Once/round sneak attack is 100% a positive and healthy change for the game. That said, I have been convinced that there are more fun ways to do this. Simply say 'Once you deal sneak attack damage, you can't do so again until the start of your next turn. Its not hard to track, it works for reactions, it will work for rogues.
Removing booming blade interactions is unnecessary - TWF changes already prevent it from becoming too optimal, which means rogues don't feel pushed in spellcasting. But its still just a cool thing for rogues to do.
And the other big issue I see is that rogues who cannot or do not use their action for sneak attack would still benefit from the occasional OA. A once/round limit means that this angle can't be abused and made mandatory.
So I voted yes for the poll because I think the changes are overall healthier, but they are not where I want the final product to end up.
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.
Them getting pact tactics just made it so that they didn't have to use flanking or steady aim as a source of advantage. It didn't really change much at all with that other than it being a quality of life change rather than a buff.
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.
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.
Them getting pact tactics just made it so that they didn't have to use flanking or steady aim as a source of advantage. It didn't really change much at all with that other than it being a quality of life change rather than a buff.
It’s a buff. Steady aim requires a bonus action and you can’t move. Flanking requires you actually get into the proper position. This works on multiple attacks like flanking so if you miss with the first your second weapon still gets advantage. Big improvement for throwers, ranged attackers and dual wielders. Only slightly better for single melee weapon users. It’s not enough of a buff to make up for losing ready action sneak attacks and opportunity attacks. But this is playtest, so with enough complaints they will take notice.
5e has a history of being incredibly hostile to readied actions -- if a fighter readies attack they don't get multiattack, if a spellcaster readies a spell they need to use their concentration for it and they burn the spell slot even if the trigger never occurs -- and changing sneak attack is consistent with that theme. Personally, I would delete all the 'on your turn' requirements (if you take the attack action, you get the benefit; just remember that effects that grant attacks are not the attack action).
It might be cleaner to rename the attack action, because people frequently confuse being allowed to attack with being able to take the attack action. Monsters generally use multiattack, though you might need more variants for PCs.
The core problem with sneak attack is that it appears to be balanced against zero magic items. A level 20 fighter with a rapier and 20 dex (dueling style)is doing a base of 4d8+28(46), a level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex is doing 1d8+5+10d6 (44.5), which looks close enough. However, if they're both using +3 weapons, the fighter is now at 58 while the rogue is at 47. If they're getting an extra d6 like hex or hunter's mark, the fighter is now at 72 while the rogue is at 51.
5e has a history of being incredibly hostile to readied actions -- if a fighter readies attack they don't get multiattack, if a spellcaster readies a spell they need to use their concentration for it and they burn the spell slot even if the trigger never occurs -- and changing sneak attack is consistent with that theme. Personally, I would delete all the 'on your turn' requirements (if you take the attack action, you get the benefit; just remember that effects that grant attacks are not the attack action).
It might be cleaner to rename the attack action, because people frequently confuse being allowed to attack with being able to take the attack action. Monsters generally use multiattack, though you might need more variants for PCs.
The core problem with sneak attack is that it appears to be balanced against zero magic items. A level 20 fighter with a rapier and 20 dex (dueling style)is doing a base of 4d8+28(46), a level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex is doing 1d8+5+10d6 (44.5), which looks close enough. However, if they're both using +3 weapons, the fighter is now at 58 while the rogue is at 47. If they're getting an extra d6 like hex or hunter's mark, the fighter is now at 72 while the rogue is at 51.
To be fair, rogues should probably be doing less damage than fighters. But the tuning could be better.
Though I think that they are aware of those issues. Most of the damage-based feat changes (CBE, Charger, PAM, GWM) are once/turn damage, which means they won't leave the rogue behind at later levels.
On a somewhat related note, Rogues need hand-crossbow proficiency back. That's the one change in the class that absolutely baffles me.
5e has a history of being incredibly hostile to readied actions -- if a fighter readies attack they don't get multiattack, if a spellcaster readies a spell they need to use their concentration for it and they burn the spell slot even if the trigger never occurs -- and changing sneak attack is consistent with that theme. Personally, I would delete all the 'on your turn' requirements (if you take the attack action, you get the benefit; just remember that effects that grant attacks are not the attack action).
It might be cleaner to rename the attack action, because people frequently confuse being allowed to attack with being able to take the attack action. Monsters generally use multiattack, though you might need more variants for PCs.
The core problem with sneak attack is that it appears to be balanced against zero magic items. A level 20 fighter with a rapier and 20 dex (dueling style)is doing a base of 4d8+28(46), a level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex is doing 1d8+5+10d6 (44.5), which looks close enough. However, if they're both using +3 weapons, the fighter is now at 58 while the rogue is at 47. If they're getting an extra d6 like hex or hunter's mark, the fighter is now at 72 while the rogue is at 51.
To the best of my knowledge, this is because Wizards made it a priority to keep out-of-turn actions to as much of a minimum as they absolutely could. Earlier editions of D&D, with a multitude of out-of-turn actions, irritated people with constant interruptions to the turn order, so the desire for 5e was "your turn is when you act, and outside your turn...it's not your turn." Readying an action was likely shoehorned in as a means for allowing DMs to handle the inevitable questions of "can I wait to shoot the guy until he pops his head up again?" whilst ensuring that the rules for doing so were punitive and unattractive enough to relegate Ready to a niche solution for specific problems rather than a go-to tool.
-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.
So a nerf on Sneak attack that I am not seeing people talk about that I would argue is bigger and worse than the out of turn nerf is they changed the wording on the 5 feet rule. Before it stated you got sneak attack if an enemy of your target was within 5 feet of that target, now you only get it when one of your ALLIES are within 5 feet. In most situations this will effectively be the same thing, but spells like enemies abound, or situations where multiple factions are involved you could get sneak attack even if you didn't have one of your allies nearby. Like say you are fighting a cultist faction and thief guild faction that all want this magical artifact and your party wants it as well. Before if the thieves and the cultists were fighting each other you could get a sneak attack off now you cant.
Also I LOVE thief. I still really wish it would have kept the interact with object thing, and I also wish thief's reflexes weren't limited to PB per day. From the new play test. If it wasn't doing something like searching the enemy for something to use and then using a bonus action to snatch it could be really cool followed by an action to cast a spell scroll. The old thief was still better with spell scrolls since you didn't have to roll for them, but still Thief subclass and the rogue as a whole is one of those classes and subclasses that, for me, even with the loss of out of turn sneak attack it is micro meters away from being good, it just needs a little extra oomph either in damage, or in utility to push it over the edge, just the tiny nudge.
Use an object was the only real efficient way to use alot of equipment. (Acid vials, alchemist fire, poison , caltrops in combat ect.) Most of these items never even see play unless a thief is in the party.
Thef Combined with the healer feat was the the basis for a really fun mundane healer. The shady doctor archetype is such a classic concept it would be a shame to loose it.
Weird that a class Jeremy says has super high favorability is getting monkied with so much:
Enemy of the target as opposed to Ally of you *does* matter.
Doubling the Sneak Attack damage on a crit matters as well.
Being able to Sneak Attack on on an Attack of Opportunity was a nice bonus to the character; Never seemed to happen enough for it to be OP so why get rid of it?
I doubt being able to make an off-hand Attack with Light weapons as part of your regular Attack makes up for losing the above three.
(Also I noticed Hand Crossbow is no longer a Rogue Weapon Proficiency. I feel like of the three classes we've seen, the Rogue lost, and the other two gained a lot. )
-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.
Weird that a class Jeremy says has super high favorability is getting monkied with so much:
Enemy of the target as opposed to Ally of you *does* matter.
Doubling the Sneak Attack damage on a crit matters as well.
Being able to Sneak Attack on on an Attack of Opportunity was a nice bonus to the character; Never seemed to happen enough for it to be OP so why get rid of it?
I doubt being able to make an off-hand Attack with Light weapons as part of your regular Attack makes up for losing the above three.
(Also I noticed Hand Crossbow is no longer a Rogue Weapon Proficiency. I feel like of the three classes we've seen, the Rogue lost, and the other two gained a lot. )
Well since all melee classes get the light weapon off hand attack with their main action it doesn't help much at all.
To be fair, rogues should probably be doing less damage than fighters. But the tuning could be better.
Because of all the other stuff rogues can do in combat. Like... dealing single-target damage. Or dealing single-target damage. Dealing single-target damage is also an option. So you kinda want rogues to be worse than fighters in the one thing they can do in combat?
I believe the intent is "rogues are better out of combat because they're Experts, they should suck in combat because combat is where Warriors get to shine!"
Which...fair. Seems short-sighted, but fair. After all, what table has ever let a rogue do Rogue Shit(TM) without busting out the memes, or demanding they get in on the heist because "don't split the party!" even with a DX of 9 and heavy plate chain clankmail? Rogues aren't allowed to do Rogue Shit(TM) unless it's walk fifteen feet in front of the party and peek around a corner first, which rather curtails much of the point of all our extra skills, ne?
To be fair, rogues should probably be doing less damage than fighters. But the tuning could be better.
Because of all the other stuff rogues can do in combat. Like... dealing single-target damage. Or dealing single-target damage. Dealing single-target damage is also an option. So you kinda want rogues to be worse than fighters in the one thing they can do in combat?
Well fighters pretty much only do single target damage as well. Whether their damage should be worse is a bit more debatable to me as fighters are usually more tanky. But then again I think fighters should be gaining a lot out of combat this edition. Their combat is decent, I'd like some versatility but they really need more out of combat.
And as an aside I'd give rogues maneuvers in combat to diversify their options past sneak attack damage. Hey call them all sneak attack but give them a hamstring move etc.
-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.
I believe the intent is "rogues are better out of combat because they're Experts, they should suck in combat because combat is where Warriors get to shine!"
Which...fair. Seems short-sighted, but fair. After all, what table has ever let a rogue do Rogue Shit(TM) without busting out the memes, or demanding they get in on the heist because "don't split the party!" even with a DX of 9 and heavy plate chain clankmail? Rogues aren't allowed to do Rogue Shit(TM) unless it's walk fifteen feet in front of the party and peek around a corner first, which rather curtails much of the point of all our extra skills, ne?
All of the tables I run or play in. I know that there are groups that have issues, but that is on the players not the game.
Mostly I'm remembering one of my absolute favorite D&D moments, where we wrapped session for the night but I still had energy and was feeling froggy. SO I asked the DM and our party's other resident sneak if they had time to run a quick post-credits scene where Other Sneak and I infiltrated the home of a suspicious NPC and searched for Sus Shit. What followed was about forty-five minutes of heccin' Deadly Shadows-esque super sneaky stealthy heist gameplay in which we secured critical information we relayed to the party next session, changing the course of the campaign (slightly).
That was absolutely amazing, and also something I could never in a billion years have gotten away with in-session with an entire party at the table. People simply do not allow their sneaky critters to do Sneaky Critter Things, not without getting memey, impatient, and demanding the run get wrapped up so somebody else can take a turn already. And I can't (entirely) fault them for doing so. Why should they have to sit around and watch a Sneaky Critter do Sneaky Critter shit for forty minutes instead of play D&D themselves?
Which, sadly, means there's honestly very little reason to make or play a Sneaky Critter. Which, given the rogue's entire class identity......
Mostly I'm remembering one of my absolute favorite D&D moments, where we wrapped session for the night but I still had energy and was feeling froggy. SO I asked the DM and our party's other resident sneak if they had time to run a quick post-credits scene where Other Sneak and I infiltrated the home of a suspicious NPC and searched for Sus Shit. What followed was about forty-five minutes of heccin' Deadly Shadows-esque super sneaky stealthy heist gameplay in which we secured critical information we relayed to the party next session, changing the course of the campaign (slightly).
That was absolutely amazing, and also something I could never in a billion years have gotten away with in-session with an entire party at the table. People simply do not allow their sneaky critters to do Sneaky Critter Things, not without getting memey, impatient, and demanding the run get wrapped up so somebody else can take a turn already. And I can't (entirely) fault them for doing so. Why should they have to sit around and watch a Sneaky Critter do Sneaky Critter shit for forty minutes instead of play D&D themselves?
Which, sadly, means there's honestly very little reason to make or play a Sneaky Critter. Which, given the rogue's entire class identity......
I feel this is an issue that falls more on how the DM runs the game and the players being good sports. While the Sneaky Critter(s) are doing something sneaky, there is no reason the rest the group can't be doing their own thing. Of course you don't want every session to be split between separate groups, but as long as everyone is getting a turn at being special, then it shouldn't be an issue. Now if you have that one person that is constantly trying to "Hog the Spotlight", that is a whole other issue.
Once/round sneak attack is 100% a positive and healthy change for the game. That said, I have been convinced that there are more fun ways to do this. Simply say 'Once you deal sneak attack damage, you can't do so again until the start of your next turn. Its not hard to track, it works for reactions, it will work for rogues.
Removing booming blade interactions is unnecessary - TWF changes already prevent it from becoming too optimal, which means rogues don't feel pushed in spellcasting. But its still just a cool thing for rogues to do.
And the other big issue I see is that rogues who cannot or do not use their action for sneak attack would still benefit from the occasional OA. A once/round limit means that this angle can't be abused and made mandatory.
So I voted yes for the poll because I think the changes are overall healthier, but they are not where I want the final product to end up.
Them getting pact tactics just made it so that they didn't have to use flanking or steady aim as a source of advantage. It didn't really change much at all with that other than it being a quality of life change rather than a buff.
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.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It’s a buff. Steady aim requires a bonus action and you can’t move. Flanking requires you actually get into the proper position. This works on multiple attacks like flanking so if you miss with the first your second weapon still gets advantage. Big improvement for throwers, ranged attackers and dual wielders. Only slightly better for single melee weapon users. It’s not enough of a buff to make up for losing ready action sneak attacks and opportunity attacks. But this is playtest, so with enough complaints they will take notice.
5e has a history of being incredibly hostile to readied actions -- if a fighter readies attack they don't get multiattack, if a spellcaster readies a spell they need to use their concentration for it and they burn the spell slot even if the trigger never occurs -- and changing sneak attack is consistent with that theme. Personally, I would delete all the 'on your turn' requirements (if you take the attack action, you get the benefit; just remember that effects that grant attacks are not the attack action).
It might be cleaner to rename the attack action, because people frequently confuse being allowed to attack with being able to take the attack action. Monsters generally use multiattack, though you might need more variants for PCs.
The core problem with sneak attack is that it appears to be balanced against zero magic items. A level 20 fighter with a rapier and 20 dex (dueling style)is doing a base of 4d8+28(46), a level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex is doing 1d8+5+10d6 (44.5), which looks close enough. However, if they're both using +3 weapons, the fighter is now at 58 while the rogue is at 47. If they're getting an extra d6 like hex or hunter's mark, the fighter is now at 72 while the rogue is at 51.
To be fair, rogues should probably be doing less damage than fighters. But the tuning could be better.
Though I think that they are aware of those issues. Most of the damage-based feat changes (CBE, Charger, PAM, GWM) are once/turn damage, which means they won't leave the rogue behind at later levels.
On a somewhat related note, Rogues need hand-crossbow proficiency back. That's the one change in the class that absolutely baffles me.
To the best of my knowledge, this is because Wizards made it a priority to keep out-of-turn actions to as much of a minimum as they absolutely could. Earlier editions of D&D, with a multitude of out-of-turn actions, irritated people with constant interruptions to the turn order, so the desire for 5e was "your turn is when you act, and outside your turn...it's not your turn." Readying an action was likely shoehorned in as a means for allowing DMs to handle the inevitable questions of "can I wait to shoot the guy until he pops his head up again?" whilst ensuring that the rules for doing so were punitive and unattractive enough to relegate Ready to a niche solution for specific problems rather than a go-to tool.
Please do not contact or message me.
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
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.
So a nerf on Sneak attack that I am not seeing people talk about that I would argue is bigger and worse than the out of turn nerf is they changed the wording on the 5 feet rule.
Before it stated you got sneak attack if an enemy of your target was within 5 feet of that target, now you only get it when one of your ALLIES are within 5 feet. In most situations this will effectively be the same thing, but spells like enemies abound, or situations where multiple factions are involved you could get sneak attack even if you didn't have one of your allies nearby. Like say you are fighting a cultist faction and thief guild faction that all want this magical artifact and your party wants it as well. Before if the thieves and the cultists were fighting each other you could get a sneak attack off now you cant.
Also I LOVE thief. I still really wish it would have kept the interact with object thing, and I also wish thief's reflexes weren't limited to PB per day. From the new play test. If it wasn't doing something like searching the enemy for something to use and then using a bonus action to snatch it could be really cool followed by an action to cast a spell scroll. The old thief was still better with spell scrolls since you didn't have to roll for them, but still Thief subclass and the rogue as a whole is one of those classes and subclasses that, for me, even with the loss of out of turn sneak attack it is micro meters away from being good, it just needs a little extra oomph either in damage, or in utility to push it over the edge, just the tiny nudge.
Use an object was the only real efficient way to use alot of equipment. (Acid vials, alchemist fire, poison , caltrops in combat ect.) Most of these items never even see play unless a thief is in the party.
Thef Combined with the healer feat was the the basis for a really fun mundane healer. The shady doctor archetype is such a classic concept it would be a shame to loose it.
Weird that a class Jeremy says has super high favorability is getting monkied with so much:
Enemy of the target as opposed to Ally of you *does* matter.
Doubling the Sneak Attack damage on a crit matters as well.
Being able to Sneak Attack on on an Attack of Opportunity was a nice bonus to the character; Never seemed to happen enough for it to be OP so why get rid of it?
I doubt being able to make an off-hand Attack with Light weapons as part of your regular Attack makes up for losing the above three.
(Also I noticed Hand Crossbow is no longer a Rogue Weapon Proficiency. I feel like of the three classes we've seen, the Rogue lost, and the other two gained a lot. )
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.
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.Well since all melee classes get the light weapon off hand attack with their main action it doesn't help much at all.
Because of all the other stuff rogues can do in combat. Like... dealing single-target damage. Or dealing single-target damage. Dealing single-target damage is also an option. So you kinda want rogues to be worse than fighters in the one thing they can do in combat?
I believe the intent is "rogues are better out of combat because they're Experts, they should suck in combat because combat is where Warriors get to shine!"
Which...fair. Seems short-sighted, but fair. After all, what table has ever let a rogue do Rogue Shit(TM) without busting out the memes, or demanding they get in on the heist because "don't split the party!" even with a DX of 9 and heavy plate chain clankmail? Rogues aren't allowed to do Rogue Shit(TM) unless it's walk fifteen feet in front of the party and peek around a corner first, which rather curtails much of the point of all our extra skills, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Well fighters pretty much only do single target damage as well. Whether their damage should be worse is a bit more debatable to me as fighters are usually more tanky. But then again I think fighters should be gaining a lot out of combat this edition. Their combat is decent, I'd like some versatility but they really need more out of combat.
And as an aside I'd give rogues maneuvers in combat to diversify their options past sneak attack damage. Hey call them all sneak attack but give them a hamstring move etc.
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.
All of the tables I run or play in. I know that there are groups that have issues, but that is on the players not the game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Mostly I'm remembering one of my absolute favorite D&D moments, where we wrapped session for the night but I still had energy and was feeling froggy. SO I asked the DM and our party's other resident sneak if they had time to run a quick post-credits scene where Other Sneak and I infiltrated the home of a suspicious NPC and searched for Sus Shit. What followed was about forty-five minutes of heccin' Deadly Shadows-esque super sneaky stealthy heist gameplay in which we secured critical information we relayed to the party next session, changing the course of the campaign (slightly).
That was absolutely amazing, and also something I could never in a billion years have gotten away with in-session with an entire party at the table. People simply do not allow their sneaky critters to do Sneaky Critter Things, not without getting memey, impatient, and demanding the run get wrapped up so somebody else can take a turn already. And I can't (entirely) fault them for doing so. Why should they have to sit around and watch a Sneaky Critter do Sneaky Critter shit for forty minutes instead of play D&D themselves?
Which, sadly, means there's honestly very little reason to make or play a Sneaky Critter. Which, given the rogue's entire class identity......
Please do not contact or message me.
I feel this is an issue that falls more on how the DM runs the game and the players being good sports. While the Sneaky Critter(s) are doing something sneaky, there is no reason the rest the group can't be doing their own thing. Of course you don't want every session to be split between separate groups, but as long as everyone is getting a turn at being special, then it shouldn't be an issue. Now if you have that one person that is constantly trying to "Hog the Spotlight", that is a whole other issue.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master