D&D 5th Edition: Magic Initiate and Cantrips in General.

[R Man]

I especially love that its appearance delivered the deathblow to that abomination called 4th Ed. D&D.

4E was good at what it was: Tactical and balanced.
4E was a huuuuuuuuuuuuuu(There aren't enough Us in the world, but assume I put a bunch more)ge improvement over 3X.
3X is MunchkinLand.
3X is soooo bad that it took 3 tries, and two companies to even make it come close to resembling a functional game.
Cantrips are just a re-visitation of one of the many great things about 4E: At Will abilities.
I like them, and I'm glad 4E added them.

I was fine with the Magic Initiate Feat until the Sword Coast Adventure Guide came around. Those cantrips are fine for a bladesinger wizard.
The problem is that asshole munchkin who doesn't want to stay in his 3X corner.
He'll come in with some weird combo of paladin (only 2 levels to get the power to smite, and better starting proficiencies, but before any of the teamwork boosting stuff or roleplay requirements) and cleric. (for the flat boost to attacks and the increased spell progression to smite harder and longer) Then he'll be stacking SCAG cantrips so his single hits are obscene, and I presume deliberately misreading some rules here and there about things like multiclass spellcasting.

Let's look at the rogue as another example: They get one attack per turn, so the SCAG cantrips are a straight damage boost, and stack with sneak-attack. (ignoring the silly flavor of it.) There is no reason for a rogue not to.

Here's the thing about Munchkins: They dominate everything they do to an obscene degree. This leaves everyone else feeling useless, and leaves the encounters as an insufficient challenge. At that point the GM...
A: Carries on. It continues to be a one man show and life is worse for everyone.
B: Scales things up so they're on par with the Munchkin. That can go one of two ways:
B1: Everyone else in the party becomes more useless than ever, and suffer for the munchkin's fun.
B2: Everyone has to become a Munchkin themselves to keep up. Everyone suffers for the Munchkin's fun.

Munchkins: Not even once. Send them back to 3X where they belong.

Y'know, I'm glad you said this. I knew that 4th edition had its detractors at launch, but I was surprised by the longevity of the hate, to the point where I'm not sure if the haters are really persistent, or if former fans turned against it.

I for one remember the problems associated with 3rd and 3.5 eds and how 4th ed fixed them. The empty levels, the rolling a 1 for hp on second level, easily abused stat tricks, the fact that beyond level 6 fighter's attacks are so useless that the player might as well 'wank' as their standard action instead of fighting.

Haven't played 5th yet, though, so maybe it fixed this.

 

[Saelune]

I especially love that its appearance delivered the deathblow to that abomination called 4th Ed. D&D.

4E was good at what it was: Tactical and balanced.
4E was a huuuuuuuuuuuuuu(There aren't enough Us in the world, but assume I put a bunch more)ge improvement over 3X.
3X is MunchkinLand.
3X is soooo bad that it took 3 tries, and two companies to even make it come close to resembling a functional game.
Cantrips are just a re-visitation of one of the many great things about 4E: At Will abilities.
I like them, and I'm glad 4E added them.

I was fine with the Magic Initiate Feat until the Sword Coast Adventure Guide came around. Those cantrips are fine for a bladesinger wizard.
The problem is that asshole munchkin who doesn't want to stay in his 3X corner.
He'll come in with some weird combo of paladin (only 2 levels to get the power to smite, and better starting proficiencies, but before any of the teamwork boosting stuff or roleplay requirements) and cleric. (for the flat boost to attacks and the increased spell progression to smite harder and longer) Then he'll be stacking SCAG cantrips so his single hits are obscene, and I presume deliberately misreading some rules here and there about things like multiclass spellcasting.

Let's look at the rogue as another example: They get one attack per turn, so the SCAG cantrips are a straight damage boost, and stack with sneak-attack. (ignoring the silly flavor of it.) There is no reason for a rogue not to.

Here's the thing about Munchkins: They dominate everything they do to an obscene degree. This leaves everyone else feeling useless, and leaves the encounters as an insufficient challenge. At that point the GM...
A: Carries on. It continues to be a one man show and life is worse for everyone.
B: Scales things up so they're on par with the Munchkin. That can go one of two ways:
B1: Everyone else in the party becomes more useless than ever, and suffer for the munchkin's fun.
B2: Everyone has to become a Munchkin themselves to keep up. Everyone suffers for the Munchkin's fun.

Munchkins: Not even once. Send them back to 3X where they belong.

Y'know, I'm glad you said this. I knew that 4th edition had its detractors at launch, but I was surprised by the longevity of the hate, to the point where I'm not sure if the haters are really persistent, or if former fans turned against it.

I for one remember the problems associated with 3rd and 3.5 eds and how 4th ed fixed them. The empty levels, the rolling a 1 for hp on second level, easily abused stat tricks, the fact that beyond level 6 fighter's attacks are so useless that the player might as well 'wank' as their standard action instead of fighting.

Haven't played 5th yet, though, so maybe it fixed this.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

But I like cantrips. It means casters aren't bored to tears in combat once they run out of the meagre spellslots they have. Especially on lower levels. I think they're pretty okay balanced too. Except Eldritch Blast. Goddamn Warlocks, goddamn.

I agree that the 5e cantrips are a big boon to casters at lower levels, but at higher levels, do people really regularly run out of useful spells in an average adventuring day?

We run a low-optimization (3.5, not 5e) campaign and my Lv11 Wizard has yet to use up all his slots in one day, unless I purposefully nova to ensure whatever we fight goes down as fast as possible.

Also, what's wrong with Eldritch Blast? From what I can tell, there's nothing particularly OP about it.

 

[Souplex]

I've had a half-serious vendetta against cantrips in 5e ever since I put together a fun dungeon run and one of the players made a character for it we now affectionately call the Eldrich machine-gunner. ************ blew up a boss with rapid-fire Eldrich blasts after having engineered a character specifically all around that one goddamn cantrip.

All above-board, hilarious at the time, but my god did it make balancing what followed a pain in the ass. See it's easy enough to negate cantrips when planning an encounter, but then that wouldn't have been any fun for the player since, well, eldrich blast is all they had so instead I had to try and find some balance between the two.

My half-assed solution was to tweak the fights so that while certain enemies had resistances and immunities to his rapid-fire-cantrip, there were others that didn't who could sometimes threaten to overwhelm the group, or there would be some task that the cantrip could be put to use doing. Luckily this was just for a two or three session dungeon run and not a full campaign or it would have gotten tired super quick.

Eldritch Blast isn't that bad. Its damage is identical to a heavy crossbow, (EB requires an invocation to add ability to the damage though, but this is balanced by the other invocation adding things like knockback) and the Warlock has the same number of shots a turn as a fighter of equivalent level. (2 at L5, 3 at 11 etc.)
Warlocks are an interesting case of design. They're really a throwback to 4E's At Will, Encounter, Daily ability structuring.
Until level 11 they only have 2 castings, but those recover on a short rest. Without Eldritch Blast they wouldn't have much to do from turn to turn in combat.

But I like cantrips. It means casters aren't bored to tears in combat once they run out of the meagre spellslots they have. Especially on lower levels. I think they're pretty okay balanced too. Except Eldritch Blast. Goddamn Warlocks, goddamn.

I agree that the 5e cantrips are a big boon to casters at lower levels, but at higher levels, do people really regularly run out of useful spells in an average adventuring day?

We run a low-optimization (3.5, not 5e) campaign and my Lv11 Wizard has yet to use up all his slots in one day, unless I purposefully nova to ensure whatever we fight goes down as fast as possible.

5E treats spell slots differently than 3X. (For the sake of simplicity we'll ignore the Warlock, because the Warlock is different) Every caster has the 3X Sorcerer's flexible casting.
Spell slot progression goes as follows: 1st level: 4 slots per day, 2nd-4th level: 3 Slots, 5th level: 2 slots, 6th+ level: 1 slot.
If you're running a properly structured adventuring day, even at high level, running out of spell slots if feasible.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

5E treats spell slots differently than 3X. (For the sake of simplicity we'll ignore the Warlock, because the Warlock is different) Every caster has the 3X Sorcerer's flexible casting.
Spell slot progression goes as follows: 1st level: 4 slots per day, 2nd-4th level: 3 Slots, 5th level: 2 slots, 6th+ level: 1 slot.
If you're running a properly structured adventuring day, even at high level, running out of spell slots if feasible.

I see. Had a quick look at 5e casters since, and they indeed have significantly less slots/day overall than their 3.X incarnations (interestingly, they all also seem to get the same basic amount, not taking into account class features). I can see how you could run out of higher level casting in 5e, where you wouldn't in 3.X.

It's probably for the best, most likely to mitigate the 'Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards' trope that plagued D&D 3.X. Speaking of, seems like they've finally took steps to make archery a viable option compared to melee/casting. Any experience with how that worked out in practice?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Never much had a worry about running out of spells in older editions, I had my light crossbow to fall back on. A kind of Ranger, sometimes Mage.

 

[Basement Cat]

One of the things I like about 5th edition cantrips is the Fluff they can provide. Cantrip fluff is golden for actual role playing.

Prestidigitation is one of the most useful spells in D&D. My characters use it for everything from cooking--warm/cool foods/liquids plus providing flavor (spices? we don't need no stinking spices!) to cleaning (cooking pot and utensils, clothes, self (you use your left hand when you shit in the woods while my cantrip cast uses Prestidigitation in lieu of toilet paper) as well as getting the mud and blood off my weapons and armor) and for entertainment purposes, signaling (sparks, anyone), etc etc...

Light provides 1 hour of uninterrupted light--priceless in any pre-lightbulb world. Even characters who have Darkvision find light to be handy. Heck, in a pinch you can cast it on an opponent's face to blind them.

Mage Hand? Message? Daily uses for each.

Mending? Well, one of my characters knits, but it's useful for low tech crafting purposes as well. With the Mending cantrip an individual could logically corner the market in clothes making.

 

[DarklordKyo]

It is easily in my top 3 improvements of 5e.

What're the other two?, and what're the three in order from best to slightly less best?

 

[Saelune]

It is easily in my top 3 improvements of 5e.

What're the other two?, and what're the three in order from best to slightly less best?

I did not make a formal list. I just know I like having firebolt to rely on as a magic character. I made too many useless mages in 3.5 that were defenseless in any fight.

Generally, I like alot of the streamlining that makes alot of things simpler without removing depth like 4e did. Like xp. Ugh, determining xp in 3.5 was a mess, now it is simple, so simple that I actually follow it. In 3.5 I just made up xp rewards, usually by way too much. But its simple, each challenge rating has a set xp, and you just divide it up by number of participants. No adhoc, no adjusting if a player is too many levels above or below.

No level adjustment for different races is nice too.

I also like that alot of things limited to feats is now not. Things like dodge and finesse are available to all now.

Oh, and backgrounds, I LOVE backgrounds, as a DM. I always struggled to get my players to integrate their characters into my world and develop their characters beyond their race and class. Backgrounds now make it a game mechanic and it is wonderful for getting even uncreative players to actually put thought into -who- their character is and their place in the world.

 

[Saelune]

One of the things I like about 5th edition cantrips is the Fluff they can provide. Cantrip fluff is golden for actual role playing.

Prestidigitation is one of the most useful spells in D&D. My characters use it for everything from cooking--warm/cool foods/liquids plus providing flavor (spices? we don't need no stinking spices!) to cleaning (cooking pot and utensils, clothes, self (you use your left hand when you shit in the woods while my cantrip cast uses Prestidigitation in lieu of toilet paper) as well as getting the mud and blood off my weapons and armor) and for entertainment purposes, signaling (sparks, anyone), etc etc...

Light provides 1 hour of uninterrupted light--priceless in any pre-lightbulb world. Even characters who have Darkvision find light to be handy. Heck, in a pinch you can cast it on an opponent's face to blind them.

Mage Hand? Message? Daily uses for each.

Mending? Well, one of my characters knits, but it's useful for low tech crafting purposes as well. With the Mending cantrip an individual could logically corner the market in clothes making.

Your DM is too lenient with that spell.

 

[Basement Cat]

Your DM is too lenient with that spell.

Nonsense and other comments: It's Rules as Written.

The thing is that that stuff is almost pure fluff. Most PC's focus entirely upon combat.

And then there are the Munchkins... *sighs*

 

[Souplex]

5E treats spell slots differently than 3X. (For the sake of simplicity we'll ignore the Warlock, because the Warlock is different) Every caster has the 3X Sorcerer's flexible casting.
Spell slot progression goes as follows: 1st level: 4 slots per day, 2nd-4th level: 3 Slots, 5th level: 2 slots, 6th+ level: 1 slot.
If you're running a properly structured adventuring day, even at high level, running out of spell slots if feasible.

I see. Had a quick look at 5e casters since, and they indeed have significantly less slots/day overall than their 3.X incarnations (interestingly, they all also seem to get the same basic amount, not taking into account class features). I can see how you could run out of higher level casting in 5e, where you wouldn't in 3.X.

It's probably for the best, most likely to mitigate the 'Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards' trope that plagued D&D 3.X. Speaking of, seems like they've finally took steps to make archery a viable option compared to melee/casting. Any experience with how that worked out in practice?

Archery is viable in 5th. It's the best way to go for a rogue, and for fighters it's comparable to using a weapon.
What made it unworkable in the past?

One of the things I like about 5th edition cantrips is the Fluff they can provide. Cantrip fluff is golden for actual role playing.

Prestidigitation is one of the most useful spells in D&D. My characters use it for everything from cooking--warm/cool foods/liquids plus providing flavor (spices? we don't need no stinking spices!) to cleaning (cooking pot and utensils, clothes, self (you use your left hand when you shit in the woods while my cantrip cast uses Prestidigitation in lieu of toilet paper) as well as getting the mud and blood off my weapons and armor) and for entertainment purposes, signaling (sparks, anyone), etc etc...

Light provides 1 hour of uninterrupted light--priceless in any pre-lightbulb world. Even characters who have Darkvision find light to be handy. Heck, in a pinch you can cast it on an opponent's face to blind them.

Mage Hand? Message? Daily uses for each.

Mending? Well, one of my characters knits, but it's useful for low tech crafting purposes as well. With the Mending cantrip an individual could logically corner the market in clothes making.

I love Prestidigitation. It has so many practical day-to-day uses.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Archery is viable in 5th. It's the best way to go for a rogue, and for fighters it's comparable to using a weapon.
What made it unworkable in the past?

Not so much unworkable in 3.5, but rather harder and more costly compared to melee martial options, in particular two-handed melee. Especially if you want to stay purely martial.

Spoiler: OK, here goes

First of all, archery didn't have as much splatbook support as melee (let alone casting). Tome of Battle, like it or not, greatly expanded the options for pure martials ... as long as you're melee. There also aren't many good PrCs for archery. Many make you lose more than what you gain, like the Arcane Archer not advancing casting in any way while basically just giving you a couple of situational 1/day abilities and free magical weapon enhancement up to +5 (which is sort of nice, but not worth 9 or 10 levels).

Or the PrC requires a heavy tax of feats/skills to get in, like for example 'Shot on the Run', which in turn requires 'Dodge' and 'Mobility'. All of these are pretty situational and take up precious feats better spent on things that are more versatile and can reliably help you in any situation (More on why that matters in the next points). Oh, and just forget it if you want to go with thrown weapons.

Archers don't have many options for STAT>DMG to increase their damage output. Melee gets STR>DMG out of the box. Archery doesn't. Not without investing in a Composite Bow, a Mighty weapon or spending a feat to get STAT>DMG, like 'Crossbow Sniper' (which only adds half DEX), many of which have their own requirements. Basically, a money/feat tax to do what melee martials just get for free.

Speaking of increasing damage, archery generally requires more feats as melee. Melee can leverage 'Power Attack' to add extra damage, then multiply that with a Two-handed weapon and feats like 'Leap Attack' combined with 'Shock Trooper' (bonus points if you also have Pounce ability). Sure, your AC will be piss poor a lot, but it won't matter, since whatever you charge has a high chance of being roflstomped in a single turn. 3.5 Archery doesn't really have an equivalent feat for single high damage attacks(Pathfinder does tho).

So, you're probably going to be looking at increasing your number of shots instead through feats like the 'Rapid Shot/Manyshot' line, but doing that takes up 5/6+ feats, instead of just 3. Again, invest more to achieve the same as a melee martial. Also, while many shots is nice against groups of mooks, they don't do much damage individually so you can start having trouble in the higher levels, when Damage Reduction becomes common.

So, since your dmg/attack is likely to be lower than a melee martial, you'll want to up it some other way. Abilities like Sneak Attack and Skirmish can help out a lot, but require setup, i.e. can't use them all the time. Unless you spend feats on it. Or you could enhance your weapon with a bunch of +1d6 Fire/Cold/etc magical abilities, which gets expensive, especially if you also enhance your ammo. And again, at higher levels, elemental resistances/immunities become common, limiting your options.

This is not comprehensive summation. If the above sounds rather munchkiny and focused on combat, then that's because 3.5 archery pretty much requires some degree of it to not be dead weight in combat. Of course, combat is not everything.

But unless you're a Rogue/Scout/Ranger (infiltration/scouting, gathering intelligence, maybe some diplomancy, and other skillmonkey utility), a pure martial won't have much to do outside of combat. So making sure you're really good at the few things you can do well (i.e. combat) is a sound idea. But again, archery generally requires a larger investment compared to melee martials. You're likely going to have to put pretty much everything into your archery, leaving you little to spend on non-combat stuff (or even combat stuff for when ranged is not an option).

Now, I'm not saying you can't make an archer that is both effective, fun to play and flavorful.

Spoiler: Like Swift Hunter

A feat that lets you combine the best of Scout and Ranger.

It can give you extra mobility, bonus damage from Skirmish and mitigating taxes thanks to the Rangers archery combat style bonus feats, in addition to an animal companion, skillmonkey utlity and some minor casting (Ok, not purely martial, but Ranger casting is not likely to make the big difference), depending on how you build. You won't do as much damage as the Ubercharger Barbarian in combat, nor can you outright break encounters like a full caster, but you can contribute many things competently.

Most martials are rather feat-starved, so whenever I play one, I'm usually very deliberate in spending the previous few I get. But Swift Hunter is super worth it. It basically makes Scout and Ranger better at being Scout and Ranger.

There's various others, including some neat mounted ranged options. Many involve going into a sort of magic knight with archery or good ol' UMD tho (and are pretty munchkiny), which kind of defeats the purpose.

PS: it should be noted Pathfinder made archery better, largely by making martials better in general. For example, the Pathfinder Fighter doesn't suck balls and actually has class features. It's perfectly possible to go straight lv20 Fighter and end up with a real terror in combat. As opposed to the 3.5 Fighter, whose main use is as a 1-2 lv dip for the extra feats.

 

[Souplex]

Archery is viable in 5th. It's the best way to go for a rogue, and for fighters it's comparable to using a weapon.
What made it unworkable in the past?

Not so much unworkable in 3.5, but rather harder and more costly compared to melee martial options, in particular two-handed melee. Especially if you want to stay purely martial.

Spoiler: OK, here goes

First of all, archery didn't have as much splatbook support as melee (let alone casting). Tome of Battle, like it or not, greatly expanded the options for pure martials ... as long as you're melee. There also aren't many good PrCs for archery. Many make you lose more than what you gain, like the Arcane Archer not advancing casting in any way while basically just giving you a couple of situational 1/day abilities and free magical weapon enhancement up to +5 (which is sort of nice, but not worth 9 or 10 levels).

Or the PrC requires a heavy tax of feats/skills to get in, like for example 'Shot on the Run', which in turn requires 'Dodge' and 'Mobility'. All of these are pretty situational and take up precious feats better spent on things that are more versatile and can reliably help you in any situation (More on why that matters in the next points). Oh, and just forget it if you want to go with thrown weapons.

Archers don't have many options for STAT>DMG to increase their damage output. Melee gets STR>DMG out of the box. Archery doesn't. Not without investing in a Composite Bow, a Mighty weapon or spending a feat to get STAT>DMG, like 'Crossbow Sniper' (which only adds half DEX), many of which have their own requirements. Basically, a money/feat tax to do what melee martials just get for free.

Speaking of increasing damage, archery generally requires more feats as melee. Melee can leverage 'Power Attack' to add extra damage, then multiply that with a Two-handed weapon and feats like 'Leap Attack' combined with 'Shock Trooper' (bonus points if you also have Pounce ability). Sure, your AC will be piss poor a lot, but it won't matter, since whatever you charge has a high chance of being roflstomped in a single turn. 3.5 Archery doesn't really have an equivalent feat for single high damage attacks(Pathfinder does tho).

So, you're probably going to be looking at increasing your number of shots instead through feats like the 'Rapid Shot/Manyshot' line, but doing that takes up 5/6+ feats, instead of just 3. Again, invest more to achieve the same as a melee martial. Also, while many shots is nice against groups of mooks, they don't do much damage individually so you can start having trouble in the higher levels, when Damage Reduction becomes common.

So, since your dmg/attack is likely to be lower than a melee martial, you'll want to up it some other way. Abilities like Sneak Attack and Skirmish can help out a lot, but require setup, i.e. can't use them all the time. Unless you spend feats on it. Or you could enhance your weapon with a bunch of +1d6 Fire/Cold/etc magical abilities, which gets expensive, especially if you also enhance your ammo. And again, at higher levels, elemental resistances/immunities become common, limiting your options.

This is not comprehensive summation. If the above sounds rather munchkiny and focused on combat, then that's because 3.5 archery pretty much requires some degree of it to not be dead weight in combat. Of course, combat is not everything.

But unless you're a Rogue/Scout/Ranger (infiltration/scouting, gathering intelligence, maybe some diplomancy, and other skillmonkey utility), a pure martial won't have much to do outside of combat. So making sure you're really good at the few things you can do well (i.e. combat) is a sound idea. But again, archery generally requires a larger investment compared to melee martials. You're likely going to have to put pretty much everything into your archery, leaving you little to spend on non-combat stuff (or even combat stuff for when ranged is not an option).

Now, I'm not saying you can't make an archer that is both effective, fun to play and flavorful.

Spoiler: Like Swift Hunter

A feat that lets you combine the best of Scout and Ranger.

It can give you extra mobility, bonus damage from Skirmish and mitigating taxes thanks to the Rangers archery combat style bonus feats, in addition to an animal companion, skillmonkey utlity and some minor casting (Ok, not purely martial, but Ranger casting is not likely to make the big difference), depending on how you build. You won't do as much damage as the Ubercharger Barbarian in combat, nor can you outright break encounters like a full caster, but you can contribute many things competently.

Most martials are rather feat-starved, so whenever I play one, I'm usually very deliberate in spending the previous few I get. But Swift Hunter is super worth it. It basically makes Scout and Ranger better at being Scout and Ranger.

There's various others, including some neat mounted ranged options. Many involve going into a sort of magic knight with archery or good ol' UMD tho (and are pretty munchkiny), which kind of defeats the purpose.

PS: it should be noted Pathfinder made archery better, largely by making martials better in general. For example, the Pathfinder Fighter doesn't suck balls and actually has class features. It's perfectly possible to go straight lv20 Fighter and end up with a real terror in combat. As opposed to the 3.5 Fighter, whose main use is as a 1-2 lv dip for the extra feats.

Ah, see in 5 ranged weapons all add your Dex to damage automatically. Most of the feats in 5 are 2-3 3X feats condensed into 1.
For example, Sharpshooter:
1. Attack at long range without suffering disadvantage.
2. Ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover. (A +2 and +5 to AC respectively)
3. You can power-attack for -5 to hit, +10 to damage. (There's only 1 feat for two-handers as well. It lets you power-attack, and cleave. So archers get the better deal)
Martials get "Fighting styles" at 1st for the fighter, and 2nd for the rest. They're pretty subtle but helpful effects. Archery gives a +2 to hit with ranged weapons. Bear in mind that in 5E the highest AC in the MM is 30. (Other fighting styles include +1 to AC, re-rolling any 1s you roll for damage with a two-handed melee weapon, a +2 to damage with a one-hander when you have no off-hand, and adding the relevant ability score to damage with an off-hand.)
Your number of attacks is purely a product of your class level. There's none of this manyshotrapidshot bullshit. Fighters get a ton, other martials get 2, rogues get 1)
rogues trigger sneak attack (+ half your level (rounded up) in D6s. Nothing is immune to it unlike in 3X) if...
1. There is an ally in 5 feet of the target and you don't have disadvantage, or...
2. You have advantage.
This means archer rogues use their cunning action to hide, pop out and take a pot-shot with advantage triggering sneak attack.
Melee rogues run into the fray, attack an enemy engaged in combat, then use their cunning action to escape.
The melee option requires more team-support and has greater risk. Plus the highest damage finesse-melee is a rapier which does the same damage as a longbow. rogues aren't naturally proficient in longbow, but elves are, and shortbows are D6 which isn't that much difference. In short, archery is the way to go for rogues.
So while doing slightly less damage, overall archery (D8 for a longbow compared to a greatsword's 2d6) is comparable to melee.
You should play 5E. It's the best edition since the greatness of 4th.

 

[iwinatlife]

How are clerics faring in this new world of 5th edition? can I be a proper evil necromancer cleric leading my undead legion? Possible progression into Lich?
are evil PCS in general back in support again? because that disappointed me looking at 4th edition

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

You should play 5E. It's the best edition since the greatness of 4th.

We don't actually play pure 3.5, but rather a homebrewed 3.5/Pathfinder blend campaign setting with some minor other stuff mixed in (tibdbits from Call of Cthulhu, D20 Modern), which has grown over the last 15 years or so, and which I share with another DM (we rotate the duty).

I'm pretty sure I won't convince him to switch systems entirely. We have a vast amount of background material, characters and other stuff that would be a daunting task to update mechanically, which neither of us have the time to do. Also, I'm rather fond of the insane splatbook and supplemental materials support 3.5/Pathfinder has. Going to take a look at stuff we could backport tho. We've been doing it for years, so it wouldn't be a hard sell.

 

[Souplex]

How are clerics faring in this new world of 5th edition? can I be a proper evil necromancer cleric leading my undead legion? Possible progression into Lich?
are evil PCS in general back in support again? because that disappointed me looking at 4th edition

The Death Domain for Clerics, Oathbreaker for Paladins, Assassin for rogues, Fiend Pact for Warlocks and Necromancy School for Wizards are all perfectly valid edgelord choices.
There aren't really hard-coded alignment restrictions (With the exception of the Oathbreaker). Paladins don't even have alignment requirements anymore, instead they have oaths whose tenets they must abide. You can skirt them a little, but if you break them often or blatantly you fall. Even then, falling is usually temporary if you work to redeem yourself.