rogue/fighter class feature swap, is it balanced

[Camman1984]

Am thinking of asking my GM for this swap as i want to play a rogue (probably thief style) but have never really liked the "every rogue is a master of the precision strike" thing with sneak attack. I want a dashing thief/dervish kind of fighting style on a mobile sneaky git platform.

What i want to do is follows

Take rogue, remove sneak attack, add fighter extra attack progression, job done.

before i ask for it i wanted to get a general consensus, would this be balanced, will he throw the rulebook at me and call me a munchkin? Would you let me play it? Would i need to remove something else from the rogue, or even add something. (I like the flavour enough to be mildy underpowered with it but not gimped).

[calebrus]

Full sneak attack progression with a single attack and the fighter's multiple attacks are balanced against each other. Swapping them should be fine from a balance perspective.

[SharkForce]

my guess is that it will represent a DPR boost, based on fighter at-will DPR generally being higher than rogue at-will DPR.

whether or not that bothers your DM is up to him.

(having said that, that is likely not nearly as much the case when you go for a dex build... a big chunk of fighter DPR comes from using weapons like greatswords and polearms, which are not exactly ideal for a dex-based build).

(and having said that, it sounds like you could just a monk with the criminal background and get most of what you want... way of the shadow monks are *very* sneaky, and front-loads your extra attacks)

[calebrus]

(and having said that, it sounds like you could just a monk with the criminal background and get most of what you want... way of the shadow monks are *very* sneaky, and front-loads your extra attacks)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with SharkForce. :smallbiggrin:
Shadow Monk is actually a better choice for the concept, I think. They're even more mobile than Rogues are.

[Person_Man]

I think you'd also need to give the Rogue Fighting Style, and then you'd be fine.

Rogue/Sneak Attack deals massive critical and Reaction attack damage against a small number of targets.

Fighter/Style/Extra Attack deals slightly higher and more reliable damage against one or multiple targets.

In my mind, they're basically interchangable.

[Mara]

I would not allow the swap. It seems too strong to me.

[Camman1984]

I see what you mean looking at the shadow monk but i really want to be a rogue with the things that entails, rather than all the ki stuff and zen stuff.

What i had planned was a 'gunslinger' rogue with dual hand crossbows with thief archetype for rapid climbing, and stealing stuff etc. then probably roll and eladrin with misty step reskinned as shadow step but insure on race.

I guess i kind of like assassins creed black flag and wanted a pistol based thief scaling walls etc.

Any suggestions how i could adjust my swap to make it taste better for gm (if you feel dpr would be increased too much)

[calebrus]

I see what you mean looking at the shadow monk but i really want to be a rogue with the things that entails, rather than all the ki stuff and zen stuff.

What i had planned was a 'gunslinger' rogue with dual hand crossbows with thief archetype for rapid climbing, and stealing stuff etc. then probably roll and eladrin with misty step reskinned as shadow step but insure on race.

I guess i kind of like assassins creed black flag and wanted a pistol based thief scaling walls etc.

Any suggestions how i could adjust my swap to make it taste better for gm (if you feel dpr would be increased too much)

If that's all you're after (with the crossbows), just take 5 levels of something for extra attack. With your bonus action included, that's three attacks, which is as many attacks as a 19th level fighter, but you'd still get 7 or 8d6 of sneak attack as well, depending on how you finished.
A multiclass does everything you want, and it makes one of those three hits a big one, while the other two are exactly as powerful as they would have otherwise been.


I would not allow the swap. It seems too strong to me.

It's not too strong. Technically it's weaker.

Greatsword fighter: (2d6+5)*4 = ~48
XbXpert fighter: (1d6+5)*5 = ~42.5
Rapier rogue: 1d8+5 +10d6 = ~44.5
XbXprt normal rogue: (1d6+5)*2 +10d6 = ~52
XbXprt rogue as proposed: (1d6+5)*5 = ~42.5, same as XbX fighter, lower than every single other entry here.

Like I said, the fighter's multiple attacks and a single full power sneak attack are balanced against each other, so swapping them makes little difference.

[Dontdestroyme]

I would not allow the swap. It seems too strong to me.

I agree. On the surface maybe the damage doesn't look too different, but rogue gets so many more defensive and skill options than a fighter that I don't think it makes sense to give a rogue the meat of the fighter class. The fighters extra attacks past two are their ridiculous ability that they get. Rogues have a ton of other tricks.

If you want to make a fighter rogue you should either make a battlemaster dex fighter or multiclass.

[PeterM]

I don't much care about the relative power levels, but I don't think a rogue should get as many attacks as a fighter. Four attacks is a fighter thing, pure and simple. Limit the rogue to three total attacks and it wouldn't bug me, though it'd probably bug anyone playing a ranger or paladin.

[D-naras]

The problem with the swap is that at levels 11 and 20, the attack is what the fighter gets and is really happy about it too. The rogue on those same levels gets reliable talent which is an amazing ability on its own, an extra die when sneak attacking and stroke of luck as a capstone. As you can see, a straight swap will make you almost as good as a fighter at fighting AND the best skill user in the game. If your table is ok with that then go for it. Personally, as a DM, I would ask the player if he would be ok replacing his 10th level ASI for reliable talent and get the 3rd attack at 11th level and flat out replace stroke of luck for that 4th attack if we ever reach level 20.

[Chronos]

Think of it this way: Would you consider it balanced to take a fighter, and replace his fighting style, action surge, indomitable, and one ASI with two extra skills, expertise, cunning action, uncanny dodge, evasion, reliable talent, blindsense, slippery mind, elusive, and stroke of luck? Put that way, it looks like you're getting a lot more than you're giving up, but it amounts to the same thing as the swap you proposed. The fighter's extra attack is actually a major chunk of his class abilities.

[Camman1984]

Well, i got the general consensus i was looking for (although not the one i wanted) thanks :).

back to the drawing board, i may just have to go for the fighter/rogue MC option.

[Tenmujiin]

Well, i got the general consensus i was looking for (although not the one i wanted) thanks :).

back to the drawing board, i may just have to go for the fighter/rogue MC option.

People are giving a kneejerk response to you wanting the "main draw" of the fighter but if you actually run the numbers for a rogue and ignore the fighter you are losing out on damage:


Greatsword fighter: (2d6+5)*4 = ~48
XbXpert fighter: (1d6+5)*5 = ~42.5
Rapier rogue: 1d8+5 +10d6 = ~44.5
XbXprt normal rogue: (1d6+5)*2 +10d6 = ~52
XbXprt rogue as proposed: (1d6+5)*5 = ~42.5, same as XbX fighter, lower than every single other entry here.

So comparing your crossbow expert rogue to a standard crossbow expert rogue you are losing 10 DPR and some reliability (normal rogues simply need to land a single attack per round to get the majority of their DPS while you need to land 4). Taking sharpshooter puts you ahead in DPS (72 normal rogue vs 82.5 your rogue) but again the reliability of the normal rogue's attacks makes this about even IMO. So just because people consider the 4 attacks to be the fighter's main shtick they would not be overpowered on a rogue since you are not gaining an increase in character power.

Since lv 20 builds are unrealistic IMO I'll quickly do the maths for lv5 and 11 builds:
lv5
XbXprt normal rogue: (1d6+4)*2 +3d6 = ~24.5
XbXprt fighter progression rogue: (1d6+4)*3 = ~21.5

So slightly weaker at lv5

lv11 - without sharpshooter
XbXprt normal rogue: (1d6+5)*2 +6d6 = ~38
XbXprt fighter progression rogue: (1d6+5)*4 = ~34

Again, slightly weaker at lv11

lv11 - with sharpshooter
XbXprt normal rogue: (1d6+15)*2 +6d6 = ~58
XbXprt fighter progression rogue: (1d6+15)*4 = ~78

Sharpshooter does pull ahead but is at the cost of -5 to hit (which I honestly can not be bothered to factor in) and probably wouldn't be used on a normal rogue.

So this rogue is weaker at all levels than a normal rogue but will scale harder off any per-hit boosts after lv5 but gets much worse on any turn that the character gets a reaction attack. I see nothing wrong with it so long as the other players realise it is actually a nerf to your character.


Edit: I say ignore the fighter because if the only reason to play a fighter is to get damage which is worse than a rogue then the class needs a complete redesign. I realise that the other fighter features mean that fighters do have higher DPR (martial weapon proficiency, fighting styles) and are tankier (heavy armor, second wind) and can burst harder (action surge) but the point is that the OP isn't asking for any of these, he is asking for four attacks which will net him a decrease in damage and so should not be considered based on what other classes have. Anyone who says that he needs to give something up, HE IS. He is losing damage compared to a normal rogue in return for a more thematically suitable DPR feature for his character.

[SharkForce]

so long as you stick to certain weapons, the damage won't increase.

i suspect that if you change it to someone using a greatsword or a polearm (with appropriate feat support), you may very well gain damage.

for this specific concept? yeah, you could probably get away with it. as a general swap? my gut says no.

[Theodoxus]

3.5 had a variant that swapped sneak for fighter BAB in UA. This is not much different. Would need to probably put some parameters around it; maybe allow extra attacks to only work with finesse weapons - keeps the relative cheese down from going great weapon / polearm mastery, etc - while still encouraging dueling/dual wield builds that are more iconic rogue styles.

[Camman1984]

I would be more than happy to limit myself to dexterity based weapons, dont see my rogue messing about with great weapons. I think i am gonna send my dm over here to see this discussion.

[Safety Sword]

so long as you stick to certain weapons, the damage won't increase.

i suspect that if you change it to someone using a greatsword or a polearm (with appropriate feat support), you may very well gain damage.

for this specific concept? yeah, you could probably get away with it. as a general swap? my gut says no.

I have issue with this kind of rule bending. Rules should apply to all weapons or situations in the game and not have to limit the character weapon choices to make the house rule work. If this is the case the new rule is probably broken.

There are several examples of this kind of thinking on these forums and they all end up at the same point, you need to self-impose restrictions on the character to play it without breaking the combat system.

That kind of self-regulation shouldn't be required, the rules should set the boundaries.

Edit: An example; What if later on a rogue in your campaign was to decide to take a level in fighter for a very good reason (training by a master swordsman of the realm, blah blah, whatever)? Now the character has all of the proficiencies to break the combat system open but your self-imposed weapon limit restricts the choices that can be made. As a player, that sucks. As the DM, I've created my own mess. It's pretty hard for me to justify this kind of rule change when you can multiclass to get a rules legal character with the same concept.

[SharkForce]

I have issue with this kind of rule bending. Rules should apply to all weapons or situations in the game and not have to limit the character weapon choices to make the house rule work. If this is the case the new rule is probably broken.

There are several examples of this kind of thinking on these forums and they all end up at the same point, you need to self-impose restrictions on the character to play it without breaking the combat system.

That kind of self-regulation shouldn't be required, the rules should set the boundaries.

uh-huh.

that must be why monks can use greataxes, and rogues can sneak attack with any weapon, and paladins can smite with a bow, and barbarians deal rage bonus damage with javelins, and the crossbow mastery bonus attack can be made with heavy crossbows, right? oh, what's that you say? they can't? huh. it's almost like this exact same sort of idea is used extensively in the game already.

there's plenty of other stuff that is balanced under the assumption that you can only use certain weapons to do them. if there is a difference between "i will let you play this character as long as you promise to only use a certain subset of weapons" and "you can only use this ability with a certain subset of weapons", the problem is not game balance, the problem is with the players.

[Safety Sword]

uh-huh.

that must be why monks can use greataxes, and rogues can sneak attack with any weapon, and paladins can smite with a bow, and barbarians deal rage bonus damage with javelins, and the crossbow mastery bonus attack can be made with heavy crossbows, right? oh, what's that you say? they can't? huh. it's almost like this exact same sort of idea is used extensively in the game already.

there's plenty of other stuff that is balanced under the assumption that you can only use certain weapons to do them. if there is a difference between "i will let you play this character as long as you promise to only use a certain subset of weapons" and "you can only use this ability with a certain subset of weapons", the problem is not game balance, the problem is with the players.

The problem is actually that all of that already exists in the rules and has been accounted for, you then change the rules and allow the restrictions to be broken. I hear what you're saying, but as I point out, the restrictions are already in place and combat is balanced around them.

Players will use whatever rules are available. If you make rules changes as the DM and you break it, you bought it.

You shouldn't need to make exceptions that state you can only use certain sub-sets of the weapons table and leave it to the players to self-regulate. The rule should spell it out so that when you follow the rules the regulation is already happening. It's the same thing you're saying, I just think that the rule should be explicit (like they mostly are) and I think that you would rather place the onus of not breaking the game on the players.

[SharkForce]

i don't think not breaking the game should be on the players.

i do think that if you go to your DM and specifically say "hey, can i make this ability swap" and your DM says "yes, but only if you <insert limitation>", then it is that specific player's responsibility to abide by that limitation. there's a difference between something that is a general rule, and something that you specifically requested and received conditional permission for.

[Boci]

The problem is actually that all of that already exists in the rules and has been accounted for, you then change the rules and allow the restrictions to be broken. I hear what you're saying, but as I point out, the restrictions are already in place and combat is balanced around them.

Players will use whatever rules are available. If you make rules changes as the DM and you break it, you bought it.

You shouldn't need to make exceptions that state you can only use certain sub-sets of the weapons table and leave it to the players to self-regulate. The rule should spell it out so that when you follow the rules the regulation is already happening. It's the same thing you're saying, I just think that the rule should be explicit (like they mostly are) and I think that you would rather place the onus of not breaking the game on the players.

This is a great attitude for game design as a whole, but when it comes to house rules, this attitude is no better than the one that permits it. Some groups will be okay with a PC being a noble/chieften, some will require some parameters for what they do with their status and wealth, others won't allow it at all. There is no right answer when it comes to a single group.

[Safety Sword]

i don't think not breaking the game should be on the players.

i do think that if you go to your DM and specifically say "hey, can i make this ability swap" and your DM says "yes, but only if you <insert limitation>", then it is that specific player's responsibility to abide by that limitation. there's a difference between something that is a general rule, and something that you specifically requested and received conditional permission for.

Agreed, but what will happen is that that conditional approval is now limiting your character options. That takes away options.

I also think it's bad practice to allow one player or character to break the rules and gain mechanical benefit. It breaks the consistency of the rules and that means that none of the players are sure how exactly combat is going to be played out.

This was played out in another thread, but something as simple as allowing one character to sneak attack with a specific cantrip changes the way combat works. If that character and that cantrip allow sneak attack, then why not all cantrips for that character? Why not all characters with that class and cantrips? You're taking the Slippery Slope Feat.

To be fair to my players they should know how these things work and make characters they think are fun. They shouldn't be making a character on the assumption that the rules will change to accommodate the character. That makes an inconsistent world and gaming table.

It can also be construed as favouritism toward certain players or characters, because frankly, it is. Issues abound.


This is a great attitude for game design as a whole, but when it comes to house rules, this attitude is no better than the one that permits it. Some groups will be okay with a PC being a noble/chieften, some will require some parameters for what they do with their status and wealth, others won't allow it at all. There is no right answer when it comes to a single group.

Of course. Your magic elves are my enchanted dwarves. But I'm talking about the fundamental rules of the system. The things that actually make the game that is named D&D 5E. If you mess with those, you're not even playing the same game any more.

House rules are just that. But if you give a fighter the features of a rogue it's not longer a fighter. It's a new class. When you say your character is a 5th Level Fighter, I should have a reasonable knowledge of with that is, because I can find it in the rule book. Everyone at my table should be familiar with it.

If you're playing a homebrewed class, fine, but call a spade a spade so I can call a fighter a fighter, a rogue a rogue or a rouge a rouge..

And DM Responsibly.

[Boci]

This was played out in another thread, but something as simple as allowing one character to sneak attack with a specific cantrip changes the way combat works. If that character and that cantrip allow sneak attack, then why not all cantrips for that character? Why not all characters with that class and cantrips? You're taking the Slippery Slope Feat.

And what were the consequences for that house rule? Seems kinda dishonest to bring up the potential problems predicted and then neglect to mention what happened in practice.

[Safety Sword]

And what were the consequences for that house rule? Seems kinda dishonest to bring up the potential problems predicted and then neglect to mention what happened in practice.

What happened was that you elected to play nice and restrict yourself to a certain sub-set of weapons in order to not show the broken nature of the rule change.

It doesn't make it a good rule to use in other games because it worked for you. You might have special magic rogue powers in your game, but I still think it's ill thought out. Your were awarded favouritism to break the rules and if I was another player at your table that would annoy me.

[Boci]

What happened was that you elected to play nice and restrict yourself to a certain sub-set of weapons in order to not show the broken nature of the rule change.

It doesn't make it a good rule to use in other games because it worked for you. You might have special magic rogue powers in your game, but I still think it's ill thought out. Your were awarded favouritism to break the rules and if I was another player at your table that would annoy me.

Yes, it would annoy you, but it didn't annoy the other players at the game. I'm not saying my story is proof that this can work flawlessly, just that it is evidence that it can work for select groups. There's nothing wrong with your method, but it isn't the only way to use house rules.

[Safety Sword]

Yes, it would annoy you, but it didn't annoy the other players at the game. I'm not saying my story is proof that this can work flawlessly, just that it is evidence that it can work for select groups. There's nothing wrong with your method, but it isn't the only way to use house rules.

I totally agree and I do not pretend to always be right. House rule away people. Do what you like, just be upfront about it and try not to change things mid-game unless it's a serious rule flaw.

I just think that most players would prefer to have the rules decided before joining a game and making a character, so that they know the game is going to be fair. Or has a chance to be fair up to the start of play at least. I think that as someone who runs the games for others most of the time that they deserve that courtesy.

[SharkForce]

And what were the consequences for that house rule? Seems kinda dishonest to bring up the potential problems predicted and then neglect to mention what happened in practice.

from memory:

problem 1: it represents a sizeable DPR increase because a cantrip does a lot more damage than a weapon attack.
problem 2: if you allow sneak attack with cantrips, a 2 warlock splash adds 90% of rogue DPR to 100% of warlock DPR.

anyways, back to the main point: the player isn't gaining mechanical benefit. sneak attack is better than 4 attacks per melee with no melee riders or damage-boosting class features. the calculations have already been done. 2d6+5 with 10d6 sneak attack is better than 4d6 + 20 with no added bonus. if you add any multiclassing to combo a damage bonus with the extra attacks, there goes attack number 4 anyways.

and yes, this might be a general problem if it was taken universally... which is why it isn't a universal thing. it's specific to a small group of players that play together regularly. i'm not proposing this become a rule allowable in adventurer's league (though if you formally made it finesse weapons and ranged weapons only, i doubt it would change much of anything for AL either).

this entire edition basically has a goal of negligible content updates. you *need* to be able to talk to your DM about changing rules around to fit your character concepts to get the exact fit you want. you can do a lot of things with multiclassing and feats. you cannot do everything. the moment you want something that is not possible (though i still say monk does the whole thing just fine, with some simple name changes; it isn't ki, it's "moxy", or "grit", or "edge", or "daring", or whatever else you want to call it), you either talk to your DM and ask if it's an acceptable change before you make the character, or you just throw that concept in the trash and never get to play it.

one of those routes costs essentially nothing for everyone involved. the other means you have this thing you really want to try out that you can't for no good reason. why on earth would you choose the latter over the former? and even more baffling to me is why you would condemn someone *else* for choosing the latter over the former when it has zero impact on you.

the fighter's extra attacks are nothing special. you wanna know why people multiclass with fighter? because the first few levels are freaking amazing. action surge, second wind, fighting style, armour proficiency, con save proficiency, and the first archetype abilities (champion for people who love crits, battlemaster for people who love maneuvers). *maybe* the extra ASI at 6. that's why you make a fighter.

multiple attacks are what fighters get because they have no other significant DPR-boosting class features, not the fighter class itself.

[Boci]

problem 1: it represents a sizeable DPR increase because a cantrip does a lot more damage than a weapon attack.
problem 2: if you allow sneak attack with cantrips, a 2 warlock splash adds 90% of rogue DPR to 100% of warlock DPR.

Neither of those became an issue. The point was that yes, those two problems are the reasons why on a game design level, SA on spells is bad, but individual groups can potentially give their members more leeway.


I just think that most players would prefer to have the rules decided before joining a game and making a character, so that they know the game is going to be fair.

Ideally sure. But do you never want a DM to then tweak the rule to fit the group once the game starts?

[SharkForce]

Neither of those became an issue. The point was that yes, those two problems are the reasons why on a game design level, SA on spells is bad, but individual groups can potentially give their members more leeway.

huh. did your group not have any characters that had sold all other class features up the creek for DPR (aka: single-classed fighters or barbarians) then?

because i seem to recall mentioning that it would put rogues head and shoulders above pure DPR-builds, but obviously that's only a problem if there are pure DPR-builds to overshadow with it.

[Easy_Lee]

Let's see if I can, mostly, avoid what's already been said.

Should you?
I agree with the others that extra attack (3) is the fighter niche. It's also the fighter's capstone. Were I to do something like this, I would remove stroke of luck.

Is it different from what we have?
Yes. We don't have a skill-monkey class capable of making a full set of attacks. The closest we can do by the RAW is some combination of fighter, barbarian, or ranger with rogue, or a valor bard. Those don't really do what this proposes to do.

Does it eclipse anyone?
Not really. Fighters have higher HP, different saves, several other combat benefits such as indomitable and their fighting styles, and more weapon and armor proficiencies. Rogue sneak attack can be applied on opportunity attacks, a capability that this variant would give up.

Is it strong enough?
I'll assume a fairly standard rogue: Rapier, using the sentinel feat. I'll ignore the possibility of crossbow expert since it's a static benefit:

Normal Rogue: (1d8+5) + (10d6) = 44.5, doubled for rounds with opportunity attacks if the rogue maintains advantage (or has an ally within 5')
Variant Rogue: (1d8+5)*4 = 38, + (1d8+5) for rounds with opportunity attacks

The variant rogue does rougly 85% as much damage. His opportunity attacks are not as powerful. His only advantage is that he can attack more targets and turn some of those attacks into pushes / grapples. Though this tactic would work very well on a rogue with his expertise, it's arguably equivalent to the more powerful opportunity attacks. So I agree with Person_man that adding the fighting style would be more balanced.

Variant Rogue with Fighting Style (dueling): (1d8+5+2)*4 = 46, + (1d8+5+2) (11.5) for rounds with opportunity attacks

Does it do things a normal build cannot
To a certain degree, yes. It's impossible to get this number of attacks while still having expertise, uncanny dodge, elusive, etc. However, we can build something very similar:
Fighter 12 / Rogue 8 With Dueling Fighting Style and Rapier: (1d8+5+2)*3 + 5d6 = 52, + (1d8+5+2+5d6) (29) for rounds with advantaged opportunity attacks.

This build gains extra attack (2), has more hit points, has indomitable and several fighter archetype features, can action surge, has more weapon and armor proficiencies, and so on. It gives up the higher-level rogue abilities like elusive and blindsense, and has only 5d6 worth of sneak attack (half that of a full rogue).

Sneak attack is virtually guaranteed due to making three attacks, one of which could be used to shove the target prone with expertise. This build can hold a shield, or could dual wield more effectively than a normal rogue. It has just as many feats as a pure rogue, one less than a pure fighter, and deals a significant amount of damage with opportunity attacks. Even in a perfect round with an advantaged sneak attack, this build is only 8 points of damage behind a pure rogue.

The addition of fighter archetype features can further push this build ahead. An arcane trickster / eldritch knight variant would have equivalent spell progression, more low level spells known and fewer high level spells known, and could use both mage hand ledgerdemain and battle magic. A champion / thief variant would have critical hits out the whazoo. A battle master / thief variant would have guaranteed sneak attacks and could pick up lots of extra sneak attacks over a typical combat. A champion / assassin variant would have critical hits out the whazoo and, if he picked up alert, would have an unbeatable +13 to initiative rolls via remarkable athlete and max dexterity.

So this build is, arguably, better than either of the above for combat. However, it does not get as many roguish features as a normal rogue would, and may not be what a rogue player is looking for.

Conclusion
As per the spoiler above, we can build a character that does many of the things that your variant proposes, while outperforming it in most ways (in combat, at least). A pure rogue, when built and played correctly, will arguably outperform that build as well. The reason for your variant would be if you wanted a dedicated shove / grapple character with the full set of rogue features, minus sneak attack, since that would be the one area where that build would excel. Even then, a valor bard would probably be better at that with their spells and battle magic.

So, while I think it's balanced, I personally wouldn't play it.

[Safety Sword]

Neither of those became an issue. The point was that yes, those two problems are the reasons why on a game design level, SA on spells is bad, but individual groups can potentially give their members more leeway.



Ideally sure. But do you never want a DM to then tweak the rule to fit the group once the game starts?

Not in the way you're tweaking. If it's a fix for something that's broken or not working as intended, sure.

But that's not our scenario here.

[Giant2005]

A straight swap is OP with certain weapons and combinations. I'd modify things a bit more to keep things balanced without reducing options too much.

At level 5 I'd give the Rogue a perfectly ordinary Extra Attack feature.
At level 11 I'd give him something called Quickstrike: Once per round, when a Finesse Weapon is used during the attack action, the Rogue can attack with that same weapon again.
At level 20 I'd give him Quickstrike x2: Twice per round, when a Finesse Weapon is used during the attack action, the Rogue can attack with that same weapon again.


That way the third and fourth attacks are limited to weapons that can't make use of Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master but if the character still wants those options available, he can use them with two attacks per round without breaking anything.

[Camman1984]

Wow, my thread got long while i slept :)

There is plenty to think about for me and my dm when i get him to pop over here. I may just go MC for simplicities sake but it would be interesting to see what he thought as multiclassing doesnt tend to feel like the class i want until quite late in the levels.

I quite like the quickstrike idea as it ties my character in to the lighter weapons to reduce perceived abuse, but would want to chuck in hand crossbows for my theme.

[Giant2005]

I quite like the quickstrike idea as it ties my character in to the lighter weapons to reduce perceived abuse, but would want to chuck in hand crossbows for my theme.

You could still use Hand Crossbows pretty well if you take Crossbow Expert (As you would have to anyway if you planned on using Crossbows with any efficiency in the first place). At 20 you would get 4 finesse weapon strikes with 1 crossbow shot from the off-hand if you were fighting in melee and at range you would get 3 Crossbow shots. Neither is really terrible.

[SharkForce]

once again, the complete lack of any other DPR boosters means that you could just hand them all 4 attacks while using a hand crossbow, and it still wouldn't be as good as sneak attack with one attack (plus any you can scrounge up from bonus action).

[eastmabl]

anyways, back to the main point: the player isn't gaining mechanical benefit. sneak attack is better than 4 attacks per melee with no melee riders or damage-boosting class features. the calculations have already been done. 2d6+5 with 10d6 sneak attack is better than 4d6 + 20 with no added bonus. if you add any multiclassing to combo a damage bonus with the extra attacks, there goes attack number 4 anyways.

It should be noted that a single attack with full sneak attack damage is very much feast or famine. If you roll poorly, you do no damage, while only a successful attack results in any damage that round.

Compare this to the fighter's 4 attacks. Sure, you have more chances to miss, but you also have more chances to hit. This will generally result in reliable amounts of damage per turn.

By rolling more, you're going to get more regular damage. What the prior analysis in the thread fails to account for is the value of consistency.

***

I still think that fighter's Extra Attacks -for- rogue's Sneak Attack progression is an acceptable trade.

As a DM, I would ask the player to explain the concept to me and ask her to try to replicate the concept under existing rules first.

[Easy_Lee]

It should be noted that a single attack with full sneak attack damage is very much feast or famine. If you roll poorly, you do no damage, while only a successful attack results in any damage that round.

Compare this to the fighter's 4 attacks. Sure, you have more chances to miss, but you also have more chances to hit. This will generally result in reliable amounts of damage per turn.

By rolling more, you're going to get more regular damage. What the prior analysis in the thread fails to account for is the value of consistency.

***

I still think that fighter's Extra Attacks -for- rogue's Sneak Attack progression is an acceptable trade.

As a DM, I would ask the player to explain the concept to me and ask her to try to replicate the concept under existing rules first.

If you check out the math in my post, and consider the availability of TWF and crossbow expert, you'll see that trading sneak attack for three attacks per round is, overall, a poor trade. Fighters work due to their fighting styles, archetypes, and other features. The damage is more consistent, but overall lower in absence of the fighter's other features.

[SharkForce]

It should be noted that a single attack with full sneak attack damage is very much feast or famine. If you roll poorly, you do no damage, while only a successful attack results in any damage that round.

Compare this to the fighter's 4 attacks. Sure, you have more chances to miss, but you also have more chances to hit. This will generally result in reliable amounts of damage per turn.

By rolling more, you're going to get more regular damage. What the prior analysis in the thread fails to account for is the value of consistency.

***

I still think that fighter's Extra Attacks -for- rogue's Sneak Attack progression is an acceptable trade.

As a DM, I would ask the player to explain the concept to me and ask her to try to replicate the concept under existing rules first.

you don't really see a large increase in consistency. a rogue can get a second attack at the cost of their bonus action starting from level 1. so long as one of those attacks hit, they deliver the vast majority of their damage. the result is that sneak attack damage is actually extremely consistent compared to a regular attack. if each attack has a 50% chance of hitting (which is a fairly high AC target at most levels), a rogue will have a 75% chance of dealing most of their damage while a fighter will generally hit for about half their damage. if it's 60% to hit (which is probably more common if facing fairly standard enemies), they have about an 85% chance to land all of their sneak attack damage.

the fact that it all goes through as long as anything goes through makes rogue sneak attack actually a very reliable damage source.

(and if you should manage to get advantage, it gets *really* likely to deliver that damage... though of course, that will likely have to come from allies except maybe on the first round of combat).

[Dontdestroyme]

I just don't feel like because sneak attack does "more" damage its "better" than have fighter attack progression, making this a fair trade.

Would you let a fighter trade it's defensive and skill abilities for what a rogue gets and call it balanced??? I don't think so. Also it's really stepping on the fighters toes in a way that makes me uncomfortable.

If you want to play a martial rogue just make a hunter ranger (even the magic less one) or a shadow monk. Pretty much accomplished the same thing (more attacks, evasion, sneaky) without making an OP fighter rogue. Or multiclass.

[SharkForce]

1) it isn't OP.
2) fighter identity has very little to do with 4 attacks per round (which they don't even get until level 20, with even the third attack not coming into play until level 11) compared to things like action surge, second wind, and the archetype abilities which they get much earlier on.
3) if the fighter gave up all of it's other abilities for rogue utility (but not also adding sneak attack on top of 4 attacks), then yes, i'd do that. because it's pretty much exactly the same thing as the rogue giving up sneak attack for 4 attacks per round.

[Icewraith]

What does the sneak attack fighter look like? Most of action surge's benefit goes out the window, for starters.

[Giant2005]

Sneak Attack and 4 attacks per round aren't equivalent - their DPR might be pretty close (48.7 against AC 16 for the Sneaker with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and 51.75 for the 4 attacks guy with the same feats) but the sneaker inflicts a significant majority of that against one person. That means a crapload of pointless overkill damage and 1 target dead while the guy with 4 attacks just took out a small platoon in the same time.

It doesn't matter whether you or anyone else wants to believe the swap is balanced or not, the sneak attacker's DPR would have to be significantly higher than that of the multiple attacker (And it isn't, it is slightly less) for the sneak damage to be on par. I'm sure that everyone can admit that lots of small hits equating to the same damage as a single bit hit is always going to be superior.

[SharkForce]

always? no.

there are an awful lot of enemies with well over 100 HP. in some cases, over 300 HP, though that's not particularly the norm.

by the time you're dishing out 10d6 sneak attack damage, there is probably no shortage of enemies to which you can inflict all that damage with none of it going to waste. heck, let's not fool ourselves... the attack that lands probably does close to 45 damage. there are CR 1 enemies with close to that much HP.

some of your damage may be going to waste if you attack a nearly-dead enemy. but it really is not hard to get full value out of 10d6 sneak attack by the time you have 10d6 sneak attack.

sometimes, it is more beneficial to have several small attacks. lots of the time, it isn't really any different at all.

[Giant2005]

sometimes, it is more beneficial to have several small attacks. lots of the time, it isn't really any different at all.

Whether or not it is of any use in any given situation, it is always an advantage that you have in the bank.
I also think you are downplaying the advantage significantly (Although I am likely guilty of the opposite) - sure having more attacks for the same DPR is of no use against a single, powerful enemy but against a bunch of mooks it is helpful, in a party environment where others are damaging enemies it is helpful and in fights consisting of one strong enemy and a bunch of his minions it is extremely helpful.
I felt the need to underline that last one because the benefits are far more significant. In play most Rogues in that situation tend to immeidately go for the biggest bad on the field, purely because they want to avoid overkill damage. However that is the worst strategy possible - everyone knows that if you clean up the minions first, you will have far less incoming damage and end the encounter with a much greater chance of survival. The multi-attacking Rogue wouldn't feel compelled to attack the big bad first and would end up dealing out more useful damage (less overkill) while taking in a whole lot less incoming damage.

[Jeebs]

Hey OP, just curious. Are you not interested in playing a Fighter as a Criminal, Urchin, or some other background that gives you Stealth, Athletics, or Sleight of Hand?

It's a simpler solution that would fit the flavor you're going for, but I wondered which aspects of the Rogue you really liked.

[SharkForce]

Whether or not it is of any use in any given situation, it is always an advantage that you have in the bank.
I also think you are downplaying the advantage significantly (Although I am likely guilty of the opposite) - sure having more attacks for the same DPR is of no use against a single, powerful enemy but against a bunch of mooks it is helpful, in a party environment where others are damaging enemies it is helpful and in fights consisting of one strong enemy and a bunch of his minions it is extremely helpful.
I felt the need to underline that last one because the benefits are far more significant. In play most Rogues in that situation tend to immeidately go for the biggest bad on the field, purely because they want to avoid overkill damage. However that is the worst strategy possible - everyone knows that if you clean up the minions first, you will have far less incoming damage and end the encounter with a much greater chance of survival. The multi-attacking Rogue wouldn't feel compelled to attack the big bad first and would end up dealing out more useful damage (less overkill) while taking in a whole lot less incoming damage.

when you have 10d6 sneak attacks, there are two kinds of mooks: those that don't have enough HP to survive through an AOE nuke from a caster, and those that have enough HP that you're not wasting much by putting a 10d6 sneak attack on them.

yes, it is useful sometimes. but if you're fighting mooks for whom 10d6 damage is massive overkill, neither the fighter nor the rogue should be killing them (or at least, not with basic attacks; in both cases, it is entirely possible to be the type of rogue or fighter that can throw a fireball anyways, though i'd probably leave the nukes to a dedicated caster if possible and focus on spells like haste instead, considering your caster can no longer keep an AOE disable active *and* haste you at the same time).

[gunrock82]

You mentioned wanting to do s gunslinger rogue. One of my fellow players did exactly that. A gnome rogue that has two crossbows and can fire every round.

[Camman1984]

Hey OP, just curious. Are you not interested in playing a Fighter as a Criminal, Urchin, or some other background that gives you Stealth, Athletics, or Sleight of Hand?

It's a simpler solution that would fit the flavor you're going for, but I wondered which aspects of the Rogue you really liked.

I thought of going fighter to get my fighting style but the rogue abilities appeal to me more. Even a criminal fighter is heavily based around his battle prowess, with action surge, archetypes, second wind, loads of armour etc. I wanted the rogues speed, nimbleness and evasive qualities, was gonna go thief archetype for fun things like nimble hands and fast climbing (not always useful but really cool). I picture him being really slippery but if someone pins him down he can get stuck. basically i want a thief who can also fight, as opposed to a fighter that can also steal.

i am happy to stay with sneak attack if my dm wants as it is the rogue class that is more important to the concept, i wanted him to be more of a guns blazing kind of fighter rather than a precision attacking assasin feeling. Most rogues are taught to kill, he was taught to fight. It is a purely themeatic things rather than mechanical.

I have looked at a few MC builds and i think i may go F5/R15 (if it gets that far) i dislike multiclass builds as you dont get your theme until later than you want but it looks like the easiest RAW path for me, and crossbow expert still leaves me with 3 attacks if i spend my bonus action.

[Giant2005]

It sounds to me like you would be happier taking 5 levels of Ranger over 5 levels of Fighter. That would give you a fourth attack via Horde Breaker and would help you get important abilities quicker while keeping your attack progression up by adding that extra break point after 3 levels of Ranger. If your DM allowed you to take the spell-less Ranger variant form Unearthed Arcana, you would also get some combat maneuvers at level 2 which would help your design somewhat.

[Camman1984]

You're lucky you are a forum person from another part of the interweb as you just earned yourself some man flavoured kisses ;)

I was so fixated on fighter for my fighting style i didnt even consider ranger. 5 levels of ranger as far as i can see grants me 3 attacks plus my bonus action (if i go hordebreaker and crossbow expert). it also gives me the archery style for accuracy. Favoured enemy human and favoured terrain urban would be great for flavour. And what urban thief wouldnt want access to locate object, jump, longstrider, pass without trace etc.

jump combined with second story work and cunning action, gonna do me some parkour free running :)

[Giant2005]

You're lucky you are a forum person from another part of the interweb as you just earned yourself some man flavoured kisses ;)

I was so fixated on fighter for my fighting style i didnt even consider ranger. 5 levels of ranger as far as i can see grants me 3 attacks plus my bonus action (if i go hordebreaker and crossbow expert). it also gives me the archery style for accuracy. Favoured enemy human and favoured terrain urban would be great for flavour. And what urban thief wouldnt want access to locate object, jump, longstrider, pass without trace etc.

jump combined with second story work and cunning action, gonna do me some parkour free running :)

Glad to have helped! Also glad to have successfully evaded those man flavoured kisses.

[Camman1984]

Now just have to pick a race, probably wood elf, the speed, dark vision and having 4 'bonus hours' to steal at night (thief takes 1st watch ;) ) seems good to have, and the hiding option is useful for combat. Other option is halfling but never liked short characters and the halfling thief is just a sterotype wrapped in a racial profile.