Melee Rogue

[Morty]

I've been playing a crossbow-using rogue in 5E for a while now. Impressions are mixed. I do enjoy that the system doesn't trip me up at every possible opportunity and that I can actually get sneak attacks in consistently with a ranged weapon. I do not enjoy the fact that I've mostly done the exact same thing each combat round and will continue to do.

But another thing is that... well, I'm not seeing much of a point in not using my crossbow. My rogue has a "rapier", which I describe as a hatchet, and which she used exactly once, in a very cramped tunnel. But outside such circumstances, all I need for my one job is either advantage on the attack or another of the target's enemies within 5 feet. Both of which I can get at range, which keeps me from harm's way and lets me hide more easily.

The only reason I see for melee combat is using two weapons, which gives me two chances to land a sneak attack. But also consumes my bonus action, which a rogue has other uses for. It seems that the Swashbuckler subclass exists for the purpose of avoiding that, and letting a rogue dual-wield in peace. But I'm not seeing much point in a melee rogue who doesn't dual-wield. They get no shield proficiency, so rapier+buckler is out. They can take the Dual Wielder feat to hold a rapier (or a 1d8 finesse weapon we call a rapier) in each hand, but I'm not sure if there's much point, since their damage comes from sneak attacks anyway. Am I missing something? Or is a ranged rogue just better, unless I take that one subclass?

[Mikal]

Eh, different strokes for different folks. Generally speaking mechanics wise melee allows your more chances to land your sneak attack due to reaction triggers. I prefer melee myself due to that, plus old school nostalgia when you had to use a melee weapon to "backstab".

When I go melee rogue, I generally make sure to have Booming Blade available, and if possible Sentinel and War Caster.
Let's me add damage on my turn, and I can generally disengage and they can either pursue on their turn and eat the extra damage, or stay away and let me pop back in and repeat.

Works best when generating advantage (I like the Owl familiar for flyby) so that you make the same amount attacks as you would if you were dual wielding.

Sentinel to help you generate OAs that War Caster lets you add Booming Blade damage to.

Also works well with an Ancestral Guardian buddy.
Either they hit you at disadvantage and you get resistance to the attack (plus the Barb can reduce the damage further), or they attack the Barb and trigger your Reaction Sentinel attack (and Sneak Attack damage).

In other words, you get a lot more tactical flexibility, at the cost of increased risk, with potentially more damage even than Sharpshooter (though not as consistent).

Most easy way to do so is either High Elf (which also allows access to Elven Accuracy for three rolls on your advantage attack) with its free cantrip, multiclassing into a caster class with cantrips, Magic Initiate, or going Arcane Trickster (which eventually also allows generation of advantage without your Owl).

The last three give you access to other cantrips (such as GFB if you want to hit two people with your attack) and Find Familiar for the Owl familiar access.

[Talionis]

This may fall into the duh category of restating the obvious, but by being in melee you can trigger sneak attack twice a round, by using your reaction. Mikai said it but undersold it. Since sneak attack is most of your damage being able to trigger the reaction attack is a lot more damage. It conflicts with Uncanny Defense and it stinks you can't use both, but often more damage is better.

I'm not trying to be hard on Mikai, I think he made a good point, I was just trying to make sure you completely understood that you can often close to double your damage if you attack of opportunity an opponent and trigger sneak attack twice a round.

Mikai I think was very clear on the benefits of the magical attack cantrips like Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade that Rogues can use to add even more damage. With Warcaster that damage can also get added to the attack of opportunity too.

I will say that if I create a Rogue that is a melee character, I generally like to multiclass and there are plenty of options for that, but Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock all can be dipped into to provide a more hardy chassis. Going to level five in your dip can net you the extra attack that can be important to a Rogue because it gives a second chance to hit to Sneak Attack for the round and leaves the Bonus action open. But Rogue by itself can melee quite effectively, especially if you skirmish and use the movement rules to your advantage.

[Specter]

The most important thing is party composition. If you have a Paladin, a Barbarian and a Ranger in the front, then you'd serve them best by staying far away and harassing folks. But if there's one or zero frontliners and other fragile members in the back, it's usually better to be sticky.

If you have already taken Crossbow Expert, though, then the choice is pretty much made.

[Morty]

So an opportunity attack lets you apply a sneak attack an extra time? I didn't know that. It just says "once per turn", so I guess technically it works? Or am I missing something?

Either way, it seems using melee as a rogue requires a lot more effort... ironic, given the hoops you had to jump to play a ranged rogue in 3.x. For the record, though, I'm not considering playing one. I'm happy with my crossbow, though I'm not taking crossbow expert since I don't plan on ever getting more than one attack per round. I briefly thought about multiclassing to a ranger, but then decided to just go straight rogue all the way.

[Mikal]

So an opportunity attack lets you apply a sneak attack an extra time? I didn't know that. It just says "once per turn", so I guess technically it works? Or am I missing something?

Correct. A turn can be your regular turn or on someone else's turn via a reaction (or if you are hasted, a held action) within the round.
That means you can have a sneak attack on any of those turns in which you can take perform a legal weapon attack with the sneak attack qualifiers online.


Either way, it seems using melee as a rogue requires a lot more effort... ironic, given the hoops you had to jump to play a ranged rogue in 3.x. For the record, though, I'm not considering playing one. I'm happy with my crossbow, though I'm not taking crossbow expert since I don't plan on ever getting more than one attack per round. I briefly thought about multiclassing to a ranger, but then decided to just go straight rogue all the way.

Eh, not really a lot more effort. A lot more opportunity for a little more risk.

[Morty]

Correct. A turn can be your regular turn or on someone else's turn via a reaction (or if you are hasted, a held action) within the round.
That means you can have a sneak attack on any of those turns in which you can take perform a legal weapon attack with the sneak attack qualifiers online.

That... sounds kind of sketchy, to be honest, but if it gives a melee rogue a genuine advantage... has there been an official ruling on the subject?


Eh, not really a lot more effort. A lot more opportunity for a little more risk.

By effort I meant multiclassing and using spells, as opposed to a ranged rogue using just the class's core resources.

[Mikal]

That... sounds kind of sketchy, to be honest, but if it gives a melee rogue a genuine advantage... has there been an official ruling on the subject?

It's not a ruling. It's the rules.

PHB page 189- Your turn
PHB page 190- Reactions


By effort I meant multiclassing and using spells, as opposed to a ranged rogue using just the class's core resources.

You don't need to multiclass and spells are the class's core resource if you go Arcane Trickster.
You can easily do the melee bit as a single classed rogue without issue.

[solidork]

Melee is also great if you've got someone in your party who likes to knock people prone or hit foes with Paralysis.

One thing I really liked about Rogues is that they can actually be effective in both melee and at range.

[strangebloke]

As a side note, melee is useful if you have few melee combatants. The simple ability to obstruct the enemy's path to your ranged characters is very useful. Also, running down casters and enemy snipers is useful.

[Chugger]

DM's rule differently on landing a second sneak attack in a round (notice I didn't say turn).

To use Crossbow Expert to launch a b.a. shot a rogue needs to have used the attack option as their main action, iirc. Some DMs are okay with readying an attack option counting as such - so you use your b.a. shot in your turn to land a sneak attack (if it hits). And you use your readied action to fire again - and since it's out of your turn you can land another sneak attack that round.

Some say no, you must be hasted to pull this off.

Same w/ melee. If a DM rules that a readied action (even if it is to attack later on) is a readied action, not an attack option - so does not trigger the b.a. So you can't b.a. attack to sneak attack on your turn (with a second weapon attack) - and then land another sneak attack on the readied. You need to be hasted to pull this off.

If there's another way to parse this or argue this, pls tell me.

[Strangways]

I've been playing a crossbow-using rogue in 5E for a while now. Impressions are mixed. I do enjoy that the system doesn't trip me up at every possible opportunity and that I can actually get sneak attacks in consistently with a ranged weapon. I do not enjoy the fact that I've mostly done the exact same thing each combat round and will continue to do.

But another thing is that... well, I'm not seeing much of a point in not using my crossbow. My rogue has a "rapier", which I describe as a hatchet, and which she used exactly once, in a very cramped tunnel. But outside such circumstances, all I need for my one job is either advantage on the attack or another of the target's enemies within 5 feet. Both of which I can get at range, which keeps me from harm's way and lets me hide more easily.

The only reason I see for melee combat is using two weapons, which gives me two chances to land a sneak attack. But also consumes my bonus action, which a rogue has other uses for. It seems that the Swashbuckler subclass exists for the purpose of avoiding that, and letting a rogue dual-wield in peace. But I'm not seeing much point in a melee rogue who doesn't dual-wield. They get no shield proficiency, so rapier+buckler is out. They can take the Dual Wielder feat to hold a rapier (or a 1d8 finesse weapon we call a rapier) in each hand, but I'm not sure if there's much point, since their damage comes from sneak attacks anyway. Am I missing something? Or is a ranged rogue just better, unless I take that one subclass?


You're not missing anything. A ranged non-swashbuckler rogue is just better. The bonus action attack with an off-hand weapon isn't something you need to get into melee range to have. You can accomplish the same thing with a ranged attack using a hand crossbow and the crossbow expert feat. Ranged means you're less likely to get hit and, for a fragile rogue in leather armor with no shield, that's a very good thing.

There are certainly reasons why other classes want to get into melee range. Strength based fighters and barbarians using two-handed, heavy weapons, or grappling attacks, have all kinds of reasons to want to be in melee range, but there's very little reason for a rogue to want to be in melee range if he's not a swashbuckler. Heck, the Scout subclass of Rogue even gives you a reaction to get out of melee range when an enemy ends his turn next to you.

[JBPuffin]

It depends on...well, a lot of things, really. You can totally build a Strength-based grappler rogue who'd love to be in melee, or an AT who sneak attack/GFB's on their turn, Warcaster+Sentinels their way through dudes on other people's turns, and use Shield and other defensive spells to keep themselves alive. You can also be Crossbow Expert #413 (personal favorite being Double Hand Crossbow Dude), if you wish.

[Morty]

Regardless of how optimal or possible it would be, I am not going to dual-wield hand crossbows. I've got standards. I'm using a light crossbow and I'm fine with it, issues about monotony aside. I was just curious about ways to play a melee rogue, particularly one without dual-wielding.

[MeeposFire]

Regardless of how optimal or possible it would be, I am not going to dual-wield hand crossbows. I've got standards. I'm using a light crossbow and I'm fine with it, issues about monotony aside. I was just curious about ways to play a melee rogue, particularly one without dual-wielding.

Nobody dual wields hand crossbows without houserules. Doing so would prevent you from reloading which would be a problem. People with crossbow expert will wield one since that is all you need to make that bonus action attack (hand crossbows are one handed weapons and so attacking with one counts to allowing the hand crossbow bonus action attack).

[Specter]

Oh yeah, totally forgot about Booming Blade. That's more damage than you get at range while still keeping your bonus action.

[Morty]

Nobody dual wields hand crossbows without houserules. Doing so would prevent you from reloading which would be a problem. People with crossbow expert will wield one since that is all you need to make that bonus action attack (hand crossbows are one handed weapons and so attacking with one counts to allowing the hand crossbow bonus action attack).

Oh. That's better, but still not anything I'm interested in doing.

And really, I could play a straight-classed, non-magical rogue with a single rapier and do mostly fine. But it's interesting how it's just kind of plain worse than using a ranged weapon without pulling some tricks.

[Willie the Duck]

But it's interesting how it's just kind of plain worse than using a ranged weapon without pulling some tricks.


The only reason I see for melee combat is using two weapons, which gives me two chances to land a sneak attack. But also consumes my bonus action, which a rogue has other uses for.

I have found, in my games that the ranged rogue's bonus action is most often spent setting up the chance to get their attack with SA triggering, be that moving out of melee or hiding. So, at least when that is the case, it is a simple case of melee rogue is subject to melee attacks, but gets to make two attack rolls to try to land their SA, while ranged rogue doesn't get hit (as much), but only gets one chance. Experiences may vary of course.

[Mikal]

Oh. That's better, but still not anything I'm interested in doing.

And really, I could play a straight-classed, non-magical rogue with a single rapier and do mostly fine. But it's interesting how it's just kind of plain worse than using a ranged weapon without pulling some tricks.

It's not plain worse. It's actually the same if you go with no tricks.
I.E. Single class rogue, no spells, no mutliclassing, no feats.

Light Crossbow does 1d8+dex+SA piercing damage, and can only do a single attack per round. It has the benefit of being used from range, but that also means you get disadvantage if the target is prone, the enemy has +2 to AC due to cover if another person is between you and your target, and it usually requires your cunning action to use Hide, which can possibly be beaten by Perception from the enemy.

Rapier does 1d8+dex+SA piercing damage, and can only do a single attack per round. It has the benefit of advantage if the target is prone, it doesn't suffer the +2 to AC due to cover, and you have more options to trigger it, but you run an increased risk of damage from melee, and it usually requires your cunning action to use Disengage.

As such, with no tricks, both are pretty equal.

[MrStabby]

Might be worth throwing in a mention of using strength for a melee rogue more easily.

Expertise in athletics and shield master feat will let you shove prone enemies for advantage, sneak attack and ultimately lots of damage in melee. You need a finesse weapon but not Dex to use it.

[2D8HP]

....It seems that the Swashbuckler subclass exists for the purpose of avoiding that, and letting a rogue dual-wield in peace.....

......Or is a ranged rogue just better, unless I take that one subclass?


Swashbuckler is AWESOME! and is my favorite subclass, but...

....range is still better if you're not a dang fool.

Getting away from melee is almost always best, and Cunning Action to do it is AWESOME!

Typically the only reason to get into melee is because you think there's a better chance of slaying your foe right there and then rather than getting away, but mostly my PC's wind up in melee because their out run, or from trying to drag the fallen dang fool PC's who volunteered to be in melee for some dang fool reason.

Stay out of melee! Bows were invented for a reason!

The only PC who should be in melee is the dang fool obliging comrade Barbarian, Fighter, or Monk who stupidly helpfully volunteered to stand next to the enemy so you can Sneak Attack.

A Swashbuckler or Barbarian/Rogue who uses Reckless Attack, or knocks their foe prone can work well in melee, but otherwise?

Why risk it?

[Willie the Duck]

Might be worth throwing in a mention of using strength for a melee rogue more easily.

Expertise in athletics and shield master feat will let you shove prone enemies for advantage, sneak attack and ultimately lots of damage in melee. You need a finesse weapon but not Dex to use it.

Yes, but given that rogues don't have shield proficiency, that's really part of a fighter(or any other martial)-rogue build, which really isn't competing in the same design space as a straight rogue.

[MrStabby]

Yes, but given that rogues don't have shield proficiency, that's really part of a fighter(or any other martial)-rogue build, which really isn't competing in the same design space as a straight rogue.

Ah, my mistake. I thought there were races that gave you shield proficiency. Dwarf sprang to mind for some reason.

[Easy_Lee]

Rogues have to be built for melee. As written, they do quite well at range but don't have enough HP or AC to stand up to a hoard of creatures. Feat support is also better overall for range (sharpshooter, skulker, crossbow expert) than melee (dual wielder, sentinel, mage slayer).

You can build a nice Arcane Trickster melee rogue using the blade cantrips, sentinel, and war caster, eventually casting Haste on yourself for better AC and free reaction attacks (hold an attack for next turn, make a haste attack).

You can also build nice melee rogues by multiclassing into fighter or barbarian, both of which provide extra attack for more consistent damage, some additional perks, more HP, shields, and better armor. But you give up rogue profession and are generally less rogueish. Monk is also a good option since short swords are a monk weapon (rapier can be for Kensei) and stunning strike can give you advantage.

[Specter]

Rogues have to be built for melee. As written, they do quite well at range but don't have enough HP or AC to stand up to a hoard of creatures.

I don't agree with this. HP differences are negligible unless we're talking two dice apart (Wizard-Fighter, or Rogue-Barbarian). Comparing a DEX Fighter and a Rogue with Moderately Armored, they have the same AC unless the Fighter took Defense. Adding bonus disengage, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion to the mix, Rogue has more effective HP thana Fighter in most situations.

[grub]

I've been running a melee rogue with Tough and Defensive Duelist and I'm just fine. My character and the Cleric are the melee and our Ranger and Bard are ranged. Our DM gave us a Grey Bag of Tricks and that helps for flanking to get SA.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't agree with this. HP differences are negligible unless we're talking two dice apart (Wizard-Fighter, or Rogue-Barbarian). Comparing a DEX Fighter and a Rogue with Moderately Armored, they have the same AC unless the Fighter took Defense. Adding bonus disengage, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion to the mix, Rogue has more effective HP thana Fighter in most situations.

If the rogue took moderately armored, raising his AC from ~16 to 19. That constitutes building the rogue for melee. And while the rogue does have uncanny dodge, he doesn't have second wind or as much burst damage potential as a fighter (particularly a BM).

Don't get me wrong, you can certainly build a rogue with feats like moderately armored, shield master, healer on thieves, and other feats that give the rogue more melee options and staying power. But if you aren't specifically building for melee, ranged is the better option on rogues.

[Talionis]

I will also advise that throwing a dagger for sneak attack damage can be a good plan for a melee Rogue. As fast as a Rogue can be sometimes you can't close the distance so being able to throw a weapon can work. This allows you to keep a weapon in your other hand to still get attacks of opportunity, but by keeping a weapon you can throw, you can still decide where on the battlefield you want to apply your sneak attack damage even if you are in melee with someone else, possibly to try to get an attack of opportunity.

You don't need to specialize in Crossbow feats in order to have lots of options.

[Malifice]

Better actually means getting hit (or at least attacked).

Two PCs in melee is two bags of HP that the monsters need to chew through. It means the monsters need to split attacks among multiple targets instead of doing a focus beatdown on the Fighter type.

Three are even better.

Plus there are synergies available in melee that there arent in ranged (Sentinel feat, AoO, Warcaster, defence F/S, wolf barbarian etc).

[Easy_Lee]

Better actually means getting hit (or at least attacked).

Two PCs in melee is two bags of HP that the monsters need to chew through. It means the monsters need to split attacks among multiple targets instead of doing a focus beatdown on the Fighter type.

Three are even better.

Plus there are synergies available in melee that there arent in ranged (Sentinel feat, AoO, Warcaster, defence F/S, wolf barbarian etc).

Monsters can focus attacks just as easily as players. Additionally, melee rogues usually have an easier time getting SA reactions but not always. Haste and Commander's Strike provide an easy double SA to any rogue. The big one for rogues would be PM if they could use it, but they can't. Sentinel is a double-edged sword because it makes you more likely to be attacked - good on a rogue with high AC, but likely to get a normal rogue killed.