Personally I actually liked the change to Sneak Attack, my main problem with it was that it was unclear how it interacted with the critical hit rules in the same UA (remember that one had critical hits only applying to weapon damage), and that made the feature confusing in the context of how it's intended to work with other critical hit rules. The other annoyance was that the way it was worded it meant you couldn't sneak attack if you held your action to strike at the best moment (which defies the very concept of sneak attacking).
The reason I liked the change is because there needs to be a rethink about how effective a Rogue should be on their own; to get out of turn attacks on a Rogue in 5e you either need weird Rogue builds or specific ally abilities, so it feels like it was never an intended feature, and it doesn't feel like the "right" way to be a Rogue IMO. But if Rogues only get one Sneak Attack on their own turn then with certain exceptions (like Arcane Trickster with green-flame blade or Assassin if they get surprise etc.) it leaves them comparatively weak in combat.
Wizards of the Coast really need to think about what the Rogue's role in combat actually is; simplifying hiding might make it more viable now to actually use hiding defensively and offensively, but it's still a somewhat clunky way to play, and isn't likely to increase your damage enough to compete (especially if you still sometimes need to lose a turn to setup the next).
Personally what I'd like is for them to reword sneak attack to limit it to once per round (e.g- regain at the start of your turn), and then give Rogues ways to trigger critical hits, e.g- when you hit with an attack from hidden (still need to hit, but if you do it's a critical hit). To further support this they need to emphasise that enemies have 360º vision only when they aren't engaged (actively fighting someone in melee with them) so that it's possible to attack from hidden by getting behind an enemy who's either unaware, or distracted.
This then gives Rogues way to maximise damage both on their own, and with the aid of allies, without the need for weird builds or specific combos; sneak attack is useful but not that strong with easier combos (i.e- gaining advantage) but is maximised by being as Rogue-like as possible. Assassin could then be implemented by emphasising doing that in the first round wherever possible.
The key for me is greater consistency, and greater self-reliance; the way Rogues currently maximise damage has always felt really wrong to me, and not like being a Rogue at all.
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 big problem with Sneak Attack was that they took away off-turn SA and gave us nothing in return, at least not until Pack Tactics at 13 when most games are winding down anyway. And even with the off-turn SA rogue damage wasn't all that impressive to begin with.
For 1/round SA to work, rogues needed something else between 1-10. Since they're reinstating off-turn SA, it suggests that they're not planning to do that.
Off-turn Sneak Attacks aren't the issue. Frankly I'd be perfectly fine losing off-turn Snek if it meant getting more/more interesting on-turn features, especially since what little durability rogues have is usuaully bundled up in their Uncanny Dodge reaction. The issue is that people who don't play rogues are all "rogues do like a billion damage they roll soooo many d6s!" without ever realizing that no, we don't actually roll that many d6s outside very high levels and all those d6s are attached to exactly one of the weakest weapon attacks in D&D. Only spellcasters and other complete nonfighters have weaker base attacks than rogues, and rogues don't get any extra attacks to make up for it. No, Two Weapon Fighting does not count, especially since the "Crossbow Sniper" rogue so mocked and scorned earlier in the thread is a completely viable and very cool option. No other character archetype in D&D allows you to create a proper sniper, emphasizing single hard-hitting shots; taking that away from rogues to force them to conform to a narrow view of "hit and run dagger-only melee skirmisher" sucks rocks.
Either way though, Sneak Attack is hardly the game-breaking superpower nonrogues think it is. It is not worth choking off the entire rest of the class the way it currently does.
Didn’t the rouge work mostly fine in 5e? These ideas look really interesting, but that seems like a lot for a base class. Look at battle master, for example. Fighter has the basic attacks, and battle master gives them options and things to do with the basic attacks. I think these ideas could work as a subclass, like giving conditions with the sneak attack, like others have said.
Off-turn Sneak Attacks aren't the issue. Frankly I'd be perfectly fine losing off-turn Snek if it meant getting more/more interesting on-turn features, especially since what little durability rogues have is usuaully bundled up in their Uncanny Dodge reaction. The issue is that people who don't play rogues are all "rogues do like a billion damage they roll soooo many d6s!" without ever realizing that no, we don't actually roll that many d6s outside very high levels and all those d6s are attached to exactly one of the weakest weapon attacks in D&D. Only spellcasters and other complete nonfighters have weaker base attacks than rogues, and rogues don't get any extra attacks to make up for it. No, Two Weapon Fighting does not count, especially since the "Crossbow Sniper" rogue so mocked and scorned earlier in the thread is a completely viable and very cool option. No other character archetype in D&D allows you to create a proper sniper, emphasizing single hard-hitting shots; taking that away from rogues to force them to conform to a narrow view of "hit and run dagger-only melee skirmisher" sucks rocks.
Either way though, Sneak Attack is hardly the game-breaking superpower nonrogues think it is. It is not worth choking off the entire rest of the class the way it currently does.
I agree. People think that several d6s is a whole lot of damage... until you roll 1-2 on all of them for the 10th time in a row. While the GWM barbarian casually adds like +13 to their every attack.
The thing with two sneak attacks per round is that you can't just allow it. You either build the class around it, or ban it. The difference between one and two sneak attacks is too big. And I don't think that expecting rogues to spend every reaction an a sneak attack is a good design. Once per round (not turn) is just fine. But it has to be more meaningful, and the damage could be better. Like, d8s instead of d6s, or d4 for every level.
And yes, sniping is cool, it's got to be a viable playstyle.
Didn’t the rouge work mostly fine in 5e? These ideas look really interesting, but that seems like a lot for a base class. Look at battle master, for example. Fighter has the basic attacks, and battle master gives them options and things to do with the basic attacks. I think these ideas could work as a subclass, like giving conditions with the sneak attack, like others have said.
Rogue is one of those classes that seems perfectly fine and even fun until you really dig deep into it and turn up the fact that rogues don't do anything. Their defining Sneak Attack feature is, as I covered, not nearly as hotsauce as nonrogues think, Cunning Action is certainly helpful but far from universal...and also they have no other abilities they can use during their turn other than D&Defaults. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Once you get Cunning Action, you are done obtaining abilities you can use on-turn from your base class. Some subclasses add them, but the subclasses that add cool features and abilities you can use also tend to be the ones everybody hates. Rogues are super fun and interesting until you play them enough to realize they're actually super boring and oversimplified. It's probably the main reason why my favorite rogue has always been Arcane Trickster - spellcasting is at least something else to do.
This is also why I'm super disappointed with the One D&D version and the survey results where every jackwad said "perfect, this is great!" No. No it is not. We deserve a better rogue, but we're never going to get one.
No other character archetype in D&D allows you to create a proper sniper, emphasizing single hard-hitting shots
Yeah, it's really nice, and I'd love to see more rogue (maybe Scout, if you must keep it to a subclass) features for enhancing that strategy. Like the ability to attach items (vials, flasks, caltrops...) to attacks, so they get a little bonus effect and/or damage, while still leaving the bonus action for hiding, dashing, steady aim, etc.
I agree. People think that several d6s is a whole lot of damage... until you roll 1-2 on all of them for the 10th time in a row. While the GWM barbarian casually adds like +13 to their every attack.
The thing with two sneak attacks per round is that you can't just allow it. You either build the class around it, or ban it. The difference between one and two sneak attacks is too big. And I don't think that expecting rogues to spend every reaction an a sneak attack is a good design. Once per round (not turn) is just fine. But it has to be more meaningful, and the damage could be better. Like, d8s instead of d6s, or d4 for every level.
I think part of the problem is that the basic sneak attack damage is balanced against it being pretty easy to trigger (just need advantage or an ally next to the target) so if those conditions remain then it can't really be increased.
This is why I'm thinking some kind of further step to trigger critical hit damage is the way to go; you'd still need to hit, but you'd double the dice with that extra effort. It shouldn't be too easy to do, and should entail some kind of risk; i.e- backstabbing with a flanking ally, or attacking from hidden (with the caveat of being unable to immediately hide again), as both of these are things enemies can do something about.
This would allow you to switch between less risky but okay damage (sneak attacks as they are now, once per round only) or go for the extra hard hits that risk the enemy focusing its attention on you (or where it thinks you are). The tricky part is in making sure no silly exploits emerge where you can basically critical hit every round, it should feel like a risk/reward trade-off IMO.
While I'm heavily biased towards the melee rogue personally, for me the fun of it is playing risky by darting in to attack then darting away again, but the pay-off in 5e rarely feels worth it except on the assassin (in very specific circumstances) or the arcane trickster. Sniping definitely should be possible, but I'm hoping melee gets some boosts this edition once we see what's happening with weapons, to compensate for ranged being so much safer (IMO ranged shouldn't do the same damage if you're not so easily hit back).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree. People think that several d6s is a whole lot of damage... until you roll 1-2 on all of them for the 10th time in a row. While the GWM barbarian casually adds like +13 to their every attack.
The thing with two sneak attacks per round is that you can't just allow it. You either build the class around it, or ban it. The difference between one and two sneak attacks is too big. And I don't think that expecting rogues to spend every reaction an a sneak attack is a good design. Once per round (not turn) is just fine. But it has to be more meaningful, and the damage could be better. Like, d8s instead of d6s, or d4 for every level.
I think part of the problem is that the basic sneak attack damage is balanced against it being pretty easy to trigger (just need advantage or an ally next to the target) so if those conditions remain then it can't really be increased.
This is why I'm thinking some kind of further step to trigger critical hit damage is the way to go; you'd still need to hit, but you'd double the dice with that extra effort. It shouldn't be too easy to do, and should entail some kind of risk; i.e- backstabbing with a flanking ally, or attacking from hidden (with the caveat of being unable to immediately hide again), as both of these are things enemies can do something about.
This would allow you to switch between less risky but okay damage (sneak attacks as they are now, once per round only) or go for the extra hard hits that risk the enemy focusing its attention on you (or where it thinks you are). The tricky part is in making sure no silly exploits emerge where you can basically critical hit every round, it should feel like a risk/reward trade-off IMO.
While I'm heavily biased towards the melee rogue personally, for me the fun of it is playing risky by darting in to attack then darting away again, but the pay-off in 5e rarely feels worth it except on the assassin (in very specific circumstances) or the arcane trickster. Sniping definitely should be possible, but I'm hoping melee gets some boosts this edition once we see what's happening with weapons, to compensate for ranged being so much safer (IMO ranged shouldn't do the same damage if you're not so easily hit back).
But why make it an extra effort to get a crit on SA? Rogues don't have extra attack so crits are more harder to come by compared to other classes that do have extra attack. Sure you could say two weapon fighting will help but other classes with extra attack also have access to two weapon fighting. Then you could say tasha's steady aim makes it easier to SA but again it is an optional feature that the DM can just not allow in their game. There is also the fact that steady aim isn't part of the playtest so it may not carry over. SA never had a problem to begin with and isn't as powerful as others think.
Didn’t the rouge work mostly fine in 5e? These ideas look really interesting, but that seems like a lot for a base class. Look at battle master, for example. Fighter has the basic attacks, and battle master gives them options and things to do with the basic attacks. I think these ideas could work as a subclass, like giving conditions with the sneak attack, like others have said.
Rogue is one of those classes that seems perfectly fine and even fun until you really dig deep into it and turn up the fact that rogues don't do anything. Their defining Sneak Attack feature is, as I covered, not nearly as hotsauce as nonrogues think, Cunning Action is certainly helpful but far from universal...and also they have no other abilities they can use during their turn other than D&Defaults. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Once you get Cunning Action, you are done obtaining abilities you can use on-turn from your base class. Some subclasses add them, but the subclasses that add cool features and abilities you can use also tend to be the ones everybody hates. Rogues are super fun and interesting until you play them enough to realize they're actually super boring and oversimplified. It's probably the main reason why my favorite rogue has always been Arcane Trickster - spellcasting is at least something else to do.
This is also why I'm super disappointed with the One D&D version and the survey results where every jackwad said "perfect, this is great!" No. No it is not. We deserve a better rogue, but we're never going to get one.
IMO, it is a counter to rogues being able to go all day with no loss of performance. They have few or no abilities that are X per rest. But when your table doesn't follow the WotC encounters a day plan, it doesn't matter that rogues never run out of gas because no one ever runs out of gas. Then they are just rangers with no spellcasting.
Didn’t the rouge work mostly fine in 5e? These ideas look really interesting, but that seems like a lot for a base class. Look at battle master, for example. Fighter has the basic attacks, and battle master gives them options and things to do with the basic attacks. I think these ideas could work as a subclass, like giving conditions with the sneak attack, like others have said.
It is a class whose abilities really feel appropriate for the classes themes. it falls apart though when people actually buckle down and do the math and pay attention to how the game played out. It is a role playing game so the classes feel maters and for a lot it is enough to make it a top class for them.
Rogue is one of those classes that seems perfectly fine and even fun until you really dig deep into it and turn up the fact that rogues don't do anything. Their defining Sneak Attack feature is, as I covered, not nearly as hotsauce as nonrogues think, Cunning Action is certainly helpful but far from universal...and also they have no other abilities they can use during their turn other than D&Defaults. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Once you get Cunning Action, you are done obtaining abilities you can use on-turn from your base class. Some subclasses add them, but the subclasses that add cool features and abilities you can use also tend to be the ones everybody hates. Rogues are super fun and interesting until you play them enough to realize they're actually super boring and oversimplified. It's probably the main reason why my favorite rogue has always been Arcane Trickster - spellcasting is at least something else to do.
Truth. Rogue is pretty basic, in fact. A lot of what you can do relies on improvisation with mundane means you have access to, but spellcasters usually get that covered. In combat, the rogue is right next to fighter and barbarian in terms of being basic.
This would allow you to switch between less risky but okay damage (sneak attacks as they are now, once per round only) or go for the extra hard hits that risk the enemy focusing its attention on you (or where it thinks you are). The tricky part is in making sure no silly exploits emerge where you can basically critical hit every round, it should feel like a risk/reward trade-off IMO.
A mechanic that would reward planning, skill, and risk would be great. I totally dig it. I mean, assassinate should definitely become a base class feature. Assassin subclass needs a big overhaul anyway, with half the features requiring them to split from the party and play solo, or spend a week doing nothing.
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).
Have you ever played with a rogue past lvl 4? This reeks of lvl 1-4 play. The typical "man sneak attacks is so op!" Than fighters get extra attack and feats and the rogue drops off like a rock.
But yeah that's a terrible idea sorta along the lines of a fighter should break their weapon anytime they roll a 1-9
But why make it an extra effort to get a crit on SA?
I'm not proposing to make it harder, but exactly the opposite.
The assumption is that sneak attacks being limited to once per round is to limit the swinginess of weird builds/combos, which I personally agree with, but that puts a ceiling on Rogue damage. So the idea is to then give them a way to trigger critical hit damage (still need to roll to hit) by doing something extra so you can still deal the predictable double damage either solo or with help. My proposal is requiring the attack be from hidden, but with clarification on enemy visibility (so a distracted or unaware enemy can be more reliably attacked from hidden without a battlemap).
You'd still have access to normal critical hits by just rolling a 20, but you'd also have an additional way to get that extra damage by being more Rogue like. At least that's the idea.
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.
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).
Have you ever played with a rogue past lvl 4? This reeks of lvl 1-4 play. The typical "man sneak attacks is so op!" Than fighters get extra attack and feats and the rogue drops off like a rock.
But yeah that's a terrible idea sorta along the lines of a fighter should break their weapon anytime they roll a 1-9
Yes, I've played a rogue up to level 14. And yes, sneak attack each turn is an impressive amount of damage. Go elf with elven accuracy, use steady aim, and you're going to crit pretty often. And doubling down all those sneak attack dice has you destroying just about anything. But hey, I already know that this is a losing battle. Same as with the paladin smite. That's why the designers wisely tried to limit that by only applying the crit to weapons and unarmed attacks, because that much damage ruins a good fight. Still, it seems that the community would rather roll a lot of damage dice than have interesting tactical encounters. And that's okay, it's all opinions and everyone has fun with what they want.
What does surprise me is that they also want to be able to roll even more damage dice. I imagine that they seem few d6.
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).
Have you ever played with a rogue past lvl 4? This reeks of lvl 1-4 play. The typical "man sneak attacks is so op!" Than fighters get extra attack and feats and the rogue drops off like a rock.
But yeah that's a terrible idea sorta along the lines of a fighter should break their weapon anytime they roll a 1-9
Yes, I've played a rogue up to level 14. And yes, sneak attack each turn is an impressive amount of damage. Go elf with elven accuracy, use steady aim, and you're going to crit pretty often. And doubling down all those sneak attack dice has you destroying just about anything. But hey, I already know that this is a losing battle. Same as with the paladin smite. That's why the designers wisely tried to limit that by only applying the crit to weapons and unarmed attacks, because that much damage ruins a good fight. Still, it seems that the community would rather roll a lot of damage dice than have interesting tactical encounters. And that's okay, it's all opinions and everyone has fun with what they want.
What does surprise me is that they also want to be able to roll even more damage dice. I imagine that they seem few d6.
So if you give up mobilty and hit 100% of the time you are doing basically 42ish damage a round with one specific build at 14th level.. Woo.
Yes, I've played a rogue up to level 14. And yes, sneak attack each turn is an impressive amount of damage. Go elf with elven accuracy, use steady aim, and you're going to crit pretty often. And doubling down all those sneak attack dice has you destroying just about anything. But hey, I already know that this is a losing battle. Same as with the paladin smite. That's why the designers wisely tried to limit that by only applying the crit to weapons and unarmed attacks, because that much damage ruins a good fight. Still, it seems that the community would rather roll a lot of damage dice than have interesting tactical encounters. And that's okay, it's all opinions and everyone has fun with what they want.
What does surprise me is that they also want to be able to roll even more damage dice. I imagine that they seem few d6.
So if you give up mobilty and hit 100% of the time you are doing basically 42ish damage a round with one specific build at 14th level.. Woo.
A build that isn't even going to work in One DnD because there's no Steady Aim, I might add.
So if you give up mobilty and hit 100% of the time you are doing basically 42ish damage a round with one specific build at 14th level.. Woo.
But let's see, making quick head calculations. A level 14 fighter is going to be doing 36 damage on average every turn with a heavy weapon without GWM (which is another feat that has been wisely nerfed). And what a fighter is supposed to do is do a lot of damage and take a lot of damage, since it is useless for anything other than combat. A barbarian with a heavy weapon is going to be doing about 30 damage when he's raging. A rogue is going to be doing 37 on average, at range, with a short bow.
All of the above without feats.
What exactly are we talking about?
I already say that it is a matter of opinion, but I really believe that the fighter should do much more damage than a rogue. Basically because he is useless for anything else. His is that, fight. The rogue has another role, in theory.
And regarding Tasha's, I haven't seen anywhere that doesn't apply to D&D One. Quite the opposite.
I already say that it is a matter of opinion, but I really believe that the fighter should do much more damage than a rogue. Basically because he is useless for anything else. His is that, fight. The rogue has another role, in theory.
And regarding Tasha's, I haven't seen anywhere that doesn't apply to D&D One. Quite the opposite.
If a fighter does much more damage than a rogue while being much more tankier than a rogue and having more options in combat than a rogue, what is rogue supposed to do in combat? Be a noncombat class? Dealing damage is the only thing rogue really does in a fight. Can't tank, can't heal, can't control, can't blast with AoE. Only single target damage. Makes sense that if it's the only way a rogue can contribute in combat, they're supposed to be really good at it.
Regarding Tasha's, if a Tasha's feature makes it into playtest, it becomes a core feature - like with ranger. Roving and Tireless were in Tasha's, became core. That didn't happen with Steady Aim.
So if you give up mobilty and hit 100% of the time you are doing basically 42ish damage a round with one specific build at 14th level.. Woo.
But let's see, making quick head calculations. A level 14 fighter is going to be doing 36 damage on average every turn with a heavy weapon without GWM (which is another feat that has been wisely nerfed). And what a fighter is supposed to do is do a lot of damage and take a lot of damage, since it is useless for anything other than combat. A barbarian with a heavy weapon is going to be doing about 30 damage when he's raging. A rogue is going to be doing 37 on average, at range, with a short bow.
All of the above without feats.
What exactly are we talking about?
I already say that it is a matter of opinion, but I really believe that the fighter should do much more damage than a rogue. Basically because he is useless for anything else. His is that, fight. The rogue has another role, in theory.
And regarding Tasha's, I haven't seen anywhere that doesn't apply to D&D One. Quite the opposite.
It all depends. This will be a new rule set that can depend on how it is used table by table. You could very well have a table play using 1D&D only and all 5E material banned. Some may mix and match everything. Even in Tasha’s it was an optional rule.
So you can’t count on it being available so you kind of have to assume it isn’t until they add it to 1D&D
Personally I actually liked the change to Sneak Attack, my main problem with it was that it was unclear how it interacted with the critical hit rules in the same UA (remember that one had critical hits only applying to weapon damage), and that made the feature confusing in the context of how it's intended to work with other critical hit rules. The other annoyance was that the way it was worded it meant you couldn't sneak attack if you held your action to strike at the best moment (which defies the very concept of sneak attacking).
The reason I liked the change is because there needs to be a rethink about how effective a Rogue should be on their own; to get out of turn attacks on a Rogue in 5e you either need weird Rogue builds or specific ally abilities, so it feels like it was never an intended feature, and it doesn't feel like the "right" way to be a Rogue IMO. But if Rogues only get one Sneak Attack on their own turn then with certain exceptions (like Arcane Trickster with green-flame blade or Assassin if they get surprise etc.) it leaves them comparatively weak in combat.
Wizards of the Coast really need to think about what the Rogue's role in combat actually is; simplifying hiding might make it more viable now to actually use hiding defensively and offensively, but it's still a somewhat clunky way to play, and isn't likely to increase your damage enough to compete (especially if you still sometimes need to lose a turn to setup the next).
Personally what I'd like is for them to reword sneak attack to limit it to once per round (e.g- regain at the start of your turn), and then give Rogues ways to trigger critical hits, e.g- when you hit with an attack from hidden (still need to hit, but if you do it's a critical hit). To further support this they need to emphasise that enemies have 360º vision only when they aren't engaged (actively fighting someone in melee with them) so that it's possible to attack from hidden by getting behind an enemy who's either unaware, or distracted.
This then gives Rogues way to maximise damage both on their own, and with the aid of allies, without the need for weird builds or specific combos; sneak attack is useful but not that strong with easier combos (i.e- gaining advantage) but is maximised by being as Rogue-like as possible. Assassin could then be implemented by emphasising doing that in the first round wherever possible.
The key for me is greater consistency, and greater self-reliance; the way Rogues currently maximise damage has always felt really wrong to me, and not like being a Rogue at all.
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 big problem with Sneak Attack was that they took away off-turn SA and gave us nothing in return, at least not until Pack Tactics at 13 when most games are winding down anyway. And even with the off-turn SA rogue damage wasn't all that impressive to begin with.
For 1/round SA to work, rogues needed something else between 1-10. Since they're reinstating off-turn SA, it suggests that they're not planning to do that.
Off-turn Sneak Attacks aren't the issue. Frankly I'd be perfectly fine losing off-turn Snek if it meant getting more/more interesting on-turn features, especially since what little durability rogues have is usuaully bundled up in their Uncanny Dodge reaction. The issue is that people who don't play rogues are all "rogues do like a billion damage they roll soooo many d6s!" without ever realizing that no, we don't actually roll that many d6s outside very high levels and all those d6s are attached to exactly one of the weakest weapon attacks in D&D. Only spellcasters and other complete nonfighters have weaker base attacks than rogues, and rogues don't get any extra attacks to make up for it. No, Two Weapon Fighting does not count, especially since the "Crossbow Sniper" rogue so mocked and scorned earlier in the thread is a completely viable and very cool option. No other character archetype in D&D allows you to create a proper sniper, emphasizing single hard-hitting shots; taking that away from rogues to force them to conform to a narrow view of "hit and run dagger-only melee skirmisher" sucks rocks.
Either way though, Sneak Attack is hardly the game-breaking superpower nonrogues think it is. It is not worth choking off the entire rest of the class the way it currently does.
Please do not contact or message me.
Didn’t the rouge work mostly fine in 5e? These ideas look really interesting, but that seems like a lot for a base class. Look at battle master, for example. Fighter has the basic attacks, and battle master gives them options and things to do with the basic attacks. I think these ideas could work as a subclass, like giving conditions with the sneak attack, like others have said.
I agree. People think that several d6s is a whole lot of damage... until you roll 1-2 on all of them for the 10th time in a row. While the GWM barbarian casually adds like +13 to their every attack.
The thing with two sneak attacks per round is that you can't just allow it. You either build the class around it, or ban it. The difference between one and two sneak attacks is too big. And I don't think that expecting rogues to spend every reaction an a sneak attack is a good design. Once per round (not turn) is just fine. But it has to be more meaningful, and the damage could be better. Like, d8s instead of d6s, or d4 for every level.
And yes, sniping is cool, it's got to be a viable playstyle.
Rogue is one of those classes that seems perfectly fine and even fun until you really dig deep into it and turn up the fact that rogues don't do anything. Their defining Sneak Attack feature is, as I covered, not nearly as hotsauce as nonrogues think, Cunning Action is certainly helpful but far from universal...and also they have no other abilities they can use during their turn other than D&Defaults. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Once you get Cunning Action, you are done obtaining abilities you can use on-turn from your base class. Some subclasses add them, but the subclasses that add cool features and abilities you can use also tend to be the ones everybody hates. Rogues are super fun and interesting until you play them enough to realize they're actually super boring and oversimplified. It's probably the main reason why my favorite rogue has always been Arcane Trickster - spellcasting is at least something else to do.
This is also why I'm super disappointed with the One D&D version and the survey results where every jackwad said "perfect, this is great!" No. No it is not. We deserve a better rogue, but we're never going to get one.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, it's really nice, and I'd love to see more rogue (maybe Scout, if you must keep it to a subclass) features for enhancing that strategy. Like the ability to attach items (vials, flasks, caltrops...) to attacks, so they get a little bonus effect and/or damage, while still leaving the bonus action for hiding, dashing, steady aim, etc.
I think part of the problem is that the basic sneak attack damage is balanced against it being pretty easy to trigger (just need advantage or an ally next to the target) so if those conditions remain then it can't really be increased.
This is why I'm thinking some kind of further step to trigger critical hit damage is the way to go; you'd still need to hit, but you'd double the dice with that extra effort. It shouldn't be too easy to do, and should entail some kind of risk; i.e- backstabbing with a flanking ally, or attacking from hidden (with the caveat of being unable to immediately hide again), as both of these are things enemies can do something about.
This would allow you to switch between less risky but okay damage (sneak attacks as they are now, once per round only) or go for the extra hard hits that risk the enemy focusing its attention on you (or where it thinks you are). The tricky part is in making sure no silly exploits emerge where you can basically critical hit every round, it should feel like a risk/reward trade-off IMO.
While I'm heavily biased towards the melee rogue personally, for me the fun of it is playing risky by darting in to attack then darting away again, but the pay-off in 5e rarely feels worth it except on the assassin (in very specific circumstances) or the arcane trickster. Sniping definitely should be possible, but I'm hoping melee gets some boosts this edition once we see what's happening with weapons, to compensate for ranged being so much safer (IMO ranged shouldn't do the same damage if you're not so easily hit back).
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.
But why make it an extra effort to get a crit on SA? Rogues don't have extra attack so crits are more harder to come by compared to other classes that do have extra attack. Sure you could say two weapon fighting will help but other classes with extra attack also have access to two weapon fighting. Then you could say tasha's steady aim makes it easier to SA but again it is an optional feature that the DM can just not allow in their game. There is also the fact that steady aim isn't part of the playtest so it may not carry over. SA never had a problem to begin with and isn't as powerful as others think.
IMO, it is a counter to rogues being able to go all day with no loss of performance. They have few or no abilities that are X per rest. But when your table doesn't follow the WotC encounters a day plan, it doesn't matter that rogues never run out of gas because no one ever runs out of gas. Then they are just rangers with no spellcasting.
It is a class whose abilities really feel appropriate for the classes themes. it falls apart though when people actually buckle down and do the math and pay attention to how the game played out. It is a role playing game so the classes feel maters and for a lot it is enough to make it a top class for them.
Truth. Rogue is pretty basic, in fact. A lot of what you can do relies on improvisation with mundane means you have access to, but spellcasters usually get that covered. In combat, the rogue is right next to fighter and barbarian in terms of being basic.
A mechanic that would reward planning, skill, and risk would be great. I totally dig it. I mean, assassinate should definitely become a base class feature. Assassin subclass needs a big overhaul anyway, with half the features requiring them to split from the party and play solo, or spend a week doing nothing.
Have you ever played with a rogue past lvl 4? This reeks of lvl 1-4 play. The typical "man sneak attacks is so op!" Than fighters get extra attack and feats and the rogue drops off like a rock.
But yeah that's a terrible idea sorta along the lines of a fighter should break their weapon anytime they roll a 1-9
I'm not proposing to make it harder, but exactly the opposite.
The assumption is that sneak attacks being limited to once per round is to limit the swinginess of weird builds/combos, which I personally agree with, but that puts a ceiling on Rogue damage. So the idea is to then give them a way to trigger critical hit damage (still need to roll to hit) by doing something extra so you can still deal the predictable double damage either solo or with help. My proposal is requiring the attack be from hidden, but with clarification on enemy visibility (so a distracted or unaware enemy can be more reliably attacked from hidden without a battlemap).
You'd still have access to normal critical hits by just rolling a 20, but you'd also have an additional way to get that extra damage by being more Rogue like. At least that's the idea.
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.
Yes, I've played a rogue up to level 14. And yes, sneak attack each turn is an impressive amount of damage. Go elf with elven accuracy, use steady aim, and you're going to crit pretty often. And doubling down all those sneak attack dice has you destroying just about anything. But hey, I already know that this is a losing battle. Same as with the paladin smite. That's why the designers wisely tried to limit that by only applying the crit to weapons and unarmed attacks, because that much damage ruins a good fight. Still, it seems that the community would rather roll a lot of damage dice than have interesting tactical encounters. And that's okay, it's all opinions and everyone has fun with what they want.
What does surprise me is that they also want to be able to roll even more damage dice. I imagine that they seem few d6.
So if you give up mobilty and hit 100% of the time you are doing basically 42ish damage a round with one specific build at 14th level.. Woo.
A build that isn't even going to work in One DnD because there's no Steady Aim, I might add.
But let's see, making quick head calculations. A level 14 fighter is going to be doing 36 damage on average every turn with a heavy weapon without GWM (which is another feat that has been wisely nerfed). And what a fighter is supposed to do is do a lot of damage and take a lot of damage, since it is useless for anything other than combat.
A barbarian with a heavy weapon is going to be doing about 30 damage when he's raging.
A rogue is going to be doing 37 on average, at range, with a short bow.
All of the above without feats.
What exactly are we talking about?
I already say that it is a matter of opinion, but I really believe that the fighter should do much more damage than a rogue. Basically because he is useless for anything else. His is that, fight. The rogue has another role, in theory.
And regarding Tasha's, I haven't seen anywhere that doesn't apply to D&D One. Quite the opposite.
If a fighter does much more damage than a rogue while being much more tankier than a rogue and having more options in combat than a rogue, what is rogue supposed to do in combat? Be a noncombat class? Dealing damage is the only thing rogue really does in a fight. Can't tank, can't heal, can't control, can't blast with AoE. Only single target damage. Makes sense that if it's the only way a rogue can contribute in combat, they're supposed to be really good at it.
Regarding Tasha's, if a Tasha's feature makes it into playtest, it becomes a core feature - like with ranger. Roving and Tireless were in Tasha's, became core. That didn't happen with Steady Aim.
It all depends. This will be a new rule set that can depend on how it is used table by table. You could very well have a table play using 1D&D only and all 5E material banned. Some may mix and match everything. Even in Tasha’s it was an optional rule.
So you can’t count on it being available so you kind of have to assume it isn’t until they add it to 1D&D
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?