Could a rogue open the door to a room then use Steady Aim to obtain advantage on their attack roll when they make an attack at a target in the room? Is the movement to pull the door open and step out of the way to let it swing open past you "too much movement" even though opening the door might normally be considered the character's free object interaction? Alternatively, could the rogue use steady aim to fire through an already open door and then use their free object interaction to move the foot or two needed to reach over for the door handle and close the door after making the attack?
For the most part, I would tend to allow Steady Aim to work in most circumstances - allowing the free object interaction either before or after the attack would usually be ok (eg firing through an already open door and closing it afterward) ... however, I could easily see other DMs running it differently.
So you are saying it makes sense to you that they take steady aim at a target they cannot even see in advance? Again, if that is intended, why did they bother putting the 0 movement limitation in there at all?
Edit: Plus if the door opened outwards rather than inwards, or if the target is in line of sight if they open the inwards swinging door from beside the door frame instead of directly in front, they would not be using movement. Yes, their body would be moving but they would not be stepping around a door, corner, whatever. Their relative position would be remaining the same.
The point I was making was NOT - would I let a rogue use steady aim at a target they could not see. It was ... would I let a rogue open a door as a free object interaction (does that count as movement?) THEN use steady aim against the target they CAN see. Is the free object interaction considered movement that would prevent the use of steady aim or not?
However, as far as I can tell you could use Steady Aim against an invisible target you can't see, negate disadvantage and allow for sneak attack if there is an ally adjacent. Is there anything in the wording of steady aim that would prevent that usage? If using it against invisible targets is fine then I don't see much issue using it against a target I can't see at the start of my turn but can see after I open a door or window. The question is whether opening the door or window is considered "movement" and thus prevents the use of Steady Aim.
Jeremy Crawford - "Game balance in D&D—a co-op game—is about meeting design expectations (damage output etc.) & creating/preserving a fun group experience"
And way back during D&D Next, Mike Mearls said - "Keep the classes balanced. All of the classes should feel competent when compared to each other at all levels, though we're OK with classes being better at specific things."
So, getting Sneak Attack every round "balances"... Surely, in that case, getting automatic advantage every round without penalty unbalances it.
Again, don't ask me. I will point out that calling Steady Aim automatic advantage every round is a bit of an overstatement. It has costs in terms of action economy and in movement. Like every other way to get Sneak Attack, it is situational.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Again, don't ask me. I will point out that calling Steady Aim automatic advantage every round is a bit of an overstatement. It has costs in terms of action economy and in movement. Like every other way to get Sneak Attack, it is situational.
I was talking specifically about a mounted Rogue, here. OK, it costs a bonus action, but that's a very small price to pay for advantage and Sneak Attack bonus. In that case, it costs nothing in terms of movement as your mount can move freely, hence to all intents and purposes so can you. This, in particular, is where it seems ridiculously overpowered.
I was talking specifically about a mounted Rogue, here. OK, it costs a bonus action, but that's a very small price to pay for advantage and Sneak Attack bonus. In that case, it costs nothing in terms of movement as your mount can move freely, hence to all intents and purposes so can you. This, in particular, is where it seems ridiculously overpowered.
Considering the hoops one has to jump through to get mounted combat to work and the consideration that Steady Aim still works better for a rogue archer, I don't think a mounted melee rogue should be the balancing consideration. That's just me, though?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think that the varying justifications and rationalizations have been sufficiently described so far, but just wanted to pop in to add my voice to the "mounted rogues are allowed to use Steady Aim because the Rogue isn't using their own movement" camp. Doesn't seem counterintuitive to me, or like an exploit, to lets Rogues benefit from their class feature while mounted on a creature or a vehicle, or otherwise being moved or carried by something else.
You brought it up. You should be ready to stand behind your statements rather than imply, "Hey, some other guy said it. Take it up with him."
Perhaps it is balanced against other martial classes who get multiple swings with the attack action. Is it based on tables that show the rogue is only able to keep up with them from a damage standpoint if we assume every successful hit adds sneak attack damage? OK, so now every attack roll has yet another avenue for gaining advantage. I think in general, trading advantage on that attack roll in exchange for staying put and spending your bonus action is a reasonable transaction.
You brought it up. You should be ready to stand behind your statements rather than imply, "Hey, some other guy said it. Take it up with him."
Perhaps it is balanced against other martial classes who get multiple swings with the attack action. Is it based on tables that show the rogue is only able to keep up with them from a damage standpoint if we assume every successful hit adds sneak attack damage? OK, so now every attack roll has yet another avenue for gaining advantage. I think in general, trading advantage on that attack roll in exchange for staying put and spending your bonus action is a reasonable transaction.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
You brought it up. You should be ready to stand behind your statements rather than imply, "Hey, some other guy said it. Take it up with him."
Perhaps it is balanced against other martial classes who get multiple swings with the attack action. Is it based on tables that show the rogue is only able to keep up with them from a damage standpoint if we assume every successful hit adds sneak attack damage? OK, so now every attack roll has yet another avenue for gaining advantage. I think in general, trading advantage on that attack roll in exchange for staying put and spending your bonus action is a reasonable transaction.
Even my bringing it up was a statement linking a quote from Mike Mearls. It was never my point alone, it was originally a "hey this is what the devs have said about balance." I'll quote myself so you can see.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If simply take the hide action instead, you gain the same benefit plus you're hidden (not subject to attacks), plus you don't give up your movement. Steady Aim is just another option for when hiding is not an option.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If we can't even agree on something as basic as a Rogue is NEVER supposed to do as much damage as a Fighter at higher levels, there can be no conversation. But I have to ask. What in the world gave you that idea in the first place?
If simply take the hide action instead, you gain the same benefit plus you're hidden (not subject to attacks), plus you don't give up your movement. Steady Aim is just another option for when hiding is not an option.
Hiding requires that you use the terrain to your advantage, find a way to get out of the eye line of your enemies and then manoeuvre yourself into a different position such that the enemy no longer knows where you are.
It's bad enough that Steady Aim allows you to do exactly what many melee characters do (stand next to an enemy and hit them) and gain advantage and sneak attack just because you haven't moved... Factor in the ridiculous exploits available with mounts and the like, and you may as well just say a rogue can just have automatic advantage at all times just by using their bonus action. Advantage no longer has any meaning, it just becomes the default.
This is worse than the flanking rules in theatre of the mind.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If we can't even agree on something as basic as a Rogue is NEVER supposed to do as much damage as a Fighter at higher levels, there can be no conversation. But I have to ask. What in the world gave you that idea in the first place?
Absolutely agree. Rogues have so many non-combat advantages over the other martial classes, making them better in combat seems a little ****.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
Uhh...not really IMO. Rogue has a lot more out of combat versatility and the fighters main purpose is damage. Its ok that the rogue does less on average.
In a feat-less game (yucky IMO but they exist) they will be about equal but a game with full feat support a fighter will out damage a rogue pretty easily at 5th level on.
Generally action surge takes care of it but if you start adding in Archery style, Sharpshooter, CBE the difference gets higher.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If we can't even agree on something as basic as a Rogue is NEVER supposed to do as much damage as a Fighter at higher levels, there can be no conversation. But I have to ask. What in the world gave you that idea in the first place?
The way the respective classes have been designed since at least 2nd edition? I dunno where you've been for the last thirty years. As I said, the entire combat purpose of the rogue is to do damage. That's all they do. They've got mediocre HP, mediocre AC, and very few support features (outside of specific subclasses like the mastermind). If they're not doing more damage than the much sturdier fighter, they're just dead weight in a fight, and the class design has always reflected that.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If we can't even agree on something as basic as a Rogue is NEVER supposed to do as much damage as a Fighter at higher levels, there can be no conversation. But I have to ask. What in the world gave you that idea in the first place?
The way the respective classes have been designed since at least 2nd edition? I dunno where you've been for the last thirty years. As I said, the entire combat purpose of the rogue is to do damage. That's all they do. They've got mediocre HP, mediocre AC, and very few support features (outside of specific subclasses like the inquisitive). If they're not doing more damage than the much sturdier fighter, they're just dead weight in a fight, and the class design has always reflected that.
Their damage in 5e is good...its not amazing but its good.
Their real benefit is the fact they do a pile of damage all at once and get a lot of ways to deal it pretty consistently. Plus with their subclass features they can isolate, debuff, or do things that other classes simply can't.
I have always had fun playing them because I am good at so much stuff, do good consistent damage, and Cunning Action gives me so much room to do the non-damage combat things if needed.
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If we can't even agree on something as basic as a Rogue is NEVER supposed to do as much damage as a Fighter at higher levels, there can be no conversation. But I have to ask. What in the world gave you that idea in the first place?
The way the respective classes have been designed since at least 2nd edition? I dunno where you've been for the last thirty years. As I said, the entire combat purpose of the rogue is to do damage. That's all they do. They've got mediocre HP, mediocre AC, and very few support features (outside of specific subclasses like the mastermind). If they're not doing more damage than the much sturdier fighter, they're just dead weight in a fight, and the class design has always reflected that.
So they should be just as good in a fight as a fighter or barbarian, even though the fighter and barbarian are significantly worse out of combat? Doesn't that just let the rogue shine at all times, where the fighter and barbarian are "just dead weight" out of combat? Sounds fair...
Yeah I believe that each class was supposed to be able to be competent in their own style in each of the Three Pillars of Combat, Exploration, and Social. Within the Combat Pillar, the core mechanics of the Rogue class don't seem to lend themselves to anything but high single target damage. They don't seem to be built to absorb damage or to heal or even to control the enemy or the terrain. So in order to preserve their relative competence in the Combat Pillar it would make sense that should probably do about the same damage as a Fighter, subclasses aside.
If we take a look at the mix of offensive and defensive abilities in the core mechanics of each class the Fighter has Extra Attacks, Fighting Styles, and Action Surge as their offensive abilities and the Rogue has Sneak Attack and umm ... hmm, Stroke of Luck would be their other offensive ability I guess. So yeah it looks like the Rogue needs access to Sneak Attack in order to keep up comparable damage. Fighters are going to be able to keep up their damage in just about whatever situation you put them in and can even pull out some impressive spike damage with Action Surge.
In terms of defensive capabilities Fighters get better armor proficiencies, Second Wind, and Indomitable while Rogues get Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Blindsense (arguably an offensive ability), Slippery Mind, and Elusive as their defensive suite. Somewhat comparable, but as with most of their abilities the Rogue defensive suite is slightly more situational. Fighters will just stand there and endure damage while Rogues have a limited ability to negate damage or cleverly position themselves to avoid it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The point I was making was NOT - would I let a rogue use steady aim at a target they could not see. It was ... would I let a rogue open a door as a free object interaction (does that count as movement?) THEN use steady aim against the target they CAN see. Is the free object interaction considered movement that would prevent the use of steady aim or not?
However, as far as I can tell you could use Steady Aim against an invisible target you can't see, negate disadvantage and allow for sneak attack if there is an ally adjacent. Is there anything in the wording of steady aim that would prevent that usage? If using it against invisible targets is fine then I don't see much issue using it against a target I can't see at the start of my turn but can see after I open a door or window. The question is whether opening the door or window is considered "movement" and thus prevents the use of Steady Aim.
Hey don't ask me.
Jeremy Crawford - "Game balance in D&D—a co-op game—is about meeting design expectations (damage output etc.) & creating/preserving a fun group experience"
And way back during D&D Next, Mike Mearls said - "Keep the classes balanced. All of the classes should feel competent when compared to each other at all levels, though we're OK with classes being better at specific things."
Again, don't ask me. I will point out that calling Steady Aim automatic advantage every round is a bit of an overstatement. It has costs in terms of action economy and in movement. Like every other way to get Sneak Attack, it is situational.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I was talking specifically about a mounted Rogue, here. OK, it costs a bonus action, but that's a very small price to pay for advantage and Sneak Attack bonus. In that case, it costs nothing in terms of movement as your mount can move freely, hence to all intents and purposes so can you. This, in particular, is where it seems ridiculously overpowered.
Considering the hoops one has to jump through to get mounted combat to work and the consideration that Steady Aim still works better for a rogue archer, I don't think a mounted melee rogue should be the balancing consideration. That's just me, though?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think that the varying justifications and rationalizations have been sufficiently described so far, but just wanted to pop in to add my voice to the "mounted rogues are allowed to use Steady Aim because the Rogue isn't using their own movement" camp. Doesn't seem counterintuitive to me, or like an exploit, to lets Rogues benefit from their class feature while mounted on a creature or a vehicle, or otherwise being moved or carried by something else.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You brought it up. You should be ready to stand behind your statements rather than imply, "Hey, some other guy said it. Take it up with him."
Perhaps it is balanced against other martial classes who get multiple swings with the attack action. Is it based on tables that show the rogue is only able to keep up with them from a damage standpoint if we assume every successful hit adds sneak attack damage? OK, so now every attack roll has yet another avenue for gaining advantage. I think in general, trading advantage on that attack roll in exchange for staying put and spending your bonus action is a reasonable transaction.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sigh...if you want your Rogue to keep up in damage with a martial class, then just play a martial class. Rogues have tons and tons of advantages that a martial class does not. Each class is designed to be different. A high end martial class SHOULD do way more damage than a Rogue.
Even my bringing it up was a statement linking a quote from Mike Mearls. It was never my point alone, it was originally a "hey this is what the devs have said about balance." I'll quote myself so you can see.
If you want a deeper delve on that there might be some Mike Mearls happy fun hours that dive into that.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Isn't Rogue also a martial class? I mean the division is martial and magic, right?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Rogue is a martial class, yes, and its combat purpose is to deal stupid amounts of damage. The idea that a fighter should do more damage than a rogue is absolutely absurd.
If simply take the hide action instead, you gain the same benefit plus you're hidden (not subject to attacks), plus you don't give up your movement. Steady Aim is just another option for when hiding is not an option.
If we can't even agree on something as basic as a Rogue is NEVER supposed to do as much damage as a Fighter at higher levels, there can be no conversation. But I have to ask. What in the world gave you that idea in the first place?
Hiding requires that you use the terrain to your advantage, find a way to get out of the eye line of your enemies and then manoeuvre yourself into a different position such that the enemy no longer knows where you are.
It's bad enough that Steady Aim allows you to do exactly what many melee characters do (stand next to an enemy and hit them) and gain advantage and sneak attack just because you haven't moved... Factor in the ridiculous exploits available with mounts and the like, and you may as well just say a rogue can just have automatic advantage at all times just by using their bonus action. Advantage no longer has any meaning, it just becomes the default.
This is worse than the flanking rules in theatre of the mind.
Absolutely agree. Rogues have so many non-combat advantages over the other martial classes, making them better in combat seems a little ****.
Balance factor aside, though, my question still stands. Is Rogue classified as a martial class or not?
Edit: Inasmuch as these classifications even exist, of course. I know they are not any sort of official classification.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Uhh...not really IMO. Rogue has a lot more out of combat versatility and the fighters main purpose is damage. Its ok that the rogue does less on average.
In a feat-less game (yucky IMO but they exist) they will be about equal but a game with full feat support a fighter will out damage a rogue pretty easily at 5th level on.
Generally action surge takes care of it but if you start adding in Archery style, Sharpshooter, CBE the difference gets higher.
The way the respective classes have been designed since at least 2nd edition? I dunno where you've been for the last thirty years. As I said, the entire combat purpose of the rogue is to do damage. That's all they do. They've got mediocre HP, mediocre AC, and very few support features (outside of specific subclasses like the mastermind). If they're not doing more damage than the much sturdier fighter, they're just dead weight in a fight, and the class design has always reflected that.
Their damage in 5e is good...its not amazing but its good.
Their real benefit is the fact they do a pile of damage all at once and get a lot of ways to deal it pretty consistently. Plus with their subclass features they can isolate, debuff, or do things that other classes simply can't.
I have always had fun playing them because I am good at so much stuff, do good consistent damage, and Cunning Action gives me so much room to do the non-damage combat things if needed.
So they should be just as good in a fight as a fighter or barbarian, even though the fighter and barbarian are significantly worse out of combat? Doesn't that just let the rogue shine at all times, where the fighter and barbarian are "just dead weight" out of combat? Sounds fair...
Yeah I believe that each class was supposed to be able to be competent in their own style in each of the Three Pillars of Combat, Exploration, and Social. Within the Combat Pillar, the core mechanics of the Rogue class don't seem to lend themselves to anything but high single target damage. They don't seem to be built to absorb damage or to heal or even to control the enemy or the terrain. So in order to preserve their relative competence in the Combat Pillar it would make sense that should probably do about the same damage as a Fighter, subclasses aside.
If we take a look at the mix of offensive and defensive abilities in the core mechanics of each class the Fighter has Extra Attacks, Fighting Styles, and Action Surge as their offensive abilities and the Rogue has Sneak Attack and umm ... hmm, Stroke of Luck would be their other offensive ability I guess. So yeah it looks like the Rogue needs access to Sneak Attack in order to keep up comparable damage. Fighters are going to be able to keep up their damage in just about whatever situation you put them in and can even pull out some impressive spike damage with Action Surge.
In terms of defensive capabilities Fighters get better armor proficiencies, Second Wind, and Indomitable while Rogues get Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Blindsense (arguably an offensive ability), Slippery Mind, and Elusive as their defensive suite. Somewhat comparable, but as with most of their abilities the Rogue defensive suite is slightly more situational. Fighters will just stand there and endure damage while Rogues have a limited ability to negate damage or cleverly position themselves to avoid it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!