For right or wrong, my discussion in this thread has assumed a character can move as much as anyone who has used all of their movement on their turn and has 0 remaining speed. Swinging weapons, object interactions, casting somatic spells, etc. are all assumed by me to be fair game. If a DM takes a more restrictive reading, then I would suggest the character begin their turn by taking the steady aim bonus action since the ambiguous wording only applies to movement taken before the feature is used.
The ambiguous wording may, but the intent and believability of it is still in question IMHO.
I think it makes sense to say that a character must declare their use of Steady Aim at the start of their turn anyway.
I would agree that, for the most part, "Swinging weapons, object interactions, casting somatic spells, etc. are all... fair game". However, some things would be more disruptive than taking a few steps forward and standing still for the rest of your turn in taking aim, and IMHO it makes a mockery of the game (and destroys the suspension of disbelief) to say that these would have no effect just because they don't incur movement.
If you are going to look at it that way, drawing an arrow from a quiver is "a type of movement": you've moved your arm.
For me, I'd consider every scenario separately. Mounts, I would probably house rule that they act on your turn anyway (I don't like that sage advice ruling), and I would count the movement of the mount as enough to throw off stay aim. A cart moving across uneven terrain, I'd probably apply disadvantage to targeting anything not on the cart, whether they have steady aim or not. If a thunder wave or similar had thrown the character across the battlefield since the character's last turn, I'd consider either stopping steady aim or asking for a check before allowing it.
However, there are so many things to consider, so many scenarios, that I'm not going to think of all of them up front. I'll think about each individual possibility as it occurs, and put it through my feasibility and consistency filter.
Of course, as a GM you're free to nerf the ability as you see fit, but all of the things you've listed are nerfs, and I think the whole point of Steady Aim is letting rogues have easier access to their core defining class feature with less reliance on the GM's interpretations of various rules and arranging of the environment. Just be aware that that's what you're doing, and make sure you warn your rogue beforehand (which should occur anyway, as Steady Aim is explicitly only available with your consent to begin with). Outside of extremely specific cases, for example, no rogue is going to draw their arrow before using Swift Aim, as that consumes their free item interaction for literally no benefit - you can normally draw an arrow as part of an attack. As others in this thread have noted, the only possible way for things to get interpretive, normally, is for the rogue to do things before spending the bonus action on Steady Aim. If it's the first thing they do on their turn, everything else becomes extremely clear cut.
I'm about the play a Rogue in a campaign because and only because Steady Aim is available, and if my GM starts playing these games with me, I'll promptly re-roll into a class whose core defining features won't be arbitrarily taken away.
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?
The rule does not cover this, but I would not allow a rogue to aim at a target they cannot see. Now that I think about it, a rogue could use steady aim to negate the disadvantage from attacking an invisible target.
The rule does not cover this, but I would not allow a rogue to aim at a target they cannot see. Now that I think about it, a rogue could use steady aim to negate the disadvantage from attacking an invisible target.
Not at my table though.
Would you allow it to negate the Disadvantage from other things like being Restrained or Prone?
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!
House rule talk. Restrained would depend on the nature of the restraint, but I think more often than not I would allow it. I would absolutely allow aiming to counteract the disadvantage from prone. Heck, sometimes I might not even impose disadvantage in the first place from firing a crossbow while prone. A bow, maybe prone gets a pass. A sling, prone probably still gets disadvantage normally.
EDIT: I actually can imagine using your other senses to take aim just enough to negate disadvantage for firing against an invisible target. I can also see a lot of situations where that wouldn't be viable.
The situation I kinda get worried about as a rogue is being swallowed by a Purple Worm or the like and I just think the option to calm down, brace yourself against the stomach lining for a second, and then drive your dagger or rapier through it's guts without Disadvantage kind of alleviates that worry. Might also get Sneak Attack if allies are next to the Worm outside. Might be able to do enough damage to get it to puke you up.
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!
It doesn’t matter what the feature is called. The feature defines its limitations. Adding anything else is indeed arbitrary.
this mechanic shouldn’t be treated like concentration. Concentration saves are made when taking damage, and has an entire set of factors guidance on how a DM may Arbitrarily call for one at any other time.
and it doesn’t have to be. The advantage disadvantage system is already in place for these types of things. But you need to ask yourself, are you handing out disadvantage because the situation is truly disadvantageous? Or are you handing it out to nerf an option feature you aren’t giving a chance?
this feature was made to give rogues a chance to get their sneak attack every turn despite DMs who think sneaking and hiding are too powerful.
this is a new option for a base class feature. how often do you tell your fighter they loose extra attacks arbitrarily? how often do you take spell slots from spellcasters arbitrarily? do you come up with excuses like calming music to take away a barbarians rages?
Using steady aim does not literally set your movement to zero per se. To the contrary, moving at any time during the turn (before, during or after) prevents steady aim. That is pretty clearly the intent. If it is the same turn as the shot, it is steady, aim, fire, turn done.
It doesn’t prevent movement after beyond taking your speed. The intent is that you can’t move if relying on your speed. Anything else is misinterpretation of the feature description.
Start of the turn, don’t move. Spend the bonus action to give up your speed gain advantage on the next attack roll . You still have your action, and access to any other features you can still use. doesn’t make sense to limit it any more than what the feature tells you, especially since there are so many ways to move without your movement. A swarm keeper multiclass would be able to do this every turn at level 6. And I keep saying it, but a level 3 rogue on a mount could do it too.
how about you put the rogue on a tensers disk and have the rogue follow the wizard on a phantom steed for a while while the rogue steady aims.
“As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, you CANT MOVE IN ANY WAY UNTIL YOUR TURN ENDS.” is what you seem to be interpreting.
The situation I kinda get worried about as a rogue is being swallowed by a Purple Worm or the like and I just think the option to calm down, brace yourself against the stomach lining for a second, and then drive your dagger or rapier through it's guts without Disadvantage kind of alleviates that worry. Might also get Sneak Attack if allies are next to the Worm outside. Might be able to do enough damage to get it to puke you up.
In that situation advantage and disadvantage are already canceled out. The swallowed creature has multiple conditions that impose disadvantage, but the worm can no longer see the creature it swallowed and is blinded to it. Steady aim does nothing.
The situation I kinda get worried about as a rogue is being swallowed by a Purple Worm or the like and I just think the option to calm down, brace yourself against the stomach lining for a second, and then drive your dagger or rapier through it's guts without Disadvantage kind of alleviates that worry. Might also get Sneak Attack if allies are next to the Worm outside. Might be able to do enough damage to get it to puke you up.
In that situation advantage and disadvantage are already canceled out. The swallowed creature has multiple conditions that impose disadvantage, but the worm can no longer see the creature it swallowed and is blinded to it. Steady aim does nothing.
Huh ... I don't think I've ever thought about it that way and I'm not sure most DM's would run it that way.
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!
It’s worded as it is to allow other forms of movement. It’s worded as it is on purpose to restrict exactly what it says, and do absolutely nothing to prevent anything else.
The something is the words the feature actually uses. They avoided paralyzed interpretations by very carefully deciding not to use the word...and so did I.
It’s weird the way the advantage/disadvantage interacts.
it’s may also be weird that AC doesn’t change against the inside of a creatures stomach lining, especially since some of those creatures stomachs are large enough to potentially swing in. It’s probably a reason a lot of animals make sure their food is dead before they eat it.
why would it be difficult to puncture the stomach lining of a creature with a rapier, or slice it open with a sharp blade?
Whoa hold up a second. I never said you were wrong, I just said I'd never thought of it that way and that I don't think most DM's would run it that way. I think you're actually absolutely right according to RAW ... unless either tremorsense or blindsight allow the worm to perceive a creature inside itself well enough to count as "seeing" which I think is a tad iffy.
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!
Whoa hold up a second. I never said you were wrong, I just said I'd never thought of it that way and that I don't think most DM's would run it that way. I think you're actually absolutely right according to RAW ... unless either tremorsense or blindsight allow the worm to perceive a creature inside itself well enough to count as "seeing" which I think is a tad iffy.
I may have come across as argumentative and I apologize. I was just going over some variables that might play out in a scene like that if the system were to go into that level of detail. I don’t know how much mobility a creature would have in a stomach, but I’d venture they’d be better off with sharp implements or claws.
I once saw a stray cat eat a mouse whole while I was deployed. The cat was begging me for the crust of a slice of pizza I was munching on. The cat saw the mouse out of the corner of its eye, immediately pouncing on it. I heard 2 crunch’s as the mouses bones were quickly broken, and down the cats throat the mouse went all in a matter of seconds. I would imagine the cat would have been gravely injured if the mouse could have struggled back on the inside.
this feature was made to give rogues a chance to get their sneak attack every turn despite DMs who think sneaking and hiding are too powerful.
I'd like to see justification for that being the intent of this.
Firstly, Sneak Attack is already incredibly easy to get in most circumstances using team work. It is practically an always-on damage bonus as it is. It is possible for a DM to interfere with it but difficult.
Secondly, this feature doesn't just give the rogue sneak attack, it gives them advantage at will. That's much more powerful, vastly increasing the chance of a hit and a critical hit. Most features which allow this have a serious penalty. For instance, a Barbarian can gain advantage at will, but only on melee attacks and only by giving EVERY other attack against them advantage. There is a serious penalty for Steady Aim, but RAW a mount completely negates that, which makes the feature insanely powerful: the rogue gets both Sneak Attack and advantage on every single attack they make without any negative effect!
As this is an optional class feature, it's up to the DM whether to allow it. I would do so only on the condition that the "nerfs" (aka sensible reading of the intent of the rule being that you need to stay Steady and Aim to use Steady Aim...) I mentioned are in place: basically, any effect which moves you without using your movement will be considered on a case-by-base basis, using common sense to decide whether it is enough to stop you being Steady while you Aim.
P.S. If you refuse to play a rogue without Steady Aim, maybe it's a bad character choice for you in the first place...
So, getting Sneak Attack every round "balances"... Surely, in that case, getting automatic advantage every round without penalty unbalances it.
Edit: If all it did was grant another way to get Sneak Attack, I could live with that. However, giving a mounted Rogue automatic advantage with no penalty whatsover is insane. Everyone else has to work for advantage or pay a hefty price.
On top of this, it takes away one of the main elements of playing a Rogue. Why bother to be sneaky, to play tactically, to hide, use cover, or work with your teammates to gain your Sneak Attack bonus if you can just charge around on a horse for it, and gain advantage from it too?
The ambiguous wording may, but the intent and believability of it is still in question IMHO.
I think it makes sense to say that a character must declare their use of Steady Aim at the start of their turn anyway.
I would agree that, for the most part, "Swinging weapons, object interactions, casting somatic spells, etc. are all... fair game". However, some things would be more disruptive than taking a few steps forward and standing still for the rest of your turn in taking aim, and IMHO it makes a mockery of the game (and destroys the suspension of disbelief) to say that these would have no effect just because they don't incur movement.
Of course, as a GM you're free to nerf the ability as you see fit, but all of the things you've listed are nerfs, and I think the whole point of Steady Aim is letting rogues have easier access to their core defining class feature with less reliance on the GM's interpretations of various rules and arranging of the environment. Just be aware that that's what you're doing, and make sure you warn your rogue beforehand (which should occur anyway, as Steady Aim is explicitly only available with your consent to begin with). Outside of extremely specific cases, for example, no rogue is going to draw their arrow before using Swift Aim, as that consumes their free item interaction for literally no benefit - you can normally draw an arrow as part of an attack. As others in this thread have noted, the only possible way for things to get interpretive, normally, is for the rogue to do things before spending the bonus action on Steady Aim. If it's the first thing they do on their turn, everything else becomes extremely clear cut.
I'm about the play a Rogue in a campaign because and only because Steady Aim is available, and if my GM starts playing these games with me, I'll promptly re-roll into a class whose core defining features won't be arbitrarily taken away.
Perhaps another example might help?
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.
The rule does not cover this, but I would not allow a rogue to aim at a target they cannot see. Now that I think about it, a rogue could use steady aim to negate the disadvantage from attacking an invisible target.
Not at my table though.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Would you allow it to negate the Disadvantage from other things like being Restrained or Prone?
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!
House rule talk. Restrained would depend on the nature of the restraint, but I think more often than not I would allow it. I would absolutely allow aiming to counteract the disadvantage from prone. Heck, sometimes I might not even impose disadvantage in the first place from firing a crossbow while prone. A bow, maybe prone gets a pass. A sling, prone probably still gets disadvantage normally.
EDIT: I actually can imagine using your other senses to take aim just enough to negate disadvantage for firing against an invisible target. I can also see a lot of situations where that wouldn't be viable.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The situation I kinda get worried about as a rogue is being swallowed by a Purple Worm or the like and I just think the option to calm down, brace yourself against the stomach lining for a second, and then drive your dagger or rapier through it's guts without Disadvantage kind of alleviates that worry. Might also get Sneak Attack if allies are next to the Worm outside. Might be able to do enough damage to get it to puke you up.
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!
It doesn’t matter what the feature is called. The feature defines its limitations. Adding anything else is indeed arbitrary.
this mechanic shouldn’t be treated like concentration. Concentration saves are made when taking damage, and has an entire set of factors guidance on how a DM may Arbitrarily call for one at any other time.
and it doesn’t have to be. The advantage disadvantage system is already in place for these types of things. But you need to ask yourself, are you handing out disadvantage because the situation is truly disadvantageous? Or are you handing it out to nerf an option feature you aren’t giving a chance?
this feature was made to give rogues a chance to get their sneak attack every turn despite DMs who think sneaking and hiding are too powerful.
this is a new option for a base class feature.
how often do you tell your fighter they loose extra attacks arbitrarily?
how often do you take spell slots from spellcasters arbitrarily?
do you come up with excuses like calming music to take away a barbarians rages?
It doesn’t prevent movement after beyond taking your speed. The intent is that you can’t move if relying on your speed. Anything else is misinterpretation of the feature description.
Start of the turn, don’t move. Spend the bonus action to give up your speed gain advantage on the next attack roll . You still have your action, and access to any other features you can still use. doesn’t make sense to limit it any more than what the feature tells you, especially since there are so many ways to move without your movement. A swarm keeper multiclass would be able to do this every turn at level 6. And I keep saying it, but a level 3 rogue on a mount could do it too.
how about you put the rogue on a tensers disk and have the rogue follow the wizard on a phantom steed for a while while the rogue steady aims.
“As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, you CANT MOVE IN ANY WAY UNTIL YOUR TURN ENDS.” is what you seem to be interpreting.
In that situation advantage and disadvantage are already canceled out. The swallowed creature has multiple conditions that impose disadvantage, but the worm can no longer see the creature it swallowed and is blinded to it. Steady aim does nothing.
Huh ... I don't think I've ever thought about it that way and I'm not sure most DM's would run it that way.
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!
It’s worded as it is to allow other forms of movement. It’s worded as it is on purpose to restrict exactly what it says, and do absolutely nothing to prevent anything else.
The something is the words the feature actually uses. They avoided paralyzed interpretations by very carefully deciding not to use the word...and so did I.
It’s weird the way the advantage/disadvantage interacts.
it’s may also be weird that AC doesn’t change against the inside of a creatures stomach lining, especially since some of those creatures stomachs are large enough to potentially swing in. It’s probably a reason a lot of animals make sure their food is dead before they eat it.
why would it be difficult to puncture the stomach lining of a creature with a rapier, or slice it open with a sharp blade?
Whoa hold up a second. I never said you were wrong, I just said I'd never thought of it that way and that I don't think most DM's would run it that way. I think you're actually absolutely right according to RAW ... unless either tremorsense or blindsight allow the worm to perceive a creature inside itself well enough to count as "seeing" which I think is a tad iffy.
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 may have come across as argumentative and I apologize. I was just going over some variables that might play out in a scene like that if the system were to go into that level of detail. I don’t know how much mobility a creature would have in a stomach, but I’d venture they’d be better off with sharp implements or claws.
I once saw a stray cat eat a mouse whole while I was deployed. The cat was begging me for the crust of a slice of pizza I was munching on. The cat saw the mouse out of the corner of its eye, immediately pouncing on it. I heard 2 crunch’s as the mouses bones were quickly broken, and down the cats throat the mouse went all in a matter of seconds. I would imagine the cat would have been gravely injured if the mouse could have struggled back on the inside.
I'd like to see justification for that being the intent of this.
Firstly, Sneak Attack is already incredibly easy to get in most circumstances using team work. It is practically an always-on damage bonus as it is. It is possible for a DM to interfere with it but difficult.
Secondly, this feature doesn't just give the rogue sneak attack, it gives them advantage at will. That's much more powerful, vastly increasing the chance of a hit and a critical hit. Most features which allow this have a serious penalty. For instance, a Barbarian can gain advantage at will, but only on melee attacks and only by giving EVERY other attack against them advantage. There is a serious penalty for Steady Aim, but RAW a mount completely negates that, which makes the feature insanely powerful: the rogue gets both Sneak Attack and advantage on every single attack they make without any negative effect!
As this is an optional class feature, it's up to the DM whether to allow it. I would do so only on the condition that the "nerfs" (aka sensible reading of the intent of the rule being that you need to stay Steady and Aim to use Steady Aim...) I mentioned are in place: basically, any effect which moves you without using your movement will be considered on a case-by-base basis, using common sense to decide whether it is enough to stop you being Steady while you Aim.
P.S. If you refuse to play a rogue without Steady Aim, maybe it's a bad character choice for you in the first place...
If there is this level of adversity between the DM and the rogue, it's going to take a lot more than a class feature to solve the problem :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
While Steady Aim does do more than just grant a Sneak Attack, the developers have said that the game assumes rogues get a SA every round as a balancing factor, so I think it's fairly clear that Steady Aim is there to provide an option to help assure 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!
Balanced? Against what?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So, getting Sneak Attack every round "balances"... Surely, in that case, getting automatic advantage every round without penalty unbalances it.
Edit: If all it did was grant another way to get Sneak Attack, I could live with that. However, giving a mounted Rogue automatic advantage with no penalty whatsover is insane. Everyone else has to work for advantage or pay a hefty price.
On top of this, it takes away one of the main elements of playing a Rogue. Why bother to be sneaky, to play tactically, to hide, use cover, or work with your teammates to gain your Sneak Attack bonus if you can just charge around on a horse for it, and gain advantage from it too?