Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I like the aim feature, but it can be abused by ranged rogues. My suggestion would be to limit the aim action to a 30 to 50 ft range, whatever balances the best. It makes the aim cost a bit more to use it by leaving the Rogue more vulnerable. It also makes sense thematically. In order to get the "vital damage" given by sneak attack, you'd have to be close enough to take a good shot.
Abused how? I think it was literally made to make them more competitive.
You know I'm not sure why so much focus is being given to Aim on ranged rogues in this thread. When I read the feature my first thought was "Oh, they're giving a way for melee rogues to have a reliable source of Sneak Attack." Ranged rogues can often just find a place to Hide. It's the melee rogues that would likely want to trade moving for advantage on an attack -- they're often not going anywhere anyway if they're already engaged.
Sure, Aim is more reliable than Hide for a ranged rogue, but let's be honest, in most cases the rogue is going to be successful at hiding, anyway. The difference there would be minimal. The ranged rogue is still incentivized to use Hide over Aim as when they do it at the end of a turn, they pretty much assure they won't be attacked that round.
You know I'm not sure why so much focus is being given to Aim on ranged rogues in this thread. When I read the feature my first thought was "Oh, they're giving a way for melee rogues to have a reliable source of Sneak Attack." Ranged rogues can often just find a place to Hide. It's the melee rogues that would likely want to trade moving for advantage on an attack -- they're often not going anywhere anyway if they're already engaged.
Sure, Aim is more reliable than Hide for a ranged rogue, but let's be honest, in most cases the rogue is going to be successful at hiding, anyway. The difference there would be minimal. The ranged rogue is still incentivized to use Hide over Aim as when they do it at the end of a turn, they pretty much assure they won't be attacked that round.
Hiding during combat is pretty DM dependent. There aren't any actual rules about hiding in combat outside of you can try it. Crawford has basically said hiding in combat can maybe grant advantage but might not. Think of it this way; if the rogue can duck behind a tree and hide, he's hidden. But the second that rogue steps out to fire an arrow, she's out in the open and might be seen again. An enemy might have gotten shot by this rogue a few times already. If that is the case, this trick might not work anymore.
It's all subjective up to the DM's interpretations. I've seen DM's argue that because everyone is on high alert once combat starts, there is no reason to grant advantage to a player the enemy just saw duck behind a tree. The reason I like Aim for the ranged rogue is to get advantage without DM interpretation. It's also a nice option for melee rogues if they wouldn't otherwise get sneak attack.
You know I'm not sure why so much focus is being given to Aim on ranged rogues in this thread. When I read the feature my first thought was "Oh, they're giving a way for melee rogues to have a reliable source of Sneak Attack." Ranged rogues can often just find a place to Hide. It's the melee rogues that would likely want to trade moving for advantage on an attack -- they're often not going anywhere anyway if they're already engaged.
Sure, Aim is more reliable than Hide for a ranged rogue, but let's be honest, in most cases the rogue is going to be successful at hiding, anyway. The difference there would be minimal. The ranged rogue is still incentivized to use Hide over Aim as when they do it at the end of a turn, they pretty much assure they won't be attacked that round.
Hiding during combat is pretty DM dependent. There aren't any actual rules about hiding in combat outside of you can try it. Crawford has basically said hiding in combat can maybe grant advantage but might not. Think of it this way; if the rogue can duck behind a tree and hide, he's hidden. But the second that rogue steps out to fire an arrow, she's out in the open and might be seen again. An enemy might have gotten shot by this rogue a few times already. If that is the case, this trick might not work anymore.
It's all subjective up to the DM's interpretations. I've seen DM's argue that because everyone is on high alert once combat starts, there is no reason to grant advantage to a player the enemy just saw duck behind a tree. The reason I like Aim for the ranged rogue is to get advantage without DM interpretation. It's also a nice option for melee rogues if they wouldn't otherwise get sneak attack.
Perhaps it's DM dependent, but it really shouldn't be. Crawford hasn't been as vague as you think on the subject. He's said:
3. He's okay with DMs putting the Hide check at disadvantage for repeat hiders in the same place (that is a DM discretion thing) -- though he seems to prefer just having an enemy follow the rogue into his hiding spot if he wants to discourage hiding. He's never said a rogue should be disallowed from Hiding if they are unseen. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834908670332829696
i would just make aim give advantage against the user for one attack. similar to the reckless attack that barbarians get but just tone it down to the one attack. Makes rouges have to think more and I believe is a fair trade off since they are standing still to take perfect aim. Meaning someone should also be able to get perfect aim back; or they have to put them selves in a precarious spot in melee in order to get that perfect angle need leaving them open.
his idea is awful. Ranged rogues benefit and melee rogues, who are more likely to need the help...do not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
How are your ranged rogues always getting advantage? By bonus action hiding? You could make hiding more difficult. After all, if you just got shot by an arrow I'm guessing you're going to know where it came from. Someone isn't going to be able to hide from you very easily. I think the game mechanics are actually set up with bonus action hiding being somewhat difficult. In a dark forest, sure if allow it. In a well lit Hall, no way.
Also, mathematically two attacks is still better than one with advantage unless you have Elven advantage. Otherwise the odds of landing sneak attack are the same. With the melee option you can still attack once and then decide if you want to attack again or disengage (out whatever else).
Another option to make the ranged rogues life more difficult is to put enemies up in their grill. That doesn't really work against the scout but every other rogue will either have to take a feat, attack in melee, shoot at disadvantage, or bonus action disengage.
Our rogue does it with bonus action hide as a halfling and hides behind my medium sized character.
For true sneakiness hide behind a wood elf who is in turn hiding behind a bush....
Considering that the balancing philosophy behind Rogue damage is the assumption that they get Sneak Attack every turn, I think this falls in line with that. The Elven Accuracy longbow rogue is going to be that much more optimized with this and WOTC has to have thought of that, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
i would just make aim give advantage against the user for one attack. similar to the reckless attack that barbarians get but just tone it down to the one attack. Makes rouges have to think more and I believe is a fair trade off since they are standing still to take perfect aim. Meaning someone should also be able to get perfect aim back; or they have to put them selves in a precarious spot in melee in order to get that perfect angle need leaving them open.
That doesn't even things out the way you might think. A nimble fighter like a rogue would be able to stay mobile (yes, within his 5ft location) enough to keep his guard up while still assessing and aiming at weak spots in his opponent. Think of a boxer throwing a hook, uppercut, or cross vs throwing a haymaker. The latter leaves his body open to counter punch choosing power over defense, the previous are intentional potentially devastating precise shots while keeping guard intact. Just because the rogue is choosing where he hits does not mean the target has the ability to do so as well.
The 0ft movement penalty is perfectly limiting. Either stand and poke your opponent to death or disengage and rely on run by slashings.
Nothing wrong with aim + ranged rogues.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Abused how? I think it was literally made to make them more competitive.
deleted
You know I'm not sure why so much focus is being given to Aim on ranged rogues in this thread. When I read the feature my first thought was "Oh, they're giving a way for melee rogues to have a reliable source of Sneak Attack." Ranged rogues can often just find a place to Hide. It's the melee rogues that would likely want to trade moving for advantage on an attack -- they're often not going anywhere anyway if they're already engaged.
Sure, Aim is more reliable than Hide for a ranged rogue, but let's be honest, in most cases the rogue is going to be successful at hiding, anyway. The difference there would be minimal. The ranged rogue is still incentivized to use Hide over Aim as when they do it at the end of a turn, they pretty much assure they won't be attacked that round.
Hiding during combat is pretty DM dependent. There aren't any actual rules about hiding in combat outside of you can try it. Crawford has basically said hiding in combat can maybe grant advantage but might not. Think of it this way; if the rogue can duck behind a tree and hide, he's hidden. But the second that rogue steps out to fire an arrow, she's out in the open and might be seen again. An enemy might have gotten shot by this rogue a few times already. If that is the case, this trick might not work anymore.
It's all subjective up to the DM's interpretations. I've seen DM's argue that because everyone is on high alert once combat starts, there is no reason to grant advantage to a player the enemy just saw duck behind a tree. The reason I like Aim for the ranged rogue is to get advantage without DM interpretation. It's also a nice option for melee rogues if they wouldn't otherwise get sneak attack.
Perhaps it's DM dependent, but it really shouldn't be. Crawford hasn't been as vague as you think on the subject. He's said:
1. Yes, you can Hide in combat. It's an action you can take provided you are out of sight (as per the Hiding sidebar in the PHB 177). https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834842113158246400
2. "Popping out" to get a line of sight for a shot is okay -- ie. you don't lose the hidden status on the shot for that. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834890766925193216
3. He's okay with DMs putting the Hide check at disadvantage for repeat hiders in the same place (that is a DM discretion thing) -- though he seems to prefer just having an enemy follow the rogue into his hiding spot if he wants to discourage hiding. He's never said a rogue should be disallowed from Hiding if they are unseen. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834908670332829696
4. Hiding in combat grants advantage. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834888764354809856
Most importantly, he's said the "pop out attack - hide, pop out attack - hide" cycle is an intended use of Cunning Action. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834885800626008064
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/25/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/
i would just make aim give advantage against the user for one attack. similar to the reckless attack that barbarians get but just tone it down to the one attack. Makes rouges have to think more and I believe is a fair trade off since they are standing still to take perfect aim. Meaning someone should also be able to get perfect aim back; or they have to put them selves in a precarious spot in melee in order to get that perfect angle need leaving them open.
That's how it works. It's no longer Cunning Action: Aim. It's called Steady Aim. It's official material now! It was just released in Tasha's.
takashiryuu's suggestion was for Aim to grant advantage against the Rogue for a turn as well. That is not how it works.
I find it weird they decided to move it to 3rd level. I suppose maybe there was a concern about spellcasters dipping Rogue for it.
his idea is awful. Ranged rogues benefit and melee rogues, who are more likely to need the help...do not.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yeah I misread what he wrote. That would be terrible.
For true sneakiness hide behind a wood elf who is in turn hiding behind a bush....
Considering that the balancing philosophy behind Rogue damage is the assumption that they get Sneak Attack every turn, I think this falls in line with that. The Elven Accuracy longbow rogue is going to be that much more optimized with this and WOTC has to have thought of that, right?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That doesn't even things out the way you might think. A nimble fighter like a rogue would be able to stay mobile (yes, within his 5ft location) enough to keep his guard up while still assessing and aiming at weak spots in his opponent. Think of a boxer throwing a hook, uppercut, or cross vs throwing a haymaker. The latter leaves his body open to counter punch choosing power over defense, the previous are intentional potentially devastating precise shots while keeping guard intact. Just because the rogue is choosing where he hits does not mean the target has the ability to do so as well.
The 0ft movement penalty is perfectly limiting. Either stand and poke your opponent to death or disengage and rely on run by slashings.