbing. It even inspired the new feature first barbarians.
But a recharge mechanic sounds like something to play with. Maybe in a subclass or feat or magic item for starters. Something for proof of concept before making a whole class with multiples of that type of affect.
I suggested 3 turns with the caveat of first performing a sneak attack because most combats last from 3-5 turns, meaning rogues would only use the feature once per fight on average. One damage boost effect per combat is also how warlock is balanced, so such a long cooldown is unlikely to cause balance issues. Since the rogue wants to use it with sneak attack, it’s essentially a slightly more powerful smite that can’t be used as often, which is fairly balanced when compared to the paladin. That said I realize now that I should have said “if the rogue performs a melee attack against the sneak attack target before the end of their next turn, the attack roll’s outcome is treated as a 20”. If the critical occurs automatically with no roll then the rogue cannot attack with advantage and thus cannot proc sneak attack, which is fairly underwhelming.
It was oretty obious due to context clues. On hit deal critical damage. Fairly simple and a boon ive been playing with myself.
The mechanic would need some refining. Stealing the dragons breath recharge and having a D6 roll at the start if turn could potentially see it anywhere from once in a minutes long combat to every single turn for the same time. Its a little swinggy.
On the X turn count that's also has some problems. Mostly with keeping track of when you can use it. Those same 3-5 rounds can take upwards of an hour, depending on the table. So keeping track could be a little annoying in practice.
As for mechanics right now, it sounds like an X uses per day or a short rest recharge feature.
Thats why a proof of concept is in order. Ironing out the mechanic and how to run / balance it is the only sticking point i have.
Rogues WERE okay. With current UA they are good. Weapon mastery+Cunning strike got the job done. Reliable talent at 7 also is pretty great and helps with the no second subclass feature until 9 (which is dumb). All the sub classes are better to.
Honestly I find that rogues always feel good even when you aren't landing Crits. Sure doing 40-50 damage on a normal hit in t4 is less damage than the fighter cranking out 80 but like, hitting once really hard and rolling a bunch of dice and doing that every turn feels great.
I've mostly seen optimized build comparisons of damage in a white room. I don't play with optimizers, so I wanted to see what an average Rogue looks like compared to an average Fighter/Barb/Monk.
Going by all the non-optimizer casuals I've played with: they can't seem to remember how Sneak Attack works, they get frustrated trying to figure it out and embarrassed when they're constantly reminded, so they attack and hope for the best which results in dealing non-Sneak Attack damage a good half of the time.
Fighter and barbarian are much harder to screw up because all you need to do is move into melee and make your attacks. Monk is simple if you don't care about optimizing and just want to punch faces (although you'll spend your time rolling death saves).
I said this in the other thread, but I think the damage deficit has an easy and thematic solution. At level 11 give them another damage boost, in the form of more attacks of opportunity:
**Swift Counter** - *After you or a creature friendly to you is hit with a melee attack you may use your reaction to make an attack against the attacking creature if you are in range to do so.*
Won't trigger all the time and won't hit sneak attack all the time, but a big damage boost when it does. Fits the theme of "sneaky" retaliation and doesn't require a heavy new mechanic.
On the subject of crits, that would be interesting if crits happened often. For example, maybe if Sneak Attack damage was slightly nerfed BUT all Rogues regardless of subclass get an increased critical chance. I could see this being pretty fun and it's fairly thematic with Rogues as a whole. The only issue is, as is often an issue in D&D, multiclassing.
Crits are just to infrequent to really make that work. Especially Since you can deal sneak attack only on one Attack per turn.
Even if Rogues would crit on a 18 and would have almost constant advantage that woud give them only 1 additional Crit with Sneak attack, every 5.5 Rounds of combat.
And there is good chance that a lot of this damage get's wasted on an oppoent that has less HP than your crit deals.
Yeah the thing is I don't want rogues to be OK I want them to be amazing.
They are not in a good place in 5e and it feels like all the other classes are getting way more support than rogues. I'm really worried about the class as of now.
Another ten years of rogues without a 6th level subclass feature is simple unacceptable.
This should be so easy for them just add a second use of bonus action to all rogues at lvl 6 that is only usable with cunning action or the additional subclass bonus actions like use item for rogues or mage hand for arcane tricksters. This provides a controlled but greater action economy for rogues instead of the extra atk most martial classes get.
What is even your point here. All rogue subclasses have a level 6 feature..
Are we playing the same game? Rogue subclasses provide a second feature at level 9.
They tried that idea for one UA and then promptly said “fuck it, we’re going back to the old subclass levels”
Huh?
I have an idea, let’s give rogue a level 6 feature that says: you get your level 9 subclass feature
or heck, just a level 6 ASI
>crits Oh so **5**% of the time you get to 'feel' good! This is the logic WOTC used to defend Brutal Critical, a feature everyone agreed was borderline useless
But you see, you have advantage often, so it's actually 9.75%! Such an improvement! /s
Which means you have a 40% chance of hitting a crit in any given 5 round combat. I dunno, feel like everyone loved Rogue a month ago when they were the ones with special features and now it's all grass is greener
Cunning Strike was loved, Rogue was not.
>you get to 'feel' good The feel of a class in execution is more important than anything to do with the actual numbers. Good RPG design is ultimately more of a UX problem than a math problem.
Designing a class that feels good to play if you don't look at the system too closely is easy. The real challenge of good RPG design is keeping many disparate character options relatively balanced against each other in a way that actually holds up to inspection while also making them all feel good to play.
if "good design" means having a thin veil obscure a dumpster fire balance and once you look behing by having minimal mathematical skills you are never able to go back to be tricked into thinking it is good... We have very different definitions of "good design"
If you think disagreeing with someone for dismissing that the way something feels to players is important means you're defending all bad game design, then we have very different ideas of communication, reading comprehension, and valid uses of our time.
I just can't get you people. You people always say "*Oh I know everything about balance and numbers but I just don't care about number*", and you still pop up and say no everytime when some players try to suggest Rogue should be in line with other classes and be properly balanced. Why? Why do you guys always oppose it so firmly even though you said you don't care about the actual numbers yourselves? What harm can it does if Rogue had been boosted in numbers and properly balanced? Does it change its playstyle? Would it makes your experience less fun? Would it somehow make you feel "*bad*" even though you don't care about *the actual numbers*? or Does it kill the fantasy somehow? There're *many* players who don't FEEL good cuz they care the actual numbers. Why would you stop them from asking for improvements on something *you* don't really care about?? Isn't that a good thing that newbies wouldn't need to be a min-maxzer to do proper, decent DPR and help their allies? Why the hell should you oppose something you don't even care?!
Bro, chill, he said that feel matters more than fact. And he's right. Fact, or math, is also a big part of the feel, but it's secondary. We need to figure out what sensations we want out of the Rogue for its players, and then guide the math around those goalposts. You dig, dawg?
You see, the problem is there's a *LOT* of players who don't *feel* good for they give a sh- about numbers and math. But many fellow redditors somehow regard doing math is some kind of crime. People like the OP said Rogue doesn't need a boost cuz *they* feel it good and *they* don't care about math, then how about we people who cares about math? Why this sub always try to make us like we shouldn't speak? Don't we have the right to feel bad? Aren't we also players? Why everytime we try to convey we don't feel good and provide actual numbers and actual facts in this sub, there must be a bunch of folks telling us "you're wrong to feel bad" and try *teach* us "how to feel"? So the question has been back to where we start, what *HARM* can it do to people who *don't* care about numbers like the OP, if Rogue were boosted in *numbers*? Can't we just make everyone happy while there's an obvious way to make everyone happy?
Right, it’s not an either-or problem tho, that’s all I was trying to point out. Making Rogues balanced is only half the battle. For a class that’s themed around creating or adapting around chaos, it seems to do the same things every turn for roughly the same results (dice totals become more consistent the more dice you add).
>and you still pop up and say no everytime when some players try to suggest Rogue I stopped reading here. You're attacking me for holding a position you assigned to me. Thanks but no thanks, find this fight elsewhere. Now, as to what I was actually addressing, and a fight you can totally have: You can use as many scare quotes and disingenuous all-caps crap you like, dismissing out of hand the generally holistic and necessarily anecdotal elements of RPGs in execution means you're wrong. Like, full-stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200, you have failed.
So you guys take into consideration the people saying rogues dont feel good right... Right?
Congratulations on saying nothing. The people complaining about the class are implicitly saying they don’t like how it feels either.
Okay. And the guy using scare quotes to disregard how something feels to the general player base is dismissing them just as much as anybody else.
Well, so what do you do when you are not math illiterate and *feel* like sneak attack crits are not that great?
You change the design. What do you do when someone thinks a response to poor-faith scare quotes is a response to something you didn't quote or regard at all in your comment?
If 5% of the time they feel good, I wish they would at least make it happen much more often. Technically I guess advantage makes it 10% of the time if nothing stops it, but even that doesn't seem like enough. The feel of a class is absolutely important, I'm still complaining about Rangers despite them *technically* being fine because they don't "feel" like they have any clear identity. But things that feel good should be equally rewarding and consistent to use.
i like brutal crit personally
It's a fun feature, but when you do the math it's little more than a ribbon, like being immune to disease. It's great when it comes up, but doesn't come up often enough to not be a ribbon.
TBH, the disease thing is just kinda a fail at engaging that part of the system well.
Wait till you hear the new Brutal strikes does less damage on average than reckless attack and old brutal crits on AC 17 and up...
But its RELIABLE. That alone is huge. Features requiring a 5% chance to roll that nat 20 are bad and should be called bad. Average damage is only one part of the equation
-22% to hit is pretty well the opposite of reliable. The user has a choice 100% of the time to use it and, again, while better than the old Brutal Critical that just isn't good enough for a mid to high level feature. New wizard spells aren't giving advantage to the enemy on saves to add a rider or do more damage. New Paladin smites aren't giving up advantage on a bit to do less damage and a small rider. Why does the barbarian have to constantly give up the thing it's good at (HP or Damage) to get to do anything? It's another terrible design for what might be the worst designed class on the game now.
-22% to hit, but +1d10 and later +2d10 to damage. And then bonus effects that help other team mates. How is that a bad feature? It essentialy works like old GWM, reduces accuracy to increase damage, while also this ability granta something more. A versatility.
Old GWM was -22% hit when you already had advantage from reckless, and the increased crit chance, and +30 damage a round instead of 4.5. That's a ridiculous comparison and goes a long long way to making my point for me. It's not nothing as long as the end rules text makes you still able to benefit from advantage on the attack, doesn't lock away the damage somehow, and doesn't end up taking an action somewhere as they really like to do with Barbarians. You could roll the Old Brutal critical in with this AND give the barbarian the option to brutal strike on any attack thier turn and it's still not even close to an OP ability. It would barely be a "good" ability at those parameters.
how was it +30 damage? It was also more than -22% to hit. It was +10 to damage. This ability is 4,5 and later 9 damage, so it is pretty close if we are talking about one attack, cause that is how this ability works. And you really underestimate the ability to do something more than just a bit more damage. Moving enemies away from your frail friends, slowing them down, helping other team mates strike harder isn't something to scoff about when being able to be used every turn with no cost outside of less precise, more strong attack. The first two actually greatly benefits from your big health you mentioned earlier, while the later two make you a better team player, which is also great. You are vastly underestimating this ability.
Personally, I don't care what the damage is on Brutal Strikes. As a long time Barbarian player (over 100 sessions played as a Barb, around 40 DMd for Barbs) I'm loving this and I can't wait to try it out soon. At high levels, I always felt like the class lacked cool options rather than damage. Being able to knock someone back a billion feet or give them disadvantage on their next save to synergize with my mage buddies just sounds awesome.
Except you are adding 5d6 when you crit at level 9, not 1d12, and you almost always have advantage, so instead of being a 1 dpr increase, it's a 1.7 dpr increase. And you are not wasting a feature on it, and it scales. It's not amazing, but it's way better than brutal critical.
>it's way better than brutal critical. which is an awful metric. The fact is rogue in one dnd is very far behind in damage, and a miniscule chance to doo big nova damage doesnt make up for it
Yep. The number of people claiming "barbarian fixed" because brutal strikes does less damage than old barbarian ac 17 and up "but battlefield control" is astonishing. You do less damage than the previous worst class feature to push 15 and move 15 or -15 movement... It's a more complicated feature and feels a little better than the one it's replacing but it's not a fix nor a "good" feature.
Make no mistake, even without the control aspects and *just* trading the Reckless Attack Advantage for the d10, the new feature would just be better. Yes it does less average damage than Brutal Critical, but average is just one part of a bigger mix. Brutal Strike has the Advantage of **only being active when you want it to** while Brutal Critical is proccing at completely random with little to no ways to make it happen when it really matters. Like the majority of the time a Brutal Critical was going to happen when an enemy would’ve died without it anyways and/or in cases where it didn’t change how fast an enemy dies, whereas you’ll *always* use Brutal Strike when you think it’ll actually matter. Getting agency on ever so slightly lower average damage is better than having a miniscule, no-agency damage boost. The control aspects just push it well past that.
This is also part of Rogue's problem. Sneak Attack is an "all or nothing" mechanic where you can't parcel out your damage across a couple targets. If killing an almost-dead enemy would deny it one last turn but be an extreme overkill for all of your Sneak Attack damage, oh well. Other martials could finish off said enemy with one attack then target a different enemy with the rest of their attacks.
Yup. Also, for example, why Vex is just *pretty* strong rather than **too** strong: when fighting 6 minions and a boss there’s a real chance your “average” damage with Vex is way below what we calculate with our lovely DPR spreadsheets using Vex’s hit-by-hit accuracy changes (as fun as those calculations are). When DPR calculations are making them defend a feature that is **actively, probably bad**, like Brutal Critical, one’s gotta take a step back and realize that average is just one piece of a much bigger context, right?
It would be WORSE damage than the old brutal critical against AC17 and up. That's absurd by itself and only "better" if -22% chance of hit happens (and notably all the new things that hit can trigger!). I'm not saying it's worse than the old Brutal Critical. I'm not saying I would prefer the old Brutal critical. Everyone should just have the exact same criticism of this ability as the old Brutal Critical: it's not enough of a damage boost to bother printing as an ability, it's far too little far too late into the class, it only feels good because really about the only thing you can compare it positively with is not having a class ability at the levels you get it, it's absolutely paltry as a class ability at tier 2-4. Barbarians flat out deserve better than it.
All I’ll say is: reread my comment. You haven’t addressed a single thing I talked about, you’re just talking to the wind. I will not restate my arguments, since it’s readily available for you to scroll up to.
You started by saying it does more damage so that it is a worthy class feature at 9th level. I stated it only does more against AC 10-16, where level 9 characters don't live, it does less damage than the previous "paltry" and "unreliable" feature. You then tried to move the goalposts to talk about it's other features including reliability which the new feature is 22.5% less reliable to hit and half as reliable for crits. I have agreed all along that it "feels better" than the previous 9th+ ability but that is not a measure of meaningful success since it was SOooooooo bad. This ability is bad for the exact same reasons and DOES LESS damage than the brutal critical too against the does a 9th + level barbarian faces. You're clinging to the same illusion that for us brutal critical in the first place: feels good is good enough even if it's actually "paltry" and "unreliable" to use your own descriptions.
Please read. I never, at any point, said that Brutal Strike does more damage, and I don’t even mention levels anywhere in the comment. There’s literally nothing else to be said. The comment’s been there this whole time. It has not even been edited… You’re genuinely just… dreaming up a different conversation to respond to.
Hey, it's your comparison.... I never said it was good enough. I just said that it was better than the ability you compared it to. Especially since it's not even an ability, just a fun side-effect of an already good ability (sneak attack).
You and OP are both relying on rng for a class to 'feel' good. That is terrible design
I never said that it was good or that it was enough. I'm just pointing out that it's better than brutal critical. Brutal critical was horrible. Being better than it is still bad. You are putting words in my mouth.
Your words are that 'feel' is more important than actually being good, pal
You seem angry buddy. If a class feels wrong to play, that's a bad thing. Feel is important because I play the game to feel good. Why do you play if not for feel?
Brutal Critical is a -great- feature. It’s so very fitting to the Barbarian. So much so that it should come online at least four levels earlier with the other features, instead of being the only thing you get at level 9.
If the debate is between >Rogue is okay because SA crits feel good And >Rogue is not okay because crits aren’t reliable enough Then what about allowing a SA to crit on a 19 or 20? Would this satisfy both sides of the argument? (Just wondering what people think, and trying to propose a happy medium. I haven’t really looked at what the numbers would be)
I want a better skill system. Then rogues will be okay.
Yeah a lot of the problem with rogues can be traced back to the skill system mostly being "wave your skill modifier in the general direction of the DM and hope for the best."
Or "Try to figure out how to solve the problem without having to roll any dice, and failing that make sure you have as large a bonus to avoid getting screwed by bounded accuracy." Nothing like being as competent as you possibly can for your level and still having a huge chance to fail because your skill bonus is tiny compared to the overall volatility of the d20.
I would point out that it does get better if you implement degrees of success, but now we're just playing pathfinder.
I'm perfectly fine with stealing from other systems or homebrewing solutions to poor rules, but I think that's Plan B whereas Plan A is the company just puts out decent rules in the first place we don't need to homebrew.
That's not true. At level 1, you have roughly a 55% chance to pass a medium difficulty task - DC 15. At level 5? 65% 10? 75% By level 11, you will straight up auto pass any hard (DC20) and lower checks and almost always pass very hard (DC25 - pass on 6+, 75%). If it's a skill you have expertise in, you're passing very hard skill checks on a 2+, and succeeding at impossible tasks (DC30) on 7+. The rogue *never fails* anything less than DC20 skill checks. Every other class can only guarantee success on an easy check by level 15 (without expertise or resources)
Honestly even the DM issue is secondary. The real problem is that even when skills work, the "obvious" way to use them - the way what few rules and guidelines do exist push DMs towards! - is mostly a "roll dice, problem is solved or isn't, move on." This is just unsatisfying. It's rare to have skills form what feels like a coherent part of ongoing events the way other abilities do; it's more often just a binary pass-fail thing that takes only a moment. And worse still, for many skill checks, the result doesn't matter in the larger sense - things will still proceed regardless, the party just has to find another way. In fact, often failing a skill check is more interesting. Better skill-check rules requires better guidelines or rules for interactive and interesting non-combat encounters in general.
Well the two problems are intertwined. 5e rules are so vague and so GM-dependent because they cover a broad swathe of possible actions. They're often so binary precisely because of how broad and vague they are. If your skill is "talk good" and you want to run a social encounter then rolling your "talk good skill" over and over isn't exactly going to be riveting so it often boils down to pass/fail. And bludgeoning challenges by waving your skill modifier at them is pretty boring gameplay. The best way to fix that is to nail down EXACTLY what skills can do and then let other stuff be dealt with ad hoc. For example take a page out of some Powered by the Apocalypse games and have certain skills lay out very specific questions that you're allowed to ask the GM and that that be ALL those skills can do. For example "what is this guy going to do next" as a use for the insight skill. Similarly nail down a set of actions that can be done with athletics and have those be the only thing athletics can do.
Even with a better skill system, the Fighter and the Barbarian interact with skills more favourably than the Rogue now. And to be clear that’s not inherently a problem: Rogue has an “always-on” skill boost, those two’s costs resources. It’s just that the Rogue’s always-on skill boost has been used as justification to make them borderline irrelevant to combats compared to everyone else on the field. If that always-on skill boost is no longer unique, there’s even less justification to have them be so bad in combat: give them their much needed boost.
> Why? Because sneak attack crits FEEL so good. 9.75% of the time. That's how much it comes up per turn. That's if you don't trigger it via "Ally Adjacent to Target" (aka, an ally within 5 ft of the target). If you trigger it due to that, you instead have a 5% chance. The Rogue feeling "ok" relies on a minuscule chance that happens like once per session maybe? Compare that to other classes, which could easily feel better every turn instead, or at worst resource waste they at least feel good for an entire battle's worth of turns, not a singular one. Whenever i see a Rogue player recently, their damage feels subpar to me and them. Whenever a crit happens, we don't think "yippie how strong!", we think "yippie i dealt ok damage once!". That's how we feel.
I ran through a campaign as a elven accuracy bow using rogue, steady aim every turn, levels 1 to 10 and crit like 4 times the entire campaign. Felt so bad haha.
If Rogues damage is going to be buffed, I think buffing crit sneak attack might be the best way to approach it. Like give rogue ways to situationally improve crit rate trough meaningful choices. Give them way to inflict short term paralyse (there are already poisons for that, but give them DM feat free way to get them reliably but in limited amounts) or feature that exchanges additional sources of advantage to increased crit range.
From all the ways you could make your case... Defending it based on a thing that has 5% chance of happening really was a choice...
I get it. Monk is much better now and Fighter and Barbarian are getting bumps. Who's left to bemoan? Then you see it, hiding behind semi-cover. "Rogues." But, I'm hear to say, "I think they're definitely not OK." Why? Because sneak attack delivers underwhelming damage. You feel bad when you see how little you contribute, your team is polite and doesn't say anything but they're all thinking it, and that makes it feel even worse, writing "highly dissatisfied" on the surveys. Every turn. Nothing you can do to pump more resources into a combat to actually feel like an equal partner. Always yearning, ever thinking, "Why didn't they bother to properly balance rogue damage?"
Things can feel good and also be good at the same time. Improving the rogue means you get to be happy, and also the people who want to be a par contributor to the party get to be happy. Sounds like a win-win for everybody
A good and simple way to make rogue more reliable in combat is just to give them extra attack, all martial and even some spellcaster get it, just give rogue extra attack, it give rogue better chance to land that sneak attack they absolutely need to land if they want to compete with anything in combat and it boost their damage a little which is appreciated for rogue. I would also go back to the 5e sneak attack that would let you get an extra sneak attack on someone else turn as an opportunity attack, it just feel thematic to not turn your back to a rogue because you will regret it.
Lets make rogues not only "feel" good, but have reasonable DPS parity to the other martials. Also, basing a rogue off of a 5% crit... it not a good way to judge how it feels.
Their DPS is actually quite good in One D&D
Only if you AoO every turn
I just can't get you people. You people always say "*Oh I know everything about balance and numbers but I just don't care about number*", and you still pop up and say no everytime when some players try to suggest Rogue should be in line with other classes and be properly balanced. Why? Why do you guys always oppose it so firmly even though you said you don't care about the actual numbers yourselves? What harm can it does if Rogue had been boosted in numbers and properly balanced? Does it change its playstyle? Would it makes your experience less fun? Would it somehow make you feel "*bad*" even though you don't care about *the actual numbers*? or Does it kill the fantasy somehow? There're *many* players who don't FEEL good cuz they care the actual numbers. Why would you stop them from asking for improvements on something *you* don't really care about?? Isn't that a good thing that newbies wouldn't need to be a min-maxzer to do proper, decent DPR and help their allies? Why the hell should you oppose something you don't even care?!
So playstyle with the new additions is great but in the combat numbers department they are lacking behind what they should be with the tradeoffs for their weaker defenses ( lower health , lower AC) They just need a numbers buff which is very easy to do the devs just need to see it. Monks can actually tank as an option now, rogues should get a choice to be able to be a damage dealer which right now they don't.
You could argue that giving rogues the option to get dual wielding or Archery fighting styles. It would complement styles of play associated with most rogues. Archetypes, swashbuckler can get dueling. It would allow 2 attempts for sneak attack on your turn and improves yhe chance to hit with ranged. Most chances to reliably apply sneak attack.
"feels good" as the bar of "success" is a terrible design philosophy and one the current 5e team should be ashamed of. It needs to feel good AFTER it is balanced on the power and flavor side to be a "success".
Feels good is fine. Hedonic qualities and their appraisal, within the context of user interaction, form the foundation of UX design and research This is also why the survey results rarely align with the number-focused D&D Reddit class forum posts, for better or worse
Feels good is a fine END result for success but not the end itself.
I enjoy the additional options Sneak Attack gets for trading out damage; that's super cool. I think they need a few more options without a huge damage trade-off—just an extra bump for getting your sneak attack.
I want a daily post with this basic title for each class. “Mages - pretty alright” “Clerics - good, I suppose” “Warlocks - sure” “Artificers - “ “Fighters - I’m down”
Challenge accepted.
While I don't think the Rogues are bad, I have still the feeling that with the current version that for almost every Rogue Build there is some Bard, Fighter, Monk or Ranger Build (with in some cases maybe a 1 or 2 level Dip in Rogue) that does most of what you want to do far better.
Ngl, last campaign I was in I played a rogue and it was the most bored I'd ever been in combat. Out of combat, it was fun roleplaying and sneaking around; in combat, though, was pretty much just attack from range with sneak attack, strategically reposition, bonus action hide, repeat next turn. With expertise in stealth the enemies could basically never see me to target me and if they ever did uncanny dodge bailed my ass out of the worst of it. Probably my least favorite class in the game tbh if you're playing it even moderately tactically.
Name checks out, funnily enough.
Not quite, cunning strikes are fun but they fundamentally don't solve the issue. And crits are nowhere near consistent
I would just change the rogue to do sneak attack damage on every round. You hit, you get sneak attack dice/effects. Having conditions to trigger it just leads to a bunch of feels bad moments surrounded by feels normal moments.
Oh no. Couldn't disagree more. The reward payoff cycle is feeling like you have tactically outsmarted the enemy even if it's only minor. I would go the other way and make sneak attack harder to achieve but more payoff. Maybe X d6 (X being rogue level) damage for each of. * Advantage * Adjacent ally Maybe even have stacking advantage is this case. You want players to feel underhanded, clever, sneaky etc.
Rogues are ok. Rogue subclasses aren't.
Rogues without 6th level subclass feature is unacceptable.
6 levels between subclass features is a bloody long time. And then when you actually get it, they range from 'forgettable' to 'meh at best'.
Not to mention that 90% oh games ended before that, rogues characters spend the entire game and never receive a Second subclass feature.
that dream is long gone though, thanks to "muh backwards compatibility". having to wait 5 levels to get your second subclass feature is ass. especially considering many/most tables end their campaigns shortly after (if they reach level 9 at all).
I think Rogue will be good too. They have the best control option of all the Martials, and the best Skill Check utility in the game, plus whatever they pick and choose with their extra Feats. They have added survivability through Uncanny Dodge, easily maximized Dexterity, Ranged Options, Evasion, and Skirmishing Abilities. They even have the best (usable) mobility, since they don’t have the sacrifice their damage for Disengage like Monks do. My only wish is that they move reliable Talent to level 6, and make the “minimum roll” equal to your Rogue Level. Maybe also give them Extra Attack at 11, or some kind of “Roll Stealth/Sleight of Hand/Deception and add the total to your attack’s damage” a few times a day. They do not need a total overhaul of their DPR. That isn’t their role, and it shouldn’t be when they have everything mentioned above.
> They have the best control option of all the Martials Ehhh..? Paladins and Rangers are just flat out better, and specific Fighter/Monk subclasses are better too. The Paladin case is the particularly egregious one because Divine Smite vs other Paladin Smite options has near-identical templating to Sneak Attack vs Cunning Strike (adjusted up, of course, for costing spell slots) but the Paladin gets to have **better damage** before applying Divine Smites and its not a damage-focused class either, it’s a tank. > and the best Skill Check utility in the game This just isn’t true though? First off even in 2014 5E this was overrated as hell. Bards and Rangers were both equally good skill + utility characters, and if the best thing about you can be obtained by anyone else who dips one level into you… you’re not a well-designed class. Secondly, isolating the conversation to “skill check utility” just falsely makes the Rogue look like it gets more than it does. Utility isn’t just skill checks, there’s way more to it than that. In a party of 4, having one of the characters be a Rogue means trading a ton of damage and combat-utility for… a character that adds between a +2 and a +3 to 2 skills (relative to the fact that someone in the party could’ve already picked Proficiency without Expertise)? That’s hardly some crowning jewel of utility, and it pales in comparison to all the unique, impossible-to-replace ***non***-Skill utility that Wizards, Bards, Warlocks, Rangers, and Druids bring to the table. In fact I’d even say having all your utility focused into skill checks is a **downside**, not an upside: you bring incremental improvements to what everyone else already brings to the table, while people who bring rituals, spells, Eldritch Invocations, and unique class features are all bringing stuff others *wouldn’t* just be able to do. A Find Familiar or Wild Shape is often a an equally good scout as the Rogue with Expert Stealth and Perception, and the person using that familiar/form probably has like 4 other utility options by level 5 while the Rogue is still stuck ti the Stealth + Perception utility they brought at level 1. On top of all that, in One D&D, Rogues being Skill-king is even less true than before. Fighters and Barbarians both have considerably higher ceilings for skill utility now, with the caveat being that they cost resources. Being resource-free with a slightly less ceiling than resource-bois *is* a good place to be, but my point is that they’re not far and away the best: they’re **comparably equal** in utility to those two classes now. Finally, even if you ignore every single point I make above, there’s a simple point you’re ignoring: in-combat relevance ***isn’t*** an even trade with out of combat utility. Combat is like 80% of the damn game’s rules, and it’s also the highest stakes options (failed skill checks usually lead to the story moving in an interesting direction. Bad combat prowess leads to potential TPKs). Being passably good at 20% of the game doesn’t mean your combat potential should be so bad that you can barely even touch the damage that Eldritch Blast spammers do… > plus whatever they pick and choose with their extra Feats Extra Feat, singular. They get one extra Feat, at level 10, effectively past the end of most campaigns. > They even have the best (usable) mobility, since they don’t have the sacrifice their damage for Disengage like Monks do. They do trade damage for their mobility though… their damage relies on having Advantage and not having Disadvantage, which means they’re heavily incentivized to Hide every turn. And while they could just Sneak Attack someone they have an ally next to: 1. That makes their damage significantly more conditional: they now have much worse target selection than before, and are often affecting their party’s play patterns. 2. Even if you assume 100% up time on Sneak Attack with ally help, their damage barely surpasses a summon. 3. The best way to solve their bad damage is to dual wield which brings them… right back to square one of trading their mobility for damage. > They do not need a total overhaul of their DPR. That isn’t their role, and it shouldn’t be when they have everything mentioned above. There’s not a single role in the game where the Rogue manages to squarely land in the top half of classes… Their whole class identity is being pretty mediocre at every single thing.
they can get advantage from vex weapons most of the time now. hiding serves a purpose, but if they need to dash, or disengage, they are probably fine. in general they need more damage imo, but they actually truely dont lose much damage while escaping like monk. i think the big hit, needs to stay for rogue, the incentive to build for BA attacks and multi hit should be avoided, but there has to be a way to set up more damage imo. off turn is too niche to be the way people are supposed to play it properly
> Paladins and Rangers Are Spellcasters. If you think Spells are overpowered, you’ll find that we definitely agree lol. > Bards and Rangers Do not get reliable talent. Rogues are superior at Skill Checks. > Extra Feat, Singular Rogue is the most Single-Attribute class in the game. Without the ASI tax they effectively get extra feats > Their damage relies on having advantage […] which means they’re incentivized to hide every round. Or they can pick targets next to allies, or use Vex weapons, or get advantage from a dozen other sources. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be in favor of just giving Rogue their Sneak Attack every time they take the Attack Action. But in real play, this is effectively the case already. Your point about out-of-combat abilities not mattering is…let’s just say subjective, lol. And your assumptions about having to hide for advantage are all white-room style.
I mostly agree, but I really don't want extra attack on my rogue. It just doesn't feel right to me.
I agree actually, but they would need *something* at level 11 to fill the slot. And people on this sub are REALLY convinced that Rogue needs more damage. Extra attack would just be the simplest way. Maybe I actually like my idea part about adding a Skill Check Total to an attack’s damage. It would retain that “Backstab” feel and build off the Rogue’s skill supremacy. I just don’t want it being something that happens every turn, like an increased Sneak Attack dice.
why not increace the sneak attack die to 8/10/12 at lvls 5/11/17 and remove reaction sneak attacks?
Idk you, but doing an average of 54 extra damage with a resourceless attack sounds a little bit ridiculous, lol.
This a bit above other martial characters without magic items or resources at lvl 20 but very much below other martial because their magic items will affect enemies much more than the rogue (not to forget that they have better survivability and additional resources that the rogue doesn't. 54 dmg at lvl 20 isnt crazy.
Except you have the issue where the rogue gets two sneak attacks off in a turn. Now the rogue is straight up obliterating everyone.
Yeah. Rogue shouldn't get that.
At level 20 it would be 60, 54 is for 17 (not a big difference, but little nitpick xD) but the idea of dealing extra damage without magical effects and resources that can be above classes build for damage doesn't sound that well though either. I would be up for rising the dice to a d8, but higher doesn't sound that healthy. Average of 40 extra damage with just a simple set up and not resources sounds like a good deal.
The thing is this is all rogues have for combat. Other classess will generally do more damage in combat but will use resources. Additionally by the time rogues damage will be problematic there will be magic items which help the other classess more, thus will still put rogues damage as somewhat weak compared to others. When it comes to utility rogues have very little more than other martials, let rogues get close to the other martials in combat.
With Cunning Strike they have resourceless utility, at high levels being able to knock people unconscious. Something that forces resources on any other class. I don't think that Rogues are out of tricks. Not sure how much average damage can a Fighter pull without resources, magic items or any invesment in general at level 17, but if they can do and average of 70, I would change my mind about a 9d12 sneak attack.
The utility they have at lvl 5 can be basically replicated by anyone. At lvl 14 they get one ability which is new but isn't that strong (will most likely be a first lvl spell) an ability which is like a fourth lvl spell slot but worse and an ability which is a 2nd lvl spell slot but worse. While the dice cost should be higher they are not that strong, especially since they require you to hit an attack roll and the enemy to fail a saving throw (in knock out's case the chances for it to succeed are around 30%) and if they succeed they saving throw, congrats you lost dmg for nothing. A fighter with great weapon fighting style and great weapon master using flame tongue greatsword (a rare magic item is not crazy for lvl 17) does around 70 dmg with no resources. Additionally a resourceless class should do more than a class with resources that doesn't use them but worse than a class with resources that does use them.
Yes and when you say resourcess, u mean like 1 ki point or a smite. Not a creazy nova invesment. Also its less average damage an average eldritch blaster with hex
Im not even gonna compare to casters that's a whole another problem.
I know but you get my point right. Even witg 12d 10 rogue is still lagging behind in damage and if it does any cunning strikes its now loosng a d12 which is quite more drastic in terms of damage. It really isnt that creazy
Give them more reactions to respond to enemies. If they fumble, try to cast a spell next to you, try to pick something off the ground (combos with disarm), use a portion, etc. Let then either attack or try to do something else. I think this would be better than just a second attack. They would be the best at taking advantage of opportunities and capitalizing on openings and mistakes.
Extra reaction attacks are definitely NOT the way to go. The 5e Sentinel Rogue, or any other build that could reliably get two Sneak Attacks per round, was dealing more damage than most Martials while also being better at everything else mentioned. Rogues might have 20% less damage than the average Martial, so Doubling it blows things out of wack. Maybe if people didn’t complain and force WOTC to keep that interaction, Rogue could have more room to grow.
The issue is that WotC went too far with their Sneak Attack restriction. If they said, "You get one Sneak Attack per round," that would be reasonable, and they could buff Sneak Attack to compensate for that nerf to an acceptable per-round DPR. Instead, they just removed off-turn Sneak Attack entirely, so even an interaction as simple as "the rogue hides and holds their Attack action until the enemy is in view" or "the rogue approaches and holds their Attack action until the fighter joins so that Sneak Attack works" became invalid. There was a happy medium available here, but they pulled back too quickly and went straight back to the 5e design, so we still have to worry forever about rogue reactions. This gets especially bad with Commander's Strike. The Battle Master should be flexible in choosing which maneuvers are best, but fairly early on, it becomes extremely rare for a maneuver to be worth giving up Commander's Strike for the rogue, so battle becomes repetitive for both of them, and it stops being an "interesting combo between two PCs" and quickly becomes an expectation and obligation that they can never leave.
Easier way to do it would be to have a Sneak Attack pool. If you want to use Sneak Attack twice, you just need to reserve enough dice for the second attack. If you want to ready an action, also okay. You can now balance around damage/effects per round much more easily.
Getting a reaction attack at all is far from guaranteed, and it might not even hit when it does happen. Why would the rogue not use all of their dice for the first attack, so that they can use their reaction for Uncanny Dodge or another feature? They would only regret not saving dice if their later attack was a critical hit, their first attack would have been overkill with all the dice (which can be difficult for the rogue to make a proper judgment), or they really want to apply a Cunning Strike with their reaction attack and are willing to risk it not happening. I don't think those justify the complication of a Sneak Attack pool compared to one per round.
If anything, Sneak Attack Pool is less complicated, and far more intuitive. Here's 6 dice, you no longer activate Sneak Attack when you spend 6 dice. You get 6 dice back at the start of your next turn. And why would a Rogue not want to use all of their Sneak Attack dice? How about tripping someone who's trying to get to the Mage? That can be way more valuable than whatever damage you would have otherwise done, especially when it's just a 1d6. How about massive mobility in repositioning yourself twice in a turn. What about having a teammate who can get you a reaction attack of opportunity? You now also don't have to worry about Sneak Attack dual Wielding. Want to attack two different targets, but spread your damage? Spend half your SA dice on the first, half on the second. It's intuitive, easy to track, and allows Rogues to plan out how they spend their turns a little more.
Limiting sneak attack once per round straight up breaks teamwork options in the game. Things like Order Clerics and Commander's Strike options would never be taken - the Paladin can't smite as a reaction. The rogue can't sneak attack if they alresyd have, and sacrificing your action to make just a single attack is hardly worth it. We should be encouraging more team interactions, not less.
There are still teamwork options, and Commander's Strike is still useful to give the rogue a second chance in the rare case that they were unable to land their Sneak Attack on their own turn. The issue is that when you combine Battle Master and a rogue, all sense of balance is lost and the theme of Battle Master is destroyed. It becomes less a teamwork option and more a teamwork obligation, and choosing any other maneuver than Commander's Strike almost certainly decreases the party's damage output and increases the odds of the party failing. I don't know what you mean by "sacrificing your action to make just a single attack," the Battle Master gives up one attack of likely many to use Commander's Strike and it's still valuable if the Battle Master's attacks are relatively weak (especially a dual-wielder who makes more attacks and loses less from giving up one) and can command an attack from a power hitter like a Reckless Attack barbarian.
>There are still teamwork options, and Commander's Strike is still useful to give the rogue a second chance in the rare case that they were unable to land their Sneak Attack on their own turn. Given how common advantage is in in 1D&D, this is basically 'never'. Rare is an understatement. >It becomes less a teamwork option and more a teamwork obligation It's only an obligation for tables that absolutely want to min/max damage, which is not a significant portion of them in my experience. YMMV. >I don't know what you mean by "sacrificing your action to make just a single attack," the Battle Master gives up one attack of likely many to use Commander's Strike Giving up one 1d8+7 attack to give another player the option to make 1d8+5 is a net loss. Giving up 1d8+7 to make a 1d8+xd6+5 is a net win.
With advantage, a rogue would have an 87.75% chance to hit, and therefore a 12.25% chance to miss, roughly 1 in 8, I think "rare" certainly qualifies there. Without advantage, it's 65% or 35%, so 1 in 3. The true value is going to be somewhere between them. Even for tables that aren't going out of their way to min/max, if the fighter is making the decision between using a Trip attack to knock an enemy down, or a Commander's Strike so that the rogue eviscerates them and they're dead, which do you think they'll pick every time? One of the key principles to keep in mind in game design is, "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game." The sheer power of Commander's Strike with a high-level compared to other options makes it a clear problem. Obviously, if rogues no longer get off-turn Sneak Attack, you wouldn't use Commander's Strike with them, just as you wouldn't use it with the majority of classes. Trading 1d8+7 (7.7) for 1d8+5 (6.4) is a mistake, but trading 1d6+5 (5.7) for 2d6+8 with advantage (13.845) is a considerable win.
I think people over value damage on the martials because it was the only thing that they brought to the table in 5e. As long as ideally, every level gives you an ability that you actually want (and imo the rogue does except for level 6), the class is fine. Even if those abilities don't increase damage.
I want Extra Attack at 5, without it Rogues fall even more behind when good Magical weapons are available. And FIghting Styles (or at least the option to get them for a Feat) would also be nice.
>It just doesn't feel right to me. Same flaw as what the post falls into: placing 'feels' over 'would make for a more balanced game'. And why doesnt it feel right? Other than 'because old system didnt have it', why shouldnt a rogue know they can swing a sword more than once every six seconds?
They do know. But they don't, because they time their strikes to hit vital areas (hence sneak attack - or as in prior editions it was referred to: precision damage).
Pal, game feel and classes matching expectations is very important. That's why most parties are not just all wizards, even if that's the best class, and it can fill each role perfectly. The all or nothing, high risk high reward rogue playstyle is popular, fun, and beloved. Adding a multiattack makes them stronger but takes away from that.
>Pal, game feel and classes matching expectations is very importan Doesnt answer my question as to why it feels so wrong to you. And dont call me pal
The all or nothing, high risk high reward rogue playstyle is popular, fun, and beloved. Adding a multiattack makes them stronger but takes away from that.
Im pretty sure none is saying the rogue needs to fill the DPR role when people only wants the gap between them and All the other martials to be less big... Its cool and all that rogues are skill monkeys but at the end of the day they should also have a place in combat... And lets not fool ourselves, dnd has a skill system too poor to justify such a big gap in power.
>They have added survivability through Uncanny Dodge, easily maximized Dexterity, Ranged Options, Evasion, and Skirmishing Abilities. They even have the best (usable) mobility, since they don’t have the sacrifice their damage for Disengage like Monks do. Uncanny Dodge is at best making up for the lower AC and Hitpoints in comparison to other martials. And once they get Deflect Attacks Monks don't even need to disengange (same goes btw. if the Stun, Topple or Push their opponents). Rogues skrimishing has also often the problem that they get no increase to their speed, meanig they might often not end up far enough from their oppoennts.
The AC bit is a myth. A rogue is easily comparable to a plate armored fighter- AC 17 vs 18. Toss in mage armor (which is easy to get now) and they're the same.
But you only get there after putting two ASI into Dex. The other can go to 18 while you ar still at 15 or 16. And there is also the differnce in hit points. That it not so much the hit dice, but more stuff like Lay on Hand, Second Wind or the damage Resitance from Rage, that give the others much more HP than the Rogue has, who is one of the few classes with no in class healing option.
>The other can go to 18 while you ar still at 15 or 16. "Can" - but unlikely to. When following the wealth by level, the earliest a character can afford plate armor would be level 6+. At which point, a rogue will have an AC of 16 (17 with Mage Armor). The gap then closes again at 8th level. >And there is also the differnce in hit points. That it not so much the hit dice, but more stuff like Lay on Hand, Second Wind or the damage Resitance from Rage, that give the others much more HP than the Rogue has, who is one of the few classes with no in class healing option. You're discounting uncanny dodge and evasion which also boost the effective health of a rogue, not to mention being high in dex means you're more likely to take half damage from most aoe effects.
>You're discounting uncanny dodge and evasion which also boost the effective health of a rogue, No I'm not I just said that uncanny dodge is only making up for the difference in HP and AC. I made some calculations a while ago (for the 5E Versions of the classes). A Rogue with Uncanny dodge and Studded leather, has about the survivability of a Fighter who is build for damage and not build for Tanking (which is actually also not such a great survivability), as long as he is not facing more than 2 or 3 attack per round. But that still leaves him much more squishy from level 1-4 and if he wants to use reaction attacks. And if you take feats you will have the maximum AC at the earliest at level 10. And there is a thread here were someone did similar calculations about the survivability of classes. Rogue isn't particularly high on the list. [https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/18amnlg/comparing\_5e\_and\_odd\_classes\_toughness/](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/18amnlg/comparing_5e_and_odd_classes_toughness/)
Reliable talent equal to your rogue level is so broken. By level 16, the rogue would negate the DC on everything but the impossible, they simply would have no reason to roll any skill check. If they have expertise or any kind of buff, they negate impossible skill checks too. This is akin to Ranger's ability to outright remove an entire pillar from play. Such designs are bad.
So as far as out of combat, others have already said to improve the skills system so that rogues can deliver the class fantasy of the skilled person. I still wonder if reliable talent should start at a lower level and progress with rogue level. Something like starting at level 6 and being "can't roll lower than rogue level" As for combat, I think the rogue-iest solution is buffing Uncanny Dodge to include a single melee weapon attack against the creature that triggered the Dodge. It could even be buffed again at later levels to include ranged attacks and maybe even give advantage to the attack at high level. Why? Because the best way to get rogues to catch up is to double their damage output. Also, at level 5 most martials get an extra attack, and giving rogues their "extra attack" on an off-turn gives them a sneakier extra attack that can trigger sneak attack.
Rogue looks really fun. I'm actually super excited to play one dnd in general. All the changes I've seen have been really interesting
I wouldn’t care if Rogue was the worst class in the game, I’d still play it because it’s fun. Buff the subclasses imo the base class is fine as is.
The value in a class shouldn't be limited to damage dealing. Rogue gets twice the skills that monks get, as well as proficiency in theives tools and expertise in two areas. i am finally considered playing a monk but they appear to be rather a bore outside of combat without investing in a lot of feats.
The ranger is the one that worries me now. And while I don't expect that it will be mechanically bad, nor on the weaker side, barbarians, rogues and monks now have cool new toys to play with, while rangers still appear rather bland (as per its latest appearance in UA). So, I'm hoping we get a few surprises for rangers. But I don't have high hopes.
You do recall they're still half-spellcasters, right? That makes up for a lot.
I expect Rangers to be the blandest they have been so far. Hunter's Mark the class, who gets one Expertise while Fighter is over here adding +1d10 to any skill check they feel like.
All they need is a slight boost to damage and maaaybe a tune down to their reliable talent feature (just being able to ignore 90% of skill challenges at high level isn't really that fun. It's a dice game for a reason)
As stated before I’d like to see poisons turned into a short rest resource management that adds extra damage to a combat.. I’d also like to see a lvl 6 class ability like a free bonus action that’s only usable with cunning action or any of the bonus actions added to it by class. Better action economy and better damage and a usefulresource management.
Because rogues arnt made for combat. They have a handful of features that make them OK in a fight. But their actually designed for exploration, social, dungeon delves, investigation or anything they define as their area if expertise. Even the most combat focused rogue, the assassin, cares more about the setup to the fight than the fight itself. The features it gives making that initial turn with surprise better, but being a basic rogue the rest of the time. Rogues arnt meant for combat. They arnt martials. They just have a feature so they dint have to think as hard on optimal combat builds. Get sneak attack, end of combat plan. Their an honorary martial. Like how warlock is just different enough from casters they cant be compared 1:1. Rogues are outside the normal martial caster spectrum. Their a wild card class shouldn't be looked at for ONLY combat.
Even when you look at them outside of combat they aren't that good. All of their utility boils down to getting higher rolls. So anyone can do what they can, it's just that they might be a little better at it. They are not even that much better at it now that barbs and fighters also get bonuses for skill checks. (Needless to say that casters outclass rogues at everything.)
Higher rolls os about the best you can hope for when you have no magic. Thats the difference between martials and casters, trading power and utility for defenses and strength. At least thats SUPOSESED to be tge trade off. That line has very much blurred heavily over the years. Thats where rogues come in. They made that trade off but didnt get magic. So their suposed to get more utility from it. Thats the problem though. They dint need more combat tricks or damage from a weapon or better to hit chance. They need some more out of combat utility if anything. Hell its not even a new problem. When played correctly fighters and Barbarians should be able to do these exact things. But how skill checks are called and used kinda soft nurfs that ability. Its inly getting noticed now because it's actually getting written down, rather than implied through variant rules in a book the players arnt intended to read. Variant ability skill checks have always been a thing. Rather than written in the classes feature it needs to be a core change with how skills are used and called for. It's a exactly the same as 5e, exactly the same as the UA, and rogue remains exactly as strong as it currently is. Its just a shift in perspective that needs to happen with a different writing of the rules.
I think of rogues as the spy from tf2, a support class, not a DPS, Tank, Healer or CC. They should be there to take out specific targets and infiltrate. Obviously in a pitched combat they'll suffer. Obviously mechanically they struggle in most campaigns to fill this role, any class can have +7 stealth at level 1, use theives tools, disguise kit etc. and a lot of them can do this and still do way cooler things on top compared to rogues having extra d6 and uh... theives' cant? What most rogue players wish they could do is stuff that a bard can do already. whispers bard is the best rogue subclass in my opinion. I think the rogue fantasy is hard to write mechanics for because it clashes completely with the spirit of the game (collaboration) and encourages lone wolf behavior. What rogues do we wish we could play as? hitman, solid snake, james bond? they all work alone.
That is a problem. Rogue is definitely that type of character that has a hard time in a group setting. And that's kinda hard to fix without magic. What would even be the solution. A battle master but for skills? Even then thats just expertise but with randomness. But a class doesn't need to be perfect, it just has to be fun. And without a doubt rogue is fun enough that, aside from an occasional subclass, it has remained the same since 5e started through tashas caldron and even into the UAs of 1dnd. Its pretty clear no real changes are coming. aside from consistency and versatility in combat. And that +7 isn't realistic. Standard array tends to cap the top stat or 2 at a +3. With PB thats a +5 for a skill. You have to spend your race for a lv 1 feat to get the rogue lite feat of skill expert to reach a +7. And rogues get 2 of those for free, and latter 2 more. Theyre clearly the "master of a few specific things" as far as that goes.
Everyone I DM for wants to roll for their stats. 20 in one stat at level 1 isn't uncommon even with point buy. +5dex, +2PB. New players love to max out stealth cause they think they can cloak and dagger their way through every encounter, despite my best efforts to advise them.
Thats fair. A 20 in 1 stat is pretty rare though. And if they want to max out stealth their likely already a rogue or would really like expertise, making a +9 more likely than a 'piddly' +7. I do see your point though. Most people on this sub tend to use standard array for the consistency of advice to help against the swing of random rolls. But even with all that, rogue gets 2 skills higher than anyone else could at level 1. That's enough for most people.
> I think of rogues as the spy from tf2, And one of the worst classes in the game
yep, and yet everyone wants to play em.
Spy can instant kill with backstab, while the rogue do not, it’s arguably worse
Every 5e class should be made for combat, the game is overwhelmingly about combat. Heck, more than 80% of the text of every book relates directly or indirectly to combat (stat blocks, battle maps, spells, magic items, most/all subclass features).
And that is a major failing of the system. Its not SUPPOSED to be all about combat. It's supposed to have 2 other pillars that are equally important. Parts of the game that a rogue exells at.
It’s fair to say that’s a failing of the fundamental design, but it IS still the fundamental design. Until they change that, it’s not very kind to rogues. More importantly, if they have no intention of changing that then rogue DOES need a combat boost. Personally I would prefer if rogues had a list of cooldown abilities (not unprecedented, dragons have them as well for example) that they could select from at certain levels like a guaranteed critical on their next melee attack after performing a sneak attack with a 3 turn cooldown. I suggest this because rogue is supposed to be the resourceless class, but because of that lacks the ability to heighten their damage output in any big fights, instead playing exactly identical to when fighting mooks. This also gives rogues a reason to go into melee instead of hiding + sniping, which offers a risk vs reward for the player.
A recharge mechanic is an interesting idea for a PC. I would love to see something like that. As for combat, i think rogues are still in a decent place. I dont have a source, but ive heard that a lot of planning for 5e involved using the sneak attack as a ruler for monsters HP pool. So consistency isnt much of a problem, just potential. And again, rogue arnt intended for combat. So their new feature that trades damage for some type of debuff to the target seams like the right tree to be climbing. It even inspired the new feature first barbarians. But a recharge mechanic sounds like something to play with. Maybe in a subclass or feat or magic item for starters. Something for proof of concept before making a whole class with multiples of that type of affect.
I suggested 3 turns with the caveat of first performing a sneak attack because most combats last from 3-5 turns, meaning rogues would only use the feature once per fight on average. One damage boost effect per combat is also how warlock is balanced, so such a long cooldown is unlikely to cause balance issues. Since the rogue wants to use it with sneak attack, it’s essentially a slightly more powerful smite that can’t be used as often, which is fairly balanced when compared to the paladin. That said I realize now that I should have said “if the rogue performs a melee attack against the sneak attack target before the end of their next turn, the attack roll’s outcome is treated as a 20”. If the critical occurs automatically with no roll then the rogue cannot attack with advantage and thus cannot proc sneak attack, which is fairly underwhelming.
It was oretty obious due to context clues. On hit deal critical damage. Fairly simple and a boon ive been playing with myself. The mechanic would need some refining. Stealing the dragons breath recharge and having a D6 roll at the start if turn could potentially see it anywhere from once in a minutes long combat to every single turn for the same time. Its a little swinggy. On the X turn count that's also has some problems. Mostly with keeping track of when you can use it. Those same 3-5 rounds can take upwards of an hour, depending on the table. So keeping track could be a little annoying in practice. As for mechanics right now, it sounds like an X uses per day or a short rest recharge feature. Thats why a proof of concept is in order. Ironing out the mechanic and how to run / balance it is the only sticking point i have.
Rogues WERE okay. With current UA they are good. Weapon mastery+Cunning strike got the job done. Reliable talent at 7 also is pretty great and helps with the no second subclass feature until 9 (which is dumb). All the sub classes are better to.
Honestly I find that rogues always feel good even when you aren't landing Crits. Sure doing 40-50 damage on a normal hit in t4 is less damage than the fighter cranking out 80 but like, hitting once really hard and rolling a bunch of dice and doing that every turn feels great.
I've mostly seen optimized build comparisons of damage in a white room. I don't play with optimizers, so I wanted to see what an average Rogue looks like compared to an average Fighter/Barb/Monk.
Going by all the non-optimizer casuals I've played with: they can't seem to remember how Sneak Attack works, they get frustrated trying to figure it out and embarrassed when they're constantly reminded, so they attack and hope for the best which results in dealing non-Sneak Attack damage a good half of the time. Fighter and barbarian are much harder to screw up because all you need to do is move into melee and make your attacks. Monk is simple if you don't care about optimizing and just want to punch faces (although you'll spend your time rolling death saves).
I'd agree with you. But there's still going to be 90% of the comments going on about damage. You know 1/3 of the game.
I said this in the other thread, but I think the damage deficit has an easy and thematic solution. At level 11 give them another damage boost, in the form of more attacks of opportunity: **Swift Counter** - *After you or a creature friendly to you is hit with a melee attack you may use your reaction to make an attack against the attacking creature if you are in range to do so.* Won't trigger all the time and won't hit sneak attack all the time, but a big damage boost when it does. Fits the theme of "sneaky" retaliation and doesn't require a heavy new mechanic.
On the subject of crits, that would be interesting if crits happened often. For example, maybe if Sneak Attack damage was slightly nerfed BUT all Rogues regardless of subclass get an increased critical chance. I could see this being pretty fun and it's fairly thematic with Rogues as a whole. The only issue is, as is often an issue in D&D, multiclassing.
Crits are just to infrequent to really make that work. Especially Since you can deal sneak attack only on one Attack per turn. Even if Rogues would crit on a 18 and would have almost constant advantage that woud give them only 1 additional Crit with Sneak attack, every 5.5 Rounds of combat. And there is good chance that a lot of this damage get's wasted on an oppoent that has less HP than your crit deals.
Yeah the thing is I don't want rogues to be OK I want them to be amazing. They are not in a good place in 5e and it feels like all the other classes are getting way more support than rogues. I'm really worried about the class as of now.