Just asking as someone who almost always has been playing Rogues/thieves/etc... since the Fantasy supplement to Chainmail for about 50 years and is in complete agreement with Yurei, how often do you (BB) play a Thief or even Rogue?
I do not play Rangers or Bards so have kept my pen out of discussions on them.
Rogues and thieves, I know well, and to a much lesser degree Magic users.
I would like to know, if you do not mind saying how much of your opinion is based on you playing Rogues vs watching someone playing one in your group?
I do remember the years when nobody wanted a rogue in their groups (really lousy damage output, glass cannons and all their skills could be done just as well by Rangers and Bards) and that is what I see coming back with the "Expert" class groupings and the changes to hide, use an object, Sneak Attack and the UMD lack of wording on ignoring all restrictions.
Rangers and Bards and no doubt Artificers all getting more expertise build in more and unless they eliminate a certain spell I can see groups not picking up rogues at all after if these changes go in as written..
To the point most groups are about combat and I have no doubt at all from my 50 years of experience if this play test gets locked in it's going to be a bad couple of years for Rogues getting into online groups regardless of what someone famous says is their favorite class.
I also see big issues with the change to UMD and hiding that most are missing but am keeping that for later.
Just asking as someone who almost always has been playing Rogues/thieves/etc... since the Fantasy supplement to Chainmail for about 50 years and is in complete agreement with Yurei, how often do you (BB) play a Thief or even Rogue?
I would like to know, if you do not mind saying how much of your opinion is based on you playing Rogues vs watching someone playing one in your group?
I have not played a Rogue (yet), though I have routinely played in groups with one This is why I waited until I heard more voices -- on the now "New UA" mega-thread -- about this from people who had played Rogue, who shared a similar perspective to mine. That being said, as demonstrated by the edits to my original post, my perspective on this matter has changed, albeit slightly, after a heard some other voices from people who had routinely played Rogue, offering different opinions on this thread. Just because I have not played a Rogue does not mean I cannot have an opinion on matters related to them, that being said, as I stated earlier in this post, I have and will continue to take into account that my perspective does have small limitations due to this.
Thematically, an Attack of Opportunity makes more sense than any other form of action to get your Sneak Attack. No one should turn their back on a Rogue. It's a very flavorful concept, and it doesn't come up very often. If they don't want it to work with things like Commander's Strike, then just change the description of the maneuver to call it something other than an Attack of Opportunity. But I don't really even have a problem with the maneuver either since it has a high cost and promotes teamwork.
I didn't like this change at all in the beginning. But the more I think about it, the more I think I understand it at least. I really believe their goal is to bring character damage into a more consistent range. You can't balance character abilities or encounters if some rogue builds do 20 damage a round, and others to 100 at the same level. I think this is the same reason they changed the big, swingy damage bonus of feats like great weapon master into a more reliable, linear number.
I have played rogues, and run games with rogues since 1st edition. My current group in 5e has the strongest one I've ever seen. He is optimized for burst damage and can destroy monsters in one shot. He does significantly more damage than any other character in the group. I have to take this in account for every combat I plan. Now, the other played don't mind. They are very happy he is there. And I've been DMing long enough that it's not a problem for me to work with it. But I imagine a new DM would be very overwhelmed. And you can't make CR function with a party disparity this large in the slightest.
WotC wants to know the average damage a class can do in a round so they can make a CR system we don't all hate. They want to be able to add spells and abilities without worrying that some builds will break the game with them. I get that. And I agree.
I still think a rogue should be able to sneak attack on their Attack action, AND an Attack of Opportunity if it presents itself (not just any Reaction) That's it. Weapon cantrips don't really matter. Held actions and Haste tricks aren't needed either. Fix the wordings on those things and close the loopholes. But rogues should at least be able to do the basics.
They took away Steady Aim, and made Hiding potentially very restrictive. In 5e, it's easy to get at least 1 sneak attack every round. But it might not be so easy in the next version. So, honestly, the rare cases you get an Attack of Opportunity should balance out the rounds you couldn't get it in your regular attack. And that means more consistent numbers for game balance calculations.
In summary, I understand why they want the change. And I mostly agree. But I think rogues still need either the Attack of Opportunity option back, or an increase to the Sneak Attack damage.
Just asking as someone who almost always has been playing Rogues/thieves/etc... since the Fantasy supplement to Chainmail for about 50 years and is in complete agreement with Yurei, how often do you (BB) play a Thief or even Rogue?
I do not play Rangers or Bards so have kept my pen out of discussions on them.
Rogues and thieves, I know well, and to a much lesser degree Magic users.
I would like to know, if you do not mind saying how much of your opinion is based on you playing Rogues vs watching someone playing one in your group?
I do remember the years when nobody wanted a rogue in their groups (really lousy damage output, glass cannons and all their skills could be done just as well by Rangers and Bards) and that is what I see coming back with the "Expert" class groupings and the changes to hide, use an object, Sneak Attack and the UMD lack of wording on ignoring all restrictions.
Rangers and Bards and no doubt Artificers all getting more expertise build in more and unless they eliminate a certain spell I can see groups not picking up rogues at all after if these changes go in as written..
To the point most groups are about combat and I have no doubt at all from my 50 years of experience if this play test gets locked in it's going to be a bad couple of years for Rogues getting into online groups regardless of what someone famous says is their favorite class.
I also see big issues with the change to UMD and hiding that most are missing but am keeping that for later.
I think most aren’t concerned with the UMD change because it was mostly a non factor. Yes it’s cool if your DM lets you get a staff of healing or a staff of power, but most of the newer magic items are too class specific. They literally boost things specific to the class. Things the respond to using metamagics or using spellslots don’t matter to the thief.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just asking as someone who almost always has been playing Rogues/thieves/etc... since the Fantasy supplement to Chainmail for about 50 years and is in complete agreement with Yurei, how often do you (BB) play a Thief or even Rogue?
I do not play Rangers or Bards so have kept my pen out of discussions on them.
Rogues and thieves, I know well, and to a much lesser degree Magic users.
I would like to know, if you do not mind saying how much of your opinion is based on you playing Rogues vs watching someone playing one in your group?
I do remember the years when nobody wanted a rogue in their groups (really lousy damage output, glass cannons and all their skills could be done just as well by Rangers and Bards) and that is what I see coming back with the "Expert" class groupings and the changes to hide, use an object, Sneak Attack and the UMD lack of wording on ignoring all restrictions.
Rangers and Bards and no doubt Artificers all getting more expertise build in more and unless they eliminate a certain spell I can see groups not picking up rogues at all after if these changes go in as written..
To the point most groups are about combat and I have no doubt at all from my 50 years of experience if this play test gets locked in it's going to be a bad couple of years for Rogues getting into online groups regardless of what someone famous says is their favorite class.
I also see big issues with the change to UMD and hiding that most are missing but am keeping that for later.
I have not played a Rogue (yet), though I have routinely played in groups with one This is why I waited until I heard more voices -- on the now "New UA" mega-thread -- about this from people who had played Rogue, who shared a similar perspective to mine. That being said, as demonstrated by the edits to my original post, my perspective on this matter has changed, albeit slightly, after a heard some other voices from people who had routinely played Rogue, offering different opinions on this thread. Just because I have not played a Rogue does not mean I cannot have an opinion on matters related to them, that being said, as I stated earlier in this post, I have and will continue to take into account that my perspective does have small limitations due to this.
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.Thematically, an Attack of Opportunity makes more sense than any other form of action to get your Sneak Attack. No one should turn their back on a Rogue. It's a very flavorful concept, and it doesn't come up very often. If they don't want it to work with things like Commander's Strike, then just change the description of the maneuver to call it something other than an Attack of Opportunity. But I don't really even have a problem with the maneuver either since it has a high cost and promotes teamwork.
I didn't like this change at all in the beginning. But the more I think about it, the more I think I understand it at least. I really believe their goal is to bring character damage into a more consistent range. You can't balance character abilities or encounters if some rogue builds do 20 damage a round, and others to 100 at the same level. I think this is the same reason they changed the big, swingy damage bonus of feats like great weapon master into a more reliable, linear number.
I have played rogues, and run games with rogues since 1st edition. My current group in 5e has the strongest one I've ever seen. He is optimized for burst damage and can destroy monsters in one shot. He does significantly more damage than any other character in the group. I have to take this in account for every combat I plan. Now, the other played don't mind. They are very happy he is there. And I've been DMing long enough that it's not a problem for me to work with it. But I imagine a new DM would be very overwhelmed. And you can't make CR function with a party disparity this large in the slightest.
WotC wants to know the average damage a class can do in a round so they can make a CR system we don't all hate. They want to be able to add spells and abilities without worrying that some builds will break the game with them. I get that. And I agree.
I still think a rogue should be able to sneak attack on their Attack action, AND an Attack of Opportunity if it presents itself (not just any Reaction) That's it. Weapon cantrips don't really matter. Held actions and Haste tricks aren't needed either. Fix the wordings on those things and close the loopholes. But rogues should at least be able to do the basics.
They took away Steady Aim, and made Hiding potentially very restrictive. In 5e, it's easy to get at least 1 sneak attack every round. But it might not be so easy in the next version. So, honestly, the rare cases you get an Attack of Opportunity should balance out the rounds you couldn't get it in your regular attack. And that means more consistent numbers for game balance calculations.
In summary, I understand why they want the change. And I mostly agree. But I think rogues still need either the Attack of Opportunity option back, or an increase to the Sneak Attack damage.
I think most aren’t concerned with the UMD change because it was mostly a non factor. Yes it’s cool if your DM lets you get a staff of healing or a staff of power, but most of the newer magic items are too class specific. They literally boost things specific to the class. Things the respond to using metamagics or using spellslots don’t matter to the thief.