But I find it absurd that the rogue does so much damage and the barbarian so little... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
But I find it absurd that the rogue does so much damage and the barbarian so little... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
Barbarians don't deal "so little" damage. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's false. The barbarian can, indeed, put up impressive numbers. But they're also a more flexible and varied class. Some of their Primal Paths are defensive or supportive in nature, which is something the rogue can't really brag about. And while the rogue can put up impressive numbers, it's all-or-nothing. If they miss with their one attack, then it doesn't matter. Barbarians are more likely to deal just some damage; which is better than nothing.
Rogues don't begin to catch up until the end of Tier 2. Some barbarian Primal Paths are actually ahead of rogues for their entire respective careers. Heck, even the much-maligned Battlerager is ahead of rogues, or at pace with them, though Tier 3. And that's factoring in a smaller weapon than other barbarians and using their first attack to grapple. And none of that includes reaction attacks like the Berserker's 14th-level feature, Retaliation.
Even the basic rage, with no extra damage from a barbarian's Primal Path, keeps up with paladins and archery Beast Master rangers who aren't using spell slots. And every Primal Path gives rage something extra; whether it's damage, defense, mobility, or something else.
But I find it absurd that the rogue does so much damage and the barbarian so little... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
Let's compare an Arcane Trickster and Beast Barbarian at level 10.
The AT has a rapier and a +5 DEX mod. Let's give him a +2 weapon and look at Booming Blade and a Shadow Blade build.
Booming Blade will do 2d8+7 (16) and Sneak Attack is 5d6 (17.5) with a chance of 2d8 (9) more if it moves, we'll say that happens half the time (4.5) for an avg of 38 damage.
Shadow Blade with a +2 offhand weapon will do 2d8+5 (14) + 1d6+7 (8.5) + 5d6 (17.5) for an avg of 42 damage.
The Barbarian will be using a mundane maul and 1d6 claws and we'll give him a giant belt for a +7 STR mod to be equivalent to a +2 weapon.
With the +3 Rage damage bonus, he makes one attack of 2d6+10 (17) and 2 attacks of 1d6+10 (13.5) for an avg of 44 damage.
Obviously there's more to take into account. Rogue crits bigger but Barb crits more. Rogue has a bunch of utility but Barb can survive 3x the punishment. But overall there is not really a damage gap here if you know how to build both classes.
I hadn't noticed the change in Tasha's regarding booming blade and shadow blade. Crawford said it's something he'd allow and that it was unintended though. Sounds like RAI it's ok.
I hadn't noticed the change in Tasha's regarding booming blade and shadow blade. Crawford said it's something he'd allow and that it was unintended though. Sounds like RAI it's ok.
That's not what Crawford said, at all. He said the blade doesn't have a value, so RAW it doesn't work. A DM who's interested in setting a value can, if they want, but that's a house rule.
But I find it absurd that the rogue does so much damage and the barbarian so little... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
Let's compare an Arcane Trickster and Beast Barbarian at level 10.
The AT has a rapier and a +5 DEX mod. Let's give him a +2 weapon and look at Booming Blade and a Shadow Blade build.
Booming Blade will do 2d8+7 (16) and Sneak Attack is 5d6 (17.5) with a chance of 2d8 (9) more if it moves, we'll say that happens half the time (4.5) for an avg of 38 damage.
Shadow Blade with a +2 offhand weapon will do 2d8+5 (14) + 1d6+7 (8.5) + 5d6 (17.5) for an avg of 42 damage.
The Barbarian will be using a mundane maul and 1d6 claws and we'll give him a giant belt for a +7 STR mod to be equivalent to a +2 weapon.
With the +3 Rage damage bonus, he makes one attack of 2d6+10 (17) and 2 attacks of 1d6+10 (13.5) for an avg of 44 damage.
Obviously there's more to take into account. Rogue crits bigger but Barb crits more. Rogue has a bunch of utility but Barb can survive 3x the punishment. But overall there is not really a damage gap here if you know how to build both classes.
Even without the +7 to strength and merely capping it out at +5 The Barbarian still does 38 avg damage. Without any other factors in play that might come up.
With Simply Two swings of the Maul it's doing something like 34 avg damage. But if both of those had GWM attached It is closer to 54 avg damage if i remember my math correctly. So even at level 10 it's still in line with or better than the rogue.
But this does not mean that the Rogue is doing poor damage at all. It's doing in one hit what is taking the barbarian 2 or 3... And what is taking something like the monk at least 4 hits.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply rogue is lacking. If I were forced to choose a favorite class, rogue would be it. I think 5e has done a pretty good job of making so many classes relevant and competitive (except sorcerer. we don't talk about sorcerer...).
I would say rogues fall behind due to multi-attack mechanics. Basically if a rogue misses their damage is terrible. If they do hit, but the enemy is already low on hitpoints, they waste a lot of damage. Fighters and Barbarians don’t really have this problem. And GWM (particularly paired with giving advantage to themselves via something like reckless attacks) pushes them way above what a rogue can do.
You can build around this to some extent. With a ranged weapon you can probably hide or aim every round to get advantage (to lessen the chance of missing and increase chance to crit) but that playstyle is very repetitive and boring (at least to me). Melee rogues can dual wield for a 2nd attack, but then you give up your wonderful bonus action. You can also do the flyby thing with an owl familiar if you want to melee but that’s kind of cheesy. Even then it doesn’t solve the overkill problem or the GWM/Sharpshooter damage bonus of multi-attack classes.
One damage area where rogues really are awesome is opportunity attacks. But unfortunately few enemies want to provoke those, especially if they know they’ll probably die trying it.
Rogue can still be fun, particularly in a campaign where they can use their amazing skills, but they are definitely not the damage kings.
Barbs are actually very very good with consistent high damage due to Reckless offsetting the GWM penalty fairly well. Pair that with a subclass like Zealot and you have very high DPR.
Rogue does about average until T3 then falls well below at level 11 but they have alternative focus at that point as they become the go to person for when you need something done outside of combat. At level 12 they are basically not failing a check unless its Impossible level DC.
Honestly I am OK with rogue having a lower damage amount as they have incredible out of combat versatility....especially Arcane Trickster that gives you spells.
I hadn't noticed the change in Tasha's regarding booming blade and shadow blade. Crawford said it's something he'd allow and that it was unintended though. Sounds like RAI it's ok.
That's not what Crawford said, at all. He said the blade doesn't have a value, so RAW it doesn't work. A DM who's interested in setting a value can, if they want, but that's a house rule.
All I said was that he'd allow it and that it is seemingly unintended. Did you even read his tweets you linked?
"As DM, I'd totally let the combo work. Shadow Blade creates a simple melee weapon, and if another rule cares about that weapon's value, I'd pick a value from the list of simple melee weapons in the Player's Handbook and apply that value ad hoc to the shadowy blade." Jeremy Crawford
If you read this series of tweets you'll see where he suggests it was unintended and where he'd allow the spells to combine the way they always used to. That was the entirety of my argument.
"I took the opposite intention out of this. What he seems to be describing is that the spell requires a weapon and that you can't sub out the "material component" for an arcane focus or component pouch. Shadow blade seems like an unintended consequence." - Brett Richards @brett_play (random D&D fan)
"You're exactly right, @brett_play. The component entries of the two spells were simply incorrect; they didn't follow the rules for how components work. We've corrected them and, as a consequence, some combos that never should have worked no longer work." -Jeremy Crawford
"This change has nothing to do with prohibiting or allowing Shadow Blade to combine with Booming/Green-Flame Blade. It's about fixing those two cantrips. As DM, I'd allow those them to combo, since I make liberal use of the rule on improvised weapons." -Jeremy Crawford
You appear to be correct that it no longer works RAW. However, that seems to be unintended. By those series of tweets, Crawford at least suggests that RAI it should still work.
Crawford never once mentioned anything about the intention behind the errata and how it interacts with shadow blade. Just because he'd allow it in his home game does not mean the intent is they are supposed to still work together. The rule of cool is, after all, a thing.
I get where you're coming from, but you're conflating two different things.
"Shadow blade seems like an unintended consequence." - Brett Richards @brett_play (random D&D fan)
"You're exactly right, @brett_play." - Jeremy Crawford
RAW it probably doesn't work. RAI it probably should.
Here is one of the issues where Jeremy does not entirely match what the group has said. The group got together and made the errata that says they do not work. This is one of the situations where Jeremy has his own interpretation and it's not official and a reason why Both Jeremy and the Team for D&D has said that Sage Advice is not actual rulings on matters.
I would say rogues fall behind due to multi-attack mechanics. Basically if a rogue misses their damage is terrible. If they do hit, but the enemy is already low on hitpoints, they waste a lot of damage. Fighters and Barbarians don’t really have this problem. And GWM (particularly paired with giving advantage to themselves via something like reckless attacks) pushes them way above what a rogue can do.
You can build around this to some extent. With a ranged weapon you can probably hide or aim every round to get advantage (to lessen the chance of missing and increase chance to crit) but that playstyle is very repetitive and boring (at least to me). Melee rogues can dual wield for a 2nd attack, but then you give up your wonderful bonus action. You can also do the flyby thing with an owl familiar if you want to melee but that’s kind of cheesy. Even then it doesn’t solve the overkill problem or the GWM/Sharpshooter damage bonus of multi-attack classes.
One damage area where rogues really are awesome is opportunity attacks. But unfortunately few enemies want to provoke those, especially if they know they’ll probably die trying it.
Rogue can still be fun, particularly in a campaign where they can use their amazing skills, but they are definitely not the damage kings.
No. Much like the monk does more damage than it seems because of more attacks. The averaging out of things actually works in the opposite direction as well. Those making multiple attacks average out lower damage over multiple attacks instead of all in one big miss like a rogue. Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack. Offhand attacks are actually rediculously weak without being built specifically for in several ways. They do not make up the average damage with any significant amount without them.
Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
"Shadow blade seems like an unintended consequence." - Brett Richards @brett_play (random D&D fan)
"You're exactly right, @brett_play." - Jeremy Crawford
RAW it probably doesn't work. RAI it probably should.
That takes an almost willful misreading of Crawford's words. You really should use his entire passage and not cut it off prematurely. Below is the rest of what he had to say.
"The component entries of the two spells were simply incorrect; they didn't follow the rules for how components work. We've corrected them and, as a consequence, some combos that never should have worked no longer work."
So the two spells were the subject of errata because, as originally written, they didn't follow the rules for how material components are supposed to work. And as a result of the errata, spells that were never intended to work together but still did due to an oversight no longer work together.
Combining shadow blade with the likes of booming blade and green-flame blade was an unintended interaction back when Xanathar's was first released back in 2017. The errata to the cantrips makes it official. Still, Crawford allows the interaction as a house rule. Not to step on the toes of Fateless, but this is why Sage Advice is merely guidance and not considered to be official rulings. Different strokes for different folks.
The RAI is they weren't supposed to work together. RAW, they used to. As of the errata in Tasha's, the RAW says they don't; as originally intended.
Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
"Shadow blade seems like an unintended consequence." - Brett Richards @brett_play (random D&D fan)
"You're exactly right, @brett_play." - Jeremy Crawford
RAW it probably doesn't work. RAI it probably should.
That takes an almost willful misreading of Crawford's words. You really should use his entire passage and not cut it off prematurely. Below is the rest of what he had to say.
"The component entries of the two spells were simply incorrect; they didn't follow the rules for how components work. We've corrected them and, as a consequence, some combos that never should have worked no longer work."
So the two spells were the subject of errata because, as originally written, they didn't follow the rules for how material components are supposed to work. And as a result of the errata, spells that were never intended to work together but still did due to an oversight no longer work together.
Combining shadow blade with the likes of booming blade and green-flame blade was an unintended interaction back when Xanathar's was first released back in 2017. The errata to the cantrips makes it official. Still, Crawford allows the interaction as a house rule. Not to step on the toes of Fateless, but this is why Sage Advice is merely guidance and not considered to be official rulings. Different strokes for different folks.
The RAI is they weren't supposed to work together. RAW, they used to. As of the errata in Tasha's, the RAW says they don't; as originally intended.
Thank you for the further clarification. I had honestly forgotten his full quote by the time I got done reading through everything. It was simply the cut down version again and again.
Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
The max ability modifier is +5, and fighters and barbarians get there too. Fighters even do it sooner thanks to their ASI at 6. And what campaign world do you live in where rogues get magic weapons and fighters/barbarians don’t?
But I find it absurd that the rogue does so much damage and the barbarian so little... the barbarian cannot use spells when in rage, so it has no synergy with cantrip-enhanced attacks. The only advantage of him is the brutal critic which is rare and does less damage than a stealth attack, which almost always happens. Even with the extra damage of the rage and the GREATH WEAPON MASTER feat the damage isn't that spectacular. or maybe i can't see something?
Barbarians don't deal "so little" damage. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's false. The barbarian can, indeed, put up impressive numbers. But they're also a more flexible and varied class. Some of their Primal Paths are defensive or supportive in nature, which is something the rogue can't really brag about. And while the rogue can put up impressive numbers, it's all-or-nothing. If they miss with their one attack, then it doesn't matter. Barbarians are more likely to deal just some damage; which is better than nothing.
Rogues don't begin to catch up until the end of Tier 2. Some barbarian Primal Paths are actually ahead of rogues for their entire respective careers. Heck, even the much-maligned Battlerager is ahead of rogues, or at pace with them, though Tier 3. And that's factoring in a smaller weapon than other barbarians and using their first attack to grapple. And none of that includes reaction attacks like the Berserker's 14th-level feature, Retaliation.
Even the basic rage, with no extra damage from a barbarian's Primal Path, keeps up with paladins and archery Beast Master rangers who aren't using spell slots. And every Primal Path gives rage something extra; whether it's damage, defense, mobility, or something else.
If you consider reckless attack every turn barbarians do fantastic damage. especially if they take great weapon master.
Let's compare an Arcane Trickster and Beast Barbarian at level 10.
The AT has a rapier and a +5 DEX mod. Let's give him a +2 weapon and look at Booming Blade and a Shadow Blade build.
Booming Blade will do 2d8+7 (16) and Sneak Attack is 5d6 (17.5) with a chance of 2d8 (9) more if it moves, we'll say that happens half the time (4.5) for an avg of 38 damage.
Shadow Blade with a +2 offhand weapon will do 2d8+5 (14) + 1d6+7 (8.5) + 5d6 (17.5) for an avg of 42 damage.
The Barbarian will be using a mundane maul and 1d6 claws and we'll give him a giant belt for a +7 STR mod to be equivalent to a +2 weapon.
With the +3 Rage damage bonus, he makes one attack of 2d6+10 (17) and 2 attacks of 1d6+10 (13.5) for an avg of 44 damage.
Obviously there's more to take into account. Rogue crits bigger but Barb crits more. Rogue has a bunch of utility but Barb can survive 3x the punishment. But overall there is not really a damage gap here if you know how to build both classes.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I hadn't noticed the change in Tasha's regarding booming blade and shadow blade. Crawford said it's something he'd allow and that it was unintended though. Sounds like RAI it's ok.
That's not what Crawford said, at all. He said the blade doesn't have a value, so RAW it doesn't work. A DM who's interested in setting a value can, if they want, but that's a house rule.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2020/11/18/does-the-monetary-value-of-the-component-now-negate-being-able-to-use-your-pact-of-the-blade-weapon-or-shadow-blade-in-conjunction-with-booming-blade/
Even without the +7 to strength and merely capping it out at +5 The Barbarian still does 38 avg damage. Without any other factors in play that might come up.
With Simply Two swings of the Maul it's doing something like 34 avg damage. But if both of those had GWM attached It is closer to 54 avg damage if i remember my math correctly. So even at level 10 it's still in line with or better than the rogue.
But this does not mean that the Rogue is doing poor damage at all. It's doing in one hit what is taking the barbarian 2 or 3... And what is taking something like the monk at least 4 hits.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply rogue is lacking. If I were forced to choose a favorite class, rogue would be it. I think 5e has done a pretty good job of making so many classes relevant and competitive (except sorcerer. we don't talk about sorcerer...).
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I would say rogues fall behind due to multi-attack mechanics. Basically if a rogue misses their damage is terrible. If they do hit, but the enemy is already low on hitpoints, they waste a lot of damage. Fighters and Barbarians don’t really have this problem. And GWM (particularly paired with giving advantage to themselves via something like reckless attacks) pushes them way above what a rogue can do.
You can build around this to some extent. With a ranged weapon you can probably hide or aim every round to get advantage (to lessen the chance of missing and increase chance to crit) but that playstyle is very repetitive and boring (at least to me). Melee rogues can dual wield for a 2nd attack, but then you give up your wonderful bonus action. You can also do the flyby thing with an owl familiar if you want to melee but that’s kind of cheesy. Even then it doesn’t solve the overkill problem or the GWM/Sharpshooter damage bonus of multi-attack classes.
One damage area where rogues really are awesome is opportunity attacks. But unfortunately few enemies want to provoke those, especially if they know they’ll probably die trying it.
Rogue can still be fun, particularly in a campaign where they can use their amazing skills, but they are definitely not the damage kings.
Barbs are actually very very good with consistent high damage due to Reckless offsetting the GWM penalty fairly well. Pair that with a subclass like Zealot and you have very high DPR.
Rogue does about average until T3 then falls well below at level 11 but they have alternative focus at that point as they become the go to person for when you need something done outside of combat. At level 12 they are basically not failing a check unless its Impossible level DC.
Honestly I am OK with rogue having a lower damage amount as they have incredible out of combat versatility....especially Arcane Trickster that gives you spells.
All I said was that he'd allow it and that it is seemingly unintended. Did you even read his tweets you linked?
If you read this series of tweets you'll see where he suggests it was unintended and where he'd allow the spells to combine the way they always used to. That was the entirety of my argument.
You appear to be correct that it no longer works RAW. However, that seems to be unintended. By those series of tweets, Crawford at least suggests that RAI it should still work.
Crawford never once mentioned anything about the intention behind the errata and how it interacts with shadow blade. Just because he'd allow it in his home game does not mean the intent is they are supposed to still work together. The rule of cool is, after all, a thing.
I get where you're coming from, but you're conflating two different things.
RAW it probably doesn't work. RAI it probably should.
Here is one of the issues where Jeremy does not entirely match what the group has said. The group got together and made the errata that says they do not work. This is one of the situations where Jeremy has his own interpretation and it's not official and a reason why Both Jeremy and the Team for D&D has said that Sage Advice is not actual rulings on matters.
No. Much like the monk does more damage than it seems because of more attacks. The averaging out of things actually works in the opposite direction as well. Those making multiple attacks average out lower damage over multiple attacks instead of all in one big miss like a rogue. Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack. Offhand attacks are actually rediculously weak without being built specifically for in several ways. They do not make up the average damage with any significant amount without them.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
That takes an almost willful misreading of Crawford's words. You really should use his entire passage and not cut it off prematurely. Below is the rest of what he had to say.
"The component entries of the two spells were simply incorrect; they didn't follow the rules for how components work. We've corrected them and, as a consequence, some combos that never should have worked no longer work."
So the two spells were the subject of errata because, as originally written, they didn't follow the rules for how material components are supposed to work. And as a result of the errata, spells that were never intended to work together but still did due to an oversight no longer work together.
Combining shadow blade with the likes of booming blade and green-flame blade was an unintended interaction back when Xanathar's was first released back in 2017. The errata to the cantrips makes it official. Still, Crawford allows the interaction as a house rule. Not to step on the toes of Fateless, but this is why Sage Advice is merely guidance and not considered to be official rulings. Different strokes for different folks.
The RAI is they weren't supposed to work together. RAW, they used to. As of the errata in Tasha's, the RAW says they don't; as originally intended.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
Thank you for the further clarification. I had honestly forgotten his full quote by the time I got done reading through everything. It was simply the cut down version again and again.
The max ability modifier is +5, and fighters and barbarians get there too. Fighters even do it sooner thanks to their ASI at 6. And what campaign world do you live in where rogues get magic weapons and fighters/barbarians don’t?