As JC said in the recent druid & paladin video, the changes to rogues' sneak attack feature were met with the least satisfaction, mostly due to sneak attack no longer working outside your turn, which, in some cases, cut the rogues' combat efficiency in half. Now, JC said they could easily revert that change. It is good. But can it be better?
In a way, it's a significant part of rogue's mastery to exploit an off-turn sneak attack to the maximum. For now, there's only four ways I can recall off the top of my head: AoO, sentinel feat, mage slayer feat, and commander's strike maneuver from battle master subclass of a fighter. Now, why not create more and make it a part of the class? At level 13, there's a feature called Subtle Strikes, that gives advantage on attacks against an enemy if your ally is within 5ft of them. I've seen people say it's neat, but mostly an overkill, so instead of that, why not present a choice out of options like:
Teamwork: whenever a creature within 5 feet of you is hit by an attack made by a creature other than you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against that creature.
Punishment: when a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you or takes the magic action, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
Opportunism: when a creature within 5 fet of you starts its turn and there's a factor that would give you an advantage on attack against that creature (like prone or restrained condition), you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against that creature without advantage.
Another thing is additional effects for sneak attack. If a paladin can have a handful of various smites without having to specialize in them, why not let rogue, say, sacrifice 1d6 of sneak attack damage for an additional effect like knocking the victim prone, disarming them, frightening them, etc.?
I think it is fine for the rogue's sneak attack to be restored. And doing so will be very useful for a certain kind of rogue player. I just don't see that as a particularly significant feature for rogues, as most people play them. As for an evolution of sneak attack, I would like to see it at higher levels give the rogue the choice between doing straight damage as it does now, or inflicting conditions on the opponent, the way spells might otherwise do. It is this kind of versatility that I think would truly benefit the rogue class. You could look at it as evolving on the levels where the chart gives rogues an extra sneak attack die. This would also be something that directly improves rogue players without weakening the part of the class that might be involved in a multiclass dip.
Levels 1-4. Sneak attack inflicts extra damage the same way it does now.
Levels 5-6. This is where other martial classes would be getting the extra attack feature. The rogue can choose to inflict damage as normal per the chart, or poison their weapon (I know there is already a mechanic for this, but let's skip to the good stuff). On a successful attack, the target must make a dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to (8+ rogue's proficiency bonus + rogue's Dexterity bonus = pretty standard formula). If they fail the saving throw, they gain the poisoned condition until the beginning of the rogue's next turn. If they make the saving throw, they don't get the condition and the sneak attack inflicts an extra 3d6 weapon damage, as per the current chart rogue.
Levels 7-8. Same as above, but the rogue can instead attempt to inflict the [condition]frightened[condition] condition. If the target makes the save, sneak attack damage scales up as normal for the level.
Levels 9-10. Add the option for the new slowed condition.
Levels 11-12. Add the option for the new dazed condition.
Levels 13-14. Add the option for the blinded condition
Levels 15-16. Add the option for the stunned condition. This is where rogues unlock the really powerful conditions as they finish off their tier 3 levels.
Levels 17-20. Add the option for the paralyzed condition.
You could call this sneak attack sub-feature dirty tricks or something similar like that. Or you could write it off as the rogue applying different kinds of poisons to their weapon as part of the attack. Again, the versatility is the point. I have always felt that rogues are locked into a pretty narrow best use situation where they just hide and sneak attack turn after turn. This would allow them to perform some interesting function for themselves as well as their allies while doing what they do best.
How about : LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
How about : LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
These feel more like Swashbuckler features to me than general rogue ones honestly
One thing about Rogue is when you go first in combat and can't sneak attack anything yet because nothing is in range of an ally and you don't have advantage. I think Sneak attack should additionally be applicable against any creature in combat that is yet to have taken a turn.
I think a feature like "dirty fighter" or something like that might be nice, where you can toss dust in your enemy's eyes (blind 2 rounds), attempt to trip (knock prone) or apply poison to a weapon, the feature costs a bonus action and can't be used on the same round that you use the sneak attack feature. Essentially it's a fallback feature for if you for some reason can't get to sneak attack on a round, since Rogue is so heavily party dependent, it's not a feel good feature to feel like you can't do anything really meaningful on certain rounds.
How about : LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
These feel more like Swashbuckler features to me than general rogue ones honestly
Agreed; those features imply fighting an enemy in the open without backup, something that rogues typically avoid doing. But it fits swashbuckler's dueling style.
One thing about Rogue is when you go first in combat and can't sneak attack anything yet because nothing is in range of an ally and you don't have advantage. I think Sneak attack should additionally be applicable against any creature in combat that is yet to have taken a turn.
That is literally the first feature of assassin subclass. Though I agree that it could be rogue's base feature.
Levels 5-6. This is where other martial classes would be getting the extra attack feature. The rogue can choose to inflict damage as normal per the chart, or poison their weapon (I know there is already a mechanic for this, but let's skip to the good stuff). On a successful attack, the target must make a dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to (8+ rogue's proficiency bonus + rogue's Dexterity bonus = pretty standard formula). If they fail the saving throw, they gain the poisoned condition until the beginning of the rogue's next turn. If they make the saving throw, they don't get the condition and the sneak attack inflicts an extra 3d6 weapon damage, as per the current chart rogue.
Can't say I like the idea of magically conjuring poison for just one strike by a mundane class, this smells of an MMORPG kind of mechanic. But I like the general idea. You could take effects of half of battlemaster's maneuvers and attach them to sneak attack for the price of reducing the damage by 1d6 or reducing the damage die to d4. Boom, you've got a whole array of dirty fighting techniques.
I think the first step should be relax the weapon restrictions to allow unarmed combat at least, give the rogue some neck snapping fun for the whole family from all action movies.
2nd, I dug the early D&D next method, you had pile of damage dice, the sneak attack and you could spend those dice to make a maneuver, so like 1 die might be for a hamstring ability the dropped speed, another might impose disadvantage on the targets next attacks, or apply a penalty to saves. I'd dig it if they had one that doubled damage but if it was not enough to drop the enemy to 0 it only did weapon base damage and if it was it knocked them unconscious. Unlike how imo they failed with battle masters the maneuvers should have high level options
3rd readjust how much damage a sneak attack does so its competitive without 2 sneak attacks per round, I'd actually be fine with a once per round restriction just was not a fan of the only on the rogues turn method of achieving that.
In my probably unpopular opinion, the sneak attack should be nerfed. A good direction was in the first UA, in which the crit was not applied to the sneak attack. But I think the conditions to activate the sneak attack should be much more restrictive. As it is now it's very easy to activate it every turn, which goes against the spirit of what a "sneak attack" is. A "sneak attack" semantically is a blow that is made in a surprising or hidden way. It is a blow that you do not see coming because it is unexpected, and the victim cannot defend against it properly. With Tasha's rules in hand, a sneak attack can be done simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. Is that a surprise attack? Is it a surprise attack if the rogue has been fighting CaC with you for several turns? My unpopular proposal is that the sneak attack will only activate if the victim is unaware that the attack is going to land. For example, if you were hidden at the beginning of your turn or when you made the attack. I know that this is what was intended by activating the sneak attack if you have advantage in your attack, what happens is that today it is so easy to get advantage that it no longer makes sense (another thing that should be reviewed are the conditions that provide advantage, but that's another topic).
One thing about Rogue is when you go first in combat and can't sneak attack anything yet because nothing is in range of an ally and you don't have advantage. I think Sneak attack should additionally be applicable against any creature in combat that is yet to have taken a turn.
That is literally the first feature of assassin subclass. Though I agree that it could be rogue's base feature.
Well they say there is no such thing as an original idea, I can't remember every subclass going but probably read it in the past. The only rogue I've played is a swashbuckler. But yes, it should be a core feature, a class shouldn't be punished for being better at something, like initiative.
In my probably unpopular opinion, the sneak attack should be nerfed. A good direction was in the first UA, in which the crit was not applied to the sneak attack. But I think the conditions to activate the sneak attack should be much more restrictive. As it is now it's very easy to activate it every turn, which goes against the spirit of what a "sneak attack" is. A "sneak attack" semantically is a blow that is made in a surprising or hidden way. It is a blow that you do not see coming because it is unexpected, and the victim cannot defend against it properly. With Tasha's rules in hand, a sneak attack can be done simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. Is that a surprise attack? Is it a surprise attack if the rogue has been fighting CaC with you for several turns? My unpopular proposal is that the sneak attack will only activate if the victim is unaware that the attack is going to land. For example, if you were hidden at the beginning of your turn or when you made the attack. I know that this is what was intended by activating the sneak attack if you have advantage in your attack, what happens is that today it is so easy to get advantage that it no longer makes sense (another thing that should be reviewed are the conditions that provide advantage, but that's another topic).
That's... kind of masochistic. Why even play a rogue if you're only going to deal competitive damage in combat only once per year on Christmas? The limitations on sneak attack existed to emphasize rogue's teamwork and distaste for direct confrontation, they do not fight one on one, they backstab enemies that are fighting their allies. And yes, it is entirely possible to make a surprise attack at any moment in an ongoing fight, that's what feints are for; not to mention fighting two enemies at once when at least one of them is a slippery sonuva***** that constantly tries to get into your blind spot. I, however, agree that Steady Aim feature from Tasha's is a complete overkill that trivializes tactics.
In my probably unpopular opinion, the sneak attack should be nerfed. A good direction was in the first UA, in which the crit was not applied to the sneak attack. But I think the conditions to activate the sneak attack should be much more restrictive. As it is now it's very easy to activate it every turn, which goes against the spirit of what a "sneak attack" is. A "sneak attack" semantically is a blow that is made in a surprising or hidden way. It is a blow that you do not see coming because it is unexpected, and the victim cannot defend against it properly. With Tasha's rules in hand, a sneak attack can be done simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. Is that a surprise attack? Is it a surprise attack if the rogue has been fighting CaC with you for several turns? My unpopular proposal is that the sneak attack will only activate if the victim is unaware that the attack is going to land. For example, if you were hidden at the beginning of your turn or when you made the attack. I know that this is what was intended by activating the sneak attack if you have advantage in your attack, what happens is that today it is so easy to get advantage that it no longer makes sense (another thing that should be reviewed are the conditions that provide advantage, but that's another topic).
Does your unpopular opinion also come with Extra Attack and other martial features designed to compensate for the fact that you're removing the rogue's ability to deal damage in a fight? No? Then yes - your opinion is unpopular because it's not a good idea. The entire rogue class was built and predicated on the rogue delivering Sneak Attack every turn. No other class in D&D has a core class feature it cannot use without outside help, rogues are already limited in that way. If you're going to remove Sneak Attack altogether you'd better have a solid plan for compensating rogues for the loss.
Actually the rogues don't need any outside help. Just having advantage already provokes a sneak attack.
And since Tashas, a rogue has an advantage simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. So you don't need anything else. You stand still, and you can now spam your sneak attack, which de facto turns you into a nuke.
On the other hand, I am not saying to remove the sneak attack. I say limit the trigger. For example, in other editions you had to flank. Well, that doesn't make sense anymore, but the fact that it activates just by having another within 5 feet is excessive.
Well, I can live with it though. I just hope they somehow make rogues go back to being a mobile, hit and run class. What we see from Tasha's is a static, point-and-shoot rogue. A sniper actually.
Actually the rogues don't need any outside help. Just having advantage already provokes a sneak attack.
And since Tashas, a rogue has an advantage simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. So you don't need anything else. You stand still, and you can now spam your sneak attack, which de facto turns you into a nuke.
On the other hand, I am not saying to remove the sneak attack. I say limit the trigger. For example, in other editions you had to flank. Well, that doesn't make sense anymore, but the fact that it activates just by having another within 5 feet is excessive.
Well, I can live with it though. I just hope they somehow make rogues go back to being a mobile, hit and run class. What we see from Tasha's is a static, point-and-shoot rogue. A sniper actually.
I would say that, unless I missed it, nowhere in the UA does the revised rogue have Tasha's sneak attack option. It isn't there. Yes, this is supposed to be backwards compatible, but using an optional rule from 5E to say that the next "edition" of rogue in 1D&D needs a nerf isn't a good case to make.
How about : LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
These feel more like Swashbuckler features to me than general rogue ones honestly
Could be a nice design space where Rogue subclasses get abilities that allows them to make a sneak attack outside of their own turn
Does your unpopular opinion also come with Extra Attack and other martial features designed to compensate for the fact that you're removing the rogue's ability to deal damage in a fight? No? Then yes - your opinion is unpopular because it's not a good idea. The entire rogue class was built and predicated on the rogue delivering Sneak Attack every turn. No other class in D&D has a core class feature it cannot use without outside help, rogues are already limited in that way. If you're going to remove Sneak Attack altogether you'd better have a solid plan for compensating rogues for the loss.
If it was built that way, then they did not accomplish the goal they sought to accomplish whatsoever. This feature is barely used off-turn, at least when I run games. Last time we discussed this, most people seemed to have had similar experiences with the feature.
This was too easily exploited and made/makes it harder to buff Sneak Attack without also allowing for the feature to be utilized by the rare min-maxers, instead of the vast majority of people who actually play the class. My plan would be to add tons of cool new stuff to this ability, - and this ability specifically, not to other features in the Rogue class in general - if I were a developer.
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.
How about : LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
These feel more like Swashbuckler features to me than general rogue ones honestly
Could be a nice design space where Rogue subclasses get abilities that allows them to make a sneak attack outside of their own turn
Based on the most recent Crawford video, they look like they're going to restore that functionality for all rogues, so there won't be a need for Swashbuckler or any other specific subclass to have that as their gimmick.
How about : LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
These feel more like Swashbuckler features to me than general rogue ones honestly
Could be a nice design space where Rogue subclasses get abilities that allows them to make a sneak attack outside of their own turn
Based on the most recent Crawford video, they look like they're going to restore that functionality for all rogues, so there won't be a need for Swashbuckler or any other specific subclass to have that as their gimmick.
I am curious if the feedback was that rogues needed to be able to make 2 sneak attacks a round or that only on your turn removes some obvious options like a readied action in a ambush.
I sort of agree with boringbard in that I rarely saw multiple sneak attacks in a round and factoring that into the balance would only help a very small group of min maxers. I'd prefer they went with one per round instead of only on your turn and then balance the feature around only getting one of them the balance being either through damage or special features.
Actually the rogues don't need any outside help. Just having advantage already provokes a sneak attack.
And since Tashas, a rogue has an advantage simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. So you don't need anything else. You stand still, and you can now spam your sneak attack, which de facto turns you into a nuke.
On the other hand, I am not saying to remove the sneak attack. I say limit the trigger. For example, in other editions you had to flank. Well, that doesn't make sense anymore, but the fact that it activates just by having another within 5 feet is excessive.
Well, I can live with it though. I just hope they somehow make rogues go back to being a mobile, hit and run class. What we see from Tasha's is a static, point-and-shoot rogue. A sniper actually.
I would say that, unless I missed it, nowhere in the UA does the revised rogue have Tasha's sneak attack option. It isn't there. Yes, this is supposed to be backwards compatible, but using an optional rule from 5E to say that the next "edition" of rogue in 1D&D needs a nerf isn't a good case to make.
Well, I've actually said more things. Things you can agree or disagree with. There is no problem with that.
However, my argument is that the sneak attack trigger is so broad that it's very easy to have it every turn. One thing I liked about the first UA is that both the sneak attack and the smite didn't double their damage on crit. Even so, it still seems to me that making a sneak attack is very simple. You just need to have advantage or have a teammate within 5 feet of the target.
Then, on top of that, I commented that Tasha's steady aim (something that, unless otherwise stated, will continue to apply in D&D One) makes the Rogue stop being a mobile class, and turns it into a sniper. Something that I personally don't like. And why are almost all rogues using steady aim since Tasha's? Because it automatically activates the sneak attack since you have advantage.
And to say positive things, I really liked the change that was made in D&D one so that light weapons make their second attack without the need for a bonus action. This allows the rogue to hit twice, and use his cunning action to disengage. Which makes it much easier to use hit and run tactics with the rogue, which sounds very rogue to me. In fact, one thing I would like is for the sneak attack to trigger if you don't start within 5 feet of your target and they have one of your allies within 5 feet. That would be very rogue as well, since you would approach while he's distracted, double stab him, and retreat. That does sound like a sneak attack.
I am curious if the feedback was that rogues needed to be able to make 2 sneak attacks a round or that only on your turn removes some obvious options like a readied action in a ambush.
I sort of agree with boringbard in that I rarely saw multiple sneak attacks in a round and factoring that into the balance would only help a very small group of min maxers. I'd prefer they went with one per round instead of only on your turn and then balance the feature around only getting one of them the balance being either through damage or special features.
I think it's both; there's that problem with the first turn when you get to act first and none of your allies have engaged in melee with the enemy, so it's a wasted sneak attack basically. One way to counteract it was to use your turn to ready an attack for when the sneak attack conditions are met. Assassins had assassinate feature, which gave them an advantage against anyone who hasn't acted in combat yet, and I believe that making this feature baseline for rogue class is a simple solution to the first round issue.
Honestly, I don't know about the "small group of minmaxers" argument. Literally just one feat - Sentinel - basically doubles your efficiency in combat, all you have to do is take one feat.
However, my argument is that the sneak attack trigger is so broad that it's very easy to have it every turn. One thing I liked about the first UA is that both the sneak attack and the smite didn't double their damage on crit. Even so, it still seems to me that making a sneak attack is very simple. You just need to have advantage or have a teammate within 5 feet of the target.
Then, on top of that, I commented that Tasha's steady aim (something that, unless otherwise stated, will continue to apply in D&D One) makes the Rogue stop being a mobile class, and turns it into a sniper. Something that I personally don't like. And why are almost all rogues using steady aim since Tasha's? Because it automatically activates the sneak attack since you have advantage.
The sneak attack trigger is broad by design. Sneak attack is not some kind of wildly powerful bonus that could be compared to smite. A paladin makes two attacks, and gets radiant strikes on top of that. Rogue only has sneak attack. Rogue is expected to make a sneak attack every turn - the limitation is there to define tactics. Instead of engaging the target themselves, rogues assist their allies in doing so, so they behave differently and choose their targets differently, and have to coordinate with their allies. That's the point of this loose limitation.
Where did you find it that Tasha's extra features will continue to apply in One DnD? It makes no sense. Because in case with the new ranger, part of Tasha's features are already there...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As JC said in the recent druid & paladin video, the changes to rogues' sneak attack feature were met with the least satisfaction, mostly due to sneak attack no longer working outside your turn, which, in some cases, cut the rogues' combat efficiency in half. Now, JC said they could easily revert that change. It is good. But can it be better?
In a way, it's a significant part of rogue's mastery to exploit an off-turn sneak attack to the maximum. For now, there's only four ways I can recall off the top of my head: AoO, sentinel feat, mage slayer feat, and commander's strike maneuver from battle master subclass of a fighter. Now, why not create more and make it a part of the class? At level 13, there's a feature called Subtle Strikes, that gives advantage on attacks against an enemy if your ally is within 5ft of them. I've seen people say it's neat, but mostly an overkill, so instead of that, why not present a choice out of options like:
Another thing is additional effects for sneak attack. If a paladin can have a handful of various smites without having to specialize in them, why not let rogue, say, sacrifice 1d6 of sneak attack damage for an additional effect like knocking the victim prone, disarming them, frightening them, etc.?
I think it is fine for the rogue's sneak attack to be restored. And doing so will be very useful for a certain kind of rogue player. I just don't see that as a particularly significant feature for rogues, as most people play them. As for an evolution of sneak attack, I would like to see it at higher levels give the rogue the choice between doing straight damage as it does now, or inflicting conditions on the opponent, the way spells might otherwise do. It is this kind of versatility that I think would truly benefit the rogue class. You could look at it as evolving on the levels where the chart gives rogues an extra sneak attack die. This would also be something that directly improves rogue players without weakening the part of the class that might be involved in a multiclass dip.
You could call this sneak attack sub-feature dirty tricks or something similar like that. Or you could write it off as the rogue applying different kinds of poisons to their weapon as part of the attack. Again, the versatility is the point. I have always felt that rogues are locked into a pretty narrow best use situation where they just hide and sneak attack turn after turn. This would allow them to perform some interesting function for themselves as well as their allies while doing what they do best.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
How about :
LvL 4 : riposte if a enemy within your reach misses you with attack You can make a attack against the creature as a reaction.
Lvl 8 : when you use your Uncanny Dodge class ability You can also make a attack against the creature that hit you with the attack You may not add your sneak attack damage to the damage of this attack
Lvl 16 : If you make a attack as part of your Uncanny Dodge you may now also add your sneak attack damage.
These feel more like Swashbuckler features to me than general rogue ones honestly
One thing about Rogue is when you go first in combat and can't sneak attack anything yet because nothing is in range of an ally and you don't have advantage. I think Sneak attack should additionally be applicable against any creature in combat that is yet to have taken a turn.
I think a feature like "dirty fighter" or something like that might be nice, where you can toss dust in your enemy's eyes (blind 2 rounds), attempt to trip (knock prone) or apply poison to a weapon, the feature costs a bonus action and can't be used on the same round that you use the sneak attack feature. Essentially it's a fallback feature for if you for some reason can't get to sneak attack on a round, since Rogue is so heavily party dependent, it's not a feel good feature to feel like you can't do anything really meaningful on certain rounds.
What you are suggesting already exists in the assassin sub class (the initiative order part)
also take a look at the poisoner feat
Agreed; those features imply fighting an enemy in the open without backup, something that rogues typically avoid doing. But it fits swashbuckler's dueling style.
That is literally the first feature of assassin subclass. Though I agree that it could be rogue's base feature.
Can't say I like the idea of magically conjuring poison for just one strike by a mundane class, this smells of an MMORPG kind of mechanic. But I like the general idea. You could take effects of half of battlemaster's maneuvers and attach them to sneak attack for the price of reducing the damage by 1d6 or reducing the damage die to d4. Boom, you've got a whole array of dirty fighting techniques.
I think the first step should be relax the weapon restrictions to allow unarmed combat at least, give the rogue some neck snapping fun for the whole family from all action movies.
2nd, I dug the early D&D next method, you had pile of damage dice, the sneak attack and you could spend those dice to make a maneuver, so like 1 die might be for a hamstring ability the dropped speed, another might impose disadvantage on the targets next attacks, or apply a penalty to saves. I'd dig it if they had one that doubled damage but if it was not enough to drop the enemy to 0 it only did weapon base damage and if it was it knocked them unconscious. Unlike how imo they failed with battle masters the maneuvers should have high level options
3rd readjust how much damage a sneak attack does so its competitive without 2 sneak attacks per round, I'd actually be fine with a once per round restriction just was not a fan of the only on the rogues turn method of achieving that.
In my probably unpopular opinion, the sneak attack should be nerfed. A good direction was in the first UA, in which the crit was not applied to the sneak attack. But I think the conditions to activate the sneak attack should be much more restrictive. As it is now it's very easy to activate it every turn, which goes against the spirit of what a "sneak attack" is. A "sneak attack" semantically is a blow that is made in a surprising or hidden way. It is a blow that you do not see coming because it is unexpected, and the victim cannot defend against it properly. With Tasha's rules in hand, a sneak attack can be done simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. Is that a surprise attack? Is it a surprise attack if the rogue has been fighting CaC with you for several turns? My unpopular proposal is that the sneak attack will only activate if the victim is unaware that the attack is going to land. For example, if you were hidden at the beginning of your turn or when you made the attack. I know that this is what was intended by activating the sneak attack if you have advantage in your attack, what happens is that today it is so easy to get advantage that it no longer makes sense (another thing that should be reviewed are the conditions that provide advantage, but that's another topic).
Well they say there is no such thing as an original idea, I can't remember every subclass going but probably read it in the past. The only rogue I've played is a swashbuckler. But yes, it should be a core feature, a class shouldn't be punished for being better at something, like initiative.
That's... kind of masochistic. Why even play a rogue if you're only going to deal competitive damage in combat only once per year on Christmas? The limitations on sneak attack existed to emphasize rogue's teamwork and distaste for direct confrontation, they do not fight one on one, they backstab enemies that are fighting their allies. And yes, it is entirely possible to make a surprise attack at any moment in an ongoing fight, that's what feints are for; not to mention fighting two enemies at once when at least one of them is a slippery sonuva***** that constantly tries to get into your blind spot. I, however, agree that Steady Aim feature from Tasha's is a complete overkill that trivializes tactics.
Does your unpopular opinion also come with Extra Attack and other martial features designed to compensate for the fact that you're removing the rogue's ability to deal damage in a fight? No? Then yes - your opinion is unpopular because it's not a good idea. The entire rogue class was built and predicated on the rogue delivering Sneak Attack every turn. No other class in D&D has a core class feature it cannot use without outside help, rogues are already limited in that way. If you're going to remove Sneak Attack altogether you'd better have a solid plan for compensating rogues for the loss.
Please do not contact or message me.
Actually the rogues don't need any outside help. Just having advantage already provokes a sneak attack.
And since Tashas, a rogue has an advantage simply by not moving and spending a bonus action. So you don't need anything else. You stand still, and you can now spam your sneak attack, which de facto turns you into a nuke.
On the other hand, I am not saying to remove the sneak attack. I say limit the trigger. For example, in other editions you had to flank. Well, that doesn't make sense anymore, but the fact that it activates just by having another within 5 feet is excessive.
Well, I can live with it though. I just hope they somehow make rogues go back to being a mobile, hit and run class. What we see from Tasha's is a static, point-and-shoot rogue. A sniper actually.
I would say that, unless I missed it, nowhere in the UA does the revised rogue have Tasha's sneak attack option. It isn't there. Yes, this is supposed to be backwards compatible, but using an optional rule from 5E to say that the next "edition" of rogue in 1D&D needs a nerf isn't a good case to make.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Could be a nice design space where Rogue subclasses get abilities that allows them to make a sneak attack outside of their own turn
If it was built that way, then they did not accomplish the goal they sought to accomplish whatsoever. This feature is barely used off-turn, at least when I run games. Last time we discussed this, most people seemed to have had similar experiences with the feature.
This was too easily exploited and made/makes it harder to buff Sneak Attack without also allowing for the feature to be utilized by the rare min-maxers, instead of the vast majority of people who actually play the class. My plan would be to add tons of cool new stuff to this ability, - and this ability specifically, not to other features in the Rogue class in general - if I were a developer.
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.Based on the most recent Crawford video, they look like they're going to restore that functionality for all rogues, so there won't be a need for Swashbuckler or any other specific subclass to have that as their gimmick.
I am curious if the feedback was that rogues needed to be able to make 2 sneak attacks a round or that only on your turn removes some obvious options like a readied action in a ambush.
I sort of agree with boringbard in that I rarely saw multiple sneak attacks in a round and factoring that into the balance would only help a very small group of min maxers. I'd prefer they went with one per round instead of only on your turn and then balance the feature around only getting one of them the balance being either through damage or special features.
Well, I've actually said more things. Things you can agree or disagree with. There is no problem with that.
However, my argument is that the sneak attack trigger is so broad that it's very easy to have it every turn. One thing I liked about the first UA is that both the sneak attack and the smite didn't double their damage on crit. Even so, it still seems to me that making a sneak attack is very simple. You just need to have advantage or have a teammate within 5 feet of the target.
Then, on top of that, I commented that Tasha's steady aim (something that, unless otherwise stated, will continue to apply in D&D One) makes the Rogue stop being a mobile class, and turns it into a sniper. Something that I personally don't like. And why are almost all rogues using steady aim since Tasha's? Because it automatically activates the sneak attack since you have advantage.
And to say positive things, I really liked the change that was made in D&D one so that light weapons make their second attack without the need for a bonus action. This allows the rogue to hit twice, and use his cunning action to disengage. Which makes it much easier to use hit and run tactics with the rogue, which sounds very rogue to me. In fact, one thing I would like is for the sneak attack to trigger if you don't start within 5 feet of your target and they have one of your allies within 5 feet. That would be very rogue as well, since you would approach while he's distracted, double stab him, and retreat. That does sound like a sneak attack.
I think it's both; there's that problem with the first turn when you get to act first and none of your allies have engaged in melee with the enemy, so it's a wasted sneak attack basically. One way to counteract it was to use your turn to ready an attack for when the sneak attack conditions are met. Assassins had assassinate feature, which gave them an advantage against anyone who hasn't acted in combat yet, and I believe that making this feature baseline for rogue class is a simple solution to the first round issue.
Honestly, I don't know about the "small group of minmaxers" argument. Literally just one feat - Sentinel - basically doubles your efficiency in combat, all you have to do is take one feat.
The sneak attack trigger is broad by design. Sneak attack is not some kind of wildly powerful bonus that could be compared to smite. A paladin makes two attacks, and gets radiant strikes on top of that. Rogue only has sneak attack. Rogue is expected to make a sneak attack every turn - the limitation is there to define tactics. Instead of engaging the target themselves, rogues assist their allies in doing so, so they behave differently and choose their targets differently, and have to coordinate with their allies. That's the point of this loose limitation.
Where did you find it that Tasha's extra features will continue to apply in One DnD? It makes no sense. Because in case with the new ranger, part of Tasha's features are already there...