The impression I get from these is that many players and DMs out there are more awful at letting these classes do their thing than I gave them credit for.
Especially the parts about skill monkey hate and not trusting the rogue because they're a rogue.
Yurei and some other poster with similar lists of terrible player/dms must have had some serious bad luck in finding groups over the years. In some threads on the 1d&d stuff i've been saying a rule that requires a good DM is a bad rule. But a sort of corollary to that is even a perfect rule wont survive a terrible DM. But like out of all the game groups I've had over the years only maybe 2-3 players/dms were toxic. dozens of games over decades and i got nothing compared to what some seem to encounter routinely.
How about we stop treating the Rogue as the Martial/Warrior they are clearly not being designed as and step back see if we can figure out exactly just what an "Expert" is according to the devs?
All right.
What is the rogue's intended function?
If the rogue is not intended to be viable in combat:
A.) That should change, because all classes need a role in combat. Nor can it be a minor one.
B.) What is the rogue's role? It cannot be noncombat utility, because the lack of tool skills and utility magic nullifies it for the task. It cannot be exploration, because rangers exist. It cannot be 'The Social Pillar', because the entire Charisma ******** of castybois exists. What is the rogue's role?
Rogues get proficiency in thieves' tools though, and that's the one tool that almost consistently shows up from my observation. Also they get Expertise in two skills at Level 1, and four choices of skill proficiencies that looks like it's leaning towards sneaking into or searching places or social interactions based on the specific skills they picked out in the playtest.
Sure, but the ranger and bard get expertise at level 2 and have a similar number of skills. They have a tool proficiency isn't really a great thing to hang your hat on. About the only real win they have imo and it is a solid one is reliable talent, but that does not come close to spells.
As a skill monkey, the current 5e ranger is probably equal to superior to the 5e rogue, they have similar core attributes and the rogue doesn't get any skill benefits that are stronger than what being a primal half-caster gives the ranger, so rather than comparing to 5e fighters or hypothetical One D&D fighters, we should probably just compare fighting ability between a ranger and a rogue.
Assuming hunter's mark wasn't changed to 1/round (which it might be), a two weapon ranger at level 1 does 4d6+3 (17) whereas a two weapon rogue does 3d6+3 (13). At level 5 the ranger does 6d6+12 (33) whereas the rogue does 5d6+4 (21) (this is ignoring subclass). At level 20 with +3 weapons the ranger is doing 3d6+3d10+24 (51) whereas the rogue is doing 12d6+11 (53) so the rogue does eventually catch up, but it takes well into the teens -- and the ranger has a better hit die type and better armor and weapon proficiencies (though the latter doesn't much matter in this case).
As a skill monkey, the current 5e ranger is probably equal to superior to the 5e rogue, they have similar core attributes and the rogue doesn't get any skill benefits that are stronger than what being a primal half-caster gives the ranger, so rather than comparing to 5e fighters or hypothetical One D&D fighters, we should probably just compare fighting ability between a ranger and a rogue.
Assuming hunter's mark wasn't changed to 1/round (which it might be), a two weapon ranger at level 1 does 4d6+3 (17) whereas a two weapon rogue does 3d6+3 (13). At level 5 the ranger does 6d6+12 (33) whereas the rogue does 5d6+4 (21) (this is ignoring subclass). At level 20 with +3 weapons the ranger is doing 3d6+3d10+24 (51) whereas the rogue is doing 12d6+11 (53) so the rogue does eventually catch up, but it takes well into the teens -- and the ranger has a better hit die type and better armor and weapon proficiencies (though the latter doesn't much matter in this case).
And the ranger will have spell options which can enhance that.
As a skill monkey, the current 5e ranger is probably equal to superior to the 5e rogue, they have similar core attributes and the rogue doesn't get any skill benefits that are stronger than what being a primal half-caster gives the ranger, so rather than comparing to 5e fighters or hypothetical One D&D fighters, we should probably just compare fighting ability between a ranger and a rogue.
Assuming hunter's mark wasn't changed to 1/round (which it might be), a two weapon ranger at level 1 does 4d6+3 (17) whereas a two weapon rogue does 3d6+3 (13). At level 5 the ranger does 6d6+12 (33) whereas the rogue does 5d6+4 (21) (this is ignoring subclass). At level 20 with +3 weapons the ranger is doing 3d6+3d10+24 (51) whereas the rogue is doing 12d6+11 (53) so the rogue does eventually catch up, but it takes well into the teens -- and the ranger has a better hit die type and better armor and weapon proficiencies (though the latter doesn't much matter in this case).
So much this. The thing is all non-caster classes need to have MORE stuff available to them to keep up with caster and half-casters.
Rogues do fine at levels 1-4, but when extra attack kicks in, half-casters get their second level spell slots and full casters get the powerful 3rd level spells.... Rogues are getting uncanny dodge. Which is just helping them keep up with survivability that ranger already had by default thanks to armor and health. By level 9 when full casters are getting 5th level spells, the highest slot they get that they can refresh or can cast more than once per day before level 17, Half-casters are getting powerful 3rd level spells and both of the other expert classes are now matching the rogue in skill proficiencies the rogue is getting.... evasion, more survivability and nothing else. If we just look at what bards are getting, they are getting spells, bardic inspiration and skills expertise and versatility. Most of their features add to these things like font of inspiration, jack of all trades, songs of restoration and magical secrets. Rangers are getting spells, combat focus, mobility and skills (Expertise and spells level 1, level 2 fighting style, level 5 extra attack and 2nd level spells, 7 mobility, 9 expertise and 3rd level spells). Effectively Rangers are getting a splattering of everything from combat features to skill features to spells, albiet the spells are slower than the bard. Rogues are getting, skills, survival and one feature at level 2 that provides them mobility, (expertise level 1, level 2 cunning action, 5 uncanny dodge, 7 expertise, 9 evasion) rogues are entirely reliant on their subclass being AMAZING before level 10 to keep up. After 10 the extra feat, and reliable talent finally kick in, but until then it is all on cunning action and the rogue's subclass to carry them through T2 of play in terms of versatility and they are entirely reliant on sneak attack for damage.
If the rogue is not intended to be viable in combat
There is an enormous assumption here that not being able to sneak attack more than once per round somehow makes the Rogue completely unviable in combat, but it's not up to the Rogue whether they can do this or not and never has been; as a result the vast majority of Rogues already only get to sneak attack once per round, because they don't have the necessary allies to reliably trigger additional reaction attacks for their party's Rogues, or said allies don't do it very often.
This has never made Rogues unviable; I have never not had fun playing a Rogue, nor has anyone else in my groups that has played a Rogue (except for one, but that had nothing to do with combat performance and everything to do with the character having literally zero personality or backstory).
The main thing I want for Rogue is much clearer and simpler rules for stealth, because how to hide in combat has always been a minefield of poorly written and poorly structured rules fired scattershot across multiple sections of the PHB. While it seems like WotC is working towards simplifying stealth, I'm not sure I like what they're doing there, which is a much bigger problem than simply limiting sneak attack to what 99% of Rogues get anyway, so it can be improved in other ways instead.
I am generally in favour of the change, but I think sub-classes really need to build on sneak attack more, or treat it as a resource (e.g- Thief could trade their sneak attack damage for some form of disarm).
As for Rogues scaling against casters; sneak attack damage scales at the same rate as spell levels on a full caster, except that the Rogue can potentially sneak attack once every round without spending any resources. It scales just fine, though I agree it could use some more explicit out of combat/pre combat bonuses.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Not to nit pic but in 1e the thief's backstab was god tier. It was between x2-x5 damage and that was total damage...
I played a Thief frequently in AD&D, and while the backstab multipliers were awesome if you could get one in, a backstab was in no way equivalent to sneak attack in 5e. To get a backstab in, the enemy had to be entirely unaware of your presence, so basically like the requirements for the current Assassinate ability. Thieves then were pretty terrible at doing damage, but they were literally the only class that could sneak, find/disable traps, pick pockets, open locks, etc.
On some of the other topics, idea that with the 1D&D the ability to use thieves' tools sets them apart in any way is silly, since that proficiency can be obtained through background. Sure, Bard and Ranger can't get expertise with them, but it is pretty certain that sooner or later Artificers will be in the new version of the game and they absolutely will be able to get expertise. The current 1D&D Rogue has pretty much no ability to set themselves above other Expert classes out of combat as is, and I think they are significantly worse than the Ranger for dealing damage and can do essentially nothing equivalent of the Bard's support spellcasting.
Really a big part of how impactful sneak attack is depends on if you have enough rounds of combat for resource based classes to start to run on empty. Two combats roughly 3 or 4 rounds is not enough for the rogue to show their value.
Really a big part of how impactful sneak attack is depends on if you have enough rounds of combat for resource based classes to start to run on empty. Two combats roughly 3 or 4 rounds is not enough for the rogue to show their value.
And that applies to all martials. Sure, they can bonk unlimited amount of times, but in most games, with 1-3 fights a day, casters don't tend to run out of resources. And you have to compare bonk to an 8d6 fireball.
I am generally in favour of the change, but I think sub-classes really need to build on sneak attack more, or treat it as a resource
Personally, I think subclasses should do what they are designed to do, whether or not it involves sneak attack. My exception would be Assassin. That should build off sneak attack, the rest of the subclasses should do their own thing. Otherwise what’s the point. Rogue isn’t a one trick pony.
Really a big part of how impactful sneak attack is depends on if you have enough rounds of combat for resource based classes to start to run on empty. Two combats roughly 3 or 4 rounds is not enough for the rogue to show their value.
And that applies to all martials. Sure, they can bonk unlimited amount of times, but in most games, with 1-3 fights a day, casters don't tend to run out of resources. And you have to compare bonk to an 8d6 fireball.
This is a big issue (maybe the biggest) that WotC needs to address. In a game with varied class design in which some have very impactful daily abilities, others have a moderate amount of less impactful daily abilities, some have features that recharge on a short rest, and some have only at-will features...there needs to be a clear design regarding how often resting will occur. This could certainly be left to each individual table to decide, but that results in an unfortunate learning curve for new players.
The best solution that occurs to me off the top of my head is to have features recharge after a certain number of encounters (like the Action Point in 4e). This allows DMs to create adventures with a far wider variety of timing, from dungeon crawls packed with encounters to extended intrigue games that might only have one encounter per day. This forces players who have characters with daily powers to actually think about conservation, which needs to be the intent.
Not to nit pic but in 1e the thief's backstab was god tier. It was between x2-x5 damage and that was total damage...
I played a Thief frequently in AD&D, and while the backstab multipliers were awesome if you could get one in, a backstab was in no way equivalent to sneak attack in 5e. To get a backstab in, the enemy had to be entirely unaware of your presence, so basically like the requirements for the current Assassinate ability. Thieves then were pretty terrible at doing damage, but they were literally the only class that could sneak, find/disable traps, pick pockets, open locks, etc.
On some of the other topics, idea that with the 1D&D the ability to use thieves' tools sets them apart in any way is silly, since that proficiency can be obtained through background. Sure, Bard and Ranger can't get expertise with them, but it is pretty certain that sooner or later Artificers will be in the new version of the game and they absolutely will be able to get expertise. The current 1D&D Rogue has pretty much no ability to set themselves above other Expert classes out of combat as is, and I think they are significantly worse than the Ranger for dealing damage and can do essentially nothing equivalent of the Bard's support spellcasting.
This is way off topic so my last post on it.
I'm playing 1e right now, I've one shot dragons with sneak attack. Maybe you guys didn't optimize as much for this, but when we find the strength boost items the thief gets the priority due to that multiplier. The multiplier is more times than the fighter gets to attack. The fighter gets 7 attacks every two rounds with two weapon fighting.(and I'll note in my experience most fighters did not prioritize dex so they could two weapon fight and would normally cap at 5/2 attacks) I get two attacks every round with two weapon fighting so I'd be close to most fighters in attacks per round for their end game. The fighter hits more often but I only miss on a 6 against the toughest ACs. When I hit its x4 damage. That is basically 8 hits a round vs 3 round 1 then 4 round 2. I would be hitting for x5 so the equivalent of 10 hits, but wraiths suck. So even if you needed to move into position sneakily and give up your first round it would still be a deal.
But, the rules on backstab in 1e, all you needed was to be literally behind them. Here is the backstab text. Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with club, dagger or sword. The damage done ... then the only mention of hiding is an additional bonus. Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20%(+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll).
Now as generally you could change your facing, so unless someone was engaging them already they just turn to face you, so in practical terms you needed to be hidden when they were not engaged. So to backstab all you needed was to be behind them,(and a reason they don't just turn to face you) but if hidden you got a +4 to hit and could nail anyone even if they were not distracted. BECMI and 2e had additional requirements. I've seen some people interpret that as an additional requirement but that is not how it is written. In fact we did when we initially played it but I suspect its because we also played BECMI and didn't notice the differences in text. It may have been the intent even but we didn't really have online forums for it, and when I google it now its people saying they'd never let a thief back stab in combat no matter what. That being said being hidden was pretty easy in early editions, magic items that would handle that were handed out like candy in adventures and by mid levels thieves had a solid chance of pulling it off anyways.
Now despite all the damage I have some weaknesses as my +4 leather armor is only AC 4, and my 18 dex brings that to 0, and ring of protection to -3. And my HPs are not that high. I get hit constantly. The fighter has a -10 AC and does not get hit all the time. And then there are monsters that don't have a definable back, so are immune, flying creatures since its not a sniper shot ability, I literally just can't get behind them due to obstructions or enemies etc. So the fighter is overall better in combat. But in that one niche of single target damage against a enemy who is already engaged or i'm hidden from I reign supreme.
Really a big part of how impactful sneak attack is depends on if you have enough rounds of combat for resource based classes to start to run on empty. Two combats roughly 3 or 4 rounds is not enough for the rogue to show their value.
And that applies to all martials. Sure, they can bonk unlimited amount of times, but in most games, with 1-3 fights a day, casters don't tend to run out of resources. And you have to compare bonk to an 8d6 fireball.
This is a big issue (maybe the biggest) that WotC needs to address. In a game with varied class design in which some have very impactful daily abilities, others have a moderate amount of less impactful daily abilities, some have features that recharge on a short rest, and some have only at-will features...there needs to be a clear design regarding how often resting will occur. This could certainly be left to each individual table to decide, but that results in an unfortunate learning curve for new players.
The best solution that occurs to me off the top of my head is to have features recharge after a certain number of encounters (like the Action Point in 4e). This allows DMs to create adventures with a far wider variety of timing, from dungeon crawls packed with encounters to extended intrigue games that might only have one encounter per day. This forces players who have characters with daily powers to actually think about conservation, which needs to be the intent.
I think they have to give every class the big impactful maneuvers. There is no practical way to limit how each table runs rest.
Really a big part of how impactful sneak attack is depends on if you have enough rounds of combat for resource based classes to start to run on empty. Two combats roughly 3 or 4 rounds is not enough for the rogue to show their value.
And that applies to all martials. Sure, they can bonk unlimited amount of times, but in most games, with 1-3 fights a day, casters don't tend to run out of resources. And you have to compare bonk to an 8d6 fireball.
This is a big issue (maybe the biggest) that WotC needs to address. In a game with varied class design in which some have very impactful daily abilities, others have a moderate amount of less impactful daily abilities, some have features that recharge on a short rest, and some have only at-will features...there needs to be a clear design regarding how often resting will occur. This could certainly be left to each individual table to decide, but that results in an unfortunate learning curve for new players.
The best solution that occurs to me off the top of my head is to have features recharge after a certain number of encounters (like the Action Point in 4e). This allows DMs to create adventures with a far wider variety of timing, from dungeon crawls packed with encounters to extended intrigue games that might only have one encounter per day. This forces players who have characters with daily powers to actually think about conservation, which needs to be the intent.
I think they have to give every class the big impactful maneuvers. There is no practical way to limit how each table runs rest.
there is if they set an upper limit to total number of short rests per day. Then players will make it a point to use every single one they have available to them.
there is if they set an upper limit to total number of short rests per day.
Then players will make it a point to use every single one they have available to them.
Short rests really aren't the issue. You need to limit long rests.
Those are already by RAW limited to only gaining the benefits of a long rest once per 24 hours reducing short rests to a set number per day would not be a bad idea either.
A common house rule is 2 short 1 long per 24 hours... (2 seems like not enough Shorts if the Monk, Warlock, and Fighters keep their short rest recharges in this new iteration though... Maybe 3? 4 seems to be too many.)
Those are already by RAW limited to only gaining the benefits of a long rest once per 24 hours reducing short rests to a set number per day would not be a bad idea either.
A common house rule is 2 short 1 long per 24 hours... (2 seems like not enough Shorts if the Monk, Warlock, and Fighters keep their short rest recharges in this new iteration though... Maybe 3? 4 seems to be too many.)
That's not just a common house rule; it's what the DMG says (on page 84) about how many short rests your party should take during the "typical adventuring day." Anyways, our current line of discussion is completely different than what this was made to discuss. If anyone wants to talk about uses of resources and how it affects martial and caster imbalance, I'd advise they start a new thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Those are already by RAW limited to only gaining the benefits of a long rest once per 24 hours reducing short rests to a set number per day would not be a bad idea either.
Unless there's a strict time limit, once per 24 hours doesn't matter. What you really need is something like 'once per waypoint'.
Those are already by RAW limited to only gaining the benefits of a long rest once per 24 hours reducing short rests to a set number per day would not be a bad idea either.
A common house rule is 2 short 1 long per 24 hours... (2 seems like not enough Shorts if the Monk, Warlock, and Fighters keep their short rest recharges in this new iteration though... Maybe 3? 4 seems to be too many.)
That's not just a common house rule; it's what the DMG says (on page 84) about how many short rests your party should take during the "typical adventuring day." Anyways, our current line of discussion is completely different than what this was made to discuss. If anyone wants to talk about uses of resources and how it affects martial and caster imbalance, I'd advise they start a new thread.
Yeah but they word it as a suggestion not a hard limit. Whereas the 1 Long per 24 is written as a hard limit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yurei and some other poster with similar lists of terrible player/dms must have had some serious bad luck in finding groups over the years. In some threads on the 1d&d stuff i've been saying a rule that requires a good DM is a bad rule. But a sort of corollary to that is even a perfect rule wont survive a terrible DM. But like out of all the game groups I've had over the years only maybe 2-3 players/dms were toxic. dozens of games over decades and i got nothing compared to what some seem to encounter routinely.
Sure, but the ranger and bard get expertise at level 2 and have a similar number of skills. They have a tool proficiency isn't really a great thing to hang your hat on. About the only real win they have imo and it is a solid one is reliable talent, but that does not come close to spells.
As a skill monkey, the current 5e ranger is probably equal to superior to the 5e rogue, they have similar core attributes and the rogue doesn't get any skill benefits that are stronger than what being a primal half-caster gives the ranger, so rather than comparing to 5e fighters or hypothetical One D&D fighters, we should probably just compare fighting ability between a ranger and a rogue.
Assuming hunter's mark wasn't changed to 1/round (which it might be), a two weapon ranger at level 1 does 4d6+3 (17) whereas a two weapon rogue does 3d6+3 (13). At level 5 the ranger does 6d6+12 (33) whereas the rogue does 5d6+4 (21) (this is ignoring subclass). At level 20 with +3 weapons the ranger is doing 3d6+3d10+24 (51) whereas the rogue is doing 12d6+11 (53) so the rogue does eventually catch up, but it takes well into the teens -- and the ranger has a better hit die type and better armor and weapon proficiencies (though the latter doesn't much matter in this case).
And the ranger will have spell options which can enhance that.
So much this. The thing is all non-caster classes need to have MORE stuff available to them to keep up with caster and half-casters.
Rogues do fine at levels 1-4, but when extra attack kicks in, half-casters get their second level spell slots and full casters get the powerful 3rd level spells.... Rogues are getting uncanny dodge. Which is just helping them keep up with survivability that ranger already had by default thanks to armor and health. By level 9 when full casters are getting 5th level spells, the highest slot they get that they can refresh or can cast more than once per day before level 17, Half-casters are getting powerful 3rd level spells and both of the other expert classes are now matching the rogue in skill proficiencies the rogue is getting.... evasion, more survivability and nothing else. If we just look at what bards are getting, they are getting spells, bardic inspiration and skills expertise and versatility. Most of their features add to these things like font of inspiration, jack of all trades, songs of restoration and magical secrets. Rangers are getting spells, combat focus, mobility and skills (Expertise and spells level 1, level 2 fighting style, level 5 extra attack and 2nd level spells, 7 mobility, 9 expertise and 3rd level spells). Effectively Rangers are getting a splattering of everything from combat features to skill features to spells, albiet the spells are slower than the bard. Rogues are getting, skills, survival and one feature at level 2 that provides them mobility, (expertise level 1, level 2 cunning action, 5 uncanny dodge, 7 expertise, 9 evasion) rogues are entirely reliant on their subclass being AMAZING before level 10 to keep up. After 10 the extra feat, and reliable talent finally kick in, but until then it is all on cunning action and the rogue's subclass to carry them through T2 of play in terms of versatility and they are entirely reliant on sneak attack for damage.
There is an enormous assumption here that not being able to sneak attack more than once per round somehow makes the Rogue completely unviable in combat, but it's not up to the Rogue whether they can do this or not and never has been; as a result the vast majority of Rogues already only get to sneak attack once per round, because they don't have the necessary allies to reliably trigger additional reaction attacks for their party's Rogues, or said allies don't do it very often.
This has never made Rogues unviable; I have never not had fun playing a Rogue, nor has anyone else in my groups that has played a Rogue (except for one, but that had nothing to do with combat performance and everything to do with the character having literally zero personality or backstory).
The main thing I want for Rogue is much clearer and simpler rules for stealth, because how to hide in combat has always been a minefield of poorly written and poorly structured rules fired scattershot across multiple sections of the PHB. While it seems like WotC is working towards simplifying stealth, I'm not sure I like what they're doing there, which is a much bigger problem than simply limiting sneak attack to what 99% of Rogues get anyway, so it can be improved in other ways instead.
I am generally in favour of the change, but I think sub-classes really need to build on sneak attack more, or treat it as a resource (e.g- Thief could trade their sneak attack damage for some form of disarm).
As for Rogues scaling against casters; sneak attack damage scales at the same rate as spell levels on a full caster, except that the Rogue can potentially sneak attack once every round without spending any resources. It scales just fine, though I agree it could use some more explicit out of combat/pre combat bonuses.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I played a Thief frequently in AD&D, and while the backstab multipliers were awesome if you could get one in, a backstab was in no way equivalent to sneak attack in 5e. To get a backstab in, the enemy had to be entirely unaware of your presence, so basically like the requirements for the current Assassinate ability. Thieves then were pretty terrible at doing damage, but they were literally the only class that could sneak, find/disable traps, pick pockets, open locks, etc.
On some of the other topics, idea that with the 1D&D the ability to use thieves' tools sets them apart in any way is silly, since that proficiency can be obtained through background. Sure, Bard and Ranger can't get expertise with them, but it is pretty certain that sooner or later Artificers will be in the new version of the game and they absolutely will be able to get expertise. The current 1D&D Rogue has pretty much no ability to set themselves above other Expert classes out of combat as is, and I think they are significantly worse than the Ranger for dealing damage and can do essentially nothing equivalent of the Bard's support spellcasting.
Really a big part of how impactful sneak attack is depends on if you have enough rounds of combat for resource based classes to start to run on empty. Two combats roughly 3 or 4 rounds is not enough for the rogue to show their value.
And that applies to all martials. Sure, they can bonk unlimited amount of times, but in most games, with 1-3 fights a day, casters don't tend to run out of resources. And you have to compare bonk to an 8d6 fireball.
This is why I wonder if as a general rule more challenges per day is a better balance between classes than making tweaks to existing norms.
Personally, I think subclasses should do what they are designed to do, whether or not it involves sneak attack. My exception would be Assassin. That should build off sneak attack, the rest of the subclasses should do their own thing. Otherwise what’s the point. Rogue isn’t a one trick pony.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This is a big issue (maybe the biggest) that WotC needs to address. In a game with varied class design in which some have very impactful daily abilities, others have a moderate amount of less impactful daily abilities, some have features that recharge on a short rest, and some have only at-will features...there needs to be a clear design regarding how often resting will occur. This could certainly be left to each individual table to decide, but that results in an unfortunate learning curve for new players.
The best solution that occurs to me off the top of my head is to have features recharge after a certain number of encounters (like the Action Point in 4e). This allows DMs to create adventures with a far wider variety of timing, from dungeon crawls packed with encounters to extended intrigue games that might only have one encounter per day. This forces players who have characters with daily powers to actually think about conservation, which needs to be the intent.
This is way off topic so my last post on it.
I'm playing 1e right now, I've one shot dragons with sneak attack. Maybe you guys didn't optimize as much for this, but when we find the strength boost items the thief gets the priority due to that multiplier. The multiplier is more times than the fighter gets to attack. The fighter gets 7 attacks every two rounds with two weapon fighting.(and I'll note in my experience most fighters did not prioritize dex so they could two weapon fight and would normally cap at 5/2 attacks) I get two attacks every round with two weapon fighting so I'd be close to most fighters in attacks per round for their end game. The fighter hits more often but I only miss on a 6 against the toughest ACs. When I hit its x4 damage. That is basically 8 hits a round vs 3 round 1 then 4 round 2. I would be hitting for x5 so the equivalent of 10 hits, but wraiths suck. So even if you needed to move into position sneakily and give up your first round it would still be a deal.
But, the rules on backstab in 1e, all you needed was to be literally behind them. Here is the backstab text. Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with club, dagger or sword. The damage done ... then the only mention of hiding is an additional bonus. Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20%(+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll).
Now as generally you could change your facing, so unless someone was engaging them already they just turn to face you, so in practical terms you needed to be hidden when they were not engaged. So to backstab all you needed was to be behind them,(and a reason they don't just turn to face you) but if hidden you got a +4 to hit and could nail anyone even if they were not distracted. BECMI and 2e had additional requirements. I've seen some people interpret that as an additional requirement but that is not how it is written. In fact we did when we initially played it but I suspect its because we also played BECMI and didn't notice the differences in text. It may have been the intent even but we didn't really have online forums for it, and when I google it now its people saying they'd never let a thief back stab in combat no matter what. That being said being hidden was pretty easy in early editions, magic items that would handle that were handed out like candy in adventures and by mid levels thieves had a solid chance of pulling it off anyways.
Now despite all the damage I have some weaknesses as my +4 leather armor is only AC 4, and my 18 dex brings that to 0, and ring of protection to -3. And my HPs are not that high. I get hit constantly. The fighter has a -10 AC and does not get hit all the time. And then there are monsters that don't have a definable back, so are immune, flying creatures since its not a sniper shot ability, I literally just can't get behind them due to obstructions or enemies etc. So the fighter is overall better in combat. But in that one niche of single target damage against a enemy who is already engaged or i'm hidden from I reign supreme.
I think they have to give every class the big impactful maneuvers. There is no practical way to limit how each table runs rest.
there is if they set an upper limit to total number of short rests per day.
Then players will make it a point to use every single one they have available to them.
Short rests really aren't the issue. You need to limit long rests.
Those are already by RAW limited to only gaining the benefits of a long rest once per 24 hours reducing short rests to a set number per day would not be a bad idea either.
A common house rule is 2 short 1 long per 24 hours... (2 seems like not enough Shorts if the Monk, Warlock, and Fighters keep their short rest recharges in this new iteration though... Maybe 3? 4 seems to be too many.)
That's not just a common house rule; it's what the DMG says (on page 84) about how many short rests your party should take during the "typical adventuring day." Anyways, our current line of discussion is completely different than what this was made to discuss. If anyone wants to talk about uses of resources and how it affects martial and caster imbalance, I'd advise they start a new thread.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Unless there's a strict time limit, once per 24 hours doesn't matter. What you really need is something like 'once per waypoint'.
Yeah but they word it as a suggestion not a hard limit. Whereas the 1 Long per 24 is written as a hard limit.