I'm saying it's probably an oversight because if the change is intended to prevent multiple sneak attacks per round then it shouldn't also prevent cases where a Rogue is making their one sneak attack out of sequence.
I think the intent is that sneak attack is on your turn. No, it's not an oversight, ready being kinda useless is apparently desired.
I'm saying it's probably an oversight because if the change is intended to prevent multiple sneak attacks per round then it shouldn't also prevent cases where a Rogue is making their one sneak attack out of sequence.
I think the intent is that sneak attack is on your turn. No, it's not an oversight, ready being kinda useless is apparently desired.
Do you happen to have any source or citation for that? This is UA, rules that need fixing via feedback is to be expected.
It's possible they have something else in mind but we don't know what yet; for example an alternative fix would be to change the Ready action to count as "your turn" for the purposes of the readied action only. This would solve some other mechanical oddities that currently exist, and might be a better way to fix it. Again, this is why we have UA, to detect and resolve problems and balance issues.
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.
Do you happen to have any source or citation for that? This is UA, rules that need fixing via feedback is to be expected.
The source is: readying attack does not benefit from multiattack and thus sucks, readying [Tooltip Not Found] uses up the spell slot even if you don't cast the spell and requires concentration and thus sucks.
I agree that this is a change for the better, though I think it will be worth getting some clarification regarding readied actions; I'd still like to be able to gain sneak attack when using my own readied action for situations where I'm well hidden and waiting for an enemy to pass me.
So what you are really saying is that it is not a change for the better since you want to keep your readied action sneak attack.
No.
I'm saying it's probably an oversight because if the change is intended to prevent multiple sneak attacks per round then it shouldn't also prevent cases where a Rogue is making their one sneak attack out of sequence.
This is one of the reasons why we have Unearthed Arcana; so issues like that can be discovered.
But the thing is there was nothing wrong with that since it never broke the game. So why introduce a massive nerf that placed them far behind than where they already were without something to compensate it.
There are two things they could do.
1. Leave sneak attack alone and let it stay as it is.
2. Change it to once per round but add something similar to battle maneuvers to compensate for them being put further back in dpr than they already were along with a few special maneuvers based off their sub class.
If none of those happen then the change is not for the better and until those are seen then nothing can change the fact that rogues are worse off than before in this UA.
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 Sneak Attack more powerful in their builds, it's harder for WotC to make Sneak Attack better for every build and party. So it's not necessarily that I'm against using Sneak Attack in that way, I think it stagnates any possible growth for the feature.
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.
My only issue here is not being able to sneak attack when attacking as a reaction if an enemy moves out of combat with you, this to me narratively makes sense, a dagger in the back as your enemy tries to run away is a sneaky attack
My only issue here is not being able to sneak attack when attacking as a reaction if an enemy moves out of combat with you, this to me narratively makes sense, a dagger in the back as your enemy tries to run away is a sneaky attack
I imagine the reasoning is that the person running from you knows you're there and knows you have a dagger, so they're likely able to dodge just enough to not take Sneak Attack damage.
My only issue here is not being able to sneak attack when attacking as a reaction if an enemy moves out of combat with you, this to me narratively makes sense, a dagger in the back as your enemy tries to run away is a sneaky attack
I imagine the reasoning is that the person running from you knows you're there and knows you have a dagger, so they're likely able to dodge just enough to not take Sneak Attack damage.
Except that the usual reason you would get it is that there is an ally also their meaning they are dodging both of you. I just don't see that being so broken as to have to stop it working.
My only issue here is not being able to sneak attack when attacking as a reaction if an enemy moves out of combat with you, this to me narratively makes sense, a dagger in the back as your enemy tries to run away is a sneaky attack
I imagine the reasoning is that the person running from you knows you're there and knows you have a dagger, so they're likely able to dodge just enough to not take Sneak Attack damage.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
Creatures aren't limited to only moving in the direction that they're currently facing; they're not going to turn their back on an enemy that's fighting them and just invite a free hit, they can back away with their guard up and turn only once they've room to do so. Technically in D&D you can run full speed backwards everywhere you want to go, though your DM may invite some checks for not being able to see where you're going. 😝
If this is the only chance you've had to attack that creature, and you didn't get a sneak attack during your own turn, then it might be reasonable if the other conditions are met, but not if it means two sneak attacks in a single round. A better fix for this case might be to change the wording on sneak attack to explicitly be once per round, e.g- "Once you have used your sneak attack you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn" or similar?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
My only issue here is not being able to sneak attack when attacking as a reaction if an enemy moves out of combat with you, this to me narratively makes sense, a dagger in the back as your enemy tries to run away is a sneaky attack
I imagine the reasoning is that the person running from you knows you're there and knows you have a dagger, so they're likely able to dodge just enough to not take Sneak Attack damage.
You can come up reasoning to ban all sneak attacks like that. Doesn't make it a good rule. Its a class whose theme around combat is exploiting openings and weaknesses which is exactly what an AoO is.
Do you happen to have any source or citation for that? This is UA, rules that need fixing via feedback is to be expected.
The source is: readying attack does not benefit from multiattack and thus sucks, readying cast a spell uses up the spell slot even if you don't cast the spell and requires concentration and thus sucks.
That is probably the reason, though they should have gone the other way and made ready actions not suck.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
Creatures aren't limited to only moving in the direction that they're currently facing; they're not going to turn their back on an enemy that's fighting them and just invite a free hit, they can back away with their guard up and turn only once they've room to do so. Technically in D&D you can run full speed backwards everywhere you want to go, though your DM may invite some checks for not being able to see where you're going. 😝
If this is the only chance you've had to attack that creature, and you didn't get a sneak attack during your own turn, then it might be reasonable if the other conditions are met, but not if it means two sneak attacks in a single round. A better fix for this case might be to change the wording on sneak attack to explicitly be once per round, e.g- "Once you have used your sneak attack you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn" or similar?
If you don't disengage you in fact are recklessly leaving the fight and inviting a free hit, if you were being careful you would not generate the AoO in the first place which is what the disengage action represents.( Now I do think that action/mechanic needs some work as it effectively makes running away impossible for most creatures/players.) And while once per round would be better than once on your turn, it is far from necessary. How often do AoO come up in your game? I'm not sure we see one even once a fight. Its rare enough that I'd say just let the rogue shine there.
Like this is not a big nerf like some want to claim, it may be a big nerf to one build that relies on another character with some other build. And the reason it isn't big nerf is, it just does not happen often, its very rare. Does it wreck the rogue not to have it, no but why take away rare shine moments. And rogues just were not that good in the first place, why nerf them while buffing the other two example classes.
It looks like in one dnd such playstyle is trying to be stomped out in favor of you suck in combat so just be a noncombat 'skill monkey'.
And the problem with this is that both Ranger and Bard are getting just as many skills with expertise (albeit slightly later in their level progression in general), so the Rogue will not be special from that perspective either. In fact, with spells to cover any deficiencies they have in skills, both Ranger and Bard will most assuredly be superior to the Rogues in this respect as well.
That just makes the problem even worse as rogues no longer have a niche they are supposed to be the best at.
As it is rogues in one dnd have almost no niche they alone excel at that Rangers or Bards can't match or beat. Fortunately this is still an early playtest and they may adjust things die to feedback. But right now... A rogue contributes nothing to team tactics. No more ready actions for cleric to use guiding bolt to set up advantage for sneak attack. No more reaction sneak attacks no more combining sneak attack with booming blade. No more being able to use dual weilder feat to dual wield rapiers.
The only real positive change is TWF no longer conflicts with cunning action. This makes it easier to have a second shot at sneak attack if one attack misses.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
Creatures aren't limited to only moving in the direction that they're currently facing; they're not going to turn their back on an enemy that's fighting them and just invite a free hit, they can back away with their guard up and turn only once they've room to do so. Technically in D&D you can run full speed backwards everywhere you want to go, though your DM may invite some checks for not being able to see where you're going. 😝
If this is the only chance you've had to attack that creature, and you didn't get a sneak attack during your own turn, then it might be reasonable if the other conditions are met, but not if it means two sneak attacks in a single round. A better fix for this case might be to change the wording on sneak attack to explicitly be once per round, e.g- "Once you have used your sneak attack you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn" or similar?
If you don't disengage you in fact are recklessly leaving the fight and inviting a free hit, if you were being careful you would not generate the AoO in the first place which is what the disengage action represents.( Now I do think that action/mechanic needs some work as it effectively makes running away impossible for most creatures/players.) And while once per round would be better than once on your turn, it is far from necessary. How often do AoO come up in your game? I'm not sure we see one even once a fight. Its rare enough that I'd say just let the rogue shine there.
Like this is not a big nerf like some want to claim, it may be a big nerf to one build that relies on another character with some other build. And the reason it isn't big nerf is, it just does not happen often, its very rare. Does it wreck the rogue not to have it, no but why take away rare shine moments. And rogues just were not that good in the first place, why nerf them while buffing the other two example classes.
You seem to only look at the loss of AoO as the only loss. They also lost ready action sneak attack and the ability to use blade cantrips with sneak attack. All that combined made them worse on the DPR meters when they never were great to begin with. That is why it is a bigger nerf that you seem to not notice.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
Creatures aren't limited to only moving in the direction that they're currently facing; they're not going to turn their back on an enemy that's fighting them and just invite a free hit, they can back away with their guard up and turn only once they've room to do so. Technically in D&D you can run full speed backwards everywhere you want to go, though your DM may invite some checks for not being able to see where you're going. 😝
If this is the only chance you've had to attack that creature, and you didn't get a sneak attack during your own turn, then it might be reasonable if the other conditions are met, but not if it means two sneak attacks in a single round. A better fix for this case might be to change the wording on sneak attack to explicitly be once per round, e.g- "Once you have used your sneak attack you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn" or similar?
That is why you have both the disengage, dodge action, or have the mobile feat to prevent AoO or make it less likely to happen by making it harder to hit you. It creates the exact scenario you described, but if you don't do any of that then you leave yourself open to an attack and a rogue can take advantage of that opportunity to hit you and do some damage if they can get the sneak attack on you. If they do take the AoO to sneak attack you the rogue then also leaves their selves open to an attack as they will no longer have access to uncanny dodge to reduce the damage to a blow that can hurt them just as bad if not worse.
The main thing is that even though AoO sneak attack is a thing it was not a problematic as you make it out to be. So why take it away if it was never a problem and never broke the game in any manner when the option did present itself. After all it never happened as often as some make it out to be. Can you say it was a massive problem in your game? I sure can say it was never a problem in my table when I played it or DMed for someone who did.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
Creatures aren't limited to only moving in the direction that they're currently facing; they're not going to turn their back on an enemy that's fighting them and just invite a free hit, they can back away with their guard up and turn only once they've room to do so. Technically in D&D you can run full speed backwards everywhere you want to go, though your DM may invite some checks for not being able to see where you're going. 😝
If this is the only chance you've had to attack that creature, and you didn't get a sneak attack during your own turn, then it might be reasonable if the other conditions are met, but not if it means two sneak attacks in a single round. A better fix for this case might be to change the wording on sneak attack to explicitly be once per round, e.g- "Once you have used your sneak attack you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn" or similar?
If you don't disengage you in fact are recklessly leaving the fight and inviting a free hit, if you were being careful you would not generate the AoO in the first place which is what the disengage action represents.( Now I do think that action/mechanic needs some work as it effectively makes running away impossible for most creatures/players.) And while once per round would be better than once on your turn, it is far from necessary. How often do AoO come up in your game? I'm not sure we see one even once a fight. Its rare enough that I'd say just let the rogue shine there.
Like this is not a big nerf like some want to claim, it may be a big nerf to one build that relies on another character with some other build. And the reason it isn't big nerf is, it just does not happen often, its very rare. Does it wreck the rogue not to have it, no but why take away rare shine moments. And rogues just were not that good in the first place, why nerf them while buffing the other two example classes.
You seem to only look at the loss of AoO as the only loss. They also lost ready action sneak attack and the ability to use blade cantrips with sneak attack. All that combined made them worse on the DPR meters when they never were great to begin with. That is why it is a bigger nerf that you seem to not notice.
I'm aware of all those things, but I do not think it was that big of a nerf. The AoO, the readied actions even combined it was pretty rare. The blade cantrip may be a bit more often as it was a popular and easy build but meh I don't like the idea you are soft forced into being magic rogue to be the best at your core feature of sneak attack. This seems like something that would be a great feature of an arcane trickster for those who wanted flaming sneak attacks, let them during a sneak attack burn spells like a smite or something.
No more being able to use dual weilder feat to dual wield rapiers.
What stops you from dual wielding rapiers?
They aren't light weapons, the 1d&d rules require at least one of them be light, normally both have to be light, but one can avoid being light with a feat, and then the fighting style only available to warriors(or rangers) lets you use your attribute in the off hand.
-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.
bold italics for my emphasis, last time I checked twice a round isn't a gazillion, unless your definition of gazillion is more than 1
I just don't get the "it rarely happens in play" but it's super super important that we nerf it. The min-maxers that you're worried about are probably at a table where this playstyle is the norm so encounters can be balanced for it.
We will have to see what the warrior group brings, but the battle master maneuver Commander's Strike could be used to give the rogue the extra sneak attack at the cost of the rogue's reaction, and one of the fighter's attacks, a bonus action, and a superiority die, so not a great trade off, but a tactic that could be used in important situations. (I hope this maneuver gets some love in 2024)
And I don't see how doing basically Fireball's worth of damage to one target (at 15th and 16th level, less or much less damage below 15th level and slightly more above 16th level) is considered breaking the game. Even if it can be done twice in one round. 35 average damage twice in a round at level 19-20 is not breaking anything.
yeah I don't get this either "It rarely happens so Im not worried about it going away BUT it 1000000% needs to go! it was so bad for the game!" If it rarely happened than why does it need to be stomped dead? Because people actually used commanders strike or that clerics channel divinity? Or used fear effects or the command spell to make enemies walk away from rogues to get OP attacks?
I fail to see how reducing the tactics available to players and creative team powers is somehow good for the game, but reducing the rogue to "stab n hide" or "shoot and hide" is a big plus.
My logic is not that it should go away because it rarely happens, my logic is that the rare builds that enable it to routinely happen mess with the balance of the game. As I explained earlier, there are other ways to make Sneak Attack cool and powerful if you don't think it's either of those things. Those ways change the playing field for everybody, not just the people who min-max to make Sneak Attack better. And if you're going to add any of those changes, then you need to remove the ability to abuse the feature. Admittedly, people abusing Sneak Attack doesn't break the game, but because some people have found a way to make it much, much better, the rest of us are stuck with Wizards of the Coast not being able to improve it without only allowing it once per a round. So I guess I'm not strongly against people finding ways to use Sneak Attack like this, but as long as people are able to do this, then Sneak Attack can't be made cooler for the rest of us and remains at a more mediocre level for the vast majority of players.
PS- I'm not arguing for not allowing Sneak Attack on spells, I should have made that clearer, I'm arguing for allowing Sneak Attack to be used only once per a round. I'll update the original post to reflect that, and I don't know whether or not I should/could change the poll to ask a question that is closer to what I was talking about when I started this thread.
So you admit that it was never breaking the game and still want to nerf it? That just doesn't make sense. If it was never broken to begin with and never breaking the damage meters then why get rid of it? That doesn't sound logical. Already the ones that want this change are already in the minority just from looking at this poll so I don't see this change going through at all.
No. That's not my logic and that's not what I said. What I said is that some ways people use Sneak Attack to use it twice or more per a round are just abusing the ability, but other ways people do this do not completely break the game. I understand why someone would want to break Sneak Attack, but I don't think they should do it. Base Sneak Attack is not game breaking, exploited Sneak Attack can be. Though depending on the exploit it may just be powerful as opposed to game breaking.
My logic is not that it should go away because it rarely happens, my logic is that the rare builds that enable it to routinely happen mess with the balance of the game. As I explained earlier, there are other ways to make Sneak Attack cool and powerful if you don't think it's either of those things. Those ways change the playing field for everybody, not just the people who min-max to make Sneak Attack better. And if you're going to add any of those changes, then you need to remove the ability to abuse the feature. Admittedly, people abusing Sneak Attack doesn't break the game, but because some people have found a way to make it much, much better, the rest of us are stuck with Wizards of the Coast not being able to improve it without only allowing it once per a round. So I guess I'm not strongly against people finding ways to use Sneak Attack like this, but as long as people are able to do this, then Sneak Attack can't be made cooler for the rest of us and remains at a more mediocre level for the vast majority of players.
PS- I'm not arguing for not allowing Sneak Attack on spells, I should have made that clearer, I'm arguing for allowing Sneak Attack to be used only once per a round. I'll update the original post to reflect that, and I don't know whether or not I should/could change the poll to ask a question that is closer to what I was talking about when I started this thread.
The only thing with this is your assuming that this change has something to do with them improving sneak attack, the feature didn't improve at all in this playtest it just got worse. I'm not sure where the idea that they are going to grow the feature after restricting it has come from, was this something stated in a video or a twitter post that I missed? That after restricting sneak attack it was going to be expanded on? Because from the playtest material we've been handed I don't see any signs of improvement
Been seeing this on the reddit as well with hopeful thoughts or trying to guess where development is going and assuming that a change will be met with another change down the road and yeah I agree they need to stop. These are the changes presented to you to try out, give feedback based on what has been given to you. Even if that feedback might be "this would be ok if you buffed it in other ways" don't just make an assumption that it's ok because 'clearly' they'll be improving it down the road right?
Yeah, I get what you mean there, but it was extremely unfair that some players were able to get loads out of Sneak Attack exploits and others just sat their hoping it would help them deal some more damage. That being said, this change is what clears the way for those other changes to balance Sneak Attack, and for all we know this Sneak Attack could be more powerful than what a 1DD fighter gets for damage. We don;t know because we haven't seen fighter yet.
In fact, we don't know much of anything. But what we do know is that in 5e, this exploit was problematic. Quite frankly, I'd rather have one mediocre feature without a way to make it way too overpowered than one remodeled feature that can still be broken. This particular change was important, and I think it needs to be made. It paves the way for other, better and more liked changes. That being said, your point does stand: SneakAttack should be made more powerful, because with these changes, Wizards of the Coast can up the damage or improve it in other ways without fearing about people getting too many extra uses of Sneak Attack. And yes, I guess I shouldn't assume that these changes will be made, but this first change opens a previously unopened door and gives Wizards the opportunity to buff Sneak Attack. And the way to get Wizards to buff Sneak Attack is to tell them to do it on the survey, but here's my most important piece: As I've explained earlier: You can't buff Sneak Attack while allowing it to be used multiple times per a round. So if you want Sneak Attack to be more powerful, understand that this change is necessary.
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.
extra feat slot (have not seen any mention of it) - think about all the new combos you can add to this plus keep in mind that we did not see 4th lvl expert feats.
extra attack per turn with light weapons - one extra dmg die, possibly a great buff with the new weapon effect they mention and as mentioned above possibly an expert feat that enhances it.
earlier subclasses features - to me that's just great.
LVL 13 semi-constant advantage? - a little late but now u are free to move around.
clearer hide rules - not sure in this one
Gotta keep in mind that we got to look at all these changes with an open mind and take more than one change into consideration, all these little pieces add together in the end.
They got to keep a balance overall when they add it all together in the end. Just look at the "nerf" of GWM and SS, now there is not only one feat that is a must, and you are free to choose without having to feel like you are sacrificing optimization, who knows what the new weapons will do that ppl will scream foul if we add all the standard stuff together and we end with a broken PC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the intent is that sneak attack is on your turn. No, it's not an oversight, ready being kinda useless is apparently desired.
Do you happen to have any source or citation for that? This is UA, rules that need fixing via feedback is to be expected.
It's possible they have something else in mind but we don't know what yet; for example an alternative fix would be to change the Ready action to count as "your turn" for the purposes of the readied action only. This would solve some other mechanical oddities that currently exist, and might be a better way to fix it. Again, this is why we have UA, to detect and resolve problems and balance issues.
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.
The source is: readying attack does not benefit from multiattack and thus sucks, readying [Tooltip Not Found] uses up the spell slot even if you don't cast the spell and requires concentration and thus sucks.
But the thing is there was nothing wrong with that since it never broke the game. So why introduce a massive nerf that placed them far behind than where they already were without something to compensate it.
There are two things they could do.
1. Leave sneak attack alone and let it stay as it is.
2. Change it to once per round but add something similar to battle maneuvers to compensate for them being put further back in dpr than they already were along with a few special maneuvers based off their sub class.
If none of those happen then the change is not for the better and until those are seen then nothing can change the fact that rogues are worse off than before in this UA.
My only issue here is not being able to sneak attack when attacking as a reaction if an enemy moves out of combat with you, this to me narratively makes sense, a dagger in the back as your enemy tries to run away is a sneaky attack
I imagine the reasoning is that the person running from you knows you're there and knows you have a dagger, so they're likely able to dodge just enough to not take Sneak Attack damage.
Except that the usual reason you would get it is that there is an ally also their meaning they are dodging both of you. I just don't see that being so broken as to have to stop it working.
But the way you get sneak attack is if you have a source of advantage, and ally within 5ft of the creature you are getting the attack of opportunity on, or a class feature that lets you sneak attack even if those other two sources are not available. They creature leaves their back open to you which a rogue can exploit if they can get the sneak attack on it only if they have one of those sources. The only way they would negate the AoO sneak attack is if there are none of those conditions available or a source of disadvantage like the dodge action or the disengage action which they could take if they don't want to take the sneak attack. In your case they can take the dodge action which is what you described.
Creatures aren't limited to only moving in the direction that they're currently facing; they're not going to turn their back on an enemy that's fighting them and just invite a free hit, they can back away with their guard up and turn only once they've room to do so. Technically in D&D you can run full speed backwards everywhere you want to go, though your DM may invite some checks for not being able to see where you're going. 😝
If this is the only chance you've had to attack that creature, and you didn't get a sneak attack during your own turn, then it might be reasonable if the other conditions are met, but not if it means two sneak attacks in a single round. A better fix for this case might be to change the wording on sneak attack to explicitly be once per round, e.g- "Once you have used your sneak attack you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn" or similar?
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.
You can come up reasoning to ban all sneak attacks like that. Doesn't make it a good rule. Its a class whose theme around combat is exploiting openings and weaknesses which is exactly what an AoO is.
That is probably the reason, though they should have gone the other way and made ready actions not suck.
If you don't disengage you in fact are recklessly leaving the fight and inviting a free hit, if you were being careful you would not generate the AoO in the first place which is what the disengage action represents.( Now I do think that action/mechanic needs some work as it effectively makes running away impossible for most creatures/players.) And while once per round would be better than once on your turn, it is far from necessary. How often do AoO come up in your game? I'm not sure we see one even once a fight. Its rare enough that I'd say just let the rogue shine there.
Like this is not a big nerf like some want to claim, it may be a big nerf to one build that relies on another character with some other build. And the reason it isn't big nerf is, it just does not happen often, its very rare. Does it wreck the rogue not to have it, no but why take away rare shine moments. And rogues just were not that good in the first place, why nerf them while buffing the other two example classes.
That just makes the problem even worse as rogues no longer have a niche they are supposed to be the best at.
As it is rogues in one dnd have almost no niche they alone excel at that Rangers or Bards can't match or beat. Fortunately this is still an early playtest and they may adjust things die to feedback. But right now... A rogue contributes nothing to team tactics. No more ready actions for cleric to use guiding bolt to set up advantage for sneak attack. No more reaction sneak attacks no more combining sneak attack with booming blade. No more being able to use dual weilder feat to dual wield rapiers.
The only real positive change is TWF no longer conflicts with cunning action. This makes it easier to have a second shot at sneak attack if one attack misses.
You seem to only look at the loss of AoO as the only loss. They also lost ready action sneak attack and the ability to use blade cantrips with sneak attack. All that combined made them worse on the DPR meters when they never were great to begin with. That is why it is a bigger nerf that you seem to not notice.
That is why you have both the disengage, dodge action, or have the mobile feat to prevent AoO or make it less likely to happen by making it harder to hit you. It creates the exact scenario you described, but if you don't do any of that then you leave yourself open to an attack and a rogue can take advantage of that opportunity to hit you and do some damage if they can get the sneak attack on you. If they do take the AoO to sneak attack you the rogue then also leaves their selves open to an attack as they will no longer have access to uncanny dodge to reduce the damage to a blow that can hurt them just as bad if not worse.
The main thing is that even though AoO sneak attack is a thing it was not a problematic as you make it out to be. So why take it away if it was never a problem and never broke the game in any manner when the option did present itself. After all it never happened as often as some make it out to be. Can you say it was a massive problem in your game? I sure can say it was never a problem in my table when I played it or DMed for someone who did.
What stops you from dual wielding rapiers?
I'm aware of all those things, but I do not think it was that big of a nerf. The AoO, the readied actions even combined it was pretty rare. The blade cantrip may be a bit more often as it was a popular and easy build but meh I don't like the idea you are soft forced into being magic rogue to be the best at your core feature of sneak attack. This seems like something that would be a great feature of an arcane trickster for those who wanted flaming sneak attacks, let them during a sneak attack burn spells like a smite or something.
They aren't light weapons, the 1d&d rules require at least one of them be light, normally both have to be light, but one can avoid being light with a feat, and then the fighting style only available to warriors(or rangers) lets you use your attribute in the off hand.
No. That's not my logic and that's not what I said. What I said is that some ways people use Sneak Attack to use it twice or more per a round are just abusing the ability, but other ways people do this do not completely break the game. I understand why someone would want to break Sneak Attack, but I don't think they should do it. Base Sneak Attack is not game breaking, exploited Sneak Attack can be. Though depending on the exploit it may just be powerful as opposed to game breaking.
Yeah, I get what you mean there, but it was extremely unfair that some players were able to get loads out of Sneak Attack exploits and others just sat their hoping it would help them deal some more damage. That being said, this change is what clears the way for those other changes to balance Sneak Attack, and for all we know this Sneak Attack could be more powerful than what a 1DD fighter gets for damage. We don;t know because we haven't seen fighter yet.
In fact, we don't know much of anything. But what we do know is that in 5e, this exploit was problematic. Quite frankly, I'd rather have one mediocre feature without a way to make it way too overpowered than one remodeled feature that can still be broken. This particular change was important, and I think it needs to be made. It paves the way for other, better and more liked changes. That being said, your point does stand: Sneak Attack should be made more powerful, because with these changes, Wizards of the Coast can up the damage or improve it in other ways without fearing about people getting too many extra uses of Sneak Attack. And yes, I guess I shouldn't assume that these changes will be made, but this first change opens a previously unopened door and gives Wizards the opportunity to buff Sneak Attack. And the way to get Wizards to buff Sneak Attack is to tell them to do it on the survey, but here's my most important piece: As I've explained earlier: You can't buff Sneak Attack while allowing it to be used multiple times per a round. So if you want Sneak Attack to be more powerful, understand that this change is necessary.
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.Rogues gain this
Gotta keep in mind that we got to look at all these changes with an open mind and take more than one change into consideration, all these little pieces add together in the end.
They got to keep a balance overall when they add it all together in the end. Just look at the "nerf" of GWM and SS, now there is not only one feat that is a must, and you are free to choose without having to feel like you are sacrificing optimization, who knows what the new weapons will do that ppl will scream foul if we add all the standard stuff together and we end with a broken PC.