As for Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) that another mentioned. There are a lot of people that can't take it. Supposedly there was an errata that made it easier to take. But I haven't been able to locate it lately so it's possible that's somebodies wishful thinking turned into rumor or something. This means that Blind Fighting taken from a feat does have some room for it to be taken... though on a rogue that is questionable because depending on the level the game is going to they get something similar at about level 10.
The prerequisite for Eldritch Adept is that you must have the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature (or both), so it's only an option for a pure Arcane Trickster or a Rogue that multi-classed into a class that grants casting at their level.
It's also worth noting that while Devil's Sight has a much better range (120 feet) it only works on darkness; anything else that can obscure an area such as fog, dust etc. will still render them unable to see normally, whereas blindsight allows you to perceive targets no matter what (as long as they can still be perceived by other means). The Blind Fighting style is a perfect combo with Fog Cloud if you can cast it, or if you can get an ally to cast it, as it gives enemies disadvantage and you advantage to just wade in and wreck them. Advantage on Rogues is doubly fantastic because not only does it make you more likely to hit (and always with sneak attack) it also doubles your chance to get a critical hit, and anyone who's played a Rogue for a while knows just how sweet it is to get a critical sneak attack. 😈
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
As for Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) that another mentioned. There are a lot of people that can't take it. Supposedly there was an errata that made it easier to take. But I haven't been able to locate it lately so it's possible that's somebodies wishful thinking turned into rumor or something. This means that Blind Fighting taken from a feat does have some room for it to be taken... though on a rogue that is questionable because depending on the level the game is going to they get something similar at about level 10.
The prerequisite for Eldritch Adept is that you must have the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature (or both), so it's only an option for a pure Arcane Trickster or a Rogue that multi-classed into a class that grants casting at their level.
It's also worth noting that while Devil's Sight has a much better range (120 feet) it only works on darkness; anything else that can obscure an area such as fog, dust etc. will still render them unable to see normally, whereas blindsight allows you to perceive targets no matter what (as long as they can still be perceived by other means). The Blind Fighting style is a perfect combo with Fog Cloud if you can cast it, or if you can get an ally to cast it, as it gives enemies disadvantage and you advantage to just wade in and wreck them. Advantage on Rogues is doubly fantastic because not only does it make you more likely to hit (and always with sneak attack) it also doubles your chance to get a critical hit, and anyone who's played a Rogue for a while knows just how sweet it is to get a critical sneak attack. 😈
You're not wrong, but Darkness is mobile. Fog Cloud sits in one place until it dissipates. Allies who only have access to Fog Cloud certainly exist, like a party Ranger, but you're much better off getting your hands on the Darkness spell and casting it on a copper coin the Rogue has.
If you have the time and spells add silence to the coin as well and let the rogue permanently silence any spell casters. Yes I know the spell description says on a point. - but if that point is the coin and it doesn’t leave the 120’ range …
You're not wrong, but Darkness is mobile. Fog Cloud sits in one place until it dissipates. Allies who only have access to Fog Cloud certainly exist, like a party Ranger, but you're much better off getting your hands on the Darkness spell and casting it on a copper coin the Rogue has.
While a mobile darkness coin is a fun idea, Devil's Sight still doesn't protect you from anything that isn't darkness; Fog Cloud is how you can capitalise on Blind Fighting yourself (or with help), but it also works if the enemy is the one using it (or a similar effect with fog, sand storms etc., and includes darkness as well), whereas Devil's Sight will only work against enemy abilities if they're darkness based.
To be clear, I'm not saying one is better than another; they both suit different builds and themes, and Blind Fighting can be taken more easily, these are just the considerations that need to be made. For example, I recently built a Swarmkeeper Druid idea, and love the thought of plonking down a load of fog somewhere enemies will struggle to avoid (or right on top of them) then diving in and making sure they can't leave… alive, but that idea also works for a non-caster in combination with a casting ally (better actually, as you can strike immediately, rather than just getting in range to opportunity attack).
You can absolutely do the same type of thing with darkness and Devil's Sight as well, but it's a more specialised build as you need your own casting (to get Devil's Sight) which for a Rogue that will limit you to Arcane Trickster or multi-classing, or taking another feat if your DM is happy to let you count that as meeting the prerequisite (even though technically a casting feat doesn't give you a proper spellcasting feature).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You're not wrong, but Darkness is mobile. Fog Cloud sits in one place until it dissipates. Allies who only have access to Fog Cloud certainly exist, like a party Ranger, but you're much better off getting your hands on the Darkness spell and casting it on a copper coin the Rogue has.
While a mobile darkness coin is a fun idea, Devil's Sight still doesn't protect you from anything that isn't darkness; Fod Cloud is how you can capitalise on Blind Fighting yourself (or with help), but it also works if the enemy is the one using it (or a similar effect, including darkness), whereas Devil's Sight will only work against enemy abilities if they're darkness based.
To be clear, I'm not saying one is better than another; they both suit different builds and themes, and Blind Fighting can be taken more easily, these are just the considerations that need to be made. For example, I recently built a Swarmkeeper Druid idea, and love the thought of plonking down a load of fog somewhere enemies will struggle to avoid (or right on top of them) then diving in and making sure they can't leave… alive, but that idea also works for a non-caster in combination with a casting ally (better actually, as you can strike immediately, rather than just getting in range to opportunity attack).
You can absolutely do the same type of thing with darkness and Devil's Sight as well, but it's a more specialised build as you need your own casting (to get Devil's Sight) which for a Rogue that will limit you to Arcane Trickster or multi-classing, or taking another feat if your DM is happy to let you count that as meating the prerequisite (even though technically it doesn't give you a proper spellcasting feature).
thank you for going more into detail. I'm dealing with RL and didn't have the time to so i just tried to address the biggest hurdle for claiming that Devil's Sight was better for Rogue's. Which primarily seemed to be suggested by the post I answered to be accessibility.
What about the fighter dip that it allows for Archery (+2 attack) and proficiency with longbow (+2for my current level) and ups the range and damage of my ranger weapon to 1d8.
so I’m going from +7 attack 1d6+5 short bow
longbow would be +5 attack 1d8+5 to
longbow +9 attack 1d8+5
Second wind is included, not much but not nothing - and you’re now halfway to action surge, and then one more level from a martial archetype
Rune Knight seems nice.
at worst I’m delaying expertise/ Evasion and missing out on stroke of luck / ASI
What about the fighter dip that it allows for Archery (+2 attack) and proficiency with longbow (+2for my current level) and ups the range and damage of my ranger weapon to 1d8.
so I’m going from +7 attack 1d6+5 short bow
longbow would be +5 attack 1d8+5 to
longbow +9 attack 1d8+5
Second wind is included, not much but not nothing - and you’re now halfway to action surge, and then one more level from a martial archetype
Rune Knight seems nice.
at worst I’m delaying expertise/ Evasion and missing out on stroke of luck / ASI
Your slowing Down more than just your expertise, evasion, and ASI. Your Also losing as much as 2d6 on your backstab damage for a largely insignificant gain in offensive power. Which seems to be the point for doing it. For rogues the gain between long bow and short bow is really small. You actually get 1 more in average damage on any turn you can get sneak attack from just a single extra 1d6. And your looking at an average of 6 damage if the level spread is set right that your not getting 2d6.
Action Surge Seems nice but it's not a big boost on Rogues overall. Since it doesn't get sneak attack your only talking about 8 to 9 damage on average from the extra attack you can make on a single turn. Sneak attack is making up this different in about 3 turns for just 1d6 and faster for each d6 after that from sneak attack.
With the addition of Steady Aim from tasha's and the way that sneak attack works on it's own already. It's not a light thing to forgo sneak attack damage on a rogue. Your actually potentially giving up quite a bit.
yes Rune Knight could offset the damage a little bit. But it only turns out to actually be more damage if you don't expect the game to go past level 10 at most anyway and perhaps lower than that. But at the same time that also means that the lower the level the game ends at the less actual use you get out of rune knight for all the investment as well.
Thank you so much! I am really enjoying the Rogue class and agree that sneak attack dice are not to be missed lightly,
Steady aim is great, and I appreciate its addition as a way of gaining advantage.
having the +2 from archery in both of these attacks still seems beneficiaL, (probably more so on the fighter class with more attacks), the extra longbow damage and second wind just nice little extras that come along with Archery fighting style,
I’ll take a closer look at what the sneak attack progression looks like against a single level of fighter. I like the idea of adding some extra reliability on hitting that one attack, even when it’s at advantage.
Thank you so much! I am really enjoying the Rogue class and agree that sneak attack dice are not to be missed lightly,
Steady aim is great, and I appreciate its addition as a way of gaining advantage.
having the +2 from archery in both of these attacks still seems beneficiaL, (probably more so on the fighter class with more attacks), the extra longbow damage and second wind just nice little extras that come along with Archery fighting style,
I’ll take a closer look at what the sneak attack progression looks like against a single level of fighter. I like the idea of adding some extra reliability on hitting that one attack, even when it’s at advantage.
The +2 is beneficial. But that comes with a bit of a Caveat. Just how beneficial depends on other factors. The largest and most Primary factor is whether you have Sharp Shooter or not.
To get Maximum Damage out of Sharp Shooter as often as possible you need to offset the -5 attack Modifier. So for Things like Fighter and Ranger that aren't going to get advantage quite as easily as a Rogue this +2 becomes vastly more useful under such situations to help offset it. It's slightly less but still very useful to a rogue to have both as well. But the Rogue has it a bit easier both because it's primary damage is not from the weapon damage itself, but also because it has tools for picking up advantage easier through cunning action and Steady Aim that can be used turn after turn making it a lot easier to hit with Sharp Shooter. The +2 just being an added benefit to that equation because hitting more is basically always more valuable with the way D&D is built in such a situation.
But without sharp shooter. That +2 bonus as actually fairly small overall. yes it does represent about a +10% chance more to hit. But over a certain thresh-hold that bonus chance doesn't mean as much because your hitting so much to begin with that hitting just a little more is not as significant improvement as the numbers would suggest.
The +2 isn't always a game changer, and probably not worth getting a feat just for it. But, keep in mind that with a rogue, if they DO miss, their whole turn is basically wasted if they're ranged. If they're in melee and twf maybe they can try the bonus action attack if it's still available to try and get their sneak attack in. But an archer rogue gets one shot, and on a miss, is losing their whole turn in terms of damage output. Missing an attack as a rogue is more punishing because they don't get a second attack, sneak attack is a very all eggs in one basket mechanic. So missing roughly 10% less isn't anything to sneeze at for an archer rogue regardless of sharpshooter.
This also makes me a bit more wary of sharpshooter for a rogue, because while the risk/reward for it is pretty good for a fighter/ranger, a rogue is also betting their one chance to get sneak attack that turn, making the extra damage not as worth the risk unless it's a low AC target. Unless you have something like haste up from a friendly spellcaster to give you a second shot etc.
The +2 isn't always a game changer, and probably not worth getting a feat just for it. But, keep in mind that with a rogue, if they DO miss, their whole turn is basically wasted if they're ranged. If they're in melee and twf maybe they can try the bonus action attack if it's still available to try and get their sneak attack in. But an archer rogue gets one shot, and on a miss, is losing their whole turn in terms of damage output. Missing an attack as a rogue is more punishing because they don't get a second attack, sneak attack is a very all eggs in one basket mechanic. So missing roughly 10% less isn't anything to sneeze at for an archer rogue regardless of sharpshooter.
This also makes me a bit more wary of sharpshooter for a rogue, because while the risk/reward for it is pretty good for a fighter/ranger, a rogue is also betting their one chance to get sneak attack that turn, making the extra damage not as worth the risk unless it's a low AC target. Unless you have something like haste up from a friendly spellcaster to give you a second shot etc.
I have a rogue going right now, and one reason I took the Skulker feat is so that if this happens to me, I stay hidden.
My character though a rogue (scout) and stealthy, doesn't mind standing in the open to brazenly fire arrows. I think it's DM description of if advantage would be reasonable when attacking from the same position (though hidden) once the enemy notices projectiles from that direction. I get that the player isn't revealed, and could likely not be targeted, but might be reasonable that the attacks no longer have advantage, but I guess using steady aim you get the advantage.
Yeah it's pretty disappointing to miss my shot so I was going to hope the +2 would make a difference, going for the fighter dip you get more out of the level than the Fighter initiative feat, and I don't need to wait to level 8 to do it, and it leaves level 8 open to pickup a different feat. I'm not using Sharpshooter for that reason, I like the cover and distance benefits, but would never use the -5/+10 on it.
I am considering moving into a more melee role or at least making it more a part of the character play style instead of dominant archery. I think it would be fine with more reliable hits though. We have a monk and barb in melee, a wizard and sorc in the back so I can really go anywhere.
What about the fighter dip that it allows for Archery (+2 attack) and proficiency with longbow (+2for my current level) and ups the range and damage of my ranger weapon to 1d8.
so I’m going from +7 attack 1d6+5 short bow
longbow would be +5 attack 1d8+5 to
longbow +9 attack 1d8+5
Second wind is included, not much but not nothing - and you’re now halfway to action surge, and then one more level from a martial archetype
Rune Knight seems nice.
at worst I’m delaying expertise/ Evasion and missing out on stroke of luck / ASI
Your slowing Down more than just your expertise, evasion, and ASI. Your Also losing as much as 2d6 on your backstab damage for a largely insignificant gain in offensive power. Which seems to be the point for doing it. For rogues the gain between long bow and short bow is really small. You actually get 1 more in average damage on any turn you can get sneak attack from just a single extra 1d6. And your looking at an average of 6 damage if the level spread is set right that your not getting 2d6.
Action Surge Seems nice but it's not a big boost on Rogues overall. Since it doesn't get sneak attack your only talking about 8 to 9 damage on average from the extra attack you can make on a single turn. Sneak attack is making up this different in about 3 turns for just 1d6 and faster for each d6 after that from sneak attack.
With the addition of Steady Aim from tasha's and the way that sneak attack works on it's own already. It's not a light thing to forgo sneak attack damage on a rogue. Your actually potentially giving up quite a bit.
yes Rune Knight could offset the damage a little bit. But it only turns out to actually be more damage if you don't expect the game to go past level 10 at most anyway and perhaps lower than that. But at the same time that also means that the lower the level the game ends at the less actual use you get out of rune knight for all the investment as well.
You are making up for that 7 points of damage DPR wise with a better chance at hitting for the most part. Just hitting more often as a rogue is a big deal as you only get the one attack.
Its totally worth it for the fighting style IMO. Also action surge could allow you to get two sneak attacks off in one turn for a HUGE amount of surge damage when needed:
Action: Attack with bow.
Action Surge: Ready Attack for if enemy moves or attacks.
Off turn: Enemy moves or attacks....you get sneak attack again with your reaction.
What about the fighter dip that it allows for Archery (+2 attack) and proficiency with longbow (+2for my current level) and ups the range and damage of my ranger weapon to 1d8.
so I’m going from +7 attack 1d6+5 short bow
longbow would be +5 attack 1d8+5 to
longbow +9 attack 1d8+5
Second wind is included, not much but not nothing - and you’re now halfway to action surge, and then one more level from a martial archetype
Rune Knight seems nice.
at worst I’m delaying expertise/ Evasion and missing out on stroke of luck / ASI
Your slowing Down more than just your expertise, evasion, and ASI. Your Also losing as much as 2d6 on your backstab damage for a largely insignificant gain in offensive power. Which seems to be the point for doing it. For rogues the gain between long bow and short bow is really small. You actually get 1 more in average damage on any turn you can get sneak attack from just a single extra 1d6. And your looking at an average of 6 damage if the level spread is set right that your not getting 2d6.
Action Surge Seems nice but it's not a big boost on Rogues overall. Since it doesn't get sneak attack your only talking about 8 to 9 damage on average from the extra attack you can make on a single turn. Sneak attack is making up this different in about 3 turns for just 1d6 and faster for each d6 after that from sneak attack.
With the addition of Steady Aim from tasha's and the way that sneak attack works on it's own already. It's not a light thing to forgo sneak attack damage on a rogue. Your actually potentially giving up quite a bit.
yes Rune Knight could offset the damage a little bit. But it only turns out to actually be more damage if you don't expect the game to go past level 10 at most anyway and perhaps lower than that. But at the same time that also means that the lower the level the game ends at the less actual use you get out of rune knight for all the investment as well.
You are making up for that 7 points of damage DPR wise with a better chance at hitting for the most part. Just hitting more often as a rogue is a big deal as you only get the one attack.
Its totally worth it for the fighting style IMO. Also action surge could allow you to get two sneak attacks off in one turn for a HUGE amount of surge damage when needed:
Action: Attack with bow.
Action Surge: Ready Attack for if enemy moves or attacks.
Off turn: Enemy moves or attacks....you get sneak attack again with your reaction.
I already accounted for that. And your action surge trick is usable like once. That should not be a heavily persuading action. Particularly since you cannot guarantee to trigger it meaning you could have wasted your action surge for nothing.
Yeah it's pretty disappointing to miss my shot so I was going to hope the +2 would make a difference, going for the fighter dip you get more out of the level than the Fighter initiative feat, and I don't need to wait to level 8 to do it, and it leaves level 8 open to pickup a different feat. I'm not using Sharpshooter for that reason, I like the cover and distance benefits, but would never use the -5/+10 on it.
I am considering moving into a more melee role or at least making it more a part of the character play style instead of dominant archery. I think it would be fine with more reliable hits though. We have a monk and barb in melee, a wizard and sorc in the back so I can really go anywhere.
Except because you have pushed things off. Unless your going to invest even more into fighter to get 4 levels. Your not getting that feat at level 8. and your putting off the other rogue things even further just to get the ASI.
I'm decided on a single level of fighter or straight rogue. Because I'm not sure how long the campaign will go, it's literally if a single level of fighter for +2 archery and proficiency with longbow is worth it. In game my character recovered a longbow from a sacred creature that my party attacked and I abstained from, so thematically I want to use this bow, but in character I wouldn't use it until I had practiced in downtime enough to be proficient. After talking it out, I think the dip is suited for this character, and from an optimal point of view it seems pretty split opinions with solid reasons for each.
Hopefully I can tie this back to the original thread of Fighting Styles for Rogue, and while I can see the appeal of it, I think they need to use a feat or a multi-class to obtain them. Creating unique to Rogue fighting styles, or including some reasonable ones like archery/ thrown weapon as an Optional rule I think would need to replace existing features like the Optional rules for the Ranger.
@ Fateless, you seem overly set on convincing mduncan that a fighter dip is a terrible choice in terms of optimization. Based on a 1 level dip, even when at odd levels where you loose a sneak attack die, the difference in damage output will on average be pretty close to 1, once you factor in the higher damage die, and accuracy. You also haven't considered overkill damage on weaker targets, the fact that average damage will be significantly higher on even levels where you get the accuracy, higher damage die, and longer range, and of course the additional proficiencies for martial weapons or armour which the DM may drop magic items for.
It may not be optimal 100% of the time, but it's certainly not a bad choice.
(Also if you're taking it from a purely optimization standpoint, it will almost always be worth the dip with crossbow master unless you have elven accuracy)
What about the fighter dip that it allows for Archery (+2 attack) and proficiency with longbow (+2for my current level) and ups the range and damage of my ranger weapon to 1d8.
so I’m going from +7 attack 1d6+5 short bow
longbow would be +5 attack 1d8+5 to
longbow +9 attack 1d8+5
Second wind is included, not much but not nothing - and you’re now halfway to action surge, and then one more level from a martial archetype
Rune Knight seems nice.
at worst I’m delaying expertise/ Evasion and missing out on stroke of luck / ASI
Your slowing Down more than just your expertise, evasion, and ASI. Your Also losing as much as 2d6 on your backstab damage for a largely insignificant gain in offensive power. Which seems to be the point for doing it. For rogues the gain between long bow and short bow is really small. You actually get 1 more in average damage on any turn you can get sneak attack from just a single extra 1d6. And your looking at an average of 6 damage if the level spread is set right that your not getting 2d6.
Action Surge Seems nice but it's not a big boost on Rogues overall. Since it doesn't get sneak attack your only talking about 8 to 9 damage on average from the extra attack you can make on a single turn. Sneak attack is making up this different in about 3 turns for just 1d6 and faster for each d6 after that from sneak attack.
With the addition of Steady Aim from tasha's and the way that sneak attack works on it's own already. It's not a light thing to forgo sneak attack damage on a rogue. Your actually potentially giving up quite a bit.
yes Rune Knight could offset the damage a little bit. But it only turns out to actually be more damage if you don't expect the game to go past level 10 at most anyway and perhaps lower than that. But at the same time that also means that the lower the level the game ends at the less actual use you get out of rune knight for all the investment as well.
You are making up for that 7 points of damage DPR wise with a better chance at hitting for the most part. Just hitting more often as a rogue is a big deal as you only get the one attack.
Its totally worth it for the fighting style IMO. Also action surge could allow you to get two sneak attacks off in one turn for a HUGE amount of surge damage when needed:
Action: Attack with bow.
Action Surge: Ready Attack for if enemy moves or attacks.
Off turn: Enemy moves or attacks....you get sneak attack again with your reaction.
I already accounted for that. And your action surge trick is usable like once. That should not be a heavily persuading action. Particularly since you cannot guarantee to trigger it meaning you could have wasted your action surge for nothing.
If the enemy does literally nothing then you kinda won anyway? They just stood there and got shot?
Oh and yes if you are only taking 2 levels in fighter you lose out on 1d6 sneak attack not 2d6 so there is that too. 3.5 damage is EASILY outweighed by a +2 to hit.
Also you get shield prof. so if you did need to wade into the frey you could have a +2 AC. You can also use a whip to proc Sneak Attack from 10ft!
You get a BA heal and a couple of levels of beefier hit die.
The major downside I see is not combat (you are actually way better off offensive combat wise with the fighter dip) but rather that you delay Expertise and Uncanny Dodge...those are the actual hits you take with the dip but I feel if your playstyle is an offensive one you will not regret the fighter 2.
I'm decided on a single level of fighter or straight rogue. Because I'm not sure how long the campaign will go, it's literally if a single level of fighter for +2 archery and proficiency with longbow is worth it. In game my character recovered a longbow from a sacred creature that my party attacked and I abstained from, so thematically I want to use this bow, but in character I wouldn't use it until I had practiced in downtime enough to be proficient. After talking it out, I think the dip is suited for this character, and from an optimal point of view it seems pretty split opinions with solid reasons for each.
Hopefully I can tie this back to the original thread of Fighting Styles for Rogue, and while I can see the appeal of it, I think they need to use a feat or a multi-class to obtain them. Creating unique to Rogue fighting styles, or including some reasonable ones like archery/ thrown weapon as an Optional rule I think would need to replace existing features like the Optional rules for the Ranger.
Thats a very good reason for a dip!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The prerequisite for Eldritch Adept is that you must have the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature (or both), so it's only an option for a pure Arcane Trickster or a Rogue that multi-classed into a class that grants casting at their level.
It's also worth noting that while Devil's Sight has a much better range (120 feet) it only works on darkness; anything else that can obscure an area such as fog, dust etc. will still render them unable to see normally, whereas blindsight allows you to perceive targets no matter what (as long as they can still be perceived by other means). The Blind Fighting style is a perfect combo with Fog Cloud if you can cast it, or if you can get an ally to cast it, as it gives enemies disadvantage and you advantage to just wade in and wreck them. Advantage on Rogues is doubly fantastic because not only does it make you more likely to hit (and always with sneak attack) it also doubles your chance to get a critical hit, and anyone who's played a Rogue for a while knows just how sweet it is to get a critical sneak attack. 😈
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You're not wrong, but Darkness is mobile. Fog Cloud sits in one place until it dissipates. Allies who only have access to Fog Cloud certainly exist, like a party Ranger, but you're much better off getting your hands on the Darkness spell and casting it on a copper coin the Rogue has.
If you have the time and spells add silence to the coin as well and let the rogue permanently silence any spell casters. Yes I know the spell description says on a point. - but if that point is the coin and it doesn’t leave the 120’ range …
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While a mobile darkness coin is a fun idea, Devil's Sight still doesn't protect you from anything that isn't darkness; Fog Cloud is how you can capitalise on Blind Fighting yourself (or with help), but it also works if the enemy is the one using it (or a similar effect with fog, sand storms etc., and includes darkness as well), whereas Devil's Sight will only work against enemy abilities if they're darkness based.
To be clear, I'm not saying one is better than another; they both suit different builds and themes, and Blind Fighting can be taken more easily, these are just the considerations that need to be made. For example, I recently built a Swarmkeeper Druid idea, and love the thought of plonking down a load of fog somewhere enemies will struggle to avoid (or right on top of them) then diving in and making sure they can't leave… alive, but that idea also works for a non-caster in combination with a casting ally (better actually, as you can strike immediately, rather than just getting in range to opportunity attack).
You can absolutely do the same type of thing with darkness and Devil's Sight as well, but it's a more specialised build as you need your own casting (to get Devil's Sight) which for a Rogue that will limit you to Arcane Trickster or multi-classing, or taking another feat if your DM is happy to let you count that as meeting the prerequisite (even though technically a casting feat doesn't give you a proper spellcasting feature).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
thank you for going more into detail. I'm dealing with RL and didn't have the time to so i just tried to address the biggest hurdle for claiming that Devil's Sight was better for Rogue's. Which primarily seemed to be suggested by the post I answered to be accessibility.
What about the fighter dip that it allows for Archery (+2 attack) and proficiency with longbow (+2for my current level) and ups the range and damage of my ranger weapon to 1d8.
so I’m going from +7 attack 1d6+5 short bow
longbow would be +5 attack 1d8+5 to
longbow +9 attack 1d8+5
Second wind is included, not much but not nothing - and you’re now halfway to action surge, and then one more level from a martial archetype
Rune Knight seems nice.
at worst I’m delaying expertise/ Evasion and missing out on stroke of luck / ASI
Your slowing Down more than just your expertise, evasion, and ASI. Your Also losing as much as 2d6 on your backstab damage for a largely insignificant gain in offensive power. Which seems to be the point for doing it. For rogues the gain between long bow and short bow is really small. You actually get 1 more in average damage on any turn you can get sneak attack from just a single extra 1d6. And your looking at an average of 6 damage if the level spread is set right that your not getting 2d6.
Action Surge Seems nice but it's not a big boost on Rogues overall. Since it doesn't get sneak attack your only talking about 8 to 9 damage on average from the extra attack you can make on a single turn. Sneak attack is making up this different in about 3 turns for just 1d6 and faster for each d6 after that from sneak attack.
With the addition of Steady Aim from tasha's and the way that sneak attack works on it's own already. It's not a light thing to forgo sneak attack damage on a rogue. Your actually potentially giving up quite a bit.
yes Rune Knight could offset the damage a little bit. But it only turns out to actually be more damage if you don't expect the game to go past level 10 at most anyway and perhaps lower than that. But at the same time that also means that the lower the level the game ends at the less actual use you get out of rune knight for all the investment as well.
Thank you so much! I am really enjoying the Rogue class and agree that sneak attack dice are not to be missed lightly,
Steady aim is great, and I appreciate its addition as a way of gaining advantage.
having the +2 from archery in both of these attacks still seems beneficiaL, (probably more so on the fighter class with more attacks), the extra longbow damage and second wind just nice little extras that come along with Archery fighting style,
I’ll take a closer look at what the sneak attack progression looks like against a single level of fighter. I like the idea of adding some extra reliability on hitting that one attack, even when it’s at advantage.
The +2 is beneficial. But that comes with a bit of a Caveat. Just how beneficial depends on other factors. The largest and most Primary factor is whether you have Sharp Shooter or not.
To get Maximum Damage out of Sharp Shooter as often as possible you need to offset the -5 attack Modifier. So for Things like Fighter and Ranger that aren't going to get advantage quite as easily as a Rogue this +2 becomes vastly more useful under such situations to help offset it. It's slightly less but still very useful to a rogue to have both as well. But the Rogue has it a bit easier both because it's primary damage is not from the weapon damage itself, but also because it has tools for picking up advantage easier through cunning action and Steady Aim that can be used turn after turn making it a lot easier to hit with Sharp Shooter. The +2 just being an added benefit to that equation because hitting more is basically always more valuable with the way D&D is built in such a situation.
But without sharp shooter. That +2 bonus as actually fairly small overall. yes it does represent about a +10% chance more to hit. But over a certain thresh-hold that bonus chance doesn't mean as much because your hitting so much to begin with that hitting just a little more is not as significant improvement as the numbers would suggest.
The +2 isn't always a game changer, and probably not worth getting a feat just for it. But, keep in mind that with a rogue, if they DO miss, their whole turn is basically wasted if they're ranged. If they're in melee and twf maybe they can try the bonus action attack if it's still available to try and get their sneak attack in. But an archer rogue gets one shot, and on a miss, is losing their whole turn in terms of damage output. Missing an attack as a rogue is more punishing because they don't get a second attack, sneak attack is a very all eggs in one basket mechanic. So missing roughly 10% less isn't anything to sneeze at for an archer rogue regardless of sharpshooter.
This also makes me a bit more wary of sharpshooter for a rogue, because while the risk/reward for it is pretty good for a fighter/ranger, a rogue is also betting their one chance to get sneak attack that turn, making the extra damage not as worth the risk unless it's a low AC target. Unless you have something like haste up from a friendly spellcaster to give you a second shot etc.
I have a rogue going right now, and one reason I took the Skulker feat is so that if this happens to me, I stay hidden.
My character though a rogue (scout) and stealthy, doesn't mind standing in the open to brazenly fire arrows. I think it's DM description of if advantage would be reasonable when attacking from the same position (though hidden) once the enemy notices projectiles from that direction.
I get that the player isn't revealed, and could likely not be targeted, but might be reasonable that the attacks no longer have advantage, but I guess using steady aim you get the advantage.
Yeah it's pretty disappointing to miss my shot so I was going to hope the +2 would make a difference, going for the fighter dip you get more out of the level than the Fighter initiative feat, and I don't need to wait to level 8 to do it, and it leaves level 8 open to pickup a different feat.
I'm not using Sharpshooter for that reason, I like the cover and distance benefits, but would never use the -5/+10 on it.
I am considering moving into a more melee role or at least making it more a part of the character play style instead of dominant archery. I think it would be fine with more reliable hits though. We have a monk and barb in melee, a wizard and sorc in the back so I can really go anywhere.
You are making up for that 7 points of damage DPR wise with a better chance at hitting for the most part. Just hitting more often as a rogue is a big deal as you only get the one attack.
Its totally worth it for the fighting style IMO. Also action surge could allow you to get two sneak attacks off in one turn for a HUGE amount of surge damage when needed:
Action: Attack with bow.
Action Surge: Ready Attack for if enemy moves or attacks.
Off turn: Enemy moves or attacks....you get sneak attack again with your reaction.
I already accounted for that. And your action surge trick is usable like once. That should not be a heavily persuading action. Particularly since you cannot guarantee to trigger it meaning you could have wasted your action surge for nothing.
Except because you have pushed things off. Unless your going to invest even more into fighter to get 4 levels. Your not getting that feat at level 8. and your putting off the other rogue things even further just to get the ASI.
I'm decided on a single level of fighter or straight rogue. Because I'm not sure how long the campaign will go, it's literally if a single level of fighter for +2 archery and proficiency with longbow is worth it.
In game my character recovered a longbow from a sacred creature that my party attacked and I abstained from, so thematically I want to use this bow, but in character I wouldn't use it until I had practiced in downtime enough to be proficient. After talking it out, I think the dip is suited for this character, and from an optimal point of view it seems pretty split opinions with solid reasons for each.
Hopefully I can tie this back to the original thread of Fighting Styles for Rogue, and while I can see the appeal of it, I think they need to use a feat or a multi-class to obtain them.
Creating unique to Rogue fighting styles, or including some reasonable ones like archery/ thrown weapon as an Optional rule I think would need to replace existing features like the Optional rules for the Ranger.
@ Fateless, you seem overly set on convincing mduncan that a fighter dip is a terrible choice in terms of optimization.
Based on a 1 level dip, even when at odd levels where you loose a sneak attack die, the difference in damage output will on average be pretty close to 1, once you factor in the higher damage die, and accuracy.
You also haven't considered overkill damage on weaker targets, the fact that average damage will be significantly higher on even levels where you get the accuracy, higher damage die, and longer range, and of course the additional proficiencies for martial weapons or armour which the DM may drop magic items for.
It may not be optimal 100% of the time, but it's certainly not a bad choice.
(Also if you're taking it from a purely optimization standpoint, it will almost always be worth the dip with crossbow master unless you have elven accuracy)
If the enemy does literally nothing then you kinda won anyway? They just stood there and got shot?
Oh and yes if you are only taking 2 levels in fighter you lose out on 1d6 sneak attack not 2d6 so there is that too. 3.5 damage is EASILY outweighed by a +2 to hit.
Also you get shield prof. so if you did need to wade into the frey you could have a +2 AC. You can also use a whip to proc Sneak Attack from 10ft!
You get a BA heal and a couple of levels of beefier hit die.
The major downside I see is not combat (you are actually way better off offensive combat wise with the fighter dip) but rather that you delay Expertise and Uncanny Dodge...those are the actual hits you take with the dip but I feel if your playstyle is an offensive one you will not regret the fighter 2.
Thats a very good reason for a dip!