extra feat slot (have not seen any mention of it) - think about all the new combos you can add to this plus keep in mind that we did not see 4th lvl expert feats.
extra attack per turn with light weapons - one extra dmg die, possibly a great buff with the new weapon effect they mention and as mentioned above possibly an expert feat that enhances it.
earlier subclasses features - to me that's just great.
LVL 13 semi-constant advantage? - a little late but now u are free to move around.
clearer hide rules - not sure in this one
1. Feat, they had that in the PH so that is the same.
2. Um I guess, it has to be a light weapon and they can't add their stat to the damage so woo a extra d6. It does increase the odds of delivering the sneak attack though for melee rogues.
3. sure, though they weakened the end one so it feels more level 14 appropriate i guess, and it now sucks.
4. Yeah I guess that is nifty but yeah its 13, so meh if your campaign goes that far its nice.
5. I think less clear hide rules are better than what we got. I'm okay with the removal of passive perception as the defense part as it sort of made perception a required skill. But they really need to change when you can hide. You can hide when you are basically not seen at all. At this point its just move silently, its not a overall sneak. DC 15, until you get reliable talent its probably harder in most situations, eventually you will always hide. You in effect did anyways as passive perceptions were rarely above 13.
extra feat slot (have not seen any mention of it) - think about all the new combos you can add to this plus keep in mind that we did not see 4th lvl expert feats.
extra attack per turn with light weapons - one extra dmg die, possibly a great buff with the new weapon effect they mention and as mentioned above possibly an expert feat that enhances it.
earlier subclasses features - to me that's just great.
LVL 13 semi-constant advantage? - a little late but now u are free to move around.
clearer hide rules - not sure in this one
Gotta keep in mind that we got to look at all these changes with an open mind and take more than one change into consideration, all these little pieces add together in the end.
They got to keep a balance overall when they add it all together in the end. Just look at the "nerf" of GWM and SS, now there is not only one feat that is a must, and you are free to choose without having to feel like you are sacrificing optimization, who knows what the new weapons will do that ppl will scream foul if we add all the standard stuff together and we end with a broken PC.
OK... but all of that is things we already did in 5e. All it did is make it into quality of life changes for things we already had access to by making it easier to access those things. How does that offset the nerf to sneak attack?
The changes to light weapon helps a little but it is a bonus that every other class has access to.
The earlier access to subclass features are great, but I would hold off your excitement as the changes to thief are not that great and it was the worst subclass available to choose from. I'm afraid to see what changes are to be expected if thief is a sneak peek.
A free feat from your background that everyone can do with not just rogues... yeah that is exciting...
Constant advantage if we attack a creature with in 5ft of our ally... sure it made things easier but it is not like we didn't have a problem gaining advantage in the first place....
No more being able to use dual weilder feat to dual wield rapiers.
What stops you from dual wielding rapiers?
They aren't light weapons, the 1d&d rules require at least one of them be light, normally both have to be light, but one can avoid being light with a feat, and then the fighting style only available to warriors(or rangers) lets you use your attribute in the off hand.
Ok. I had to look back at the rules changes for dual wielder and yeah that sucks. Wow 1D&D is coming out as worse and worse the more I look at it.
extra feat slot (have not seen any mention of it) - think about all the new combos you can add to this plus keep in mind that we did not see 4th lvl expert feats.
extra attack per turn with light weapons - one extra dmg die, possibly a great buff with the new weapon effect they mention and as mentioned above possibly an expert feat that enhances it.
earlier subclasses features - to me that's just great.
LVL 13 semi-constant advantage? - a little late but now u are free to move around.
clearer hide rules - not sure in this one
Gotta keep in mind that we got to look at all these changes with an open mind and take more than one change into consideration, all these little pieces add together in the end.
They got to keep a balance overall when they add it all together in the end. Just look at the "nerf" of GWM and SS, now there is not only one feat that is a must, and you are free to choose without having to feel like you are sacrificing optimization, who knows what the new weapons will do that ppl will scream foul if we add all the standard stuff together and we end with a broken PC.
OK... but all of that is things we already did in 5e. All it did is make it into quality of life changes for things we already had access to by making it easier to access those things. How does that offset the nerf to sneak attack?
The changes to light weapon helps a little but it is a bonus that every other class has access to.
The earlier access to subclass features are great, but I would hold off your excitement as the changes to thief are not that great and it was the worst subclass available to choose from. I'm afraid to see what changes are to be expected if thief is a sneak peek.
A free feat from your background that everyone can do with not just rogues... yeah that is exciting...
Constant advantage if we attack a creature with in 5ft of our ally... sure it made things easier but it is not like we didn't have a problem gaining advantage in the first place....
Sneak Attack and how it was usually mediocre, but could be exploited to be much more powerful, messed with the overall balance of Rogues. Since some people were dealing lot's of damage with it in a give round, and others were dealing much less, it made it harder to add any feature, such as Pack Tactics, that helps those mediocre Rogue's deal more damage, since it would also make the min-maxers build significantly more powerful. Also one thing I haven't seen people mention is that Pack Tactics gives you advantage which gives you an automatic Sneak Attack, so it makes the feature much more usable.
extra feat slot (have not seen any mention of it) - think about all the new combos you can add to this plus keep in mind that we did not see 4th lvl expert feats.
extra attack per turn with light weapons - one extra dmg die, possibly a great buff with the new weapon effect they mention and as mentioned above possibly an expert feat that enhances it.
earlier subclasses features - to me that's just great.
LVL 13 semi-constant advantage? - a little late but now u are free to move around.
clearer hide rules - not sure in this one
1. Feat, they had that in the PH so that is the same.
2. Um I guess, it has to be a light weapon and they can't add their stat to the damage so woo a extra d6. It does increase the odds of delivering the sneak attack though for melee rogues.
3. sure, though they weakened the end one so it feels more level 14 appropriate i guess, and it now sucks.
4. Yeah I guess that is nifty but yeah its 13, so meh if your campaign goes that far its nice.
5. I think less clear hide rules are better than what we got. I'm okay with the removal of passive perception as the defense part as it sort of made perception a required skill. But they really need to change when you can hide. You can hide when you are basically not seen at all. At this point its just move silently, its not a overall sneak. DC 15, until you get reliable talent its probably harder in most situations, eventually you will always hide. You in effect did anyways as passive perceptions were rarely above 13.
2. A D6 and an increased chance at Sneak Attack is a big deal. Especially at low levels.
3. How in the world does getting multiple bonus actions in one turn "suck"? Anyways, one subclass feature doesn't decide the overall worthiness of the subclass. And anyways, Thief's managed to stay relatively intact while having most of its features come 3+ levels lower, it's much more powerful and cool now. Not only that, but people won't have to play all the way to level 17 to get their cool big feature.
4. This is much more than "nifty," this ensures that Rogue's will almost always have advantage on their attacks. Not only that, but that advantage triggers Sneak Attack so they'll get it much more often too. The reason this is a 13th level feature is because it would have been game breaking for Rogue's at lower levels.
5. I dunno. Haven't looked at the new hide rules yet. Should I?
If you don't disengage you in fact are recklessly leaving the fight and inviting a free hit, if you were being careful you would not generate the AoO in the first place which is what the disengage action represents.( Now I do think that action/mechanic needs some work as it effectively makes running away impossible for most creatures/players.) And while once per round would be better than once on your turn, it is far from necessary. How often do AoO come up in your game? I'm not sure we see one even once a fight. Its rare enough that I'd say just let the rogue shine there.
Like this is not a big nerf like some want to claim, it may be a big nerf to one build that relies on another character with some other build. And the reason it isn't big nerf is, it just does not happen often, its very rare. Does it wreck the rogue not to have it, no but why take away rare shine moments. And rogues just were not that good in the first place, why nerf them while buffing the other two example classes.
Because there are some builds that mean that "rare shine" moment routine as opposed to rare. Also, just because your opponent recklessly ran away doesn't mean your attack against them is a sneaky one. In fact, it means the exact opposite; it means that they were fully aware you were going to attack them and they just want to get out before you can do so again. And if you allow OA's to hit, then you'll have to allow Sneak Attack to be used multiple times per a round, and that introduces a whole 'nother can of worms. Also, Rogues haven't been "nerfed," as I explained in this post, one feature has been tweaked so the overall class can be buffed.
PS- The_Traveling_Cleric made a good point. Now, when you pick a feat, you don't have any pressure to pick one to help exploit or make Sneak Attack better, other new features like Pack Tactics already do that. So thanks to this new change, you can pick the feat you want without sacrificing having a more optimized character.
2. A D6 and an increased chance at Sneak Attack is a big deal. Especially at low levels.
3. How in the world does getting multiple bonus actions in one turn "suck"? Anyways, one subclass feature doesn't decide the overall worthiness of the subclass. And anyways, Thief's managed to stay relatively intact while having most of its features come 3+ levels lower, it's much more powerful and cool now. Not only that, but people won't have to play all the way to level 17 to get their cool big feature.
4. This is much more than "nifty," this ensures that Rogue's will almost always have advantage on their attacks. Not only that, but that advantage triggers Sneak Attack so they'll get it much more often too. The reason this is a 13th level feature is because it would have been game breaking for Rogue's at lower levels.
5. I dunno. Haven't looked at the new hide rules yet. Should I?
My personal thoughts:
2. Yes, that's just true. Considering that I think it would be a good thing to allow Booming Blade to sneak attack, since it naturally balances itself out as if you Booming Blade you can't duel-wield (alt. Arcane Trickster cantrip sneak attacks?).
3. I mean, considering that they removed the best bonus action from Thief, and you don't need it for TWF, this feature is a lot less valuable than it seems. Still valuable mind you, triple dash sounds fun for instance, but I'd probably put it equal to the old feature.
Also, yes you get thief features early, but Fast Hands was nerfed, jumping with dexterity is a buff but requires an entire action. For Supreme Sneak, you already have a +10 to Stealth to beat a DC 15 check (I don't think sneaking faster had much impact anyways). Use Magic Item is DM reliant, but probably the best feature thus far (except that it's level 10). So... what does Thief get you? Search as a bonus action (situational), bonus to Jumping (just use expertise, you'll be fine), DM reliance on giving you scrolls & magic items.
Let me remind you, none of these boost damage. So, the whole "nerf double sneak attack to allow for it to be buffed" is just a straight up lie for Thief. At least before you could throw acid vials which was a niche that couldn't be done by any other class which also served triple-duty as boosting your damage & cool flavor as the best at using items both mundane and magic. Now? No.
4. Subtle Strikes is a pretty good feature. It's at level 13 though and it replaces Steady Aim which kind of knocks the feature down a bit. It's worth noting the "advantage" occurs when you would already get sneak attack, so it only helps trigger it if you had disadvantage before (and ofc the obvious helps you actually hit the sneak attack).
5. I expect the hide rules to get changed around a bit. Basically, right now it's DC 15 and if you pass your hidden. The rules state that the DM can change the DC depending on the enemies, and I expect quite a few DMs to basically just make it passive perception again.
Personally, if they buffed the rogue subclasses to boost their damage in interesting ways, I'd put it as a net zero. Since thief is terrible, I can't quite say that.
2. A D6 and an increased chance at Sneak Attack is a big deal. Especially at low levels.
3. How in the world does getting multiple bonus actions in one turn "suck"? Anyways, one subclass feature doesn't decide the overall worthiness of the subclass. And anyways, Thief's managed to stay relatively intact while having most of its features come 3+ levels lower, it's much more powerful and cool now. Not only that, but people won't have to play all the way to level 17 to get their cool big feature.
4. This is much more than "nifty," this ensures that Rogue's will almost always have advantage on their attacks. Not only that, but that advantage triggers Sneak Attack so they'll get it much more often too. The reason this is a 13th level feature is because it would have been game breaking for Rogue's at lower levels.
5. I dunno. Haven't looked at the new hide rules yet. Should I?
PS- The_Traveling_Cleric made a good point. Now, when you pick a feat, you don't have any pressure to pick one to help exploit or make Sneak Attack better, other new features like Pack Tactics already do that. So thanks to this new change, you can pick the feat you want without sacrificing having a more optimized character.
Have you ever played a rogue, BB? have you played with any of the new rules?
2.) Yes, "a d6 and double the chance to Sneak Attack" is a very big deal in early levels. It rapidly stops mattering nearly so much the instant the martials in the party gain access to Extra Attack. I know this because the martials (my paladin and our barbarian) just gained Extra Attack in our Eberron game where we've been using the new Light rule as a houserule for months, and our rogue's damage nigh-instantly became a lot less impressive. Still there, sure, but a lot less impressive. And where rogues do not get one single improvement to their Sneak Attack past first level other than "here's your extra die!" every other level, martials are pretty constantly getting new ways to make their Attack actions hit harder. Especially when most rogues never get to gain any benefit from magic items, weapons, or gear. Hell, one of the only premier Rogue-y magic weapons, the bracer of flying daggers? Now completely useless for rogues because they can't Sneak Attack with it.
3.) Precisely none of the Thief's abilities aid it in combat. That's never been the Thief's job, but debuting the rogue subclass that is by far the weakest in a scrap was not necessarily the wisest idea. The one thing Thief had going for it that really helped it out in fights, being able to [Tooltip Not Found] as a bonus action, is gone - and as stated, neither parties nor DMs ever let rogues have magical swag, so their ability to attune to and/or use magical equipment better is meaningless.
4.) If a rogue and their party haven't figured out a means of getting Sneak Attack to work mostly reliably by 13th level, this won't help. Yeah, Pack Tactics is great. It's also a high-level feature almost nobody ever gets to use, and it's STILL dependent on the rogue targeting crap somebody else is already fighting. It's a nothingburger.
5.) Hide has a set DC, which makes it more reliable but also significantly more boring. Why even have Perception if neither we nor the enemy can use it to reveal hidden things/attackers anymore? Hiding from a dragon should be more difficult than hiding from a zombie.
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
Have you ever played a rogue, BB? have you played with any of the new rules?
2.) Yes, "a d6 and double the chance to Sneak Attack" is a very big deal in early levels. It rapidly stops mattering nearly so much the instant the martials in the party gain access to Extra Attack. I know this because the martials (my paladin and our barbarian) just gained Extra Attack in our Eberron game where we've been using the new Light rule as a houserule for months, and our rogue's damage nigh-instantly became a lot less impressive. Still there, sure, but a lot less impressive. And where rogues do not get one single improvement to their Sneak Attack past first level other than "here's your extra die!" every other level, martials are pretty constantly getting new ways to make their Attack actions hit harder. Especially when most rogues never get to gain any benefit from magic items, weapons, or gear. Hell, one of the only premier Rogue-y magic weapons, the bracer of flying daggers? Now completely useless for rogues because they can't Sneak Attack with it.
3.) Precisely none of the Thief's abilities aid it in combat. That's never been the Thief's job, but debuting the rogue subclass that is by far the weakest in a scrap was not necessarily the wisest idea. The one thing Thief had going for it that really helped it out in fights, being able to [Tooltip Not Found] as a bonus action, is gone - and as stated, neither parties nor DMs ever let rogues have magical swag, so their ability to attune to and/or use magical equipment better is meaningless.
4.) If a rogue and their party haven't figured out a means of getting Sneak Attack to work mostly reliably by 13th level, this won't help. Yeah, Pack Tactics is great. It's also a high-level feature almost nobody ever gets to use, and it's STILL dependent on the rogue targeting crap somebody else is already fighting. It's a nothingburger.
5.) Hide has a set DC, which makes it more reliable but also significantly more boring. Why even have Perception if neither we nor the enemy can use it to reveal hidden things/attackers anymore? Hiding from a dragon should be more difficult than hiding from a zombie.
Yurei, the whole point of UA is to get feedback, to change, and to ultimately end up with the best overall product. Some of these changes may not be as big or make Rogue as cool as you want. But as I've explained numerous times already, these changes can not be made while allowing Sneak Attack to be used multiple times per round.
What you don't seem to be realizing is that you are arguing for the exact opposite thing you said you wanted; if you want Rogue to be better for everyone, then this change needs to be made. If you want Rogue to be cooler and awesomer and greater and better or whatever adjustment you want to make to bring its overall power level up, then this change needs to be made. If you think Rogue hasn't been buffedenough, then fill out the survey and say so. But this thread is only about one change in particular, and that change enables all the other changes you wanted. So why in the world are you complaining about that change?
And if you think Rogue's overall power level needs to be brought up even more in combat. Do remember that Wizards may well buff it up to that power level in future UA's and for the ultimate end result of 1DD. So give your feedback on buffing Rogue, the new change makes taking that feedback actually possible.
PS- Just a reminder, as Damian_Magecraft said, it is important to remember that a Rogue's role is not only to do things in combat but also to do things outside of it.
5.) Hide has a set DC, which makes it more reliable but also significantly more boring. Why even have Perception if neither we nor the enemy can use it to reveal hidden things/attackers anymore? Hiding from a dragon should be more difficult than hiding from a zombie.
Technically, stealth vs perception contests still exist in a way. "With the Hide Action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must make a DC 15 Dexterity Check (Stealth) while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you are Hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception)." So instead of making a contest against every single guard on your way (with a potential chance to roll low), you set a DC once and then only enemies roll to spot you. A dragon will overcome this DC way easier than a zombie.
Technically, stealth vs perception contests still exist in a way.
The problem is that the creature has to take an action now, so unless the creature has a bonus/legendary action perception roll, they won't ever be able to see and attack the rogue, because the rogue will hide again before their next action.
The counter to this, however, is that being hidden apparently doesn't actually cause your enemy to not k now where you are any more, so they can just attack you at disadvantage (in fact, unless they've changed how heavy obscurement works, hiding when heavily obscured is completely pointless, because it doesn't have any effects that aren't already given for being heavily obscured).
The problem is that the creature has to take an action now, so unless the creature has a bonus/legendary action perception roll, they won't ever be able to see and attack the rogue, because the rogue will hide again before their next action.
The counter to this, however, is that being hidden apparently doesn't actually cause your enemy to not k now where you are any more, so they can just attack you at disadvantage (in fact, unless they've changed how heavy obscurement works, hiding when heavily obscured is completely pointless, because it doesn't have any effects that aren't already given for being heavily obscured).
"Ending the Condition. The Condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an Attack Roll, you cast a Spell with a verbal component, or you aren’t Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover.". Hidden condition ends if you're within enemy's line of sight and you're not obscured or behind cover. So it makes sense that an enemy will have to spend some time and effort to find you in pitch black darkness or thick fog, or realize which cover you're crouching behind. I don't even think that hidden condition has to give enemies a disadvantage on attacks, because the condition itself ends when you do anything to give out your position, otherwise the enemy wouldn't know where to aim at all. Hidden condition is pretty easy to break.
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
All we can go on is what they have released for the experts and both the ranger and bard will be better in fights than the rogue and better out of fights than the rogue. So even just among experts and not looking at potential warrior tier classes they look bad.
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
All we can go on is what they have released for the experts and both the ranger and bard will be better in fights than the rogue and better out of fights than the rogue. So even just among experts and not looking at potential warrior tier classes they look bad.
then judge it on that criteria and not some Imagined yet never existed combat monster criteria.
What I think? no matter how much kvetching the player base makes the second sneak attack is gone for good. It is clear it was never meant to be a thing in the first place. so lets just move on to what we can change. And no that does not mean start round 2 (or what ever number we are on now) of "whaaaaaa! they took away my cheesed 2nd Sneak Attack!
It means what else is wrong what makes it not feel like it is balanced with the other two Experts?
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
All right.
What is the rogue's intended function?
If the rogue is not intended to be viable in combat:
A.) That should change, because all classes need a role in combat. Nor can it be a minor one.
B.) What is the rogue's role? It cannot be noncombat utility, because the lack of tool skills and utility magic nullifies it for the task. It cannot be exploration, because rangers exist. It cannot be 'The Social Pillar', because the entire Charisma ******** of castybois exists. What is the rogue's role?
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
All right.
What is the rogue's intended function?
If the rogue is not intended to be viable in combat:
First You need to stop and define viable. is it to produce as much damage as the fighter per turn/round? (Kinda detracts from the fighter dont you think?) Be able to match the damage output of a fireball engulfing 3 npcs upon a single target? (and they say Wizards need yet another nerf...) Cause news flash Even back in the day when the class was first introduced? yeah... it was never meant to be a combat god. 3.x broken MC Builds created that myth.
I imagine it is what it was originally intended to be: Scout, trap detection/removal, and all around skill monkey. Which means that in point of fact the Rogue is trying to be some odd spelless combination of the Ranger and the Bard: IE: a class that can cover both the exploration and the Social pillars in a pinch. (and if you think spells make the casters gods of social? clearly you are forgetting how without metamagic bullpuckery going on magic is a tad on the obvious side.) Seriously why would anyone trust the dude who just started doing Turbo Naruto ninja handsigns and spouting gibberish words right before trying to "talk" his way past the doorman? (while the doorman might be charmed, what are the odds his boss or buddies didnt catcth the show the caster put on first?)
Scout I believe it was discussed earlier in this thread, and if not this one then elsewhere, that D&D parties do not allow their rogues to scout, and/or do any other Rogue Shit(TM). Parties assume every rogue ever is going to be a thieving trolling Chaotic ******* and mandate that the thief never leave their sight for longer than thirty seconds. A rogue that's more than a hundred feet away from the bulk of the party is a rogue that's getting strip searched and interrogated in a cell by her own party for an hour when she gets back.
Trap detection/removal So good to know that a core part of the class identity for an entire class is "deal with a moderate inconvenience that happens maybe three times a campaign unless you're playing That One Book." Trap detection/removal is a nonfactor. It's a nonthing. It's such a niche role that no one of any sense would hire someone for their adventure to do nothing but handle traps. And frankly, PSA: anyone can 'detect' traps. You don't need Thieves' Tools proficiency to search for them, you need Perception or Investigation depending on the DM/trap, and after that there's always the "throw a rock at it from the next room" option for 'removal'.
Skillmonkey To the best of my knowledge, most Old Head D&D guys actively dislike skillmonkeys. Players who try to acquire multiple proficiencies, beyond the base four available to class and background, are frowned upon as "spotlight-hogging primadonnas" trying to claim more than their fair share of the game. Never mind that an entire class group, this "Expert" group, is dedicated to them. I've seen quite a few players on this board dismiss and denigrate skillmonkeys and claim that any group of four ordinary, non-skillmonkey characters has everything they could possibly need covered if they coordinate their skills properly.
Is this the extent of what the rogue should be doing? And furthermore, yes - yes, the rogue should be able to produce roughly as much damage in a given round as a fighter. Because the fighter has much better armor, higher HP, generally better/earlier access to magic weapons, and does not have any restrictions on its target selection. The rogue does not get to attack freely - it has to acquire Sneak Attack damage one way or another, and doing so often heavily constrains its target selection. Those don't get to be brushed off as inconsequential deficits.
Anyways. Look - all we need is a change in wording to "once per turn (or round, if you want to be stingy) when you make an attack with a Finesse or Ranged weapon on your turn, or when you make an attack of opportunity, you can deal Sneak Attack damage." Frankly I'd prefer for Sneak to trigger on any one-handed attack with a weapon the rogue is proficient with - billyclubbing a muhfugger over the back of the brainpan should be just as valid as a shiv to the ribs - but I'll take lifting the restriction on the strike needing to come from The Attack Action. Let me Sneak Attack with a bracer of flying daggers, or a scimitar of speed if I can get proficiency. Let me Sneak Attack off of a Blade cantrip. Let me do the freaking cool shit I can already do that isn't causing any issues in R5e.
The impression I get from these is that many players and DMs out there are more awful at letting these classes do their thing than I gave them credit for.
Especially the parts about skill monkey hate and not trusting the rogue because they're a rogue.
Dont let Yurei's Hyperbole fool you. It is no where near as bad as she is projecting it to be. In fact if you go up thread and look where she suggests? I describe a typical rogue/party interaction at my table and somehow she contrived that to mean that all Rogue players are either toxic @$$#@+$ that are just out to troll the tables and ruin it for the rogues that dont. And the other type? Well... poor downtrodden and oppressed innocent players who have no idea why they are not being allowed to do rogue like things. (Yeah right... every table I have sat at with a rogue has the rule of "don't $#!+ where you eat" IE: the Wheaton Rule is in effect. If your Rogue is not being allowed to Rogue? Ever? The Problem is probably not with the table... just sayin.)
In 0th ed, Becmi, 1st, and 2nd if the rogue was able to produce 1/2 the damage of the party fighter it was an impressive "back stab" roll.
Not until 3.x and the munchkining bah-roh-ken builds of it did we start to see Rouges doing Nova Damage in one attack for as much if not more damage than the Fighter, Paladin, and Blaster Caster combined.
The impression I get from these is that many players and DMs out there are more awful at letting these classes do their thing than I gave them credit for.
Especially the parts about skill monkey hate and not trusting the rogue because they're a rogue.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. The community at large has alot of opinions but often it isn't the mechanics that are the problem. Role-playing encourages players to become designers but steps away from adequate training or analysis.
In all three pillars every class (subclass) should have its own role. The reason to play a fighter isn't just a damage monopoly. It's to play an archetype. Fighters have military experience or reputation to leverage socially. Can a fighter scout? Absolutely but Some routes to a goal are better served by some classes than others. How does your character do a task? That's the real question.
Frankly a huge part of the rogue is the glass cannon damage. lots of Damage is even more important to rogue archetype than rangers or even fighters.
These adjustments directly affect the narrative fantasy many rogues have enjoyed at many dnd tables over the years. Part of being a cheating rogue fantasy is working hard to squeeze out extra cheep shots as often as possible.
Post script: I shouldn't stand up for rogue they are in my bottom 5 classes. I have only really played one and it was a multi-class sorcerer.
If the rogue is not intended to be viable in combat:
A.) That should change, because all classes need a role in combat. Nor can it be a minor one.
B.) What is the rogue's role? It cannot be noncombat utility, because the lack of tool skills and utility magic nullifies it for the task. It cannot be exploration, because rangers exist. It cannot be 'The Social Pillar', because the entire Charisma ******** of castybois exists. What is the rogue's role?
Rogue absolutely must be viable in combat, and I'll never understand people who say that rogue is supposed to be weaker than a fighter. In amount of options in combat - perhaps, because battlefield is fighters' domain after all, but in terms of damage output, rogue must compete, otherwise, what's the point in playing a ****** skillmonkey? That said, however, I don't think WotC is going to let us do two sneak attacks per round. The gap between using that legal exploit and not using it was too huge, literally double your output. But I believe they gotta compensate. Rogue must get stronger, or gain some utility/control in combat to justify lacking damage. Distractions, crippling enemies, disrupting stuff. That would take quite some work, though.
I would argue that rogue's part is actually exploration, because rogue is mostly about getting to places others can not and obtaining information - these activities belong to exploration department. Also, just take expertise in survival and boom, you're diet ranger.
The impression I get from these is that many players and DMs out there are more awful at letting these classes do their thing than I gave them credit for.
Especially the parts about skill monkey hate and not trusting the rogue because they're a rogue.
Dont let Yurei's Hyperbole fool you. It is no where near as bad as she is projecting it to be. In fact if you go up thread and look where she suggests? I describe a typical rogue/party interaction at my table and somehow she contrived that to mean that all Rogue players are either toxic @$$#@+$ that are just out to troll the tables and ruin it for the rogues that dont. And the other type? Well... poor downtrodden and oppressed innocent players who have no idea why they are not being allowed to do rogue like things. (Yeah right... every table I have sat at with a rogue has the rule of "don't $#!+ where you eat" IE: the Wheaton Rule is in effect. If your Rogue is not being allowed to Rogue? Ever? The Problem is probably not with the table... just sayin.)
In 0th ed, Becmi, 1st, and 2nd if the rogue was able to produce 1/2 the damage of the party fighter it was an impressive "back stab" roll.
Not until 3.x and the munchkining bah-roh-ken builds of it did we start to see Rouges doing Nova Damage in one attack for as much if not more damage than the Fighter, Paladin, and Blaster Caster combined.
Not to nit pic but in 1e the thief's backstab was god tier. It was between x2-x5 damage and that was total damage, thieves likely had a good dex(fighters should as well given how often strength items were handed out) so could two weapon fight with minimal penalty. Wear strength items hopefully eventually giant strength and start hitting for stupid damage the fighter did not compete with. short sword 1d6, gauntlets of ogre power+6 so 9ish .9x2-5, when the game got high level and girdles of giant strength were being handed out the first person we handed it to was the thief, when the damage is +13 from magical sword and girdle of giant strength even if it was daggers making that 15 damage when its x4 and they got two attacks off it was brutal. And this was before THAC0, it has a sort of weird math where a total roll of 20 after modifiers pretty much hit anything. Add in the low HP of most monsters even dragons and you'd be one shotting a decent clip of them. Best on dual class fighter/thieves with weapon mastery but that's getting to ultra cheese. BECMI capped it at x2,(but fighters didn't really get multiple attacks normally so it was still good comparatively), they sucked at their role in both becmi and 1e. 2e I think it only multiplied base weapon damage but at least they got competent at their core roles since they could really focus on the skills they needed.
3e their intended role at least per the designers at the time was high DPS they wanted it to be the highest, but the math never panned out 3/4 bab with -5 per attack just made them pretty bad. 4e they were balanced and were one of the strikers of the game so were supposed to be the highest damage dealers. Personally I think with how 4e was designed and the obscenely high HP of enemies, striker was the most important role,. My understanding was that was a math mistake and supposedly fixed late 4e. I doubt they ever got controllers on par with the rest though, they were very focused on making their effects really minor, difficult terrain in small areas type stuff, where it really needed the DM to be generous on designing battlefields with enemy placement beneficial to the controllers attempts at contrbuting. 5e, they never really went into class intent as far as i know other than the fighter was supposed to be the best fighter but that is sort of vague.
So going over the editions I think only maybe becmi and 2e were they designed in a way where high damage was not the intent. 5e, maybe not highest but then again maybe they were as the core game does not have feats etc. Even with one sneak attack a round they are doing pretty good vs the other martials with no feats especially if we are only looking at the early subclasses.
6e, they are not being classed as strikers but as expert, but wtf that means we still don't know outside they all have expertise.
I wish they would have more transparency on the design goals here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Feat, they had that in the PH so that is the same.
2. Um I guess, it has to be a light weapon and they can't add their stat to the damage so woo a extra d6. It does increase the odds of delivering the sneak attack though for melee rogues.
3. sure, though they weakened the end one so it feels more level 14 appropriate i guess, and it now sucks.
4. Yeah I guess that is nifty but yeah its 13, so meh if your campaign goes that far its nice.
5. I think less clear hide rules are better than what we got. I'm okay with the removal of passive perception as the defense part as it sort of made perception a required skill. But they really need to change when you can hide. You can hide when you are basically not seen at all. At this point its just move silently, its not a overall sneak. DC 15, until you get reliable talent its probably harder in most situations, eventually you will always hide. You in effect did anyways as passive perceptions were rarely above 13.
OK... but all of that is things we already did in 5e. All it did is make it into quality of life changes for things we already had access to by making it easier to access those things. How does that offset the nerf to sneak attack?
The changes to light weapon helps a little but it is a bonus that every other class has access to.
The earlier access to subclass features are great, but I would hold off your excitement as the changes to thief are not that great and it was the worst subclass available to choose from. I'm afraid to see what changes are to be expected if thief is a sneak peek.
A free feat from your background that everyone can do with not just rogues... yeah that is exciting...
Constant advantage if we attack a creature with in 5ft of our ally... sure it made things easier but it is not like we didn't have a problem gaining advantage in the first place....
Ok. I had to look back at the rules changes for dual wielder and yeah that sucks. Wow 1D&D is coming out as worse and worse the more I look at it.
Sneak Attack and how it was usually mediocre, but could be exploited to be much more powerful, messed with the overall balance of Rogues. Since some people were dealing lot's of damage with it in a give round, and others were dealing much less, it made it harder to add any feature, such as Pack Tactics, that helps those mediocre Rogue's deal more damage, since it would also make the min-maxers build significantly more powerful. Also one thing I haven't seen people mention is that Pack Tactics gives you advantage which gives you an automatic Sneak Attack, so it makes the feature much more usable.
2. A D6 and an increased chance at Sneak Attack is a big deal. Especially at low levels.
3. How in the world does getting multiple bonus actions in one turn "suck"? Anyways, one subclass feature doesn't decide the overall worthiness of the subclass. And anyways, Thief's managed to stay relatively intact while having most of its features come 3+ levels lower, it's much more powerful and cool now. Not only that, but people won't have to play all the way to level 17 to get their cool big feature.
4. This is much more than "nifty," this ensures that Rogue's will almost always have advantage on their attacks. Not only that, but that advantage triggers Sneak Attack so they'll get it much more often too. The reason this is a 13th level feature is because it would have been game breaking for Rogue's at lower levels.
5. I dunno. Haven't looked at the new hide rules yet. Should I?
Because there are some builds that mean that "rare shine" moment routine as opposed to rare. Also, just because your opponent recklessly ran away doesn't mean your attack against them is a sneaky one. In fact, it means the exact opposite; it means that they were fully aware you were going to attack them and they just want to get out before you can do so again. And if you allow OA's to hit, then you'll have to allow Sneak Attack to be used multiple times per a round, and that introduces a whole 'nother can of worms. Also, Rogues haven't been "nerfed," as I explained in this post, one feature has been tweaked so the overall class can be buffed.
PS- The_Traveling_Cleric made a good point. Now, when you pick a feat, you don't have any pressure to pick one to help exploit or make Sneak Attack better, other new features like Pack Tactics already do that. So thanks to this new change, you can pick the feat you want without sacrificing having a more optimized character.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.2. Yes, that's just true. Considering that I think it would be a good thing to allow Booming Blade to sneak attack, since it naturally balances itself out as if you Booming Blade you can't duel-wield (alt. Arcane Trickster cantrip sneak attacks?).
3. I mean, considering that they removed the best bonus action from Thief, and you don't need it for TWF, this feature is a lot less valuable than it seems. Still valuable mind you, triple dash sounds fun for instance, but I'd probably put it equal to the old feature.
Also, yes you get thief features early, but Fast Hands was nerfed, jumping with dexterity is a buff but requires an entire action. For Supreme Sneak, you already have a +10 to Stealth to beat a DC 15 check (I don't think sneaking faster had much impact anyways). Use Magic Item is DM reliant, but probably the best feature thus far (except that it's level 10). So... what does Thief get you? Search as a bonus action (situational), bonus to Jumping (just use expertise, you'll be fine), DM reliance on giving you scrolls & magic items.
Let me remind you, none of these boost damage. So, the whole "nerf double sneak attack to allow for it to be buffed" is just a straight up lie for Thief. At least before you could throw acid vials which was a niche that couldn't be done by any other class which also served triple-duty as boosting your damage & cool flavor as the best at using items both mundane and magic. Now? No.
4. Subtle Strikes is a pretty good feature. It's at level 13 though and it replaces Steady Aim which kind of knocks the feature down a bit. It's worth noting the "advantage" occurs when you would already get sneak attack, so it only helps trigger it if you had disadvantage before (and ofc the obvious helps you actually hit the sneak attack).
5. I expect the hide rules to get changed around a bit. Basically, right now it's DC 15 and if you pass your hidden. The rules state that the DM can change the DC depending on the enemies, and I expect quite a few DMs to basically just make it passive perception again.
Personally, if they buffed the rogue subclasses to boost their damage in interesting ways, I'd put it as a net zero. Since thief is terrible, I can't quite say that.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Have you ever played a rogue, BB? have you played with any of the new rules?
2.) Yes, "a d6 and double the chance to Sneak Attack" is a very big deal in early levels. It rapidly stops mattering nearly so much the instant the martials in the party gain access to Extra Attack. I know this because the martials (my paladin and our barbarian) just gained Extra Attack in our Eberron game where we've been using the new Light rule as a houserule for months, and our rogue's damage nigh-instantly became a lot less impressive. Still there, sure, but a lot less impressive. And where rogues do not get one single improvement to their Sneak Attack past first level other than "here's your extra die!" every other level, martials are pretty constantly getting new ways to make their Attack actions hit harder. Especially when most rogues never get to gain any benefit from magic items, weapons, or gear. Hell, one of the
onlypremier Rogue-y magic weapons, the bracer of flying daggers? Now completely useless for rogues because they can't Sneak Attack with it.3.) Precisely none of the Thief's abilities aid it in combat. That's never been the Thief's job, but debuting the rogue subclass that is by far the weakest in a scrap was not necessarily the wisest idea. The one thing Thief had going for it that really helped it out in fights, being able to [Tooltip Not Found] as a bonus action, is gone - and as stated, neither parties nor DMs ever let rogues have magical swag, so their ability to attune to and/or use magical equipment better is meaningless.
4.) If a rogue and their party haven't figured out a means of getting Sneak Attack to work mostly reliably by 13th level, this won't help. Yeah, Pack Tactics is great. It's also a high-level feature almost nobody ever gets to use, and it's STILL dependent on the rogue targeting crap somebody else is already fighting. It's a nothingburger.
5.) Hide has a set DC, which makes it more reliable but also significantly more boring. Why even have Perception if neither we nor the enemy can use it to reveal hidden things/attackers anymore? Hiding from a dragon should be more difficult than hiding from a zombie.
Please do not contact or message me.
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
Yurei, the whole point of UA is to get feedback, to change, and to ultimately end up with the best overall product. Some of these changes may not be as big or make Rogue as cool as you want. But as I've explained numerous times already, these changes can not be made while allowing Sneak Attack to be used multiple times per round.
What you don't seem to be realizing is that you are arguing for the exact opposite thing you said you wanted; if you want Rogue to be better for everyone, then this change needs to be made. If you want Rogue to be cooler and awesomer and greater and better or whatever adjustment you want to make to bring its overall power level up, then this change needs to be made. If you think Rogue hasn't been buffed enough, then fill out the survey and say so. But this thread is only about one change in particular, and that change enables all the other changes you wanted. So why in the world are you complaining about that change?
And if you think Rogue's overall power level needs to be brought up even more in combat. Do remember that Wizards may well buff it up to that power level in future UA's and for the ultimate end result of 1DD. So give your feedback on buffing Rogue, the new change makes taking that feedback actually possible.
PS- Just a reminder, as Damian_Magecraft said, it is important to remember that a Rogue's role is not only to do things in combat but also to do things outside of it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Technically, stealth vs perception contests still exist in a way. "With the Hide Action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must make a DC 15 Dexterity Check (Stealth) while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you are Hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception)." So instead of making a contest against every single guard on your way (with a potential chance to roll low), you set a DC once and then only enemies roll to spot you. A dragon will overcome this DC way easier than a zombie.
The problem is that the creature has to take an action now, so unless the creature has a bonus/legendary action perception roll, they won't ever be able to see and attack the rogue, because the rogue will hide again before their next action.
The counter to this, however, is that being hidden apparently doesn't actually cause your enemy to not k now where you are any more, so they can just attack you at disadvantage (in fact, unless they've changed how heavy obscurement works, hiding when heavily obscured is completely pointless, because it doesn't have any effects that aren't already given for being heavily obscured).
"Ending the Condition. The Condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an Attack Roll, you cast a Spell with a verbal component, or you aren’t Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover.". Hidden condition ends if you're within enemy's line of sight and you're not obscured or behind cover. So it makes sense that an enemy will have to spend some time and effort to find you in pitch black darkness or thick fog, or realize which cover you're crouching behind. I don't even think that hidden condition has to give enemies a disadvantage on attacks, because the condition itself ends when you do anything to give out your position, otherwise the enemy wouldn't know where to aim at all. Hidden condition is pretty easy to break.
All we can go on is what they have released for the experts and both the ranger and bard will be better in fights than the rogue and better out of fights than the rogue. So even just among experts and not looking at potential warrior tier classes they look bad.
then judge it on that criteria and not some Imagined yet never existed combat monster criteria.
What I think? no matter how much kvetching the player base makes the second sneak attack is gone for good. It is clear it was never meant to be a thing in the first place. so lets just move on to what we can change. And no that does not mean start round 2 (or what ever number we are on now) of "whaaaaaa! they took away my cheesed 2nd Sneak Attack!
It means what else is wrong what makes it not feel like it is balanced with the other two Experts?
All right.
What is the rogue's intended function?
If the rogue is not intended to be viable in combat:
A.) That should change, because all classes need a role in combat. Nor can it be a minor one.
B.) What is the rogue's role? It cannot be noncombat utility, because the lack of tool skills and utility magic nullifies it for the task. It cannot be exploration, because rangers exist. It cannot be 'The Social Pillar', because the entire Charisma ******** of castybois exists. What is the rogue's role?
Please do not contact or message me.
First You need to stop and define viable.
is it to produce as much damage as the fighter per turn/round? (Kinda detracts from the fighter dont you think?)
Be able to match the damage output of a fireball engulfing 3 npcs upon a single target? (and they say Wizards need yet another nerf...)
Cause news flash Even back in the day when the class was first introduced? yeah... it was never meant to be a combat god.
3.x broken MC Builds created that myth.
I imagine it is what it was originally intended to be: Scout, trap detection/removal, and all around skill monkey.
Which means that in point of fact the Rogue is trying to be some odd spelless combination of the Ranger and the Bard: IE: a class that can cover both the exploration and the Social pillars in a pinch. (and if you think spells make the casters gods of social? clearly you are forgetting how without metamagic bullpuckery going on magic is a tad on the obvious side.)
Seriously why would anyone trust the dude who just started doing Turbo Naruto ninja handsigns and spouting gibberish words right before trying to "talk" his way past the doorman? (while the doorman might be charmed, what are the odds his boss or buddies didnt catcth the show the caster put on first?)
I believe it was discussed earlier in this thread, and if not this one then elsewhere, that D&D parties do not allow their rogues to scout, and/or do any other Rogue Shit(TM). Parties assume every rogue ever is going to be a thieving trolling Chaotic ******* and mandate that the thief never leave their sight for longer than thirty seconds. A rogue that's more than a hundred feet away from the bulk of the party is a rogue that's getting strip searched and interrogated in a cell by her own party for an hour when she gets back.
So good to know that a core part of the class identity for an entire class is "deal with a moderate inconvenience that happens maybe three times a campaign unless you're playing That One Book." Trap detection/removal is a nonfactor. It's a nonthing. It's such a niche role that no one of any sense would hire someone for their adventure to do nothing but handle traps. And frankly, PSA: anyone can 'detect' traps. You don't need Thieves' Tools proficiency to search for them, you need Perception or Investigation depending on the DM/trap, and after that there's always the "throw a rock at it from the next room" option for 'removal'.
To the best of my knowledge, most Old Head D&D guys actively dislike skillmonkeys. Players who try to acquire multiple proficiencies, beyond the base four available to class and background, are frowned upon as "spotlight-hogging primadonnas" trying to claim more than their fair share of the game. Never mind that an entire class group, this "Expert" group, is dedicated to them. I've seen quite a few players on this board dismiss and denigrate skillmonkeys and claim that any group of four ordinary, non-skillmonkey characters has everything they could possibly need covered if they coordinate their skills properly.
Is this the extent of what the rogue should be doing? And furthermore, yes - yes, the rogue should be able to produce roughly as much damage in a given round as a fighter. Because the fighter has much better armor, higher HP, generally better/earlier access to magic weapons, and does not have any restrictions on its target selection. The rogue does not get to attack freely - it has to acquire Sneak Attack damage one way or another, and doing so often heavily constrains its target selection. Those don't get to be brushed off as inconsequential deficits.
Anyways. Look - all we need is a change in wording to "once per turn
(or round, if you want to be stingy)when you make an attack with a Finesse or Ranged weapon on your turn, or when you make an attack of opportunity, you can deal Sneak Attack damage." Frankly I'd prefer for Sneak to trigger on any one-handed attack with a weapon the rogue is proficient with - billyclubbing a muhfugger over the back of the brainpan should be just as valid as a shiv to the ribs - but I'll take lifting the restriction on the strike needing to come from The Attack Action. Let me Sneak Attack with a bracer of flying daggers, or a scimitar of speed if I can get proficiency. Let me Sneak Attack off of a Blade cantrip. Let me do the freaking cool shit I can already do that isn't causing any issues in R5e.Please do not contact or message me.
Dont let Yurei's Hyperbole fool you.
It is no where near as bad as she is projecting it to be. In fact if you go up thread and look where she suggests? I describe a typical rogue/party interaction at my table and somehow she contrived that to mean that all Rogue players are either toxic @$$#@+$ that are just out to troll the tables and ruin it for the rogues that dont. And the other type? Well... poor downtrodden and oppressed innocent players who have no idea why they are not being allowed to do rogue like things. (Yeah right... every table I have sat at with a rogue has the rule of "don't $#!+ where you eat" IE: the Wheaton Rule is in effect. If your Rogue is not being allowed to Rogue? Ever? The Problem is probably not with the table... just sayin.)
In 0th ed, Becmi, 1st, and 2nd if the rogue was able to produce 1/2 the damage of the party fighter it was an impressive "back stab" roll.
Not until 3.x and the munchkining bah-roh-ken builds of it did we start to see Rouges doing Nova Damage in one attack for as much if not more damage than the Fighter, Paladin, and Blaster Caster combined.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. The community at large has alot of opinions but often it isn't the mechanics that are the problem. Role-playing encourages players to become designers but steps away from adequate training or analysis.
In all three pillars every class (subclass) should have its own role. The reason to play a fighter isn't just a damage monopoly. It's to play an archetype. Fighters have military experience or reputation to leverage socially. Can a fighter scout? Absolutely but Some routes to a goal are better served by some classes than others. How does your character do a task? That's the real question.
Frankly a huge part of the rogue is the glass cannon damage. lots of Damage is even more important to rogue archetype than rangers or even fighters.
These adjustments directly affect the narrative fantasy many rogues have enjoyed at many dnd tables over the years. Part of being a cheating rogue fantasy is working hard to squeeze out extra cheep shots as often as possible.
Post script: I shouldn't stand up for rogue they are in my bottom 5 classes. I have only really played one and it was a multi-class sorcerer.
Rogue absolutely must be viable in combat, and I'll never understand people who say that rogue is supposed to be weaker than a fighter. In amount of options in combat - perhaps, because battlefield is fighters' domain after all, but in terms of damage output, rogue must compete, otherwise, what's the point in playing a ****** skillmonkey? That said, however, I don't think WotC is going to let us do two sneak attacks per round. The gap between using that legal exploit and not using it was too huge, literally double your output. But I believe they gotta compensate. Rogue must get stronger, or gain some utility/control in combat to justify lacking damage. Distractions, crippling enemies, disrupting stuff. That would take quite some work, though.
I would argue that rogue's part is actually exploration, because rogue is mostly about getting to places others can not and obtaining information - these activities belong to exploration department. Also, just take expertise in survival and boom, you're diet ranger.
Not to nit pic but in 1e the thief's backstab was god tier. It was between x2-x5 damage and that was total damage, thieves likely had a good dex(fighters should as well given how often strength items were handed out) so could two weapon fight with minimal penalty. Wear strength items hopefully eventually giant strength and start hitting for stupid damage the fighter did not compete with. short sword 1d6, gauntlets of ogre power+6 so 9ish .9x2-5, when the game got high level and girdles of giant strength were being handed out the first person we handed it to was the thief, when the damage is +13 from magical sword and girdle of giant strength even if it was daggers making that 15 damage when its x4 and they got two attacks off it was brutal. And this was before THAC0, it has a sort of weird math where a total roll of 20 after modifiers pretty much hit anything. Add in the low HP of most monsters even dragons and you'd be one shotting a decent clip of them. Best on dual class fighter/thieves with weapon mastery but that's getting to ultra cheese. BECMI capped it at x2,(but fighters didn't really get multiple attacks normally so it was still good comparatively), they sucked at their role in both becmi and 1e. 2e I think it only multiplied base weapon damage but at least they got competent at their core roles since they could really focus on the skills they needed.
3e their intended role at least per the designers at the time was high DPS they wanted it to be the highest, but the math never panned out 3/4 bab with -5 per attack just made them pretty bad. 4e they were balanced and were one of the strikers of the game so were supposed to be the highest damage dealers. Personally I think with how 4e was designed and the obscenely high HP of enemies, striker was the most important role,. My understanding was that was a math mistake and supposedly fixed late 4e. I doubt they ever got controllers on par with the rest though, they were very focused on making their effects really minor, difficult terrain in small areas type stuff, where it really needed the DM to be generous on designing battlefields with enemy placement beneficial to the controllers attempts at contrbuting. 5e, they never really went into class intent as far as i know other than the fighter was supposed to be the best fighter but that is sort of vague.
So going over the editions I think only maybe becmi and 2e were they designed in a way where high damage was not the intent. 5e, maybe not highest but then again maybe they were as the core game does not have feats etc. Even with one sneak attack a round they are doing pretty good vs the other martials with no feats especially if we are only looking at the early subclasses.
6e, they are not being classed as strikers but as expert, but wtf that means we still don't know outside they all have expertise.
I wish they would have more transparency on the design goals here.