I think we're getting off topic a bit. In any case, to clarify, as far as I know they have said over and over again that unless a D&D one rule contradicts it, all of the above is still valid. With things from the PHB it is easy to see it since, for example, at the moment the spell rules have not been published in any playtest (hopefully it will appear in the mages). Tasha's stuff it's trickier, true, but I haven't seen anywhere that says Tasha's is obsolete. Then I understand that it continues to apply to D&D One unless, logically, it is specified otherwise or there is a rule that overwrites what is in Tasha's (The ranger example that someone said).
And yes, steady aim is an optional rule. And yes, it is presumable that it will continue to be so even if Tasha's is not declared obsolete material. Still, in the meta, almost everyone uses that rule. Since Tasha's came out I haven't seen a single rogue that doesn't use Steady Aim. And for good reason, as it turns the rogue into a nuke.
Then, regarding the Rogue being useless in combat. I'm not really saying that they remove the sneak attack, I see you as very Manichaeans in that regain. What I am saying is that it is limited, something that is not going to happen and in this thread we have a sample of why. In fact, the way I was proposing it to work, if you work hard, you can get it every turn. But it is no longer boring (in my opinion), and automatic as now. Otherwise you're going to have to move wisely, or hide, or somehow figure out how to actually sneak attack. That's why I like it so much that in D&D One you can use the second light weapon attack with no bonus action. That makes the rogue a mobile class again, and (in my opinion), fun to play in combat.
And then finally, in my opinion the rogue doesn't have to excel in combat. That's for other classes. The rogue is... a rogue. Does it have to be useful in combat? Yes. But it doesn't have to be, again in my opinion, one of the more damaging classes. Outside of combat he has to be what he already is: skilled. And in combat it has to be mobile, and support where it is needed.
I think we're getting off topic a bit. In any case, to clarify, as far as I know they have said over and over again that unless a D&D one rule contradicts it, all of the above is still valid. With things from the PHB it is easy to see it since, for example, at the moment the spell rules have not been published in any playtest (hopefully it will appear in the mages). Tasha's stuff it's trickier, true, but I haven't seen anywhere that says Tasha's is obsolete. Then I understand that it continues to apply to D&D One unless, logically, it is specified otherwise or there is a rule that overwrites what is in Tasha's (The ranger example that someone said).
And yes, steady aim is an optional rule. And yes, it is presumable that it will continue to be so even if Tasha's is not declared obsolete material. Still, in the meta, almost everyone uses that rule. Since Tasha's came out I haven't seen a single rogue that doesn't use Steady Aim. And for good reason, as it turns the rogue into a nuke.
Then, regarding the Rogue being useless in combat. I'm not really saying that they remove the sneak attack, I see you as very Manichaeans in that regain. What I am saying is that it is limited, something that is not going to happen and in this thread we have a sample of why. In fact, the way I was proposing it to work, if you work hard, you can get it every turn. But it is no longer boring (in my opinion), and automatic as now. Otherwise you're going to have to move wisely, or hide, or somehow figure out how to actually sneak attack. That's why I like it so much that in D&D One you can use the second light weapon attack with no bonus action. That makes the rogue a mobile class again, and (in my opinion), fun to play in combat.
And then finally, in my opinion the rogue doesn't have to excel in combat. That's for other classes. The rogue is... a rogue. Does it have to be useful in combat? Yes. But it doesn't have to be, again in my opinion, one of the more damaging classes. Outside of combat he has to be what he already is: skilled. And in combat it has to be mobile, and support where it is needed.
Okay, sure, Rogues don't have to be everything in combat. But being skilled doesn't stop the Ranger from dishing out impressive amounts of damage, or the bard from getting access to some impressive spells. Why should that logic only be applied to the Rogue?
As for Tasha's, the optional features are amendments to the base 5e classes. If it's in Tasha's, it's added to the 5e class, even if you choose not to use it when you reach the appropriate level. We aren't using the 5e classes for the 1D&D playtests, we're using new classes, so the modifications to 5e contained within Tasha's do not apply. It doesn't make sense for Tasha's to apply, anyways, since they've already shown that if they think a feature from Tasha's should be put into the class, they simply put it into the class. That kinda implies that the features they don't put into the class, they don't want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Okay, sure, Rogues don't have to be everything in combat. But being skilled doesn't stop the Ranger from dishing out impressive amounts of damage, or the bard from getting access to some impressive spells. Why should that logic only be applied to the Rogue?
What happens is that here we are talking about the Rogue and his Sneak Attack. We cannot analyze class by class every time a specific feature is mentioned. And in fact talking about the bard would be complicated, since in damage per turn it is not comparable to a Rogue. Regarding the base ranger, without feats, the damage he does is not comparable either. With hunter's mark (which costs you one of your precious spell slots) and a longbow, you would do an average of 28 damage per turn at level 14. But anyway, the ranger has other things. Not all classes have to deal a massive amount of damage per turn.
And yes, some ranger subclasses can do a lot more damage. But I think that for the point of view that I was trying to explain, it was better to use the base ranger.
And then finally, in my opinion the rogue doesn't have to excel in combat. That's for other classes. The rogue is... a rogue. Does it have to be useful in combat? Yes. But it doesn't have to be, again in my opinion, one of the more damaging classes. Outside of combat he has to be what he already is: skilled. And in combat it has to be mobile, and support where it is needed.
So you want a noncombat class. Tell me when you find a single person who'd want to play DnD to feel the much coveted uselessness. What kind of support are you talking about? Just run around and kinda be there? The rogue class doesn't have access to divine or primal spell list, they can't heal or buff, what support are you talking about?
Where as a dual wielding ranger is doing 36 as of level 5. It takes like up to level 11 for a rogue to match that. And at that point they would be running hunters mark whenever they want and throw a sustained spell like a primal summon to increase their damage even more, again putting the rogues damage in the dumpster in comparison. While being just as good at skills and having more utility spells in the backburner.
And then finally, in my opinion the rogue doesn't have to excel in combat. That's for other classes. The rogue is... a rogue. Does it have to be useful in combat? Yes. But it doesn't have to be, again in my opinion, one of the more damaging classes. Outside of combat he has to be what he already is: skilled. And in combat it has to be mobile, and support where it is needed.
So you want a noncombat class. Tell me when you find a single person who'd want to play DnD to feel the much coveted uselessness. What kind of support are you talking about? Just run around and kinda be there? The rogue class doesn't have access to divine or primal spell list, they can't heal or buff, what support are you talking about?
No, I don't want a non-combatant class. I have already given my opinion, with which you can agree or disagree. There is no point in continuing to argue like this, creating straw men instead of trying to understand what is being said.
Do you like a rogue to sneak attack every turn? Do you want him to be able to do it even more often? It's ok, you're not right or wrong as it's just an opinion.
Ranger is not just as good at skills as a rogue, please don’t use that false argument especially not at level 11. That’s the level the Rogue says “I can’t fail checks unless my DM is cheating or I’m trying to do something nigh impossible.” If it’s a skill they have expertise in rolling over 30 becomes a norm. The TWF Ranger is going to get hit in the face more than the ranged Ranger. So there is a cost to the higher dpr. Since most combats are geared to end in 3 -5 rounds the Ranger wouldn’t be able to use a primal summon spell to increase their dpr without giving up a round of attacks. That drastically drops their dpr. Plus who would cast a concentration spell while in melee combat?
The rogue isn’t averaging 0 dpr. No every class has to have the same dpr. Arguments like these is how you get 4e again.
The rogue isn’t averaging 0 dpr. No every class has to have the same dpr. Arguments like these is how you get 4e again.
While I agree with this sentiment, I think it's important to point out that while every class doesn't need to deal the same DPR, it should still have a similar contribution to combat; you won't see many people calling for bards to have increased DPR for example, because while the personal DPR of your average Bard is terrible, their ability to act as a force multiplier for the rest of the party actually means a control bard can be a very powerful character in the game depending upon your party's ability to take advantage of what they do.
It's not necessarily about Rogues doing the same average damage as a Fighter, but they need to have a clear role in combat that doesn't feel less useful. In my view Monks and Rogues are primarily skirmishers, so they're about mobility and taking down key targets. In 5e, Monks don't deal a tonne of damage, but they do get Stunning Strike which can effectively take enemies out of the fight for a round (and is a force multiplier for allies) but Rogues only really have damage at the moment, and without triggering sneak attack more than once per round it's not always great damage, so I think there's a definite gap.
There are two obvious options. One is more damage, but I don't think it should be consistently more damage (as that's a Fighter's whole deal, and it's also the most boring option to "fix" Rogues). What Rogues want to be doing is getting killing blows on annoying ranged enemies, casters, back-stabbing the boss when they least expect it etc., so if we go down the damage route they should IMO be able to get more damage but in bursts so it at least doesn't infringe as much on a Fighter's consistency, and actually emphasises the "sudden decisive strike" flavour instead. This is why tying something to hiding could work as it's not necessarily something you can do every turn, and you may actually have to deal less damage in a turn to set it up, but when you do strike it's risky but can deal huge damage that could turn the fight around, which will feel a lot better than Rogues just becoming dodgy fighters.
The other option is more tricks; I have sometimes wondered if the 5e Thief's Fast Hands should just be a Rogue feature, i.e- add the [Tooltip Not Found] action to Cunning Action so every Rogue has the option of accumulating and using a bag of tricks in combat, so they're not just sneak attacking but also throwing down ball bearings, setting up combos with oil (flask) etc. To fully support this though we really need to see levelled versions of these items (maybe we will?) because while they're decent in tier 1 they're pretty poor in tier 4, either that or they need to be more dependent on the character using them for the DC at the very least.
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.
No, I don't want a non-combatant class. I have already given my opinion, with which you can agree or disagree. There is no point in continuing to argue like this, creating straw men instead of trying to understand what is being said.
Do you like a rogue to sneak attack every turn? Do you want him to be able to do it even more often? It's ok, you're not right or wrong as it's just an opinion.
Thing is, you're saying that rogue should "provide support" in combat, but you're not saying how. Because there's no way to do that really. Dealing big single-target damage is the only thing rogue can do in combat. If you make even that, their only function, unreliable and intentionally worse than that of classes that can do more and contribute in other ways (like also tank, blast, buff, control, heal), then you do end up with a noncombatant class that is not fun to play if your game has any combat, which is 99% of DnD scenarios.
The rogue isn’t averaging 0 dpr. No every class has to have the same dpr. Arguments like these is how you get 4e again.
The other option is more tricks; I have sometimes wondered if the 5e Thief's Fast Hands should just be a Rogue feature, i.e- add the Use an Object action to Cunning Action so every Rogue has the option of accumulating and using a bag of tricks in combat, so they're not just sneak attacking but also throwing down ball bearings, setting up combos with oil (flask) etc. To fully support this though we really need to see levelled versions of these items (maybe we will?) because while they're decent in tier 1 they're pretty poor in tier 4, either that or they need to be more dependent on the character using them for the DC at the very least.
That would be very good. However, for that they would have to greatly improve the equipment options.
Also on the other hand, I would like to see a rogue that had "combat tricks". Things like being able to throw dust at an enemy and blind them for a turn, or feint and give debuff on their next attack. Those are two examples that have quickly come to mind, but there may be many more and better designed. And it wouldn't have to be literally "dust" for example. simply the ability to blind an enemy, and you narrate it however you want.
Sneak attack as it stands now is boring, and very unimmersive. Basically, it's not a sneak attack. It's just extra damage that you do every turn for the sake of it, because you're a rogue. It's not a backstab. It is not an unexpected attack. It's just extra damage.
Personally, I think it makes sense that not every class shines most in combat. I like some of the ideas Haravikk gave, and I think it makes sense to give the Rogue more options and abilities they can use when battling monsters. No class should ever feel useless (with a few rare exceptions for certain scenarios + campaigns), especially in something that comes up as much as combat.
That being said, not being the best in combat is very different from being "a noncombat class". Every class in the game is different and should have their own things they can shine at, and while they shouldn't be bad in combat, I don't think Rogue has to excel in that area either.
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.
The rogue isn’t averaging 0 dpr. No every class has to have the same dpr. Arguments like these is how you get 4e again.
The other option is more tricks; I have sometimes wondered if the 5e Thief's Fast Hands should just be a Rogue feature, i.e- add the Use an Object action to Cunning Action so every Rogue has the option of accumulating and using a bag of tricks in combat, so they're not just sneak attacking but also throwing down ball bearings, setting up combos with oil (flask) etc. To fully support this though we really need to see levelled versions of these items (maybe we will?) because while they're decent in tier 1 they're pretty poor in tier 4, either that or they need to be more dependent on the character using them for the DC at the very least.
That would be very good. However, for that they would have to greatly improve the equipment options.
Also on the other hand, I would like to see a rogue that had "combat tricks". Things like being able to throw dust at an enemy and blind them for a turn, or feint and give debuff on their next attack. Those are two examples that have quickly come to mind, but there may be many more and better designed. And it wouldn't have to be literally "dust" for example. simply the ability to blind an enemy, and you narrate it however you want.
Sneak attack as it stands now is boring, and very unimmersive. Basically, it's not a sneak attack. It's just extra damage that you do every turn for the sake of it, because you're a rogue. It's not a backstab. It is not an unexpected attack. It's just extra damage.
While I agree something can be done to help sneak attack and rogue combat play I disagree that sneak attack just happens every turn. Before Tasha’s I’ve watched player’s struggle to set up a sneak attack on their turn. One reason I pushed for one dnd to allow off turn sneak attack is because of, “I hold my attack until my ally is with in 5ft of the monster.” Also since many rogues end up scouting before Tasha’s they had no way to get sneak attack if they ended up in 1vs 1 combat. Steady aim is pretty fair. You forfeit your movement and your bonus action to gain advantage. It should probably be a part of the base one dnd rogue. The rogue gets to do a thing that is fun for a lot of players. Pick up a bunch of dice and roll them. The flaw is those that crunch the numbers know that it’s not really a lot of dmg in comparison. Now I think the fix is in the subclasses. Return Use Object to fast hands and create some objects that work well with it and the thief is better. Create better poisons for the Assassin and the ability to apply them with cunning action. The Arcane trickster has magic, so might honestly be okay. Swashbuckler should be able to take the en garde stance as a cunning action, until the start of their next turn if they are the target of an attack roll and it misses they can attack the creature that missed as a reaction if it’s within 5ft of them. Mastermind has help cunning action and I wonder if that could be expanded to help them be better support style rogue.
1) Rogue + {insert damage-oriented subclass} should excel at dealing damage. I'd expect an Assassin or Soulknife to substantially outdamage a Thief or Mastermind, particularly under optimal conditions (e.g. ambushing an unprepared foe.) Such combinations don't have to be the highest tier of damage dealers in the game but they should definitely be great and allow the rogue player to shine.
2) Rogues without such a subclass should still be decent at doing damage, i.e. more than a baseline of EB+AB+Hex; their damage is conditional and that condition cannot always be met, or cannot always be directed at the most optimal target, or cannot always be realized without putting the rogue in harm's way, or is more subject to enemy defenses and resistances, or even all four at once.
1) Rogue + {insert damage-oriented subclass} should excel at dealing damage. I'd expect an Assassin or Soulknife to substantially outdamage a Thief or Mastermind, particularly under optimal conditions (e.g. ambushing an unprepared foe.) Such combinations don't have to be the highest tier of damage dealers in the game but they should definitely be great and allow the rogue player to shine.
2) Rogues without such a subclass should still be decent at doing damage, i.e. more than a baseline of EB+AB+Hex; their damage is conditional and that condition cannot always be met, or cannot always be directed at the most optimal target, or cannot always be realized without putting the rogue in harm's way, or is more subject to enemy defenses and resistances, or even all four at once.
Soul Knife is hands down one of the best rogue subclasses. I played one up to lvl 14 and it's useful in almost any situation. He is probably one of the best skill monkeys in the game. And, in combat, in addition to having the chance to do a lot of damage like any rogue, it deals psychic damage which is one of the least resisted damage types. Also, you never run out of ammunition, you can attack ranged or melee without changing weapons, you have a second attack if you need it, etc... And on top of all that, you can teleport and become invisible. It's just amazing.
And yes, it was very very rare that I didn't land the sneak attack every turn. I don't remember if it ever happened. And because of my build, with elven accuracy, I crit quite often. Although I also have to say that I got bored of combat quite early. It is true that at level 9, being able to teleport, I had some interesting tactical option. But while outside of combat I really felt like a rogue, in combat I wasn't.
It's very effective, but I probably wouldn't play it again.
I’m liking these ideas. Particularly, the one about implying conditions with the sneak attack that gives the rouge something unique that other classes don’t really have. I’m also liking the idea to add sneak attack to the uncanny dodge but in this case I’m more thinking that if you take the dodge action and an attack misses you then you can use a reaction to make an attack of opportunity. This even keeps the rouge balanced as you will still only be using the attack once since you’re sacrificing your attack to dodge. Kind of cool, thematically.
What I really want to see, though is what they do with the warrior class. I have a feeling they are gonna give all the warriors fighting styles and maneuvers, but in the event that happens they could also give rouges access to certain maneuvers to flavor them.
Back to the conditions thing: this would be great because once again it adds theme to rouges and allows them to do other stuff besides damage, which I think is something sorely lacking in D&D for martial classes. Everything is just damage and more damage. Martial should be able to do more than just damage and take damage. I truly believe this will help them keep up the the casters and make them more interesting.
1) Rogue + {insert damage-oriented subclass} should excel at dealing damage. I'd expect an Assassin or Soulknife to substantially outdamage a Thief or Mastermind, particularly under optimal conditions (e.g. ambushing an unprepared foe.) Such combinations don't have to be the highest tier of damage dealers in the game but they should definitely be great and allow the rogue player to shine.
2) Rogues without such a subclass should still be decent at doing damage, i.e. more than a baseline of EB+AB+Hex; their damage is conditional and that condition cannot always be met, or cannot always be directed at the most optimal target, or cannot always be realized without putting the rogue in harm's way, or is more subject to enemy defenses and resistances, or even all four at once.
as is in 5e which very likely would change i suspect the warlock baseline is more conditional than sneak attack. I think the warlock likely provides more utility than the rogue though so im not sure sneak attack should be worse.
This may be controversial, but I like the idea of Rogue getting sneak attack on a reaction but dislike them having sneak attack more than once a round. I want it to be more reliable for them, but I ALSO don't want the solely relying on Sneak Attack. More uses for SKILLS in combat, and the ability to use them without losing your attack would be awesome for a rogue. Thief does this ok with pickpocketing mid combat. Steal a scroll or a key or something off an enemy and still get an attack is cool.
No, I agree, once per round is a fine way to do it. Its easier to balance numbers off of a known once per round system. Add features to sneak attack or as you suggest more combat skills and i think they'd be fine. I'd suggest adding a free withdraw when a sneak attack is delivered so the bonus action for melee rogues is not wasted on withdraw instead of a combat skill.
I have played a number of 5e campaigns with my normal group, but am also active on a discord server where people mostly run one shots.
In my experience people see uncanny dodge as a inferior of turn option compared to of turn sneak attack. I had people argue that you only ever should use uncanny dodge if your absolutely Shure there is no chance for you to get a of turn sneak attack.
Arguing that yes uncanny dodge stops some incoming damage and by extension saves spells slots for people casting healing spells, but dealing extra damage means the enemy goes down faster and dead is the best condition when it comes to making creatures stop dealing damage so this also reduces incoming damage. Even when taking pretty large amount of incoming damage many players pass on using uncanny dodge if they think they can still get a of turn sneak attack.
Maybe uncanny dodge should be made more attractive in some way ? Some people suggested adding conditions with your sneak attack, but what if you could add certain conditions with uncanny dodge ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think we're getting off topic a bit. In any case, to clarify, as far as I know they have said over and over again that unless a D&D one rule contradicts it, all of the above is still valid. With things from the PHB it is easy to see it since, for example, at the moment the spell rules have not been published in any playtest (hopefully it will appear in the mages). Tasha's stuff it's trickier, true, but I haven't seen anywhere that says Tasha's is obsolete. Then I understand that it continues to apply to D&D One unless, logically, it is specified otherwise or there is a rule that overwrites what is in Tasha's (The ranger example that someone said).
And yes, steady aim is an optional rule. And yes, it is presumable that it will continue to be so even if Tasha's is not declared obsolete material. Still, in the meta, almost everyone uses that rule. Since Tasha's came out I haven't seen a single rogue that doesn't use Steady Aim. And for good reason, as it turns the rogue into a nuke.
Then, regarding the Rogue being useless in combat. I'm not really saying that they remove the sneak attack, I see you as very Manichaeans in that regain. What I am saying is that it is limited, something that is not going to happen and in this thread we have a sample of why. In fact, the way I was proposing it to work, if you work hard, you can get it every turn. But it is no longer boring (in my opinion), and automatic as now. Otherwise you're going to have to move wisely, or hide, or somehow figure out how to actually sneak attack. That's why I like it so much that in D&D One you can use the second light weapon attack with no bonus action. That makes the rogue a mobile class again, and (in my opinion), fun to play in combat.
And then finally, in my opinion the rogue doesn't have to excel in combat. That's for other classes. The rogue is... a rogue. Does it have to be useful in combat? Yes. But it doesn't have to be, again in my opinion, one of the more damaging classes. Outside of combat he has to be what he already is: skilled. And in combat it has to be mobile, and support where it is needed.
Okay, sure, Rogues don't have to be everything in combat. But being skilled doesn't stop the Ranger from dishing out impressive amounts of damage, or the bard from getting access to some impressive spells. Why should that logic only be applied to the Rogue?
As for Tasha's, the optional features are amendments to the base 5e classes. If it's in Tasha's, it's added to the 5e class, even if you choose not to use it when you reach the appropriate level. We aren't using the 5e classes for the 1D&D playtests, we're using new classes, so the modifications to 5e contained within Tasha's do not apply.
It doesn't make sense for Tasha's to apply, anyways, since they've already shown that if they think a feature from Tasha's should be put into the class, they simply put it into the class. That kinda implies that the features they don't put into the class, they don't want.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
What happens is that here we are talking about the Rogue and his Sneak Attack. We cannot analyze class by class every time a specific feature is mentioned. And in fact talking about the bard would be complicated, since in damage per turn it is not comparable to a Rogue. Regarding the base ranger, without feats, the damage he does is not comparable either. With hunter's mark (which costs you one of your precious spell slots) and a longbow, you would do an average of 28 damage per turn at level 14. But anyway, the ranger has other things. Not all classes have to deal a massive amount of damage per turn.
And yes, some ranger subclasses can do a lot more damage. But I think that for the point of view that I was trying to explain, it was better to use the base ranger.
So you want a noncombat class. Tell me when you find a single person who'd want to play DnD to feel the much coveted uselessness. What kind of support are you talking about? Just run around and kinda be there? The rogue class doesn't have access to divine or primal spell list, they can't heal or buff, what support are you talking about?
Where as a dual wielding ranger is doing 36 as of level 5. It takes like up to level 11 for a rogue to match that. And at that point they would be running hunters mark whenever they want and throw a sustained spell like a primal summon to increase their damage even more, again putting the rogues damage in the dumpster in comparison. While being just as good at skills and having more utility spells in the backburner.
No, I don't want a non-combatant class. I have already given my opinion, with which you can agree or disagree. There is no point in continuing to argue like this, creating straw men instead of trying to understand what is being said.
Do you like a rogue to sneak attack every turn? Do you want him to be able to do it even more often? It's ok, you're not right or wrong as it's just an opinion.
Ranger is not just as good at skills as a rogue, please don’t use that false argument especially not at level 11. That’s the level the Rogue says “I can’t fail checks unless my DM is cheating or I’m trying to do something nigh impossible.” If it’s a skill they have expertise in rolling over 30 becomes a norm.
The TWF Ranger is going to get hit in the face more than the ranged Ranger. So there is a cost to the higher dpr. Since most combats are geared to end in 3 -5 rounds the Ranger wouldn’t be able to use a primal summon spell to increase their dpr without giving up a round of attacks. That drastically drops their dpr. Plus who would cast a concentration spell while in melee combat?
The rogue isn’t averaging 0 dpr. No every class has to have the same dpr. Arguments like these is how you get 4e again.
While I agree with this sentiment, I think it's important to point out that while every class doesn't need to deal the same DPR, it should still have a similar contribution to combat; you won't see many people calling for bards to have increased DPR for example, because while the personal DPR of your average Bard is terrible, their ability to act as a force multiplier for the rest of the party actually means a control bard can be a very powerful character in the game depending upon your party's ability to take advantage of what they do.
It's not necessarily about Rogues doing the same average damage as a Fighter, but they need to have a clear role in combat that doesn't feel less useful. In my view Monks and Rogues are primarily skirmishers, so they're about mobility and taking down key targets. In 5e, Monks don't deal a tonne of damage, but they do get Stunning Strike which can effectively take enemies out of the fight for a round (and is a force multiplier for allies) but Rogues only really have damage at the moment, and without triggering sneak attack more than once per round it's not always great damage, so I think there's a definite gap.
There are two obvious options. One is more damage, but I don't think it should be consistently more damage (as that's a Fighter's whole deal, and it's also the most boring option to "fix" Rogues). What Rogues want to be doing is getting killing blows on annoying ranged enemies, casters, back-stabbing the boss when they least expect it etc., so if we go down the damage route they should IMO be able to get more damage but in bursts so it at least doesn't infringe as much on a Fighter's consistency, and actually emphasises the "sudden decisive strike" flavour instead. This is why tying something to hiding could work as it's not necessarily something you can do every turn, and you may actually have to deal less damage in a turn to set it up, but when you do strike it's risky but can deal huge damage that could turn the fight around, which will feel a lot better than Rogues just becoming dodgy fighters.
The other option is more tricks; I have sometimes wondered if the 5e Thief's Fast Hands should just be a Rogue feature, i.e- add the [Tooltip Not Found] action to Cunning Action so every Rogue has the option of accumulating and using a bag of tricks in combat, so they're not just sneak attacking but also throwing down ball bearings, setting up combos with oil (flask) etc. To fully support this though we really need to see levelled versions of these items (maybe we will?) because while they're decent in tier 1 they're pretty poor in tier 4, either that or they need to be more dependent on the character using them for the DC at the very least.
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.
Thing is, you're saying that rogue should "provide support" in combat, but you're not saying how. Because there's no way to do that really. Dealing big single-target damage is the only thing rogue can do in combat. If you make even that, their only function, unreliable and intentionally worse than that of classes that can do more and contribute in other ways (like also tank, blast, buff, control, heal), then you do end up with a noncombatant class that is not fun to play if your game has any combat, which is 99% of DnD scenarios.
That would be very good. However, for that they would have to greatly improve the equipment options.
Also on the other hand, I would like to see a rogue that had "combat tricks". Things like being able to throw dust at an enemy and blind them for a turn, or feint and give debuff on their next attack. Those are two examples that have quickly come to mind, but there may be many more and better designed. And it wouldn't have to be literally "dust" for example. simply the ability to blind an enemy, and you narrate it however you want.
Sneak attack as it stands now is boring, and very unimmersive. Basically, it's not a sneak attack. It's just extra damage that you do every turn for the sake of it, because you're a rogue. It's not a backstab. It is not an unexpected attack. It's just extra damage.
Personally, I think it makes sense that not every class shines most in combat. I like some of the ideas Haravikk gave, and I think it makes sense to give the Rogue more options and abilities they can use when battling monsters. No class should ever feel useless (with a few rare exceptions for certain scenarios + campaigns), especially in something that comes up as much as combat.
That being said, not being the best in combat is very different from being "a noncombat class". Every class in the game is different and should have their own things they can shine at, and while they shouldn't be bad in combat, I don't think Rogue has to excel in that area either.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.While I agree something can be done to help sneak attack and rogue combat play I disagree that sneak attack just happens every turn. Before Tasha’s I’ve watched player’s struggle to set up a sneak attack on their turn. One reason I pushed for one dnd to allow off turn sneak attack is because of, “I hold my attack until my ally is with in 5ft of the monster.” Also since many rogues end up scouting before Tasha’s they had no way to get sneak attack if they ended up in 1vs 1 combat. Steady aim is pretty fair. You forfeit your movement and your bonus action to gain advantage. It should probably be a part of the base one dnd rogue. The rogue gets to do a thing that is fun for a lot of players. Pick up a bunch of dice and roll them. The flaw is those that crunch the numbers know that it’s not really a lot of dmg in comparison.
Now I think the fix is in the subclasses. Return Use Object to fast hands and create some objects that work well with it and the thief is better. Create better poisons for the Assassin and the ability to apply them with cunning action. The Arcane trickster has magic, so might honestly be okay. Swashbuckler should be able to take the en garde stance as a cunning action, until the start of their next turn if they are the target of an attack roll and it misses they can attack the creature that missed as a reaction if it’s within 5ft of them. Mastermind has help cunning action and I wonder if that could be expanded to help them be better support style rogue.
Regarding rogues in combat:
1) Rogue + {insert damage-oriented subclass} should excel at dealing damage. I'd expect an Assassin or Soulknife to substantially outdamage a Thief or Mastermind, particularly under optimal conditions (e.g. ambushing an unprepared foe.) Such combinations don't have to be the highest tier of damage dealers in the game but they should definitely be great and allow the rogue player to shine.
2) Rogues without such a subclass should still be decent at doing damage, i.e. more than a baseline of EB+AB+Hex; their damage is conditional and that condition cannot always be met, or cannot always be directed at the most optimal target, or cannot always be realized without putting the rogue in harm's way, or is more subject to enemy defenses and resistances, or even all four at once.
Soul Knife is hands down one of the best rogue subclasses. I played one up to lvl 14 and it's useful in almost any situation. He is probably one of the best skill monkeys in the game. And, in combat, in addition to having the chance to do a lot of damage like any rogue, it deals psychic damage which is one of the least resisted damage types. Also, you never run out of ammunition, you can attack ranged or melee without changing weapons, you have a second attack if you need it, etc... And on top of all that, you can teleport and become invisible. It's just amazing.
And yes, it was very very rare that I didn't land the sneak attack every turn. I don't remember if it ever happened. And because of my build, with elven accuracy, I crit quite often. Although I also have to say that I got bored of combat quite early. It is true that at level 9, being able to teleport, I had some interesting tactical option. But while outside of combat I really felt like a rogue, in combat I wasn't.
It's very effective, but I probably wouldn't play it again.
I’m liking these ideas. Particularly, the one about implying conditions with the sneak attack that gives the rouge something unique that other classes don’t really have. I’m also liking the idea to add sneak attack to the uncanny dodge but in this case I’m more thinking that if you take the dodge action and an attack misses you then you can use a reaction to make an attack of opportunity. This even keeps the rouge balanced as you will still only be using the attack once since you’re sacrificing your attack to dodge. Kind of cool, thematically.
What I really want to see, though is what they do with the warrior class. I have a feeling they are gonna give all the warriors fighting styles and maneuvers, but in the event that happens they could also give rouges access to certain maneuvers to flavor them.
Back to the conditions thing: this would be great because once again it adds theme to rouges and allows them to do other stuff besides damage, which I think is something sorely lacking in D&D for martial classes. Everything is just damage and more damage. Martial should be able to do more than just damage and take damage. I truly believe this will help them keep up the the casters and make them more interesting.
as is in 5e which very likely would change i suspect the warlock baseline is more conditional than sneak attack. I think the warlock likely provides more utility than the rogue though so im not sure sneak attack should be worse.
This may be controversial, but I like the idea of Rogue getting sneak attack on a reaction but dislike them having sneak attack more than once a round. I want it to be more reliable for them, but I ALSO don't want the solely relying on Sneak Attack. More uses for SKILLS in combat, and the ability to use them without losing your attack would be awesome for a rogue. Thief does this ok with pickpocketing mid combat. Steal a scroll or a key or something off an enemy and still get an attack is cool.
No, I agree, once per round is a fine way to do it. Its easier to balance numbers off of a known once per round system. Add features to sneak attack or as you suggest more combat skills and i think they'd be fine. I'd suggest adding a free withdraw when a sneak attack is delivered so the bonus action for melee rogues is not wasted on withdraw instead of a combat skill.
I have played a number of 5e campaigns with my normal group, but am also active on a discord server where people mostly run one shots.
In my experience people see uncanny dodge as a inferior of turn option compared to of turn sneak attack.
I had people argue that you only ever should use uncanny dodge if your absolutely Shure there is no chance for you to get a of turn sneak attack.
Arguing that yes uncanny dodge stops some incoming damage and by extension saves spells slots for people casting healing spells, but dealing extra damage means the enemy goes down faster and dead is the best condition when it comes to making creatures stop dealing damage so this also reduces incoming damage.
Even when taking pretty large amount of incoming damage many players pass on using uncanny dodge if they think they can still get a of turn sneak attack.
Maybe uncanny dodge should be made more attractive in some way ?
Some people suggested adding conditions with your sneak attack, but what if you could add certain conditions with uncanny dodge ?