One D&D UA 9/29/22 - Expert Classes

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

The idea of learning the detailed ins and outs of surviving in a terrain are not something I am willing to accept being learned in an 8 hour meditation. I do know and have applied enough about serviviving in eastern forests, mountains, plains and deserts as well as oceans ( to some extent)  to know it’s not something that even the “spirits of the terrain” are going to be blue to brief you on in one 8 hour rest period. What I could see is spell or ranger ability like primeval awareness that actually gave you information like shelters, water sources, possible foraging areas, etc as well as the presence of significant threats within a 10 mile radius of your location. The former might tell you distance and direction while the latter might only tell you presence. If it’s an ability it should be usable proficiency bonus times a long rest.

 I think you miss understand what I was saying..while primeval awareness was active you get the traveling pace boost, foraging ect (the bullets) and a list of creatures types nearby.(Non detection with modifications could cover being tracked.)

Your knowledge of terrain comes from your expertise in the current setup. Learned in your period of becoming a ranger over a period during backstory.

Sorry  I wasn't clear. 

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Wi1dBi11>>

The idea of learning the detailed ins and outs of surviving in a terrain are not something I am willing to accept being learned in an 8 hour meditation. I do know and have applied enough about serviviving in eastern forests, mountains, plains and deserts as well as oceans ( to some extent)  to know it’s not something that even the “spirits of the terrain” are going to be blue to brief you on in one 8 hour rest period. What I could see is spell or ranger ability like primeval awareness that actually gave you information like shelters, water sources, possible foraging areas, etc as well as the presence of significant threats within a 10 mile radius of your location. The former might tell you distance and direction while the latter might only tell you presence. If it’s an ability it should be usable proficiency bonus times a long rest.

When deciding between realism and playability, I choose playability. D&D characters end up as superheroes. Being able to learn survival skills in a ludicrously short amount of time seems well within the fantasy of the Ranger class. 

 Yes, learning a terrain in 8 hours is unrealistic. So is launching a fireball from a pointy stick after saying some gibberish.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

When deciding between realism and playability, I choose playability. D&D characters end up as superheroes. Being able to learn survival skills in a ludicrously short amount of time seems well within the fantasy of the Ranger class. 

 In practice it just means "You no longer have a favored terrain, you're just universally better outdoors". Which isn't necessarily bad, but rather than making it require time attuning I'd probably just make it a Survival check to gain the various bullet points listed under natural explorer (delete the double proficiency in favored terrain; you get double proficiency if you took expertise).

Actually, most of the bullet points I would be fine just making universal features of Survival. Maybe make 'Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger' a ranger class feature, and the rest are just 'this is what survival does'.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

When deciding between realism and playability, I choose playability. D&D characters end up as superheroes. Being able to learn survival skills in a ludicrously short amount of time seems well within the fantasy of the Ranger class. 

 In practice it just means "You no longer have a favored terrain, you're just universally better outdoors". Which isn't necessarily bad, but rather than making it require time attuning I'd probably just make it a Survival check to gain the various bullet points listed under natural explorer (delete the double proficiency in favored terrain; you get double proficiency if you took expertise).

Actually, most of the bullet points I would be fine just making universal features of Survival. Maybe make 'Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger' a ranger class feature, and the rest are just 'this is what survival does'.

 This I am fine with.

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

Quote from R3sistance >>

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

...

 

since you put all that down, I had an idea and tried to put numbers together and it highlighted just how dependent on that invisible feature at level 13 ranger will be to keep up to pace. This is using the Thief and Hunter subclasses since that is what was shown in the UA.

Level	Weapon	Dex Mod	Rogue	Ranger	Ranger + invis
1	0	3	10.1	11.4	11.4
2	0	3	10.1	13.35	13.35
3	0	3	13.34	17.3	17.3
4	0	4	13.99	18.6	18.6
5	0	4	17.24	26.28	26.28
6	1	4	17.89	28.23	28.23
7	1	4	21.14	28.23	28.23
8	1	5	21.79	30.18	30.18
9	1	5	25.03	30.18	30.18
10	1	5	25.03	30.18	30.18
11	2	5	28.93	32.13	32.13
12	2	5	28.93	32.13	32.13
13	2	5	39.49	32.13	42.37
14	2	5	39.49	32.13	42.37
15	2	5	43.28	32.13	42.37
16	2	5	43.28	32.13	42.37
17	3	5	47.94	34.08	45
18	3	5	47.94	37.98	50.27
19	3	5	51.73	37.98	50.27
20	3	5	51.73	37.98	50.27

 

I have made some assumptions to get these numbers (i.e. all attacks at 65% chance to hit), include dex modifier and +weapons, both dex mod and +weapons benefit ranger more than rogue. I have assumed TWF for the ranger's choice of fighting style, but ranger while looking a lot stronger in the early game later on it's gotta be burning spell slots for the bonus action invis to keep up with rogue. Ranger better hope their target doesn't have blind sight, see invisibility or other such sense else yikes. Ranger does have spells and other tricks that could get higher numbers.

And yes, about level 13, my numbers indicate rogue would get over a 33% jump in DPS at this level... so it definitely shouldn't be downplayed.

I also might have made some mistakes in these numbers, certainly I have used probably too simple a method to calculate rogue's sneak attack critical damage, which might be slightly (but not much) higher than I have calculated. I think these numbers are still good enough for comparison tho.

 Thanks. Rogue damage  t’s even better if you have lots of fights per day where spell casters fall off. But it has come to my attention that rogues lost their ability to sneak attack on opportunity attacks. While it’s not the end of the world nerf I have to accept that is slightly game changing nerf. DMs will have no fear walking away from or passed a rogue on the battle field. While I will still defend the UA rogue being okay, I have to admit that needs to change so I already have something to say about the rogue in the survey.

Again it is not just opportunity attack. It is also on ready actions where you forgo your turn to wait for an enemy to get in range of an ally to get a sneak attack. In 1d&d that is no longer possible under the current wording.

Quote from Hadesisle >>

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

Quote from R3sistance >>

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

...

 

since you put all that down, I had an idea and tried to put numbers together and it highlighted just how dependent on that invisible feature at level 13 ranger will be to keep up to pace. This is using the Thief and Hunter subclasses since that is what was shown in the UA.

Level	Weapon	Dex Mod	Rogue	Ranger	Ranger + invis
1	0	3	10.1	11.4	11.4
2	0	3	10.1	13.35	13.35
3	0	3	13.34	17.3	17.3
4	0	4	13.99	18.6	18.6
5	0	4	17.24	26.28	26.28
6	1	4	17.89	28.23	28.23
7	1	4	21.14	28.23	28.23
8	1	5	21.79	30.18	30.18
9	1	5	25.03	30.18	30.18
10	1	5	25.03	30.18	30.18
11	2	5	28.93	32.13	32.13
12	2	5	28.93	32.13	32.13
13	2	5	39.49	32.13	42.37
14	2	5	39.49	32.13	42.37
15	2	5	43.28	32.13	42.37
16	2	5	43.28	32.13	42.37
17	3	5	47.94	34.08	45
18	3	5	47.94	37.98	50.27
19	3	5	51.73	37.98	50.27
20	3	5	51.73	37.98	50.27

 

I have made some assumptions to get these numbers (i.e. all attacks at 65% chance to hit), include dex modifier and +weapons, both dex mod and +weapons benefit ranger more than rogue. I have assumed TWF for the ranger's choice of fighting style, but ranger while looking a lot stronger in the early game later on it's gotta be burning spell slots for the bonus action invis to keep up with rogue. Ranger better hope their target doesn't have blind sight, see invisibility or other such sense else yikes. Ranger does have spells and other tricks that could get higher numbers.

And yes, about level 13, my numbers indicate rogue would get over a 33% jump in DPS at this level... so it definitely shouldn't be downplayed.

I also might have made some mistakes in these numbers, certainly I have used probably too simple a method to calculate rogue's sneak attack critical damage, which might be slightly (but not much) higher than I have calculated. I think these numbers are still good enough for comparison tho.

 Thanks. Rogue damage  t’s even better if you have lots of fights per day where spell casters fall off. But it has come to my attention that rogues lost their ability to sneak attack on opportunity attacks. While it’s not the end of the world nerf I have to accept that is slightly game changing nerf. DMs will have no fear walking away from or passed a rogue on the battle field. While I will still defend the UA rogue being okay, I have to admit that needs to change so I already have something to say about the rogue in the survey.

 

Again it is not just opportunity attack. It is also on ready actions where you forgo your turn to wait for an enemy to get in range of an ally to get a sneak attack. In 1d&d that is no longer possible under the current wording.

 Once during each of your turns-once per round. Simple fix to no opportunity sneak attacks

It makes sense to me that you can't get sneak attack on a readied action since e.g. if you're waiting for an enemy to pop out of cover, you aren't going to get the best shot thus it makes sense for no sneak attack. But I would like to see Sneak Attack expanded to be "When you take the Attack action on your turn, or when you make an Opportunity Attack".

Quote from Agilemind >>

It makes sense to me that you can't get sneak attack on a readied action since e.g. if you're waiting for an enemy to pop out of cover, you aren't going to get the best shot thus it makes sense for no sneak attack. But I would like to see Sneak Attack expanded to be "When you take the Attack action on your turn, or when you make an Opportunity Attack".

So it doesn't make sense to make a sneak attack with a ready action on an ambush where the enemy has no clue that you are there...waiting for them...right... especially with feats like skulker... I would rather leave it the way it was in 5e. It didn't break the game as they were still behind in damage on other characters with extra attack.

Ok, the new wording is specifically trying to eliminate a sneak attack on a reaction and appears to do so. Everyone has also been saying it stops sneak attack on a held action and I’m not getting that part. As I see it with a held action you had initiative and are holding your turn and action to interrupt your foe’s turn. You haven’t ended your turn you are delaying your turn. When you chose you complete your turn taking your attack action. Since you are still in your turn and are taking an attack action you are fully entitled to your sneak attack. What am I missing?

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Ok, the new wording is specifically trying to eliminate a sneak attack on a reaction and appears to do so. Everyone has also been saying it stops sneak attack on a held action and I’m not getting that part. As I see it with a held action you had initiative and are holding your turn and action to interrupt your foe’s turn. You haven’t ended your turn you are delaying your turn. When you chose you complete your turn taking your attack action. Since you are still in your turn and are taking an attack action you are fully entitled to your sneak attack. What am I missing?

 Existing wording on Held Actions is they are Reactions.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Ok, the new wording is specifically trying to eliminate a sneak attack on a reaction and appears to do so. Everyone has also been saying it stops sneak attack on a held action and I’m not getting that part. As I see it with a held action you had initiative and are holding your turn and action to interrupt your foe’s turn. You haven’t ended your turn you are delaying your turn. When you chose you complete your turn taking your attack action. Since you are still in your turn and are taking an attack action you are fully entitled to your sneak attack. What am I missing?

Readying an action does not delay your turn, it just allows you to use your reaction to take an action outside of your turn.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Ok, the new wording is specifically trying to eliminate a sneak attack on a reaction and appears to do so. Everyone has also been saying it stops sneak attack on a held action and I’m not getting that part. As I see it with a held action you had initiative and are holding your turn and action to interrupt your foe’s turn. You haven’t ended your turn you are delaying your turn. When you chose you complete your turn taking your attack action. Since you are still in your turn and are taking an attack action you are fully entitled to your sneak attack. What am I missing?

That's not how the Ready Action (there's no such thing as a Held Action) works. You don't delay your turn when you do a Ready Action, you are still in your initiative spot, all you do is give yourself a preprogrammed Reaction that can happen outside of your turn.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Ok, the new wording is specifically trying to eliminate a sneak attack on a reaction and appears to do so. Everyone has also been saying it stops sneak attack on a held action and I’m not getting that part. As I see it with a held action you had initiative and are holding your turn and action to interrupt your foe’s turn. You haven’t ended your turn you are delaying your turn. When you chose you complete your turn taking your attack action. Since you are still in your turn and are taking an attack action you are fully entitled to your sneak attack. What am I missing?

That is not how ready action works. Ready action lets you hold an attack action, movement, or spell as a reaction outside your turn using a set condition you set for it. After you ready your action you end your turn and use the reaction to release the set action you set for your ready action on another creatures turn. It doesn't hold your turn to interrupt a creatures turn like the samurai fighter subclass capstone does. Because the wording says "on your turn" it means that sneak attack doesn't work on ready action. The new wording of sneak attack stops anything you want to use sneak attack outside your turn and since ready action uses your reaction to make an attack outside your turn it stops sneak attack from working since it is as you said a reaction. It is why attacks of opportunity sneak attacks don't occur as often as it will split your focus on your reaction to get the sneak attack if you can get it or save it for the uncanny dodge to keep yourself alive. If a player focusing their build around getting sneak attack on attacks of opportunity it means they will sacrifice their survivability so a DM can focus on killing the rogue a lot more easily. That is why it was never an issue like some people like to make it out to be.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Ok, the new wording is specifically trying to eliminate a sneak attack on a reaction and appears to do so. Everyone has also been saying it stops sneak attack on a held action and I’m not getting that part. As I see it with a held action you had initiative and are holding your turn and action to interrupt your foe’s turn. You haven’t ended your turn you are delaying your turn. When you chose you complete your turn taking your attack action. Since you are still in your turn and are taking an attack action you are fully entitled to your sneak attack. What am I missing?

 What you're missing is there's no such thing as "a held action." Readying an action is in no way delaying your turn. It's taking an action on your turn that allows you take a reaction on someone else's turn (yeah, you could in theory end end up doing it on your own turn, but that's really niche) in response to some trigger that you define. The actual rules are extremely clear about this.

Quote from Hadesisle >>

Quote from Agilemind >>

It makes sense to me that you can't get sneak attack on a readied action since e.g. if you're waiting for an enemy to pop out of cover, you aren't going to get the best shot thus it makes sense for no sneak attack. But I would like to see Sneak Attack expanded to be "When you take the Attack action on your turn, or when you make an Opportunity Attack".

 

So it doesn't make sense to make a sneak attack with a ready action on an ambush where the enemy has no clue that you are there...waiting for them...right... especially with feats like skulker... I would rather leave it the way it was in 5e. It didn't break the game as they were still behind in damage on other characters with extra attack.

 It somewhat depends how surprise works in One D&D - we've had some hints that it will involved Adv/DisAdv on initiative but we haven't seen the full rules. In 5e you wouldn't ready an action on an ambush, an ambush would grant Surprise and you could sneak attack on your turn as normal. But if you're thinking more like the "I hold my actions until they walk through the door" type ambush then yes it does make sense that you can't sneak attack, you have a split second to aim that attack at them, there is no reason to suppose you can aim perfectly to get sneak attack in that situation. 

Quote from Kotath >> 

Why would you shoot on first seeing part of their body rather than on when you actually have a good shot? But normal sneak attacks are not limited in effect by anything less than full cover, merely in accuracy.

 Because you wouldn't know if you would get to see their full body, nor for how long you might see it - a brief glimpse of their whole body as they dodge from one source of cover to another would not give you time to perfectly line up a shot for sneak attack.

Thank you. I’ve always seen it played and DMed it as I described, now I see what the RAW problem is. I expect I will continue to DM it that way as it makes more sense to me but at least I know it’s a homebrew change.

Quote from Agilemind >>

Quote from Kotath >> 

Why would you shoot on first seeing part of their body rather than on when you actually have a good shot? But normal sneak attacks are not limited in effect by anything less than full cover, merely in accuracy.

 Because you wouldn't know if you would get to see their full body, nor for how long you might see it - a brief glimpse of their whole body as they dodge from one source of cover to another would not give you time to perfectly line up a shot for sneak attack.

 If they are dodging from one source of cover to another you'd have disadvantage on attacking them as they are dodging which would negate sneak attacks. If they are just walking out from behind cover, in 5e you would and should get a sneak attack with a readied action.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Agilemind >>

Quote from Kotath >> 

Why would you shoot on first seeing part of their body rather than on when you actually have a good shot? But normal sneak attacks are not limited in effect by anything less than full cover, merely in accuracy.

 Because you wouldn't know if you would get to see their full body, nor for how long you might see it - a brief glimpse of their whole body as they dodge from one source of cover to another would not give you time to perfectly line up a shot for sneak attack.

 If they are dodging from one source of cover to another you'd have disadvantage on attacking them as they are dodging which would negate sneak attacks. If they are just walking out from behind cover, in 5e you would and should get a sneak attack with a readied action.

 But not in the new rules, which is exactly the main problem everyone’s been having

Quote from KingOfCharge >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Agilemind >>

Quote from Kotath >> 

Why would you shoot on first seeing part of their body rather than on when you actually have a good shot? But normal sneak attacks are not limited in effect by anything less than full cover, merely in accuracy.

 Because you wouldn't know if you would get to see their full body, nor for how long you might see it - a brief glimpse of their whole body as they dodge from one source of cover to another would not give you time to perfectly line up a shot for sneak attack.

 If they are dodging from one source of cover to another you'd have disadvantage on attacking them as they are dodging which would negate sneak attacks. If they are just walking out from behind cover, in 5e you would and should get a sneak attack with a readied action.

 But not in the new rules, which is exactly the main problem everyone’s been having

Yeah I know and I have the same problem. I was just pointing out the elusive target potential exploit is already solved by the rules without needing any changes.

I'll even give the off turn sneak attack could be exploited and abused but honestly we never saw it. Sure haste could give them double sneak attacks a round but I've never seen a character think that was a good use of both a 3rd level slot and their concentration. But hey for the sake of argument I'll go with it. That is broken. This fix doesn't just stop that, it also stops a huge range of non abusive uses of it. Standard AoO, geez let the exploit weakness class exploit the weakness they just opened.  Readied actions, sure you can make some argument about not having enough time when a guy just comes through the door, I don't buy it but fine not enough time to line up a sneak attack in that instance. How about the rogue is watching a meeting on sniper over watch. He's drawn a bead on the wizard with a readied action of once he starts casting a spell, well damn I guess you just have to wait for normal initiative order and shoot him after he casts the spell, that is lame.

As an aside that last one happens a lot in our more intrigue oriented campaigns, it happens against the players as well which brings my cold black DM heart so much joy.