Edit: Since it seems I didn't make this clear, this post and thread is about not allowing Sneak Attack to be used off turn, not the fact that it no longer works with spells. If you want to talk about that, start a new one.
Edit: I guess I understand why some people might want to make builds to use Sneak Attack more, but as I explain in this post, as long as people use exploits to make not just Sneak Attack more powerful, it's harder for WotC to make Rogue a better, well-rounded class for everyone because it makes those rare builds even more powerful too.
So, in the new 1DD playtest (the second one), Wizards of the Coast made the decision to make a minor modification to Sneak Attack; You can only use it on your turn, not on anyone else’s. Admittedly, a lot of people were upset with this change, they argued that it discourages tactical play and cool use of abilites, and that rogues won't be as fun to play due to such a big “nerf.” However, many people on the forums, including me, disagree. Here’s why:
Firstly, this is not a major nerf, it’s a minor tweak. This ability was almost never used in play, since rogues don’t have in-built ways of using their attacks as reactions. This does not ruin Sneak Attack, and it certainly does not ruin Rogue, the one thing it does ruin are the builds that used this to exploit the game. And yes, this aspect of Sneak Attack was commonly used among min-maxer circles to deal massive damage two or more times every single round. Those builds messed with the balance of combat and the way Wizards of the Coast intended for Rogues to be played. In short the people being “hurt” by these changes are the ones who abused them to break the game.
Is there anything bad about min-maxing? No, of course not. But if there is a combination that can easily be used to break the game and can be removed with a single tweak, then should it be removed? Yes, of course it should, so I’m glad that that tweak to Sneak Attack was made.
And did this rule allow for some cool tactical play to get Sneak Attack in again? Oh, sure it did. But there are millions of other features you can use tactics to get more use out of, and 99% of those features aren’t broken. In addition, when does finding cool ways to use cool overpowered features turn into just messing with the balance of the game. If you remove the two cool’s from that last sentence then the middle of it reads as this: finding ways to use overpowered features. So when is that “tactical play” for coolness, and when is it just to exploit a poorly designed clause on a common feature? Ifit is tactical play that you want, then there are plenty of other ways to get it. And as stated above, plenty of those tactical play’s don’t mess with the integrity of D&D.
In addition, rogues were never meant to be warriors that repeatedly launched big attacks in the same six second span. They were meant to be skirmishers, assassins, thieves, or something else more in line with what a rogue is supposed to be. Is there anything bad about liking a different type of warrior? No, certainly not. But that different type of warrior would make much more sense as a Fighter or a Ranger. The only big difference between the acrhytypes of that version of Rogue and the Fighter and Range is that the former is mechanically optimized and stronger. So sure, play Rogue that way, but the people who play it play it to have a stronger build, not to play a different type of character.
Sneak Attack in 5e was a great mechanic with a small wording flaw that needed to be fixed. Sneak Attack has not been nerfed or destroyed, only the 0.1% of builds that used that wording to make overpowered characters. People should have seen this change coming from a mile away, and to 99.9% people who play Rogue, I’m sorry that that one percent has been very vocal in their disagreement to what is such a trivial change to almost every Rogue build.
So what do you think of this change? I’m eager to hear more thoughts and opinions on this matter. This is not an I’m right you're wrong post, feel free to disagree.
So, in the new 1DD playtest (the second one), Wizards of the Coast made the decision to make a minor modification to Sneak Attack; You can only use it on your turn, not on anyone else’s. Admittedly, a lot of people were upset with this change, they argued that it discourages tactical play and cool use of abilites, and that rogues won't be as fun to play due to such a big “nerf.” However, many people on the forums, including me, disagree. Here’s why:
Firstly, this is not a major nerf, it’s a minor tweak. This ability was almost never used in play, since rogues don’t have in-built ways of using their attacks as reactions. This does not ruin Sneak Attack, and it certainly does not ruin Rogue, the one thing it does ruin are the builds that used this to exploit the game. And yes, this aspect of Sneak Attack was commonly used among min-maxer circles to deal massive damage two or more times every single round. Those builds messed with the balance of combat and the way Wizards of the Coast intended for Rogues to be played. In short the people being “hurt” by these changes are the ones who abused them to break the game.
Is there anything bad about min-maxing? No, of course not. But if there is a combination that can easily be used to break the game and can be removed with a single tweak, then should it be removed? Yes, of course it should, so I’m glad that that tweak to Sneak Attack was made.
And did this rule allow for some cool tactical play to get Sneak Attack in again? Oh, sure it did. But there are millions of other features you can use tactics to get more use out of, and 99% of those features aren’t broken. In addition, when does finding cool ways to use cool overpowered features turn into just messing with the balance of the game. If you remove the two cool’s from that last sentence then the middle of it reads as this: finding ways to use overpowered features. So when is that “tactical play” for coolness, and when is it just to exploit a poorly designed clause on a common feature? Ifit is tactical play that you want, then there are plenty of other ways to get it. And as stated above, plenty of those tactical play’s don’t mess with the integrity of D&D.
In addition, rogues were never meant to be warriors that repeatedly launched big attacks in the same six second span. They were meant to be skirmishers, assassins, thieves, or something else more in line with what a rogue is supposed to be. Is there anything bad about liking a different type of warrior? No, certainly not. But that different type of warrior would make much more sense as a Fighter or a Ranger. The only big difference between the acrhytypes of that version of Rogue and the Fighter and Range is that the former is mechanically optimized and stronger. So sure, play Rogue that way, but the people who play it play it to have a stronger build, not to play a different type of character.
Sneak Attack in 5e was a great mechanic with a small wording flaw that needed to be fixed. Sneak Attack has not been nerfed or destroyed, only the 0.1% of builds that used that wording to make overpowered characters. People should have seen this change coming from a mile away, and to 99.9% people who play Rogue, I’m sorry that that one percent has been very vocal in their disagreement to what is such a trivial change to almost every Rogue build.
So what do you think of this change? I’m eager to hear more thoughts and opinions on this matter. This is not an I’m right you're wrong post, feel free to disagree.
While I was originally on your side and still agree using sneak attack with order domain ability is wrong it should be useable on attacks of opportunity. Also all characters have a way to use an attack as a reaction. It’s called a ready action. Ex: I’m first in the initiative and don’t have advantage against any of the enemy’s who are all 20ft away from my party. I ready my crossbow shot until my barbarian is within 5 ft of the goblin. In 5e when my Barbarian runs up to hit the goblin he triggers my reaction to fire my crossbow. Before he even attack I hit and deal sneak attack damage because he is within 5ft of it.
One criticism, as a common rogue player with a good chunk of time behind the wheel of a few of them: Sneak Attack is by no means 'massive damage'. It's certainly not nothing, but rogues get one d6 of Sneak damage every two levels. As each Sneak dice turns into an average of 3.5 damage, that's an overall total of less than two bonus damage per level on the rogue's one, single attack on any given round. The reason 'min-maxer circles' worked so hard to get semi-reliable off-turn Sneak Attacks was that it was generally the only way to get enough damage out of rogues to make them useful in highly juiced encounters. A rogue has no Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter to superjuice its damage and needs all the help it can get.
That said? I'm not really upset over losing off-turn Sneak Attacks. It kills some really cool combos - our Eberron game has gotten a lot of toothpaste out of the Cleric's Commander's Strike pairing with our rogue, that feels like an awesome teamwork combo more than an exploit (especially since it can only happen once a day) - but it's not generally going to be impactful enough to matter to most tables. What does cheese me off is unhooking Sneak Attack from weapon attack spells like Green Flame/Booming Blades. Those were a good way to slap-patch the rogue's moderately mediocre damage and encourage the Classic Melee Stabby Rogue, and it was also cinematic as hell to watch your rogues strike with magic shrouding their blade. They were, by far, the best users of those cantrips and they made phenomenal gishes because of it, but that's all dead now.
And rogues............didn't really get anything to make up for it? The Thief subclass they're debuting does dick-all to enhance Sneak Attack, which is fine in isolation because Thief was never about doing MOAR DAMAJ...but it means we can't know if other, more combat-oriented rogues get ways to improve their game. Nor did the rogue gain any awesome new core class abilities that offsets the lost potential in interesting new ways. Heck, they lost class features, though allowing rogues to gain a fourth subclass bonus is certainly nice. Still, without knowing how that plays into the critter's intended subclasses?
We're left with this idea popularized by folks who've never really bothered to Rogue that Sneak Attack is "Massive Damage" when it generally boils down to between five to fifteenish extra damage a turn at the most common levels of play, for which we pay with no access to Extra Attack nor any access to any of the myriad ways of boosting attack damage that more traditional attack-y classes get. We don't tend to get magic weapons because magic Finesse weapons are rare, and even when they show up they get snapped up by other characters because "we can make better use of them with Extra Attack, and you get Sneak Attack anyways what do you need a fancy weapon for?!" Monks consistently deal better damage than rogues do - their ability to make three or more attacks every turn without real limit easily trumps our ability to spice up our one single attack. Sure, the new Light property being tested absolutely helps, but we also have no access to TWFS to get our modifier on that second swipe. And a +5 modifier is, roughly, worth 2d6 'raw' damage by itself.
So yes. This is a nerf, and a pretty serious one, to a class that did not really deserve the bonk. I don't think it's unsurvivable, but I also don't super appreciate it when my gishy magic-blade rogues were super heccin' cool and not really doing anything that couldn't be matched by anybody else with a modicum of build skill.
So, in the new 1DD playtest (the second one), Wizards of the Coast made the decision to make a minor modification to Sneak Attack; You can only use it on your turn, not on anyone else’s. Admittedly, a lot of people were upset with this change, they argued that it discourages tactical play and cool use of abilites, and that rogues won't be as fun to play due to such a big “nerf.” However, many people on the forums, including me, disagree. Here’s why:
Firstly, this is not a major nerf, it’s a minor tweak. This ability was almost never used in play, since rogues don’t have in-built ways of using their attacks as reactions. This does not ruin Sneak Attack, and it certainly does not ruin Rogue, the one thing it does ruin are the builds that used this to exploit the game. And yes, this aspect of Sneak Attack was commonly used among min-maxer circles to deal massive damage two or more times every single round. Those builds messed with the balance of combat and the way Wizards of the Coast intended for Rogues to be played. In short the people being “hurt” by these changes are the ones who abused them to break the game.
Is there anything bad about min-maxing? No, of course not. But if there is a combination that can easily be used to break the game and can be removed with a single tweak, then should it be removed? Yes, of course it should, so I’m glad that that tweak to Sneak Attack was made.
And did this rule allow for some cool tactical play to get Sneak Attack in again? Oh, sure it did. But there are millions of other features you can use tactics to get more use out of, and 99% of those features aren’t broken. In addition, when does finding cool ways to use cool overpowered features turn into just messing with the balance of the game. If you remove the two cool’s from that last sentence then the middle of it reads as this: finding ways to use overpowered features. So when is that “tactical play” for coolness, and when is it just to exploit a poorly designed clause on a common feature? Ifit is tactical play that you want, then there are plenty of other ways to get it. And as stated above, plenty of those tactical play’s don’t mess with the integrity of D&D.
In addition, rogues were never meant to be warriors that repeatedly launched big attacks in the same six second span. They were meant to be skirmishers, assassins, thieves, or something else more in line with what a rogue is supposed to be. Is there anything bad about liking a different type of warrior? No, certainly not. But that different type of warrior would make much more sense as a Fighter or a Ranger. The only big difference between the acrhytypes of that version of Rogue and the Fighter and Range is that the former is mechanically optimized and stronger. So sure, play Rogue that way, but the people who play it play it to have a stronger build, not to play a different type of character.
Sneak Attack in 5e was a great mechanic with a small wording flaw that needed to be fixed. Sneak Attack has not been nerfed or destroyed, only the 0.1% of builds that used that wording to make overpowered characters. People should have seen this change coming from a mile away, and to 99.9% people who play Rogue, I’m sorry that that one percent has been very vocal in their disagreement to what is such a trivial change to almost every Rogue build.
So what do you think of this change? I’m eager to hear more thoughts and opinions on this matter. This is not an I’m right you're wrong post, feel free to disagree.
While I was originally on your side and still agree using sneak attack with order domain ability is wrong it should be useable on attacks of opportunity. Also all characters have a way to use an attack as a reaction. It’s called a ready action. Ex: I’m first in the initiative and don’t have advantage against any of the enemy’s who are all 20ft away from my party. I ready my crossbow shot until my barbarian is within 5 ft of the goblin. In 5e when my Barbarian runs up to hit the goblin he triggers my reaction to fire my crossbow. Before he even attack I hit and deal sneak attack damage because he is within 5ft of it.
True. Personally, I'd be fine with making Sneak Attack usable only once per a round for readied actions. That being said, it might be a bit annoying since you don't know whether or not you're going to be able to Sneak Attack if you prepare an action, but again, I'd be find with making Sneak Attack usable only once per a round as opposed to only once on your turn.
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.
Let the subclasses get a feature that builds on the sneak attack.
Swashbuckler - when an opponent enters or leaves your threat range you can make an OA with and do Sneak Attack damage. This reation attack cannot crit.
Thief. I know it is Corney but when you do sneak attack damage with a melee attack you can, as a reaction, make DEXTERITY ability check [sleight of hand] to take a hand sized item you can see from the target.
I am going to disagree on this, while it's not a common tactic, it does actually ruin some rogue tactics. First off is being hidden as an enemy walks past, you should be able to opportunity attack this or ready attack this with a ranged weapon and this should count as a sneak attack since you literally did it from being hidden, this is about the sneakiest of attacks you can make.
The only real reason I think there was a change wasn't even for opportunity attacks, it was because of haste where you could sneak attack using the attack action of haste and then ready an attack to attack off of your turn to get another sneak attack. Rogues don't tend to want to stand toe to toe with their targets and one D&D fixes that. All that needs fixing is setting it so that when you sneak attack, you can not do so again until the start of your next turn; this would be better than on your turn as it allows the above to still work while not allowing the abuse of haste to double sneak attack.
Was an off-turn sneak attack an exploit, an abuse? Yeah, pretty much. But it was a valid and functioning way for rogues to compete. And an excellent use of teamwork features (like Battlemaster's or Order Domain faetures that let your ally attack using reaction) and certain feats (Sentinel and Mage Slayer). 10d6+weapon damage is the most a rogue can ever hope for. This is not much, by all means.
I won't miss an off-turn Sneak Attack. It was a mandatory and clunky way of reaching your full potential, that asked for a crutch. But rogue needs something to compensate. A subclass-based enhancement to sneak attack is a good way. The fact that rogue is a skillmonkey, an expert, doesn't mean that rogue must suck in terms of damage. What else is a rogue to do in combat?
Don't agree. Lets say it was abused, that only effects a small group of people and if that table likes it have at it. But without it, tons of logical circumstances where it isn't abused no longer work. A dude tries to run without disengaging gee too bad there isn't a dude waiting around with a specialty to exploit openings, you ready an action to wait until captain melee moves in to get the basic requirement of sneak attack off, sorry you have to suck round one, hiding and readying an action to snipe the mage as soon as he starts casting a spell, sorry you have to suck at this.
Fix the abuses sure fine, add in some language to haste which is probably the only one that really is an abuse, but hey throw it in on order cleric as well if needed. But like commanders strike its pretty much there for the rogue as if its not the rogue getting a sneak attack the fighter would be better off just hitting them again themselves.
Rogue may be a class people like but mechanically it was under geared, better than monk sure but it was one of the weaker classes and it needed some love. All they did was take away. So sure fine remove the abuses, but add sneak attack options like attacks that stun, silence, slow, allow sneak attack to work with any non weapon attack and unarmed strikes. Like what if when you were in a position to sneak attack a successful grapple could silence a enemy if they failed a con save vs your dex DC, so that round you give up damage for a silence effect. Unless they are adding in things like that pretty much all removals are a unwarranted nerf.
I won't miss an off-turn Sneak Attack. It was a mandatory and clunky way of reaching your full potential, that asked for a crutch. But rogue needs something to compensate.
They did get something to compensate. The playtest version of Hide is radically more achievable in combat than the PHB version. Whether the compensation is worth the nerf, I'm not here to weigh in on - it's just important to note that the nerf was packaged with a (massive) buff to hiding.
I won't miss an off-turn Sneak Attack. It was a mandatory and clunky way of reaching your full potential, that asked for a crutch. But rogue needs something to compensate.
They did get something to compensate. The playtest version of Hide is radically more achievable in combat than the PHB version. Whether the compensation is worth the nerf, I'm not here to weigh in on - it's just important to note that the nerf was packaged with a (massive) buff to hiding.
Um how? It is just as limited if not more for when and where you can hide and a DC 15 is harder to hit than like 90% of the monsters in the game. What am I missing?
I myself do not like it, you can no longer use it with the SCAG cantrips nor can you use it with an attack of opportunity as it requires you taking the attack action. This is a massive NERF compared to what is already allowed. I wish I knew how many rogues took the FEAT Sentinel just so they could have a chance at hitting a disengaging enemy. Not to mention those that took the warcaster FEAT for doing the same with a booming blade sneak attack. they should of left sneak attack alone as it isn't an OP ability.
Sometimes the joy of rpgs is finding unique or fun(but possibly suboptimal combos)
I think steady Aim was actually a bigger problem than off turn damage. Hiding and teamwork were fun tactically. Steady aim was less so imo. This is where the subtle strikes sounds good at first but then hits me as a boring feature.
I do not believe this change fixes any problems but instead trys to avoid them(the senario where a dm disagrees with the player). I'd rather just have investment in clear wording.
I oppose the change on the simple ground that its coming off as an anti-min-max measure. Like, I get that classes need to be rebalanced and all, and we might be looking at a new Warlord being fixed, but min-maxers gonna min-max. This just means they will get other tools to do it with.
If you really want to stop the double sneak attack, just limit to once a round.
I oppose the change on the simple ground that its coming off as an anti-min-max measure. Like, I get that classes need to be rebalanced and all, and we might be looking at a new Warlord being fixed, but min-maxers gonna min-max. This just means they will get other tools to do it with.
If you really want to stop the double sneak attack, just limit to once a round.
Even then it wasn't breaking the game for being able to sneak attack twice a turn. Most of the time your reaction was used on uncanny dodge so you took the risk of taking a big hit. So AoO didn't come up as often as others like to cry about. It is nice to have it there but you almost never got to see it depending on how you played your rogue. Sneak attack should have been left alone.
I won't miss an off-turn Sneak Attack. It was a mandatory and clunky way of reaching your full potential, that asked for a crutch. But rogue needs something to compensate.
They did get something to compensate. The playtest version of Hide is radically more achievable in combat than the PHB version. Whether the compensation is worth the nerf, I'm not here to weigh in on - it's just important to note that the nerf was packaged with a (massive) buff to hiding.
I still fail to see how that compensates it since it did nothing to help sneak attack.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems to me is that people want Rogue to be improved due to the "nerf" to Sneak Attack. So I have two things to say about that:
Rogues haven't really been "nerfed" due to the change to Sneak Attack. Sure they can't use it off their turn and/or on spells, but very few Rogues actually used those things. Arcane Tricksters didn't have access to nearly as many attack spells as wizards, so the change is largely, if not completely, irrelevant for them. Rogues also didn't have any special class-based abilities to allow them to use their reactions to make attacks, so the only thing this change really affects is OA's and readied actions. In short, the only things that have been majorly nerfed by this change are the rare builds that revolved around maximizing use of Sneak Attack. Every other Rogue build is completely fine. So Sneak Attack, maximum, has had a minor nerf done to it. Nothing major. So there's not that much to make up for.
What I do understand, however, is general complaints that Sneak Attack was already weak in 5e, and while the changes to it are only minor, they stop the "One effective" (broken) way to use it. If that way has to go, then the base Sneak Attack needs to be more powerful. This complaint makes much more sense, so here are the changes I'd propose making to this version of Sneak Attack, and you guys can tell me what you think of the thing I think would solve the “Sneak Attack is underpowered” problem, and a separate change I think should be made to allow it to be used on readied attacks.
-Up Sneak Attacks damage? I've seen some people saying that Sneak Attack doesn't deal enough damage since it can only be used on one attack per a turn or round, depending on what edition you're looking at. The solution to this would be plain and simple; Make Sneak Attack deal more damage. Now this is much easier said than done, because this change would certainly change the power level of things. That being said, I don't think it would break things if you changed the Sneak Attack die to a D8. That's only an average of one more point of damage per die. And at level 20, where Sneak, where Sneak Attack is at its peak, that's only 10 more damage, so it certainly wouldn't be game breaking. Or you could just add in another D6 or two for Sneak Attack at some point, it might be hard to figure out the levels to put them in, but this path is certainly a viable option and it would keep Sneak Attack as a D6 in case anyone was attached to that.
-Side note: I think Sneak Attack should be usable once per a round as opposed to once per a turn. I think Kotath was the first one I heard to put forth this idea, and honestly, I agree. This wouldn’t buff Sneak Attack much, but it would allow you to use it on readied actions of that’s what you spent your turn doing, and it would still stop people from using Sneak Attack a gazillion times every round.
-Up Sneak Attacks damage? I've seen some people saying that Sneak Attack doesn't deal enough damage since it can only be used on one attack per a turn or round, depending on what edition you're looking at. The solution to this would be plain and simple; Make Sneak Attack deal more damage. Now this is much easier said than done, because this change would certainly change the power level of things. That being said, I don't think it would break things if you changed the Sneak Attack die to a D8. That's only an average of one more point of damage per die. And at level 20, where Sneak, where Sneak Attack is at its peak, that's only 10 more damage, so it certainly wouldn't be game breaking. Or you could just add in another D6 or two for Sneak Attack at some point, it might be hard to figure out the levels to put them in, but this path is certainly a viable option and it would keep Sneak Attack as a D6 in case anyone was attached to that.
-Side note: I think Sneak Attack should be usable once per a round as opposed to once per a turn. I think Kotath was the first one I heard to put forth this idea, and honestly, I agree. This wouldn’t buff Sneak Attack much, but it would allow you to use it on readied actions of that’s what you spent your turn doing, and it would still stop people from using Sneak Attack a gazillion times every round.
Figuring out the levels to put those extra d6's (but better d8's) is easy - levels 5, 11, and 17, when other classes get extra attack, cantrip damage increase, and other power surge features that basically mark the next tier of the game.
And yes, once per round rather than once per turn is a must.
There were - and are - many ways to access blade cantrips without having to be an Arcane Trickster, and whether or not one believes those cantrips should be necessary to make Sneak Attack stink less (they should not) has no real bearing on whether it's cool as hell to deliver your Sneak Attack in a swirl of flame or a crash of thunder (it is).
Regardless, the real issue is that rogue damage is all or nothing, and the 'all' option mostly just keeps pace with other 'fighty' classes at best. A rogue that nails their SA deals about as much damage as a fighter's ordinary sweep of at-will attacks or a barbarian's rage-boosted round, but the rogue also has a distinctly nonzero chance of simply missing altogether and doing nothing. It's rare for multiattackers to miss everything in a round, so their damage stays relatively stable while the rogue can spend multiple turns accomplishing jack monkey squat.
Now sure, the new system is trying to make non-Attack actions in combat more compelling given the formalized rules for Search, Study, and the like and a rogues' broad base of proficiencies make them a natural choice for such actions...but DMs have to engineer combats in which those things matter, first. The vast majority of R5e combats are slogs to the bottom of an HP bar, with almost nothing in the way of applicable strategy beyond "Keep firing, ********!" The information actions like Search and Study can produce has to be at least equivalent in value to a round of attacks before those actions will have a valid function in combat, and most of the time that's simply not true.
Same with " Hiding is easier, so there's your compensation!" Hiding is not nearly as fundamental to the rogue's gameplan as a lot of folks who haven't run rogues think it is. Most of the time on rogues you don't want to Hide, you want to burn your bonus action on something that will aid the team in ending the combat. An offhand attack (in R5e), a Dash or Disengage to get in a better position, or a subclass-specific action. Hiding for advantage on an attack is an as-opportunity-permits thing, most of the time you're instead constrained to target something being harried by an ally. Especially if you're doing the "classic" TWF rogue, which can't Hide from enemies it intends to stab and needs Sneak Attack active on both of its swipes before being a melee rogue is remotely worthwhile.
Again - in an ideal world, each subclass would offer its own unique twist on solving this issue. But that's clearly not what we're seeing here because the Thief does nothing to address it. 1DD's take on the Thief is honestly really cool (even if a few folks in my circle are incensed at the loss of 'Use an Item' as a bonus action), but it's going to be a nonentity in combat. A particularly clever (and wealthy) Thief might be able to make up some of the difference with a plethora of spell scrolls and magic swag, but that should never be taken as a given. What are the Assassin and Arcane Trickster going to do to stay relevant in combat past middish Tier II? The further past level 4 you get, as Warriors get greater and greater access to ways to boost their attacks and spellcasters gain access to ever-crazier spells, the less your broad swath of Good Skill Numbers matters.
I love rogues, they're one of my top favorite classes...but man. The more I mull on this playtest, the more disappointed I am that they got more-or-less nothing. Pack Tactics at 13th is cool, sure, but it's not really enough and even the harshest of critics knows it. Blegh.
Edit: Since it seems I didn't make this clear, this post and thread is about not allowing Sneak Attack to be used off turn, not the fact that it no longer works with spells. If you want to talk about that, start a new one.
Edit: I guess I understand why some people might want to make builds to use Sneak Attack more, but as I explain in this post, as long as people use exploits to make not just Sneak Attack more powerful, it's harder for WotC to make Rogue a better, well-rounded class for everyone because it makes those rare builds even more powerful too.
So, in the new 1DD playtest (the second one), Wizards of the Coast made the decision to make a minor modification to Sneak Attack; You can only use it on your turn, not on anyone else’s. Admittedly, a lot of people were upset with this change, they argued that it discourages tactical play and cool use of abilites, and that rogues won't be as fun to play due to such a big “nerf.” However, many people on the forums, including me, disagree. Here’s why:
Firstly, this is not a major nerf, it’s a minor tweak. This ability was almost never used in play, since rogues don’t have in-built ways of using their attacks as reactions. This does not ruin Sneak Attack, and it certainly does not ruin Rogue, the one thing it does ruin are the builds that used this to exploit the game. And yes, this aspect of Sneak Attack was commonly used among min-maxer circles to deal massive damage two or more times every single round. Those builds messed with the balance of combat and the way Wizards of the Coast intended for Rogues to be played. In short the people being “hurt” by these changes are the ones who abused them to break the game.
Is there anything bad about min-maxing? No, of course not. But if there is a combination that can easily be used to break the game and can be removed with a single tweak, then should it be removed? Yes, of course it should, so I’m glad that that tweak to Sneak Attack was made.
And did this rule allow for some cool tactical play to get Sneak Attack in again? Oh, sure it did. But there are millions of other features you can use tactics to get more use out of, and 99% of those features aren’t broken. In addition, when does finding cool ways to use cool overpowered features turn into just messing with the balance of the game. If you remove the two cool’s from that last sentence then the middle of it reads as this: finding ways to use overpowered features. So when is that “tactical play” for coolness, and when is it just to exploit a poorly designed clause on a common feature? If it is tactical play that you want, then there are plenty of other ways to get it. And as stated above, plenty of those tactical play’s don’t mess with the integrity of D&D.
In addition, rogues were never meant to be warriors that repeatedly launched big attacks in the same six second span. They were meant to be skirmishers, assassins, thieves, or something else more in line with what a rogue is supposed to be. Is there anything bad about liking a different type of warrior? No, certainly not. But that different type of warrior would make much more sense as a Fighter or a Ranger. The only big difference between the acrhytypes of that version of Rogue and the Fighter and Range is that the former is mechanically optimized and stronger. So sure, play Rogue that way, but the people who play it play it to have a stronger build, not to play a different type of character.
Sneak Attack in 5e was a great mechanic with a small wording flaw that needed to be fixed. Sneak Attack has not been nerfed or destroyed, only the 0.1% of builds that used that wording to make overpowered characters. People should have seen this change coming from a mile away, and to 99.9% people who play Rogue, I’m sorry that that one percent has been very vocal in their disagreement to what is such a trivial change to almost every Rogue build.
___________________________________________________________
So what do you think of this change? I’m eager to hear more thoughts and opinions on this matter. This is not an I’m right you're wrong post, feel free to disagree.
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.While I was originally on your side and still agree using sneak attack with order domain ability is wrong it should be useable on attacks of opportunity. Also all characters have a way to use an attack as a reaction. It’s called a ready action. Ex: I’m first in the initiative and don’t have advantage against any of the enemy’s who are all 20ft away from my party. I ready my crossbow shot until my barbarian is within 5 ft of the goblin. In 5e when my Barbarian runs up to hit the goblin he triggers my reaction to fire my crossbow. Before he even attack I hit and deal sneak attack damage because he is within 5ft of it.
One criticism, as a common rogue player with a good chunk of time behind the wheel of a few of them: Sneak Attack is by no means 'massive damage'. It's certainly not nothing, but rogues get one d6 of Sneak damage every two levels. As each Sneak dice turns into an average of 3.5 damage, that's an overall total of less than two bonus damage per level on the rogue's one, single attack on any given round. The reason 'min-maxer circles' worked so hard to get semi-reliable off-turn Sneak Attacks was that it was generally the only way to get enough damage out of rogues to make them useful in highly juiced encounters. A rogue has no Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter to superjuice its damage and needs all the help it can get.
That said? I'm not really upset over losing off-turn Sneak Attacks. It kills some really cool combos - our Eberron game has gotten a lot of toothpaste out of the Cleric's Commander's Strike pairing with our rogue, that feels like an awesome teamwork combo more than an exploit (especially since it can only happen once a day) - but it's not generally going to be impactful enough to matter to most tables. What does cheese me off is unhooking Sneak Attack from weapon attack spells like Green Flame/Booming Blades. Those were a good way to slap-patch the rogue's moderately mediocre damage and encourage the Classic Melee Stabby Rogue, and it was also cinematic as hell to watch your rogues strike with magic shrouding their blade. They were, by far, the best users of those cantrips and they made phenomenal gishes because of it, but that's all dead now.
And rogues............didn't really get anything to make up for it? The Thief subclass they're debuting does dick-all to enhance Sneak Attack, which is fine in isolation because Thief was never about doing MOAR DAMAJ...but it means we can't know if other, more combat-oriented rogues get ways to improve their game. Nor did the rogue gain any awesome new core class abilities that offsets the lost potential in interesting new ways. Heck, they lost class features, though allowing rogues to gain a fourth subclass bonus is certainly nice. Still, without knowing how that plays into the critter's intended subclasses?
We're left with this idea popularized by folks who've never really bothered to Rogue that Sneak Attack is "Massive Damage" when it generally boils down to between five to fifteenish extra damage a turn at the most common levels of play, for which we pay with no access to Extra Attack nor any access to any of the myriad ways of boosting attack damage that more traditional attack-y classes get. We don't tend to get magic weapons because magic Finesse weapons are rare, and even when they show up they get snapped up by other characters because "we can make better use of them with Extra Attack, and you get Sneak Attack anyways what do you need a fancy weapon for?!" Monks consistently deal better damage than rogues do - their ability to make three or more attacks every turn without real limit easily trumps our ability to spice up our one single attack. Sure, the new Light property being tested absolutely helps, but we also have no access to TWFS to get our modifier on that second swipe. And a +5 modifier is, roughly, worth 2d6 'raw' damage by itself.
So yes. This is a nerf, and a pretty serious one, to a class that did not really deserve the bonk. I don't think it's unsurvivable, but I also don't super appreciate it when my gishy magic-blade rogues were super heccin' cool and not really doing anything that couldn't be matched by anybody else with a modicum of build skill.
Please do not contact or message me.
True. Personally, I'd be fine with making Sneak Attack usable only once per a round for readied actions. That being said, it might be a bit annoying since you don't know whether or not you're going to be able to Sneak Attack if you prepare an action, but again, I'd be find with making Sneak Attack usable only once per a round as opposed to only once on your turn.
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.Agreed with Yurei on basically all points. Building a certain type of gish character was already hard enough.
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!
Let the subclasses get a feature that builds on the sneak attack.
Swashbuckler - when an opponent enters or leaves your threat range you can make an OA with and do Sneak Attack damage. This reation attack cannot crit.
Thief. I know it is Corney but when you do sneak attack damage with a melee attack you can, as a reaction, make DEXTERITY ability check [sleight of hand] to take a hand sized item you can see from the target.
I am going to disagree on this, while it's not a common tactic, it does actually ruin some rogue tactics. First off is being hidden as an enemy walks past, you should be able to opportunity attack this or ready attack this with a ranged weapon and this should count as a sneak attack since you literally did it from being hidden, this is about the sneakiest of attacks you can make.
The only real reason I think there was a change wasn't even for opportunity attacks, it was because of haste where you could sneak attack using the attack action of haste and then ready an attack to attack off of your turn to get another sneak attack. Rogues don't tend to want to stand toe to toe with their targets and one D&D fixes that. All that needs fixing is setting it so that when you sneak attack, you can not do so again until the start of your next turn; this would be better than on your turn as it allows the above to still work while not allowing the abuse of haste to double sneak attack.
Rogue is the second most common class I play and I won't miss the AoO Sneak Attack. It just doesn't happen often enough for me to really care.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Basically, all that Yurei said.
Was an off-turn sneak attack an exploit, an abuse? Yeah, pretty much. But it was a valid and functioning way for rogues to compete. And an excellent use of teamwork features (like Battlemaster's or Order Domain faetures that let your ally attack using reaction) and certain feats (Sentinel and Mage Slayer). 10d6+weapon damage is the most a rogue can ever hope for. This is not much, by all means.
I won't miss an off-turn Sneak Attack. It was a mandatory and clunky way of reaching your full potential, that asked for a crutch. But rogue needs something to compensate. A subclass-based enhancement to sneak attack is a good way. The fact that rogue is a skillmonkey, an expert, doesn't mean that rogue must suck in terms of damage. What else is a rogue to do in combat?
Don't agree. Lets say it was abused, that only effects a small group of people and if that table likes it have at it. But without it, tons of logical circumstances where it isn't abused no longer work. A dude tries to run without disengaging gee too bad there isn't a dude waiting around with a specialty to exploit openings, you ready an action to wait until captain melee moves in to get the basic requirement of sneak attack off, sorry you have to suck round one, hiding and readying an action to snipe the mage as soon as he starts casting a spell, sorry you have to suck at this.
Fix the abuses sure fine, add in some language to haste which is probably the only one that really is an abuse, but hey throw it in on order cleric as well if needed. But like commanders strike its pretty much there for the rogue as if its not the rogue getting a sneak attack the fighter would be better off just hitting them again themselves.
Rogue may be a class people like but mechanically it was under geared, better than monk sure but it was one of the weaker classes and it needed some love. All they did was take away. So sure fine remove the abuses, but add sneak attack options like attacks that stun, silence, slow, allow sneak attack to work with any non weapon attack and unarmed strikes. Like what if when you were in a position to sneak attack a successful grapple could silence a enemy if they failed a con save vs your dex DC, so that round you give up damage for a silence effect. Unless they are adding in things like that pretty much all removals are a unwarranted nerf.
They did get something to compensate. The playtest version of Hide is radically more achievable in combat than the PHB version. Whether the compensation is worth the nerf, I'm not here to weigh in on - it's just important to note that the nerf was packaged with a (massive) buff to hiding.
Um how? It is just as limited if not more for when and where you can hide and a DC 15 is harder to hit than like 90% of the monsters in the game. What am I missing?
I myself do not like it, you can no longer use it with the SCAG cantrips nor can you use it with an attack of opportunity as it requires you taking the attack action. This is a massive NERF compared to what is already allowed. I wish I knew how many rogues took the FEAT Sentinel just so they could have a chance at hitting a disengaging enemy. Not to mention those that took the warcaster FEAT for doing the same with a booming blade sneak attack. they should of left sneak attack alone as it isn't an OP ability.
Sometimes the joy of rpgs is finding unique or fun(but possibly suboptimal combos)
I think steady Aim was actually a bigger problem than off turn damage. Hiding and teamwork were fun tactically. Steady aim was less so imo. This is where the subtle strikes sounds good at first but then hits me as a boring feature.
I do not believe this change fixes any problems but instead trys to avoid them(the senario where a dm disagrees with the player). I'd rather just have investment in clear wording.
I oppose the change on the simple ground that its coming off as an anti-min-max measure. Like, I get that classes need to be rebalanced and all, and we might be looking at a new Warlord being fixed, but min-maxers gonna min-max. This just means they will get other tools to do it with.
If you really want to stop the double sneak attack, just limit to once a round.
Even then it wasn't breaking the game for being able to sneak attack twice a turn. Most of the time your reaction was used on uncanny dodge so you took the risk of taking a big hit. So AoO didn't come up as often as others like to cry about. It is nice to have it there but you almost never got to see it depending on how you played your rogue. Sneak attack should have been left alone.
I still fail to see how that compensates it since it did nothing to help sneak attack.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what it seems to me is that people want Rogue to be improved due to the "nerf" to Sneak Attack. So I have two things to say about that:
-Up Sneak Attacks damage? I've seen some people saying that Sneak Attack doesn't deal enough damage since it can only be used on one attack per a turn or round, depending on what edition you're looking at. The solution to this would be plain and simple; Make Sneak Attack deal more damage. Now this is much easier said than done, because this change would certainly change the power level of things. That being said, I don't think it would break things if you changed the Sneak Attack die to a D8. That's only an average of one more point of damage per die. And at level 20, where Sneak, where Sneak Attack is at its peak, that's only 10 more damage, so it certainly wouldn't be game breaking. Or you could just add in another D6 or two for Sneak Attack at some point, it might be hard to figure out the levels to put them in, but this path is certainly a viable option and it would keep Sneak Attack as a D6 in case anyone was attached to that.
-Side note: I think Sneak Attack should be usable once per a round as opposed to once per a turn. I think Kotath was the first one I heard to put forth this idea, and honestly, I agree. This wouldn’t buff Sneak Attack much, but it would allow you to use it on readied actions of that’s what you spent your turn doing, and it would still stop people from using Sneak Attack a gazillion times every round.
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.Figuring out the levels to put those extra d6's (but better d8's) is easy - levels 5, 11, and 17, when other classes get extra attack, cantrip damage increase, and other power surge features that basically mark the next tier of the game.
And yes, once per round rather than once per turn is a must.
There were - and are - many ways to access blade cantrips without having to be an Arcane Trickster, and whether or not one believes those cantrips should be necessary to make Sneak Attack stink less (they should not) has no real bearing on whether it's cool as hell to deliver your Sneak Attack in a swirl of flame or a crash of thunder (it is).
Regardless, the real issue is that rogue damage is all or nothing, and the 'all' option mostly just keeps pace with other 'fighty' classes at best. A rogue that nails their SA deals about as much damage as a fighter's ordinary sweep of at-will attacks or a barbarian's rage-boosted round, but the rogue also has a distinctly nonzero chance of simply missing altogether and doing nothing. It's rare for multiattackers to miss everything in a round, so their damage stays relatively stable while the rogue can spend multiple turns accomplishing jack monkey squat.
Now sure, the new system is trying to make non-Attack actions in combat more compelling given the formalized rules for Search, Study, and the like and a rogues' broad base of proficiencies make them a natural choice for such actions...but DMs have to engineer combats in which those things matter, first. The vast majority of R5e combats are slogs to the bottom of an HP bar, with almost nothing in the way of applicable strategy beyond "Keep firing, ********!" The information actions like Search and Study can produce has to be at least equivalent in value to a round of attacks before those actions will have a valid function in combat, and most of the time that's simply not true.
Same with " Hiding is easier, so there's your compensation!" Hiding is not nearly as fundamental to the rogue's gameplan as a lot of folks who haven't run rogues think it is. Most of the time on rogues you don't want to Hide, you want to burn your bonus action on something that will aid the team in ending the combat. An offhand attack (in R5e), a Dash or Disengage to get in a better position, or a subclass-specific action. Hiding for advantage on an attack is an as-opportunity-permits thing, most of the time you're instead constrained to target something being harried by an ally. Especially if you're doing the "classic" TWF rogue, which can't Hide from enemies it intends to stab and needs Sneak Attack active on both of its swipes before being a melee rogue is remotely worthwhile.
Again - in an ideal world, each subclass would offer its own unique twist on solving this issue. But that's clearly not what we're seeing here because the Thief does nothing to address it. 1DD's take on the Thief is honestly really cool (even if a few folks in my circle are incensed at the loss of 'Use an Item' as a bonus action), but it's going to be a nonentity in combat. A particularly clever (and wealthy) Thief might be able to make up some of the difference with a plethora of spell scrolls and magic swag, but that should never be taken as a given. What are the Assassin and Arcane Trickster going to do to stay relevant in combat past middish Tier II? The further past level 4 you get, as Warriors get greater and greater access to ways to boost their attacks and spellcasters gain access to ever-crazier spells, the less your broad swath of Good Skill Numbers matters.
I love rogues, they're one of my top favorite classes...but man. The more I mull on this playtest, the more disappointed I am that they got more-or-less nothing. Pack Tactics at 13th is cool, sure, but it's not really enough and even the harshest of critics knows it. Blegh.
Please do not contact or message me.