Before I begin, I get it that rogues get a lot of skills and that is theoretically the trade off. Lots of skills for relatively low damage. I think that is a pretty poor trade-off from a mechanics perspective. I know this game is about fun, but this is fun for me between sessions! I love coming up with builds and doing the math to see how different builds stack up against each other right down to hit percentages. After having done the math, I feel like Rogues in general are behind the power curve in damage when compared to pretty much every other martial class. I know this is a well known fact for many in the forums as I've seen a lot of people discuss it both here and on other forums.
The solution is to let Rogues use the Flanking rule. Flanking basically provides an attacker advantage while fighting a target with an enemy opposite them. Doing this get's their DPR up closer to what other martial classes can do by increasing hit and crit percents. Trade offs still exist. Fighters still are still doing more DPR while having higher AC and HP. Rogues still have their skills. Ranged rogues are unable to Flank at range but the trade off here is they're at range. Some classes get spells. Others get crazy resistances. Monks get to stun and act drunk. The DM can combat flanking by having the target turn and face the rogue. (House rule it if you want to allow it to only work while at the targets... flank). Also, enemies can use this rule.
I'm torn on letting other characters use flanking. Obviously giving it to everyone restores the existing power gap and in some cases expands it. Maybe just give it to rogues at 5 when everyone else gets their major power spike? Rogues are on par with other characters until then anyway.
I disagree with the premise that "Rogues in general are behind the power curve in damage compared to pretty much every martial class." Under which circumstances? Against which enemies? The way rogues deal damage is completely different from other classes; rogues only need to hit once to deal most of their potential damage.
If the party's fighting a high AC enemy that the party only hits half the time, a rogue with two-weapon fighting or Crossbow Expert still has an 75% chance to deal their full Sneak Attack damage; a martial class that hits 50% of the time time deals 50% of their potential damage.
Rogues also benefit disproportionately from attacking when it's not their turn. Opportunity attacks, the Sentinel feat, Dissonant Whispers, Haste, or characters with Commander's Strike gives Rogues a chance to double their damage that round, while an extra hit isn't as big of an increase to a fighter with 2-4 attacks.
Either way, flanking isn't a great fit for everyone's game; it practically requires playing with miniatures, and that's not everyone's cup of tea. It also encourages everyone to move around constantly, since enemies will want to move 5 feet to the side to get out of flanking, and then players will move 10 feet to flank again, and the cycle starts over the next round.
If someone really feels the need to strengthen rogues at their table, increasing their Sneak Attack dice is much simpler in my opinion.
Rogues are not as simple mechanically as fighters 'I attack.'
Rogues are not as simple as Ranger / Warlocks 'I cast hunters mark / hex and I attack.'
Rogues may not hit as high one round damage as a paladin using their highest level spell slots to smite, but rogues don't run out of sneak attack dice.
At first level if an ally is in combat a rogue is like to deal as much damage as another optimised character or more than an un-optimised one. At third they should deal more as the sneak damage rises. At 5th that pesky second attack / cantrip extra die of damage means they arent as competitive. But thats just base mechanics.
Can you arrange to sneak attack more than once per round? can you gain advantage? Can you increase your crit chance as die of damage which you have many of are doubled on a crit? All of these alter the rogue damage potential.
Another point is a rogue shouldnt have to be just about damage. You have skills, and expertise, use them, from automatically finding traps to sneaking and assessing the situation, dropping caltrops or wedging escape routes shut before a fight begins. Killing sleeping guards / taking their place and infiltrating. The rogue when played well is a member of the party that a group will sorely miss if they lose them.
What were your experiences so far that encouraged this odd (to me) impression that the class cant compete? If its just math as I interpreted above, have you considered:
Attacking whilst hidden renders the the target blind giving you advantage, (but firing means your locations is revealed)
Woodelves with elven accuracy feat roll three d20 when they have advantage on a to hit roll. They also have a longbow proficiency, thats a sniper rogue build begun there.
Bugbears have ambusher, and long arms to stab someone over the (fighters head), you dont even have to get in 'melee'
If you have darkvision and can move silently enough against opponents that cant see in the dark then you have advantage.
Your not a fighter / barbarian / cantrip hurler. Dont try to be, be prepared to hold an attack for when an ally enters melee if you have no other recourse to gain a sneak attack.
My math included a generous 10% of Rogue attacks being a surprise attack with advantage and as an Assassin and still came in lower than Fighter, hunter, or Barbarian. I did not include paladin because I think their damage is too unpredictable to find an average for and requires resource management. On shorter fights, I think a paladin would be a lot higher than everyone else. Longer ones when she runs out of spells they'd fall off. Monks are difficult to compare against anyone. I think generally the best comparisons are with fighter and barbarian.
I also tried to remove many of the constants. For example, I did not use advantage for any of the calculations unless they are guaranteed. Barbarian can at will get advantage but needs to be careful that he's not taking too much damage in return. I took that into consideration and assumed he could take a reckless attack half the time (doing so put his damage quite a bit higher than everyone else). I also cannot accurately account for an extra sneak attack from opportunity attacks because I think those are random and somewhat rare. At my current table I think I have seen one round with an Opportunity Attack/Sneak Attack. I made certain assumptions about ASI's. I also assumed that rogues could always get Sneak Attack off (safe bet I think - I"ve only not been able to do so once). Additionally, rogues do not get any more that 1 Sneak attack from an action and 1 sneak attack from a reaction. They cannot get additional sneak attacks from being Hasted or anything else RAW.
My overarching point is that they don't do much in combat except deal single target damage and they are not on par with other similar classes at doing that thing. I know the game is only half combat, but it's a big half. Out of combat, rogues bring a lot to the table with skills and such. At the start of combat, it's possible that they can deal massive damage to a target if their an assassin and possibly kill that thing right away but I think even that is less likely than a fighter just running up and attacking with action surge. Statistically the DPR of the fighter is going to be higher anyway with a lot less that needs to go right.
I do love the flavor and options of rogues though and am having fun. I just think there is a mathematical disparity.
Using your calculations where are you drawing the line at constant damage?
I wont argue that fighters can do more consistent high level damage past 11th than rangers, possibly rogues, especially if you are incorporating their use of abilities that will allow them additional bonus action attacks.
Rogue taking Sentinel feat will allow a sneak attack every round the target tries to run, or attacks a non sentinel ally adjacent. An obvious and often used feat for rogues to multi sneak. An additional attack for a rogue on their turn shouldnt be ruled out entirely (Im not saying multiclass for it) but crossbow expert sharpshooter rogues use the second attack to apply a sneak attack if the first shot misses.
Magic initiate feat rogues take hex to add an extra d6 (they are not alone, a lot of classes do it)
Multiclass 3 ranger gloomstalker rogues are monsters and for me ban worthy, Invisible to darkvision, so in tunnels against opponents who dont carry lights because they have darkvision the rogue just keeps killing or maiming and moving. Couple that with the assassin and 'scouting' usually involves the party hearing screaming start from way up ahead then begins rushing forward.
Lets go to 20th, fighter twohanded sword and 4 attacks, 8d6 and 4x str mod
rogue 11d6 sneak and shortbow/sword and 1x dex
ranger is 2d8+ 2d6 with bow and hunters marks +2x dex
none of this is including subclass additions as this is about the rogue class as a whole being limited.
Not seeing the lack of damage. Now, if your experience is one big fight per day, blowing everything and long resting then the nova brigade paladins and spell casters will do more, or at least you should expect them to be able to! If your experiencing conservation of resources, travel times and multiple encounters as laid out in the DMG then your dagger /shortsword of infinite stabs will still be with you after the quick to cast party members are running on fumes. Its less maths and more the campaign style at that point, and sadly in some scenarios any character can be less than effective.
Magic items increasing damage or dice will obviously alter the amount of damage dealt, just as a mage loaded down with scrolls or wands will, I havent accounted for them.
my analysis took into account hit and crit percentages, average damage for non crit and crit, average damage for things like great weapon fighting and great weapon master, added ability damage, average sneak attack damage, average sneak attack crit damage, and other sources of guaranteed damage. I also included a variable for how often automatic crit sneak attack from Assassin tree could be used another for to account for reckless attack.
I did not include things like opportunity attacks or magic weapons. Fighters obviously get the most out of magic weapons so that would further push the damage disparity between them. Rogues obviously get the most out of opportunity attacks but those are fairly rare in actual play. At best, they're a random and unknowable variable.
All things being equal, Barbarians are capable of the highest average damage per round (always using reckless attack). Fighters are second but if the Barbarian only uses reckless attack half the time, Fighters are higher. Rogues are third. I have decided to remove hunters from my analysis because there are too many variables and I don't know the class well enough.
Rogues have the lowest of the health pools, lowest of the average damage per round potential, lowest ability to effect the battle in other non-damage ways, and lowest ability to tank damage. What are they best at? Out of combat skills. All I'm saying is if they had a somewhat reliable on demand way to gain advantage, those numbers even out a bit. Rogues would be doing about as much damage as a barb given the same advantage likelihood. It is more difficult to play and encourages playing with standees, but it does even the math out.
I've been playing a swashbuckler with the flanking rules....Elven Accuracy and booming blade. It's not only the Advantage he gets by skimming around the combat but the Advantage he gives to the Barbarian or Ranger by the flanking.
I"m ok using this rule - just remember the baddies get to do it as well. It makes fighting more tactical and adds enjoyment.
I did not include things like opportunity attacks or magic weapons. ... Rogues obviously get the most out of opportunity attacks but those are fairly rare in actual play.
Not for any group with a bard, or for melee rogues with Sentinel. And in those setups, they can be a big source of extra damage.
Dissonant Whispers is only a first level spell, and the higher the party's level, the more times the bard can cast it and the more damage each casting of the spell will do since the Rogue's Sneak Attack gets better.
Melee Rogues with Sentinel can put monsters into a lose-lose situation; attacking someone else lets the Rogue Sneak Attack, but attacking the Rogue lets the Rogue reduce the damage of that attack with Uncanny Dodge. This strategy gets even better if the Rogue is working with a Cavalier, anyone with Protection Fighting Style, or the Rogue is an Arcane Trickster with Shield and/or Mirror Image to discourage the enemy from attacking the Rogue.
At best, they're a random and unknowable variable.
It's a *situational* variable, but not unknowable or negligible. If you're not accounting for the ways a group can work together, your model isn't reflecting reality, because D&D is a co-op game and Rogues aren't built to fight on their own. You can't ignore the situational factors because they're inconvenient and then conclude that Rogues are weak in general.
All things being equal, Barbarians are capable of the highest average damage per round (always using reckless attack).
That makes sense. Barbarians are locked into melee range, and Reckless Attack is a double-edged sword.
Rogues have the lowest of the health pools, lowest of the average damage per round potential, lowest ability to effect the battle in other non-damage ways, and lowest ability to tank damage.
The size of a class's health pool only matters if most enemies are focused on them; that's generally not the case Rogues. If you only take damage occasionally and it's not enough to KO you, it doesn't matter how high or low your max HP is because you're going to heal up anyways.
Rogues don't make good tanks, but they're one of the best classes at staying alive. They can do their job from a distance, can Disengage as a bonus action, mitigate one attack per round with Uncanny Dodge and they're harder to fireball to death than Fighters thanks to proficiency in DEX saves and Evasion.
If you limit your view of the class's combat contribution to just its damage output and then also ignore the situational factors that increase their damage, of course the class is going to look subpar.
I think you're making a fair amount of assumptions but points taken.
Few points though, If rogues disengage as their bonus then they're reducing their chance of dealing sneak attack damage by 50%. If they stay, they're just as likely to be hit as anyone else. If they're mitigating damage with Uncanny dodge, they're not using their reaction on an opportunity attack. There are tons of trade offs and a lot of good ones. I think my numbers are underestimating some of that. That being said, I think you're being pretty generous with your assumptions :)
Few points though, If rogues disengage as their bonus then they're reducing their chance of dealing sneak attack damage by 50%.
Yeah, but getting KO'd reduces their chances of dealing sneak attack damage to 0%, and chasing the Rogue is a losing move for the enemy. If the Rogue disengages and dashes, most enemies can't keep pace without dashing too; if the enemy is really fast, the Rogue can just Dash twice and use Uncanny Dodge on the opportunity attack, which much is weaker than a multiattack. Meanwhile, the Rogue's friends can keep killing the monster, and possibly slowing the enemy down.
It'll only take 1 turn for the enemy to realize trying to catch the Rogue is pointless.
If they stay, they're just as likely to be hit as anyone else.
There are party setups where that's not true (e.g. Fighters or Paladins with Protection FS.) There's also setups where the Rogue would take less damage than other people (e.g. the group has a Cavalier Fighter, an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, a cleric with Warding Bond...)
If they're mitigating damage with Uncanny dodge, they're not using their reaction on an opportunity attack.
It also means the monster is killing the party slower, which is an equally valid approach as doing more damage while taking more damage like a Reckless Attack Barbarian. Combat is a race to kill the other side before they kill you; if they're killing you slower, that gives you more time to kill them first.
I haven’t seen it mentioned but a rogue should have advantage 90% of the time due to bonus action hide. They can obtain this by bouncing from cover to cover an easier method such as concealment via wood elf, skulker feat, or halfling hide feature. You should do this after your initial attack (which hopefully has advantage from surprise anyway or at least targets an opponent within 5ft of an ally) so that you will be hidden through the initiative turn and only visible during your turn.
Either via a party caster or arcane tricksters at higher levels you are guarenteed sneak attack twice a round due to haste. You use the haste action to attack, bonus action to hide, and your actual action to ready an attack against an opponent (ideally after the take an action so you can’t be targeted when you get revealed). You will then get sneak attack.
Rogues are the most consistent dpr in my opinion. Also bonus points go to the arcane tricksters who can create cover via illusions.
I haven’t seen it mentioned but a rogue should have advantage 90% of the time due to bonus action hide. They can obtain this by bouncing from cover to cover an easier method such as concealment via wood elf, skulker feat, or halfling hide feature. You should do this after your initial attack (which hopefully has advantage from surprise anyway or at least targets an opponent within 5ft of an ally) so that you will be hidden through the initiative turn and only visible during your turn.
Either via a party caster or arcane tricksters at higher levels you are guarenteed sneak attack twice a round due to haste. You use the haste action to attack, bonus action to hide, and your actual action to ready an attack against an opponent (ideally after the take an action so you can’t be targeted when you get revealed). You will then get sneak attack.
Rogues are the most consistent dpr in my opinion. Also bonus points go to the arcane tricksters who can create cover via illusions.
It's why I still think Lightfoot Halfing feature Naturally Stealthy is one of the most braindeadly stupid features I've seen. Getting to "hide" behind any medium creature in the party to get Adv or even just count as breaking LOS. That's not the argument for here, I just accept it as true even if I think it's dumb.
I've actually found good cover HARD to come by in most games. Only my Warlock was able to really make good illusionary cover, but At-Will Silent Image from Misty Vision covers a 15' cube. Still, 1 arrow disrupts the entire illusion, unless your GM decides "mist" counts as "some other visible phenomenon".
My Arcane Tricksters generally get their Adv with Find Familiar and an Owl, if hiding isn't available.
I may have missed it if already mentioned, but another thing to think about is that a Rogue's sneak attack doesn't need advantage necessarily. As long as you have another enemy of the target (i.e. an ally of yours in most cases) with 5ft of the target, then you can use your sneak attack. Unlike flanking, the ally does not have to fit a certain geometry, it only has to be within 5ft of the target, on any side.
In this sense, as long as you are fighting as a group (as needed for flanking) you should be able to get sneak attack every turn without needing to rely on the flanking optional rule (only downside is that you don't get advantage, but if all youre looking to do is guarantee you can apply sneak attack, this should be sufficient).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
I wrote this a few months ago, and honestly I think that the rogue using two weapon fighting is on par with fighters and other high single target damage classes. My major issue which was not well articulated is that it requires you do that. If you wanted to use a single rapier or a bow, you're severely decreasing your damage output potential. How much less average damage per round? It depends on various things such as armor class of your target, but it's a lot. As much as half depending on the situation. If your rapier attack or bow attack misses, you do no damage that round. If you two weapon fight, if your first attack misses, you have a second attack and a second opportunity for sneak attack damage. You also have a higher percent chance or rolling that 20 for a crazy high damage round. Effectively, attacking with two weapons is the equivalent of having advantage with one in terms of hitting and critically hitting. I was already accounting for getting a sneak attack opportunity on every attack because it's honestly fairly easy to do.
Here are some results to ponder. Enemy AC 16, Level 5, 4 Dex Modifier, No Advantage:
Rapier or Long bow: 12.2 Average Damager Per Round (ADPR) - 68% of Two Short Swords
One Short Sword or one Short Bow: 11.5 ADPR - 65% of Two Short Swords
Two short Swords: 17.8 ADPR
The damage disparity does decrease as you level up, but it's still substantial. Here is the same calculation at level 20:
Rapier or Long bow: 37.6 ADPR - 79% of Two Short Swords
One Short Sword or one Short Bow: 36.7 ADPR - 77% of Two Short Swords
Two short Swords: 47.8 ADPR
However, as AC also increases, the disparity Grows. Here is the same level 20 calculation, except vs a 20AC:
Rapier or Long bow: 28.7 ADPR - 69% of Two Short Swords
One Short Sword or one Short Bow: 28.0 ADPR - 67% of Two Short Swords
Two short Swords: 41.6 ADPR
However, if you can hide using your bonus action literally every turn and in order to get advantage, (I have yet to find a DM that would allow this and you'd take a reaction opportunity attack unless you take mobile to disengage):
Rapier or Long bow: 41.2 Average Damager Per Round (ADPR) - 99% of Two Short Swords
One Short Sword or one Short Bow: 40.3 ADPR - 97% of Two Short Swords
Two short Swords (still just attacking with bonus action, no advantage): 41.6 ADPR
If we look at levels 1-20 and across enemy Armor classes 10-20:
Rapier or Long bow: 81%
Rapier or Long bow Advantage: 97%
One Short Sword or one Short Bow: 79%
One Short Sword or one Short Bow Advantage: 95%
Two short Swords: 100%
For academic sake, Two Short swords Advantage would be 115%, but theoretically that's harder to do.
These are just the numbers. If you want the math I can send you an excel spreadsheet. It does assume you always have the highest possible Dex and no magic items.
Taking sentinel does potentially increase damage a lot although I think enemies would just start attacking you.
I'm not sure flanking is the answer anymore because that would also increase the damage of the two weapon fighting option. Maybe flanking but only on your primary attack? I don't know. Giving rogues the option to main hand attack again as a bonus action? That would quickly even it out. Two weapon fighting with 2 short swords would probably be the worst option but it would be close.
Either way two short swords is head and shoulders better than any other option, save of course hand crossbows with the corresponding feat - that would be tied.
If you're wondering about using some other feats:
Double bladed Scimitar with Revenant blade: 114% ADPR compared to two short swords and 114% comparing both with advantage.
Two Rapiers with two Dual Wielder feat: 104% ADPR compared to two short swords and 104% comparing both with advantage.
At level 20, the Fighter is doing about the same as two short swords rogue. That is unless it's a champion using GWF and GWM and a Great Sword. Depending on the AC, using the -5 to hit and +10 to Damage. Then the fighter does a bit more. It's relatively in line with the Revenant Blade Rogue I guess .
TL;DR - Rogues need to have two attacks in a round to be competitive in damage. The only way to do that RAW is to use the bonus action for an off hand attack. 2 Rapiers with Duel Wielder is competitive, bows with Sharp Shooter are still not competitive. Revenant Blade with double bladed scimitar is the highest damage option.
I’m the Arcane Trickster in our campaign. With sneak attack being ready at the weakest hit, you can do tons of damage, not to mention the increase in damage at later lvls. Just throw in Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, as well as a 1d8 or 1d10 weapon, and you’ve got a dead enemy (or enemies) right at your hands. If you’re an Assassin, you get Assassinate for advantage on attack rolls, as well as free criticals on surprised creatures. I’m not even going to mention the other traits for Arcane Trickster and Assassin.
Before I begin, I get it that rogues get a lot of skills and that is theoretically the trade off. Lots of skills for relatively low damage. I think that is a pretty poor trade-off from a mechanics perspective. I know this game is about fun, but this is fun for me between sessions! I love coming up with builds and doing the math to see how different builds stack up against each other right down to hit percentages. After having done the math, I feel like Rogues in general are behind the power curve in damage when compared to pretty much every other martial class. I know this is a well known fact for many in the forums as I've seen a lot of people discuss it both here and on other forums.
The solution is to let Rogues use the Flanking rule. Flanking basically provides an attacker advantage while fighting a target with an enemy opposite them. Doing this get's their DPR up closer to what other martial classes can do by increasing hit and crit percents. Trade offs still exist. Fighters still are still doing more DPR while having higher AC and HP. Rogues still have their skills. Ranged rogues are unable to Flank at range but the trade off here is they're at range. Some classes get spells. Others get crazy resistances. Monks get to stun and act drunk. The DM can combat flanking by having the target turn and face the rogue. (House rule it if you want to allow it to only work while at the targets... flank). Also, enemies can use this rule.
I'm torn on letting other characters use flanking. Obviously giving it to everyone restores the existing power gap and in some cases expands it. Maybe just give it to rogues at 5 when everyone else gets their major power spike? Rogues are on par with other characters until then anyway.
What do you think?
Just remember that even if you flank and get advantage, that still doesn’t give you more damage if you hit, unless you get a critical hit.
That was kinda the whole point. I was accounting for hit and crit percentages. Average damage per round. When the rogue hits, the damage is competitive. When she misses with her only attack, she does no damage. When you average it out, her damage is low unless she is dual wielding.
Don’t see the need. getting advantage isnt exactly difficult. spells, maneuvers, skill checks from xanatars, surprise, help action, poisons (conditions) etc.
furthermore, a rogue tend to shine a lot more than warriors outside of combat.
If one wants to be better at conbat I suggest doing what I did- multiclass for a secondary attack.
You also mentioned that your calculation was without dualwielding. If we use that comparison we also have to make suboptimal choice in the comparison build.
In my experience this is not a problem at all.
.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello Rogues,
Before I begin, I get it that rogues get a lot of skills and that is theoretically the trade off. Lots of skills for relatively low damage. I think that is a pretty poor trade-off from a mechanics perspective. I know this game is about fun, but this is fun for me between sessions! I love coming up with builds and doing the math to see how different builds stack up against each other right down to hit percentages. After having done the math, I feel like Rogues in general are behind the power curve in damage when compared to pretty much every other martial class. I know this is a well known fact for many in the forums as I've seen a lot of people discuss it both here and on other forums.
The solution is to let Rogues use the Flanking rule. Flanking basically provides an attacker advantage while fighting a target with an enemy opposite them. Doing this get's their DPR up closer to what other martial classes can do by increasing hit and crit percents. Trade offs still exist. Fighters still are still doing more DPR while having higher AC and HP. Rogues still have their skills. Ranged rogues are unable to Flank at range but the trade off here is they're at range. Some classes get spells. Others get crazy resistances. Monks get to stun and act drunk. The DM can combat flanking by having the target turn and face the rogue. (House rule it if you want to allow it to only work while at the targets... flank). Also, enemies can use this rule.
I'm torn on letting other characters use flanking. Obviously giving it to everyone restores the existing power gap and in some cases expands it. Maybe just give it to rogues at 5 when everyone else gets their major power spike? Rogues are on par with other characters until then anyway.
What do you think?
I disagree with the premise that "Rogues in general are behind the power curve in damage compared to pretty much every martial class." Under which circumstances? Against which enemies? The way rogues deal damage is completely different from other classes; rogues only need to hit once to deal most of their potential damage.
If the party's fighting a high AC enemy that the party only hits half the time, a rogue with two-weapon fighting or Crossbow Expert still has an 75% chance to deal their full Sneak Attack damage; a martial class that hits 50% of the time time deals 50% of their potential damage.
Rogues also benefit disproportionately from attacking when it's not their turn. Opportunity attacks, the Sentinel feat, Dissonant Whispers, Haste, or characters with Commander's Strike gives Rogues a chance to double their damage that round, while an extra hit isn't as big of an increase to a fighter with 2-4 attacks.
Either way, flanking isn't a great fit for everyone's game; it practically requires playing with miniatures, and that's not everyone's cup of tea. It also encourages everyone to move around constantly, since enemies will want to move 5 feet to the side to get out of flanking, and then players will move 10 feet to flank again, and the cycle starts over the next round.
If someone really feels the need to strengthen rogues at their table, increasing their Sneak Attack dice is much simpler in my opinion.
I.C. covers it well.
Rogues are not as simple mechanically as fighters 'I attack.'
Rogues are not as simple as Ranger / Warlocks 'I cast hunters mark / hex and I attack.'
Rogues may not hit as high one round damage as a paladin using their highest level spell slots to smite, but rogues don't run out of sneak attack dice.
At first level if an ally is in combat a rogue is like to deal as much damage as another optimised character or more than an un-optimised one. At third they should deal more as the sneak damage rises. At 5th that pesky second attack / cantrip extra die of damage means they arent as competitive. But thats just base mechanics.
Can you arrange to sneak attack more than once per round? can you gain advantage? Can you increase your crit chance as die of damage which you have many of are doubled on a crit? All of these alter the rogue damage potential.
Another point is a rogue shouldnt have to be just about damage. You have skills, and expertise, use them, from automatically finding traps to sneaking and assessing the situation, dropping caltrops or wedging escape routes shut before a fight begins. Killing sleeping guards / taking their place and infiltrating. The rogue when played well is a member of the party that a group will sorely miss if they lose them.
What were your experiences so far that encouraged this odd (to me) impression that the class cant compete? If its just math as I interpreted above, have you considered:
Attacking whilst hidden renders the the target blind giving you advantage, (but firing means your locations is revealed)
Woodelves with elven accuracy feat roll three d20 when they have advantage on a to hit roll. They also have a longbow proficiency, thats a sniper rogue build begun there.
Bugbears have ambusher, and long arms to stab someone over the (fighters head), you dont even have to get in 'melee'
If you have darkvision and can move silently enough against opponents that cant see in the dark then you have advantage.
Your not a fighter / barbarian / cantrip hurler. Dont try to be, be prepared to hold an attack for when an ally enters melee if you have no other recourse to gain a sneak attack.
Hope that helped in some way. Have fun!
My math included a generous 10% of Rogue attacks being a surprise attack with advantage and as an Assassin and still came in lower than Fighter, hunter, or Barbarian. I did not include paladin because I think their damage is too unpredictable to find an average for and requires resource management. On shorter fights, I think a paladin would be a lot higher than everyone else. Longer ones when she runs out of spells they'd fall off. Monks are difficult to compare against anyone. I think generally the best comparisons are with fighter and barbarian.
I also tried to remove many of the constants. For example, I did not use advantage for any of the calculations unless they are guaranteed. Barbarian can at will get advantage but needs to be careful that he's not taking too much damage in return. I took that into consideration and assumed he could take a reckless attack half the time (doing so put his damage quite a bit higher than everyone else). I also cannot accurately account for an extra sneak attack from opportunity attacks because I think those are random and somewhat rare. At my current table I think I have seen one round with an Opportunity Attack/Sneak Attack. I made certain assumptions about ASI's. I also assumed that rogues could always get Sneak Attack off (safe bet I think - I"ve only not been able to do so once). Additionally, rogues do not get any more that 1 Sneak attack from an action and 1 sneak attack from a reaction. They cannot get additional sneak attacks from being Hasted or anything else RAW.
My overarching point is that they don't do much in combat except deal single target damage and they are not on par with other similar classes at doing that thing. I know the game is only half combat, but it's a big half. Out of combat, rogues bring a lot to the table with skills and such. At the start of combat, it's possible that they can deal massive damage to a target if their an assassin and possibly kill that thing right away but I think even that is less likely than a fighter just running up and attacking with action surge. Statistically the DPR of the fighter is going to be higher anyway with a lot less that needs to go right.
I do love the flavor and options of rogues though and am having fun. I just think there is a mathematical disparity.
Using your calculations where are you drawing the line at constant damage?
I wont argue that fighters can do more consistent high level damage past 11th than rangers, possibly rogues, especially if you are incorporating their use of abilities that will allow them additional bonus action attacks.
Rogue taking Sentinel feat will allow a sneak attack every round the target tries to run, or attacks a non sentinel ally adjacent. An obvious and often used feat for rogues to multi sneak. An additional attack for a rogue on their turn shouldnt be ruled out entirely (Im not saying multiclass for it) but crossbow expert sharpshooter rogues use the second attack to apply a sneak attack if the first shot misses.
Magic initiate feat rogues take hex to add an extra d6 (they are not alone, a lot of classes do it)
Multiclass 3 ranger gloomstalker rogues are monsters and for me ban worthy, Invisible to darkvision, so in tunnels against opponents who dont carry lights because they have darkvision the rogue just keeps killing or maiming and moving. Couple that with the assassin and 'scouting' usually involves the party hearing screaming start from way up ahead then begins rushing forward.
Lets go to 20th, fighter twohanded sword and 4 attacks, 8d6 and 4x str mod
rogue 11d6 sneak and shortbow/sword and 1x dex
ranger is 2d8+ 2d6 with bow and hunters marks +2x dex
none of this is including subclass additions as this is about the rogue class as a whole being limited.
Not seeing the lack of damage. Now, if your experience is one big fight per day, blowing everything and long resting then the nova brigade paladins and spell casters will do more, or at least you should expect them to be able to! If your experiencing conservation of resources, travel times and multiple encounters as laid out in the DMG then your dagger /shortsword of infinite stabs will still be with you after the quick to cast party members are running on fumes. Its less maths and more the campaign style at that point, and sadly in some scenarios any character can be less than effective.
Magic items increasing damage or dice will obviously alter the amount of damage dealt, just as a mage loaded down with scrolls or wands will, I havent accounted for them.
my analysis took into account hit and crit percentages, average damage for non crit and crit, average damage for things like great weapon fighting and great weapon master, added ability damage, average sneak attack damage, average sneak attack crit damage, and other sources of guaranteed damage. I also included a variable for how often automatic crit sneak attack from Assassin tree could be used another for to account for reckless attack.
I did not include things like opportunity attacks or magic weapons. Fighters obviously get the most out of magic weapons so that would further push the damage disparity between them. Rogues obviously get the most out of opportunity attacks but those are fairly rare in actual play. At best, they're a random and unknowable variable.
All things being equal, Barbarians are capable of the highest average damage per round (always using reckless attack). Fighters are second but if the Barbarian only uses reckless attack half the time, Fighters are higher. Rogues are third. I have decided to remove hunters from my analysis because there are too many variables and I don't know the class well enough.
Rogues have the lowest of the health pools, lowest of the average damage per round potential, lowest ability to effect the battle in other non-damage ways, and lowest ability to tank damage. What are they best at? Out of combat skills. All I'm saying is if they had a somewhat reliable on demand way to gain advantage, those numbers even out a bit. Rogues would be doing about as much damage as a barb given the same advantage likelihood. It is more difficult to play and encourages playing with standees, but it does even the math out.
I've been playing a swashbuckler with the flanking rules....Elven Accuracy and booming blade. It's not only the Advantage he gets by skimming around the combat but the Advantage he gives to the Barbarian or Ranger by the flanking.
I"m ok using this rule - just remember the baddies get to do it as well. It makes fighting more tactical and adds enjoyment.
Not for any group with a bard, or for melee rogues with Sentinel. And in those setups, they can be a big source of extra damage.
Dissonant Whispers is only a first level spell, and the higher the party's level, the more times the bard can cast it and the more damage each casting of the spell will do since the Rogue's Sneak Attack gets better.
Melee Rogues with Sentinel can put monsters into a lose-lose situation; attacking someone else lets the Rogue Sneak Attack, but attacking the Rogue lets the Rogue reduce the damage of that attack with Uncanny Dodge. This strategy gets even better if the Rogue is working with a Cavalier, anyone with Protection Fighting Style, or the Rogue is an Arcane Trickster with Shield and/or Mirror Image to discourage the enemy from attacking the Rogue.
It's a *situational* variable, but not unknowable or negligible. If you're not accounting for the ways a group can work together, your model isn't reflecting reality, because D&D is a co-op game and Rogues aren't built to fight on their own. You can't ignore the situational factors because they're inconvenient and then conclude that Rogues are weak in general.
That makes sense. Barbarians are locked into melee range, and Reckless Attack is a double-edged sword.
The size of a class's health pool only matters if most enemies are focused on them; that's generally not the case Rogues. If you only take damage occasionally and it's not enough to KO you, it doesn't matter how high or low your max HP is because you're going to heal up anyways.
Rogues don't make good tanks, but they're one of the best classes at staying alive. They can do their job from a distance, can Disengage as a bonus action, mitigate one attack per round with Uncanny Dodge and they're harder to fireball to death than Fighters thanks to proficiency in DEX saves and Evasion.
If you limit your view of the class's combat contribution to just its damage output and then also ignore the situational factors that increase their damage, of course the class is going to look subpar.
I think you're making a fair amount of assumptions but points taken.
Few points though, If rogues disengage as their bonus then they're reducing their chance of dealing sneak attack damage by 50%. If they stay, they're just as likely to be hit as anyone else. If they're mitigating damage with Uncanny dodge, they're not using their reaction on an opportunity attack. There are tons of trade offs and a lot of good ones. I think my numbers are underestimating some of that. That being said, I think you're being pretty generous with your assumptions :)
Yeah, but getting KO'd reduces their chances of dealing sneak attack damage to 0%, and chasing the Rogue is a losing move for the enemy. If the Rogue disengages and dashes, most enemies can't keep pace without dashing too; if the enemy is really fast, the Rogue can just Dash twice and use Uncanny Dodge on the opportunity attack, which much is weaker than a multiattack. Meanwhile, the Rogue's friends can keep killing the monster, and possibly slowing the enemy down.
It'll only take 1 turn for the enemy to realize trying to catch the Rogue is pointless.
There are party setups where that's not true (e.g. Fighters or Paladins with Protection FS.) There's also setups where the Rogue would take less damage than other people (e.g. the group has a Cavalier Fighter, an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, a cleric with Warding Bond...)
It also means the monster is killing the party slower, which is an equally valid approach as doing more damage while taking more damage like a Reckless Attack Barbarian. Combat is a race to kill the other side before they kill you; if they're killing you slower, that gives you more time to kill them first.
All valid points.
I haven’t seen it mentioned but a rogue should have advantage 90% of the time due to bonus action hide. They can obtain this by bouncing from cover to cover an easier method such as concealment via wood elf, skulker feat, or halfling hide feature. You should do this after your initial attack (which hopefully has advantage from surprise anyway or at least targets an opponent within 5ft of an ally) so that you will be hidden through the initiative turn and only visible during your turn.
Either via a party caster or arcane tricksters at higher levels you are guarenteed sneak attack twice a round due to haste. You use the haste action to attack, bonus action to hide, and your actual action to ready an attack against an opponent (ideally after the take an action so you can’t be targeted when you get revealed). You will then get sneak attack.
Rogues are the most consistent dpr in my opinion. Also bonus points go to the arcane tricksters who can create cover via illusions.
It's why I still think Lightfoot Halfing feature Naturally Stealthy is one of the most braindeadly stupid features I've seen. Getting to "hide" behind any medium creature in the party to get Adv or even just count as breaking LOS. That's not the argument for here, I just accept it as true even if I think it's dumb.
I've actually found good cover HARD to come by in most games. Only my Warlock was able to really make good illusionary cover, but At-Will Silent Image from Misty Vision covers a 15' cube. Still, 1 arrow disrupts the entire illusion, unless your GM decides "mist" counts as "some other visible phenomenon".
My Arcane Tricksters generally get their Adv with Find Familiar and an Owl, if hiding isn't available.
I may have missed it if already mentioned, but another thing to think about is that a Rogue's sneak attack doesn't need advantage necessarily. As long as you have another enemy of the target (i.e. an ally of yours in most cases) with 5ft of the target, then you can use your sneak attack. Unlike flanking, the ally does not have to fit a certain geometry, it only has to be within 5ft of the target, on any side.
In this sense, as long as you are fighting as a group (as needed for flanking) you should be able to get sneak attack every turn without needing to rely on the flanking optional rule (only downside is that you don't get advantage, but if all youre looking to do is guarantee you can apply sneak attack, this should be sufficient).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Re-imagining unpopular subclasses as part of FIFY WotC. Let us know what you think of our changes!
I wrote this a few months ago, and honestly I think that the rogue using two weapon fighting is on par with fighters and other high single target damage classes. My major issue which was not well articulated is that it requires you do that. If you wanted to use a single rapier or a bow, you're severely decreasing your damage output potential. How much less average damage per round? It depends on various things such as armor class of your target, but it's a lot. As much as half depending on the situation. If your rapier attack or bow attack misses, you do no damage that round. If you two weapon fight, if your first attack misses, you have a second attack and a second opportunity for sneak attack damage. You also have a higher percent chance or rolling that 20 for a crazy high damage round. Effectively, attacking with two weapons is the equivalent of having advantage with one in terms of hitting and critically hitting. I was already accounting for getting a sneak attack opportunity on every attack because it's honestly fairly easy to do.
Here are some results to ponder. Enemy AC 16, Level 5, 4 Dex Modifier, No Advantage:
The damage disparity does decrease as you level up, but it's still substantial. Here is the same calculation at level 20:
However, as AC also increases, the disparity Grows. Here is the same level 20 calculation, except vs a 20AC:
However, if you can hide using your bonus action literally every turn and in order to get advantage, (I have yet to find a DM that would allow this and you'd take a reaction opportunity attack unless you take mobile to disengage):
If we look at levels 1-20 and across enemy Armor classes 10-20:
For academic sake, Two Short swords Advantage would be 115%, but theoretically that's harder to do.
These are just the numbers. If you want the math I can send you an excel spreadsheet. It does assume you always have the highest possible Dex and no magic items.
Taking sentinel does potentially increase damage a lot although I think enemies would just start attacking you.
I'm not sure flanking is the answer anymore because that would also increase the damage of the two weapon fighting option. Maybe flanking but only on your primary attack? I don't know. Giving rogues the option to main hand attack again as a bonus action? That would quickly even it out. Two weapon fighting with 2 short swords would probably be the worst option but it would be close.
Either way two short swords is head and shoulders better than any other option, save of course hand crossbows with the corresponding feat - that would be tied.
If you're wondering about using some other feats:
At level 20, the Fighter is doing about the same as two short swords rogue. That is unless it's a champion using GWF and GWM and a Great Sword. Depending on the AC, using the -5 to hit and +10 to Damage. Then the fighter does a bit more. It's relatively in line with the Revenant Blade Rogue I guess .
TL;DR - Rogues need to have two attacks in a round to be competitive in damage. The only way to do that RAW is to use the bonus action for an off hand attack. 2 Rapiers with Duel Wielder is competitive, bows with Sharp Shooter are still not competitive. Revenant Blade with double bladed scimitar is the highest damage option.
I’m the Arcane Trickster in our campaign. With sneak attack being ready at the weakest hit, you can do tons of damage, not to mention the increase in damage at later lvls. Just throw in Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, as well as a 1d8 or 1d10 weapon, and you’ve got a dead enemy (or enemies) right at your hands. If you’re an Assassin, you get Assassinate for advantage on attack rolls, as well as free criticals on surprised creatures. I’m not even going to mention the other traits for Arcane Trickster and Assassin.
Just remember that even if you flank and get advantage, that still doesn’t give you more damage if you hit, unless you get a critical hit.
That was kinda the whole point. I was accounting for hit and crit percentages. Average damage per round. When the rogue hits, the damage is competitive. When she misses with her only attack, she does no damage. When you average it out, her damage is low unless she is dual wielding.
Oh I see what you’re saying.
Don’t see the need. getting advantage isnt exactly difficult. spells, maneuvers, skill checks from xanatars, surprise, help action, poisons (conditions) etc.
furthermore, a rogue tend to shine a lot more than warriors outside of combat.
If one wants to be better at conbat I suggest doing what I did- multiclass for a secondary attack.
You also mentioned that your calculation was without dualwielding. If we use that comparison we also have to make suboptimal choice in the comparison build.
In my experience this is not a problem at all.
.