At best, this only means they can't be attacked effectively. Given that Rogues have middling DPR and no truly effective CC, what's broken about it?
Rogues in tier 1 have excellent DPR, it just doesn't scale well into higher tiers.
Assuming he gets Sneak Attack all the time, a 2nd level Rogue gets 2d6 + attribute damage once per turn.
A 2nd level TWF Ranger gets two attacks per turn with that damage, and that's without any notable cheesy optimization.
The Sneak Attack reqs are an ally next to the target or advantage- something half of the weapons they're likely to use can generate, and they have a 3rd level feature to produce as well. If you aren't getting Sneak Attack more turns than not, you're either not picking targets well or the DM is very actively screwing with you.
Also, you're ignoring the obvious point that there's nothing stopping a Rogue from TWF for only slightly less DPR independent of the Sneak Attack.
If they waste the Weapon Mastery on Nick (instead of Shortbow Vex), then they get an extra +1d6 damage. It's not slightly less. It's 1d6 + attribute less because they don't get Fighting Styles.
I'm not saying it's hard to get Sneak Attack. I'm saying it's conditional. They don't get it all the time. The Ranger gets their Hunter's Mark off reliably. I'd broadly consider them equivalent since you need to maintain Concentration for Hunter's Mark.
But the Rogue DPR here is significantly less. 1d6 + attribute isn't slightly less damage at low levels. That's an entire extra attack's worth of DPR.
For single targets, the Wizard is best when applying CC. They can insta-end an encounter with effective CC.
Not reliably. Boss monsters almost always have legendary resistances which completely negates CC, alternatively minions and lair effects can usually break a wizard's concentration fairly quickly again negating 90% of CC, and many many bosses are simply immune to the most common conditions. Or simply have the enemies be invisible or the battlefield obscured and it negates a large fraction of a wizard's abilities. CC is only effective in the singular instance of a solo boss monster without legendary resistances or immunities.
Rogues can prevent encounters in the first place by scouting ahead, disarming traps, and picking locks to find routes around enemies. Rogues deal tier 1 damage meaning they impose the best condition in the game for CC : dead.
In a majority of my games, the most effective character in the party in combat has been the rogue. In one campaign it was a Warlock-Rogue comboing Green Flame Blade + Sneak Attack for 6d6 + 9 + 3d8 damage every round at 11th level, in another it was a Fighter-Rogue with an AC of 22, dealing 7d6 + 14 every round at range with their psychic blades, in another it was a straight Assassin Rogue dealing 8d6+20 most rounds with a handcrossbow (2014 rules - though admittedly the rest of the party were all full spellcasters in this campaign). Note that the highest level any of our campaigns reached was 14, so all the "what about Wish" folks can take that argument elsewhere because almost nobody plays at those levels and when they do it is for a tiny fraction of the campaign. I'd much rather a character that shines in tier 1&2 than one that breaks the game at level 17.
5e Rogues are supposed to be getting Sneak Attack every turn, it is incredibly easy to get it. Between Steady Aim, BA:Hide, all the Weapon Masteries, and just good old fashioned allies in melee range the only times you won't be getting it is if you are frightened or poisoned or some other condition is forcing you to have disadvantage.
Ranger damage scales terribly, they only have an edge over the rogue for levels 1-2 and then only if they are two-weapon fighting and can get advantage on their attacks. Monk is in the same boat as spellcasters in that while they have Focus Points they out damage a rogue at low levels but fall behind when they are out of Focus, though since their Focus comes back on a short rest it depends on combat length & frequency who comes out on top. Fighters are behind Rogues in terms of DPR in tier 1 and some of tier 2, they rely on picking the right feats to keep up. Paladins are behind rogues in DPR especially in 2024 since they cannot nova when there are few combats per day, if played perfectly you might be able to surpass a Rogue with some well timed crits but most players will not achieve such perfection, whereas it is dead easy to excel at playing a rogue - all you have to do is try to find a way to get sneak attack each round and you're good.
Because they're supposed to be equivalent classes.
They are. The Wizard is more powerful than the Rogue if they use spellslots but they have limited spellslots and once they are gone they are much weaker than the Rogue. In contrast the Rogue is reliable, it can do its think all day, every round, for hours and hours, and be fine - a Rogue's sneak attack can deal as much damage as a Wizard's fireball but that rogue can sneak attack every turn of every combat and even sometimes as a reaction, whereas a Wizard has a finite number of fireballs they can cast a day. A wizard using the Invisible spell is doomed if a random trap breaks their concentration, whereas if a Rogue gets spotted they can dash around a corner and hide again, or lie their way out of it.
I am worried if we're using Fireball as an example of peak wizard power, and comparing Rogue's single-target damage at ~13th level to the Wizard's AoE damage from Fireball at 5th level as if that makes the Rogue look good. (The only point where Fireball even makes sense is against a room full of mooks - it's a crowd clearing spell. The Rogue isn't even comparable).
For single targets, the Wizard is best when applying CC. They can insta-end an encounter with effective CC.
Not reliably. Boss monsters almost always have legendary resistances which completely negates CC, alternatively minions and lair effects can usually break a wizard's concentration fairly quickly again negating 90% of CC, and many many bosses are simply immune to the most common conditions. Or simply have the enemies be invisible or the battlefield obscured and it negates a large fraction of a wizard's abilities. CC is only effective in the singular instance of a solo boss monster without legendary resistances or immunities.
Rogues can prevent encounters in the first place by scouting ahead, disarming traps, and picking locks to find routes around enemies. Rogues deal tier 1 damage meaning they impose the best condition in the game for CC : dead.
In a majority of my games, the most effective character in the party in combat has been the rogue. In one campaign it was a Warlock-Rogue comboing Green Flame Blade + Sneak Attack for 6d6 + 5 + 3d8 damage every round at 11th level, in another it was a Fighter-Rogue with an AC of 22, dealing 7d6 + 10 every round with their psychic blades, in another it was a straight Assassin Rogue dealing 8d6+20 most rounds with a handcrossbow (2014 rules - though admittedly the rest of the party were all full spellcasters in this campaign). Note that the highest level any of our campaigns reached was 14, so all the "what about Wish" folks can take that argument elsewhere because almost nobody plays at those levels and when they do it is for a tiny fraction of the campaign. I'd much rather a character that shines in tier 1&2 than one that breaks the game at level 17.
Your calculations are off. A Rogue only gets 6d6 SA damage at 11th level, so that needs to be a straight classed Rogue, not a Warlock-Rogue. We're assuming the 3d8 includes the 2d8 from the Greenflame Blade and the Rapier.
21+5+13.5 = 39.5
Baseline Warlock with Agonizing Blast, Hex, and 3 Eldritch Blasts is 42 if all attacks hit. It's more or less comparable. The baseline is probably a bit less. This isn't tier 1 damage. This is near-baseline damage.
7d6 +10 is worse. It's 34.5 average. That's likely exactly at baseline or a bit below.
Wizards can reliably inflict CC. That's their chief strength. Running down Legendary Resistances or inflicting effective CC without saves is what Wizards are all about.
Honestly? Maybe you guys just don't optimize that much. That's okay. It's absolutely fine. Everyone plays the game the way they want, and if everyone is having fun, then that's good.
As long as everyone is on the same page about how Hide works, it's all good. Talk to your friends.
At best, this only means they can't be attacked effectively. Given that Rogues have middling DPR and no truly effective CC, what's broken about it?
Rogues in tier 1 have excellent DPR, it just doesn't scale well into higher tiers.
Assuming he gets Sneak Attack all the time, a 2nd level Rogue gets 2d6 + attribute damage once per turn.
A 2nd level TWF Ranger gets two attacks per turn with that damage, and that's without any notable cheesy optimization.
The Sneak Attack reqs are an ally next to the target or advantage- something half of the weapons they're likely to use can generate, and they have a 3rd level feature to produce as well. If you aren't getting Sneak Attack more turns than not, you're either not picking targets well or the DM is very actively screwing with you.
Also, you're ignoring the obvious point that there's nothing stopping a Rogue from TWF for only slightly less DPR independent of the Sneak Attack.
If they waste the Weapon Mastery on Nick (instead of Shortbow Vex), then they get an extra +1d6 damage. It's not slightly less. It's 1d6 + attribute less because they don't get Fighting Styles.
I'm not saying it's hard to get Sneak Attack. I'm saying it's conditional. They don't get it all the time. The Ranger gets their Hunter's Mark off reliably. I'd broadly consider them equivalent since you need to maintain Concentration for Hunter's Mark.
But the Rogue DPR here is significantly less. 1d6 + attribute isn't slightly less damage at low levels. That's an entire extra attack's worth of DPR.
Not sure why they specifically need Nick as opposed to just doing TWF. Nick just makes it a little more efficient, and besides if we're going with the broken interpretation of Hide then Nick is the better pick because you'll already have advantage and Slow is very situational, so making two swings and Hiding just trims the odds you'll miss your Sneak Attack for the turn.
There's tons of specific foils to stealth, including blindsight, true sight, and see invisible. These are fairly common monster abilities.
So the stealth is fine as long as it's impossible to use most of the time? How is using enemies with blindsight / truesight all the time better than ruling that to hide it has to be a situation where hiding would be reasonable? IMO using blindsight/truesight monsters all the time is much more "saying stealth is completely useless" than saying "you have to be hiding behind something out of enemy line of sight to hide". The former is completely negating stealth, while the latter is simply requiring players to RP their hiding as I would require for any skill check.
At best, this only means they can't be attacked effectively. Given that Rogues have middling DPR and no truly effective CC, what's broken about it?
Rogues in tier 1 have excellent DPR, it just doesn't scale well into higher tiers.
Assuming he gets Sneak Attack all the time, a 2nd level Rogue gets 2d6 + attribute damage once per turn.
A 2nd level TWF Ranger gets two attacks per turn with that damage, and that's without any notable cheesy optimization.
The Sneak Attack reqs are an ally next to the target or advantage- something half of the weapons they're likely to use can generate, and they have a 3rd level feature to produce as well. If you aren't getting Sneak Attack more turns than not, you're either not picking targets well or the DM is very actively screwing with you.
Also, you're ignoring the obvious point that there's nothing stopping a Rogue from TWF for only slightly less DPR independent of the Sneak Attack.
If they waste the Weapon Mastery on Nick (instead of Shortbow Vex), then they get an extra +1d6 damage. It's not slightly less. It's 1d6 + attribute less because they don't get Fighting Styles.
I'm not saying it's hard to get Sneak Attack. I'm saying it's conditional. They don't get it all the time. The Ranger gets their Hunter's Mark off reliably. I'd broadly consider them equivalent since you need to maintain Concentration for Hunter's Mark.
But the Rogue DPR here is significantly less. 1d6 + attribute isn't slightly less damage at low levels. That's an entire extra attack's worth of DPR.
Not sure why they specifically need Nick as opposed to just doing TWF. Nick just makes it a little more efficient, and besides if we're going with the broken interpretation of Hide then Nick is the better pick because you'll already have advantage and Slow is very situational, so making two swings and Hiding just trims the odds you'll miss your Sneak Attack for the turn.
Even the most favorable interpretation of Hide doesn't allow you to Hide in combat in plain sight right next to your opponent. You still need to break line of sight and have cover or obscurement. I was assuming Nick because you'll want the BA to disengage. It's still not good damage.
There's tons of specific foils to stealth, including blindsight, true sight, and see invisible. These are fairly common monster abilities.
So the stealth is fine as long as it's impossible to use most of the time? How is using enemies with blindsight / truesight all the time better than ruling that to hide it has to be a situation where hiding would be reasonable? IMO using blindsight/truesight monsters all the time is much more "saying stealth is completely useless" than saying "you have to be hiding behind something out of enemy line of sight to hide". The former is completely negating stealth, while the latter is simply requiring players to RP their hiding as I would require for any skill check.
I think they're just saying that there are already a lot of monster abilities in the manual that make Hide impossible to use, and they occur fairly regularly, if infrequently. So foils to it exist, even when it is interpreted favorably.
Even at 7th level, a Wizard has functionally NINE spell slots of 2nd level or higher with which they can perform their feats throughout the day. Are you running 18 encounters in a day? Surely not.
What game are you playing where a wizard only expends 1 spellslot every 2 encounters? In combat, wizards are typically expending one spellslot every round, so those NINE spellslots last for 2-3 combats per day, less if the wizard is also using them for out-of-combat utility. In a dungeon crawl, you can easily have 6+ encounters per adventuring day with loads of mooks, outside of dungeons usually you're looking at fewer boss combats where the main enemies are resistant to most of what the wizard is throwing at them. Even as simple as one enemy with counterspell can easy shift the balance back to martials over casters.
That's the whole thing about sneak attack though, it is twice as likely to land compared to regular attack damage (again Rogues are the most reliable damage dealers). You can't compare DPR without including accuracy. When attacks have 65% chance to hit, 1d6 on each of two attacks deals less damage than +2d6 on either of two attacks (or one attack with advantage):
1d6 on each of two attacks = 3.5*0.65*2 = 4.55 damage
2d6 on either of two attacks [or 1 attack with Adv] = 0.88*3.5*2 = 6.14 damage
3 x EB with Hex + AB = 0.65*(5.5+5+3.5)*3 = 27.3 damage 2x Shortsword attacks + 6d6 sneak attack = 0.65*(3.5+5)*2+0.88*(6*3.5) = 29.53 damage Even without weapon mastery or any optimization at all, a level 11 Rogue does more damage than a level 11 Warlock.
Even at 7th level, a Wizard has functionally NINE spell slots of 2nd level or higher with which they can perform their feats throughout the day. Are you running 18 encounters in a day? Surely not.
What game are you playing where a wizard only expends 1 spellslot every 2 encounters? In combat, wizards are typically expending one spellslot every round, so those NINE spellslots last for 2-3 combats per day, less if the wizard is also using them for out-of-combat utility. In a dungeon crawl, you can easily have 6+ encounters per adventuring day with loads of mooks, outside of dungeons usually you're looking at fewer boss combats where the main enemies are resistant to most of what the wizard is throwing at them. Even as simple as one enemy with counterspell can easy shift the balance back to martials over casters.
You said that it is natural and expected for Wizards to dominate stealth and recon with something like Invisibility, which is a 2nd level slot. If the Wizard dominates that role in nine encounters, then the Rogue needs another nine encounters to equalize. That's 18 encounters per day. Which no one does.
I have to wonder at how a Wizard isn't effectively ending an encounter with just one judicious use of the right spell. Even something as elementary as Web can Restrain enough enemies that all risk is lost and the combat effectively goes to mop up immediately.
Once again, let's take the easiest case. Fireball. 7th level Wizard. It's actually more devastating at 5th level, but let's tilt it a bit against the spell.
Let's do something simple - 4 Bugbear Stalkers, each with 65 HP. Fireball them all, right off. Let's be conservative and say only two of them save. It's between one or two, but let's say two. That's 28 average HP off of two of them, and 14 off the other two, straight up. Finishing off the damaged ones should be doable within the round, and once those two are down, the remaining ones simply are no longer a threat. Next round, you can just plink away with Ray of Frost or whatever and it'll probably be fine.
This is a relatively tame example. If the encounter were more mook-heavy, the Fireball would likely outright kill half the enemies.
If there are less targets, they might have more deadly attacks, or multi-attacks. Hideous Laughter could be encounter-ending for that, if it sticks.
Like, are folks using Fireball for one target? LOL.
The DMG suggests 6-8 encounters per Long Rest. One leveled spell per encounter is about right. If you choose the right one, the encounter just ends.
Do remember that Counterspells don't use up the slot, so the Wizard just fires off their leveled spell one turn later. They get delayed, not denied.
That's the whole thing about sneak attack though, it is twice as likely to land compared to regular attack damage (again Rogues are the most reliable damage dealers). You can't compare DPR without including accuracy. When attacks have 65% chance to hit, 1d6 on each of two attacks deals less damage than +2d6 on either of two attacks (or one attack with advantage):
1d6 on each of two attacks = 3.5*0.65*2 = 4.55 damage
2d6 on either of two attacks [or 1 attack with Adv] = 0.88*3.5*2 = 6.14 damage
3 x EB with Hex + AB = 0.65*(5.5+5+3.5)*3 = 27.3 damage 2x Shortsword attacks + 6d6 sneak attack = 0.65*(3.5+5)*2+0.88*(6*3.5) = 29.53 damage Even without weapon mastery or any optimization at all, a level 11 Rogue does more damage than a level 11 Warlock.
It does more damage than a Warlock that also isn't optimized. And, it's like barely 10% more. This is baseline damage. Far from tier 1. I don't know what to tell you. This has always been mediocre damage.
That's the whole thing about sneak attack though, it is twice as likely to land compared to regular attack damage (again Rogues are the most reliable damage dealers). You can't compare DPR without including accuracy. When attacks have 65% chance to hit, 1d6 on each of two attacks deals less damage than +2d6 on either of two attacks (or one attack with advantage):
1d6 on each of two attacks = 3.5*0.65*2 = 4.55 damage
2d6 on either of two attacks [or 1 attack with Adv] = 0.88*3.5*2 = 6.14 damage
3 x EB with Hex + AB = 0.65*(5.5+5+3.5)*3 = 27.3 damage 2x Shortsword attacks + 6d6 sneak attack = 0.65*(3.5+5)*2+0.88*(6*3.5) = 29.53 damage Even without weapon mastery or any optimization at all, a level 11 Rogue does more damage than a level 11 Warlock.
It does more damage than a Warlock that also isn't optimized. And, it's like barely 10% more. This is baseline damage. Far from tier 1. I don't know what to tell you. This has always been mediocre damage.
in 2024 id say warlocks are below baseline now, its bad damage now. so yeah, slightly better than bad isn't a big win.
4 Bugbear Stalkers, each with 65 HP. Fireball them all, right off. Let's be conservative and say only two of them save. It's between one or two, but let's say two. That's 28 average HP off of two of them, and 14 off the other two, straight up. Finishing off the damaged ones should be doable within the round,
Please explain, as I'm extremely confused how 28 damage is "good" but each member of the party is easily dealing 40 damage each round. The party is going to take 72 points of damage (assuming 1 of the two damaged bugbears gets to attack before they are killed) that first round of combat from the Bugbear Strikers, which is going to drop 1-2 party members assuming a tier-appropriate level 5 party (but even a level 7 character is pretty likely to be dropped by that damage). How did this fireball "end" this encounter? At the end of Round 1 there are 2/4 Stalkers and 3/4 party members standing.
(Also a 4x CR 3 Bugbear Stalker is less than a "Low" difficulty for a level 7 party.)
Imagine your DM ruled that every time you made a Deception roll, you had to come up with a lie so convincing that it made sense in 'reality'.
Literally every single game I have played in has ruled it this way. You have to come up with a convincing lie (Deception), or a convincing argument (Persuasion); you have to explain where your character is hiding / how they are avoiding being noticed (Stealth); you have to describe how they use their muscles to do something to use Athletics, or how they use their agility to roll Acrobatics; you have to explain how they try to befriend or control an animal (Animal Handling); you have to explain how they look for clues (Investigation), or how they attempt to track something (Survival). etc... etc...
The most fundamental and most basic rule of the game is that you as the player describe or role-play what your character is doing, then the DM decides what the DC is and what roll you make to accomplish that. That's why it is a Role Playing Game, rather than a "I push the Deception button" game.
i.e. the game works as such:
DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light." DM: "Roll Perception." Player: "27" DM: "You get a glimpse of the silhouette of a humanoid figure walking past the window."
It does not work as: DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I rolled a 27 Perception, so is the evil necromancer in the mansion?" DM: "Yes, the evil necromancer is in the basement holding a petrified hand and a magic crystal."
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish. The times you describe how are usually things like attack rolls after you know their success/failure. Which you can do for stealth or any skill, I roll a 25, okay no one seems to see you. Then they describe how the distracted them by flicking a pebble at the vase and moving past them while they were distracted. Which just works because they rolled good enough to sneak past people. Or I rolled a 20 on medicine to stabilize, cool he is stabilized and then you describe your totally not scientific methods to stabilize people with a arrow through their head in 6 seconds or less. But in all cases first you described what you were trying to accomplish, sneak past the guards, stab the ogre, stabilize bob.
That is not to say I think the 2024 system of roll a 15 and now you are invisible is great, but a warlock at level 5 can turn invisible pretty much as will as dim light is pretty easy to come by, so whatever a rogue can do it with a easy roll.
Imagine your DM ruled that every time you made a Deception roll, you had to come up with a lie so convincing that it made sense in 'reality'.
Literally every single game I have played in has ruled it this way. You have to come up with a convincing lie (Deception), or a convincing argument (Persuasion); you have to explain where your character is hiding / how they are avoiding being noticed (Stealth); you have to describe how they use their muscles to do something to use Athletics, or how they use their agility to roll Acrobatics; you have to explain how they try to befriend or control an animal (Animal Handling); you have to explain how they look for clues (Investigation), or how they attempt to track something (Survival). etc... etc...
The most fundamental and most basic rule of the game is that you as the player describe or role-play what your character is doing, then the DM decides what the DC is and what roll you make to accomplish that. That's why it is a Role Playing Game, rather than a "I push the Deception button" game.
i.e. the game works as such:
DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light." DM: "Roll Perception." Player: "27" DM: "You get a glimpse of the silhouette of a humanoid figure walking past the window."
It does not work as: DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I rolled a 27 Perception, so is the evil necromancer in the mansion?" DM: "Yes, the evil necromancer is in the basement holding a petrified hand and a magic crystal."
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish. The times you describe how are usually things like attack rolls after you know their success/failure. Which you can do for stealth or any skill, I roll a 25, okay no one seems to see you. Then they describe how the distracted them by flicking a pebble at the vase and moving past them while they were distracted. Which just works because they rolled good enough to sneak past people. Or I rolled a 20 on medicine to stabilize, cool he is stabilized and then you describe your totally not scientific methods to stabilize people with a arrow through their head in 6 seconds or less. But in all cases first you described what you were trying to accomplish, sneak past the guards, stab the ogre, stabilize bob.
That is not to say I think the 2024 system of roll a 15 and now you are invisible is great, but a warlock at level 5 can turn invisible pretty much as will as dim light is pretty easy to come by, so whatever a rogue can do it with a easy roll.
Realistically, a DC 15 is just a Rogue telling themselves they're hiding. If their Stealth roll doesn't pass the passive Perception, that won't prevent them from being detected. In some ways, it's a trap. I would say that IF you can see the creatures you're hiding from, the DM should reveal if their passive Perception might be enough to break your Stealth check. A Rogue should be able to intuit when their hiding might be compromised.
4 Bugbear Stalkers, each with 65 HP. Fireball them all, right off. Let's be conservative and say only two of them save. It's between one or two, but let's say two. That's 28 average HP off of two of them, and 14 off the other two, straight up. Finishing off the damaged ones should be doable within the round,
Please explain, as I'm extremely confused how 28 damage is "good" but each member of the party is easily dealing 40 damage each round. The party is going to take 72 points of damage (assuming 1 of the two damaged bugbears gets to attack before they are killed) that first round of combat from the Bugbear Strikers, which is going to drop 1-2 party members assuming a tier-appropriate level 5 party (but even a level 7 character is pretty likely to be dropped by that damage). How did this fireball "end" this encounter? At the end of Round 1 there are 2/4 Stalkers and 3/4 party members standing.
(Also a 4x CR 3 Bugbear Stalker is less than a "Low" difficulty for a level 7 party.)
Two CR 3 Bugbears is CR 5. 4 is CR 7. CR isn't that good of a metric anyway, but that's supposed to be level-appropriate. I won't say it's a tough encounter. It's an encounter.
28 damage twice plus 14 damage twice is 80 damage total. It's not single target, but that's fairly good damage. Provided your single target strikers are decent, it's encounter-ending because it cuts the enemy action economy in half on that round.
Bugbear Stalkers only deal about 13 damage per attack, and their Initiative is only +2 with extremely poor passive Perception at 11. Getting the drop on them should be trivial, but even if you don't, more than half the party should be going first, presuming most of you have at least a +2 to Initiative.
Their attack bonus is +5. Your level 7 Frontliners ought to have at least or better than 17 AC at level 7. The tanks being tanks should have at least 20 AC.
That means between 25% to 50% of their attacks hit, optimistically. If only three get to attack before falling, that's only 39 damage. Even a Wizard with 14 Con at level 7 survives that, if they were somehow stupid enough to want to facetank Bugbears.
Realistically, a DC 15 is just a Rogue telling themselves they're hiding. If their Stealth roll doesn't pass the passive Perception, that won't prevent them from being detected. In some ways, it's a trap. I would say that IF you can see the creatures you're hiding from, the DM should reveal if their passive Perception might be enough to break your Stealth check. A Rogue should be able to intuit when their hiding might be compromised.
(it sure would be nice if this thread actually stayed dead)
"Beat their Passive Perception" usually only matters if you move out of cover, do stuff that would make noise without an extra Stealth check, etc. Under normal circumstances, you don't need to beat it with the initial Hide check.
(That's even how one of the published adventures from a couple pages back handles it, so.)
And a rogue should always assume their Passive Perception might be enough --- that's what makes it tense. Roll Stealth to move silently and find out. That said, if you're a high level Rogue with Reliable Talent, and it's impossible to not beat the highest enemy Passive Perception, then I think it's totally cool for the DM to let you know so you can save the time by not bothering with the dice.
Imagine your DM ruled that every time you made a Deception roll, you had to come up with a lie so convincing that it made sense in 'reality'.
Literally every single game I have played in has ruled it this way. You have to come up with a convincing lie (Deception), or a convincing argument (Persuasion); you have to explain where your character is hiding / how they are avoiding being noticed (Stealth); you have to describe how they use their muscles to do something to use Athletics, or how they use their agility to roll Acrobatics; you have to explain how they try to befriend or control an animal (Animal Handling); you have to explain how they look for clues (Investigation), or how they attempt to track something (Survival). etc... etc...
The most fundamental and most basic rule of the game is that you as the player describe or role-play what your character is doing, then the DM decides what the DC is and what roll you make to accomplish that. That's why it is a Role Playing Game, rather than a "I push the Deception button" game.
i.e. the game works as such:
DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light." DM: "Roll Perception." Player: "27" DM: "You get a glimpse of the silhouette of a humanoid figure walking past the window."
It does not work as: DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I rolled a 27 Perception, so is the evil necromancer in the mansion?" DM: "Yes, the evil necromancer is in the basement holding a petrified hand and a magic crystal."
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish. The times you describe how are usually things like attack rolls after you know their success/failure. Which you can do for stealth or any skill, I roll a 25, okay no one seems to see you. Then they describe how the distracted them by flicking a pebble at the vase and moving past them while they were distracted. Which just works because they rolled good enough to sneak past people. Or I rolled a 20 on medicine to stabilize, cool he is stabilized and then you describe your totally not scientific methods to stabilize people with a arrow through their head in 6 seconds or less. But in all cases first you described what you were trying to accomplish, sneak past the guards, stab the ogre, stabilize bob.
That is not to say I think the 2024 system of roll a 15 and now you are invisible is great, but a warlock at level 5 can turn invisible pretty much as will as dim light is pretty easy to come by, so whatever a rogue can do it with a easy roll.
Realistically, a DC 15 is just a Rogue telling themselves they're hiding. If their Stealth roll doesn't pass the passive Perception, that won't prevent them from being detected. In some ways, it's a trap. I would say that IF you can see the creatures you're hiding from, the DM should reveal if their passive Perception might be enough to break your Stealth check. A Rogue should be able to intuit when their hiding might be compromised.
That’s an interesting interpretation- can you point to a rule that supports it? Additionally, have you actually looked at typical Passive Perceptions and seen how many are notably higher than 15 before Rogues that want to Hide are guaranteed 19-20 on their rolls?
Reliable Talent is level 7 now and with Expertise and 18 Dex, it's a minimum 20 on the Stealth roll. I think it would make sense for a Rogue of mid level to know when that's just going to beat the passive Perception of creatures. Most creatures around that level have a passive Perception of below 20.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If they waste the Weapon Mastery on Nick (instead of Shortbow Vex), then they get an extra +1d6 damage. It's not slightly less. It's 1d6 + attribute less because they don't get Fighting Styles.
I'm not saying it's hard to get Sneak Attack. I'm saying it's conditional. They don't get it all the time. The Ranger gets their Hunter's Mark off reliably. I'd broadly consider them equivalent since you need to maintain Concentration for Hunter's Mark.
But the Rogue DPR here is significantly less. 1d6 + attribute isn't slightly less damage at low levels. That's an entire extra attack's worth of DPR.
Not reliably. Boss monsters almost always have legendary resistances which completely negates CC, alternatively minions and lair effects can usually break a wizard's concentration fairly quickly again negating 90% of CC, and many many bosses are simply immune to the most common conditions. Or simply have the enemies be invisible or the battlefield obscured and it negates a large fraction of a wizard's abilities. CC is only effective in the singular instance of a solo boss monster without legendary resistances or immunities.
Rogues can prevent encounters in the first place by scouting ahead, disarming traps, and picking locks to find routes around enemies. Rogues deal tier 1 damage meaning they impose the best condition in the game for CC : dead.
In a majority of my games, the most effective character in the party in combat has been the rogue. In one campaign it was a Warlock-Rogue comboing Green Flame Blade + Sneak Attack for 6d6 + 9 + 3d8 damage every round at 11th level, in another it was a Fighter-Rogue with an AC of 22, dealing 7d6 + 14 every round at range with their psychic blades, in another it was a straight Assassin Rogue dealing 8d6+20 most rounds with a handcrossbow (2014 rules - though admittedly the rest of the party were all full spellcasters in this campaign). Note that the highest level any of our campaigns reached was 14, so all the "what about Wish" folks can take that argument elsewhere because almost nobody plays at those levels and when they do it is for a tiny fraction of the campaign. I'd much rather a character that shines in tier 1&2 than one that breaks the game at level 17.
5e Rogues are supposed to be getting Sneak Attack every turn, it is incredibly easy to get it. Between Steady Aim, BA:Hide, all the Weapon Masteries, and just good old fashioned allies in melee range the only times you won't be getting it is if you are frightened or poisoned or some other condition is forcing you to have disadvantage.
Ranger damage scales terribly, they only have an edge over the rogue for levels 1-2 and then only if they are two-weapon fighting and can get advantage on their attacks. Monk is in the same boat as spellcasters in that while they have Focus Points they out damage a rogue at low levels but fall behind when they are out of Focus, though since their Focus comes back on a short rest it depends on combat length & frequency who comes out on top. Fighters are behind Rogues in terms of DPR in tier 1 and some of tier 2, they rely on picking the right feats to keep up. Paladins are behind rogues in DPR especially in 2024 since they cannot nova when there are few combats per day, if played perfectly you might be able to surpass a Rogue with some well timed crits but most players will not achieve such perfection, whereas it is dead easy to excel at playing a rogue - all you have to do is try to find a way to get sneak attack each round and you're good.
I am worried if we're using Fireball as an example of peak wizard power, and comparing Rogue's single-target damage at ~13th level to the Wizard's AoE damage from Fireball at 5th level as if that makes the Rogue look good. (The only point where Fireball even makes sense is against a room full of mooks - it's a crowd clearing spell. The Rogue isn't even comparable).
Last adventure I played had 4 encounters, 3 with blindsight. It was a level 1-3 adventure. Stealth not feeling so problematic.
There's tons of specific foils to stealth, including blindsight, true sight, and see invisible. These are fairly common monster abilities.
Your calculations are off. A Rogue only gets 6d6 SA damage at 11th level, so that needs to be a straight classed Rogue, not a Warlock-Rogue. We're assuming the 3d8 includes the 2d8 from the Greenflame Blade and the Rapier.
21+5+13.5 = 39.5
Baseline Warlock with Agonizing Blast, Hex, and 3 Eldritch Blasts is 42 if all attacks hit. It's more or less comparable. The baseline is probably a bit less. This isn't tier 1 damage. This is near-baseline damage.
7d6 +10 is worse. It's 34.5 average. That's likely exactly at baseline or a bit below.
Wizards can reliably inflict CC. That's their chief strength. Running down Legendary Resistances or inflicting effective CC without saves is what Wizards are all about.
Honestly? Maybe you guys just don't optimize that much. That's okay. It's absolutely fine. Everyone plays the game the way they want, and if everyone is having fun, then that's good.
As long as everyone is on the same page about how Hide works, it's all good. Talk to your friends.
Not sure why they specifically need Nick as opposed to just doing TWF. Nick just makes it a little more efficient, and besides if we're going with the broken interpretation of Hide then Nick is the better pick because you'll already have advantage and Slow is very situational, so making two swings and Hiding just trims the odds you'll miss your Sneak Attack for the turn.
So the stealth is fine as long as it's impossible to use most of the time? How is using enemies with blindsight / truesight all the time better than ruling that to hide it has to be a situation where hiding would be reasonable? IMO using blindsight/truesight monsters all the time is much more "saying stealth is completely useless" than saying "you have to be hiding behind something out of enemy line of sight to hide". The former is completely negating stealth, while the latter is simply requiring players to RP their hiding as I would require for any skill check.
Even the most favorable interpretation of Hide doesn't allow you to Hide in combat in plain sight right next to your opponent. You still need to break line of sight and have cover or obscurement. I was assuming Nick because you'll want the BA to disengage. It's still not good damage.
I think they're just saying that there are already a lot of monster abilities in the manual that make Hide impossible to use, and they occur fairly regularly, if infrequently. So foils to it exist, even when it is interpreted favorably.
What game are you playing where a wizard only expends 1 spellslot every 2 encounters? In combat, wizards are typically expending one spellslot every round, so those NINE spellslots last for 2-3 combats per day, less if the wizard is also using them for out-of-combat utility. In a dungeon crawl, you can easily have 6+ encounters per adventuring day with loads of mooks, outside of dungeons usually you're looking at fewer boss combats where the main enemies are resistant to most of what the wizard is throwing at them. Even as simple as one enemy with counterspell can easy shift the balance back to martials over casters.
That's the whole thing about sneak attack though, it is twice as likely to land compared to regular attack damage (again Rogues are the most reliable damage dealers). You can't compare DPR without including accuracy. When attacks have 65% chance to hit, 1d6 on each of two attacks deals less damage than +2d6 on either of two attacks (or one attack with advantage):
1d6 on each of two attacks = 3.5*0.65*2 = 4.55 damage
2d6 on either of two attacks [or 1 attack with Adv] = 0.88*3.5*2 = 6.14 damage
3 x EB with Hex + AB = 0.65*(5.5+5+3.5)*3 = 27.3 damage
2x Shortsword attacks + 6d6 sneak attack = 0.65*(3.5+5)*2+0.88*(6*3.5) = 29.53 damage
Even without weapon mastery or any optimization at all, a level 11 Rogue does more damage than a level 11 Warlock.
You said that it is natural and expected for Wizards to dominate stealth and recon with something like Invisibility, which is a 2nd level slot. If the Wizard dominates that role in nine encounters, then the Rogue needs another nine encounters to equalize. That's 18 encounters per day. Which no one does.
I have to wonder at how a Wizard isn't effectively ending an encounter with just one judicious use of the right spell. Even something as elementary as Web can Restrain enough enemies that all risk is lost and the combat effectively goes to mop up immediately.
Once again, let's take the easiest case. Fireball. 7th level Wizard. It's actually more devastating at 5th level, but let's tilt it a bit against the spell.
Let's do something simple - 4 Bugbear Stalkers, each with 65 HP. Fireball them all, right off. Let's be conservative and say only two of them save. It's between one or two, but let's say two. That's 28 average HP off of two of them, and 14 off the other two, straight up. Finishing off the damaged ones should be doable within the round, and once those two are down, the remaining ones simply are no longer a threat. Next round, you can just plink away with Ray of Frost or whatever and it'll probably be fine.
This is a relatively tame example. If the encounter were more mook-heavy, the Fireball would likely outright kill half the enemies.
If there are less targets, they might have more deadly attacks, or multi-attacks. Hideous Laughter could be encounter-ending for that, if it sticks.
Like, are folks using Fireball for one target? LOL.
The DMG suggests 6-8 encounters per Long Rest. One leveled spell per encounter is about right. If you choose the right one, the encounter just ends.
Do remember that Counterspells don't use up the slot, so the Wizard just fires off their leveled spell one turn later. They get delayed, not denied.
It does more damage than a Warlock that also isn't optimized. And, it's like barely 10% more. This is baseline damage. Far from tier 1. I don't know what to tell you. This has always been mediocre damage.
in 2024 id say warlocks are below baseline now, its bad damage now. so yeah, slightly better than bad isn't a big win.
Please explain, as I'm extremely confused how 28 damage is "good" but each member of the party is easily dealing 40 damage each round. The party is going to take 72 points of damage (assuming 1 of the two damaged bugbears gets to attack before they are killed) that first round of combat from the Bugbear Strikers, which is going to drop 1-2 party members assuming a tier-appropriate level 5 party (but even a level 7 character is pretty likely to be dropped by that damage). How did this fireball "end" this encounter? At the end of Round 1 there are 2/4 Stalkers and 3/4 party members standing.
(Also a 4x CR 3 Bugbear Stalker is less than a "Low" difficulty for a level 7 party.)
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish. The times you describe how are usually things like attack rolls after you know their success/failure. Which you can do for stealth or any skill, I roll a 25, okay no one seems to see you. Then they describe how the distracted them by flicking a pebble at the vase and moving past them while they were distracted. Which just works because they rolled good enough to sneak past people. Or I rolled a 20 on medicine to stabilize, cool he is stabilized and then you describe your totally not scientific methods to stabilize people with a arrow through their head in 6 seconds or less. But in all cases first you described what you were trying to accomplish, sneak past the guards, stab the ogre, stabilize bob.
That is not to say I think the 2024 system of roll a 15 and now you are invisible is great, but a warlock at level 5 can turn invisible pretty much as will as dim light is pretty easy to come by, so whatever a rogue can do it with a easy roll.
Realistically, a DC 15 is just a Rogue telling themselves they're hiding. If their Stealth roll doesn't pass the passive Perception, that won't prevent them from being detected. In some ways, it's a trap. I would say that IF you can see the creatures you're hiding from, the DM should reveal if their passive Perception might be enough to break your Stealth check. A Rogue should be able to intuit when their hiding might be compromised.
Two CR 3 Bugbears is CR 5. 4 is CR 7. CR isn't that good of a metric anyway, but that's supposed to be level-appropriate. I won't say it's a tough encounter. It's an encounter.
28 damage twice plus 14 damage twice is 80 damage total. It's not single target, but that's fairly good damage. Provided your single target strikers are decent, it's encounter-ending because it cuts the enemy action economy in half on that round.
Bugbear Stalkers only deal about 13 damage per attack, and their Initiative is only +2 with extremely poor passive Perception at 11. Getting the drop on them should be trivial, but even if you don't, more than half the party should be going first, presuming most of you have at least a +2 to Initiative.
Their attack bonus is +5. Your level 7 Frontliners ought to have at least or better than 17 AC at level 7. The tanks being tanks should have at least 20 AC.
That means between 25% to 50% of their attacks hit, optimistically. If only three get to attack before falling, that's only 39 damage. Even a Wizard with 14 Con at level 7 survives that, if they were somehow stupid enough to want to facetank Bugbears.
(it sure would be nice if this thread actually stayed dead)
"Beat their Passive Perception" usually only matters if you move out of cover, do stuff that would make noise without an extra Stealth check, etc. Under normal circumstances, you don't need to beat it with the initial Hide check.
(That's even how one of the published adventures from a couple pages back handles it, so.)
And a rogue should always assume their Passive Perception might be enough --- that's what makes it tense. Roll Stealth to move silently and find out. That said, if you're a high level Rogue with Reliable Talent, and it's impossible to not beat the highest enemy Passive Perception, then I think it's totally cool for the DM to let you know so you can save the time by not bothering with the dice.
That’s an interesting interpretation- can you point to a rule that supports it? Additionally, have you actually looked at typical Passive Perceptions and seen how many are notably higher than 15 before Rogues that want to Hide are guaranteed 19-20 on their rolls?
Reliable Talent is level 7 now and with Expertise and 18 Dex, it's a minimum 20 on the Stealth roll. I think it would make sense for a Rogue of mid level to know when that's just going to beat the passive Perception of creatures. Most creatures around that level have a passive Perception of below 20.