Is this feat idea broken?

[Weyroc]

Blindsider (Name requires work)

Your sneak attack dice increase by one dice (d6 -> d8 -> d10)
If you do not have a sneak attack, you gain one at 1d4

I was considering asking my DM to allow it for a monk, but my friend said it'd be a bad idea.

[Slipperychicken]

That sounds OP as hell. I don't even see a fluff reason for this feat to exist, much less a mechanical one.

[Weyroc]

Wanted to give my shadow monk sneak attack without multiclassing, basically. Maybe I'm just ignoring the OPness cuz I want it so bad...

[jkat718]

In theory, this would act similarly to the Magic Initiate and Martial Adept feats, in that it grants a character one ability from another class, but in practice, Sneak Attack would prove to powerful of a feature to give out like this.

[Giant2005]

I don't thin k it is broken.
A non-Rogue gaining 1D4 sneak damage from a feat would make it the least damage-enhancing feat of all of the feats that enhance damage.
The benefit for Rogues however might be a bit much. It would increase the average sneak damage of a level 19+ Rogue from 35 to 45. Personally I don't think that is such a big issue (If anything imo it just helps Rogues keep up with the other martials a bit easier) but I can see how others might.

EDIT: You should consider adding a third ability that removes the weapon restrictions of a sneak attack.

[jaydubs]

Blindsider (Name requires work)

Your sneak attack dice increase by one dice (d6 -> d8 -> d10)
If you do not have a sneak attack, you gain one at 1d4

I was considering asking my DM to allow it for a monk, but my friend said it'd be a bad idea.

Let's remove the rogue sneak attack increase for a second, and focus on what you want for your monk.

Are you asking for scaling d4 sneak attack? So you could eventually get 10d4 for a feat at higher levels?

Or are you asking for d4, non-scaling?

Because the former seems overpowered, while the latter seems underpowered. Am I missing something?

[Weyroc]

I was asking for the 1d4. Seems like adding that to a monk with flurry of blows would be very fun and useful.

[Giant2005]

are you asking for d4, non-scaling?

Because the former seems overpowered, while the latter seems underpowered. Am I missing something?

I actually thought the first ability would effect the second ability and turn it into a 1D6 at least.

[calebrus]

You do realize that sneak attack only applies once per turn, right? So you want to spend a feat to increase your damage by 1d4 once per turn, which as someone pointed out, would make this the worst damage enhancing feat available.
Not that this is an issue. If you like the flavor of it, it's not OP at all, so there is no problem there.
The problems were with the increased die size from other SA sources, not with the part that you wanted.

[Weyroc]

You do realize that sneak attack only applies once per turn, right?

I did NOT. This is my first 5e campaign and I am used to 3.5.

You have just changed my mind on how I'll do this if I do it. Thank you

[calebrus]

I did NOT. This is my first 5e campaign and I am used to 3.5.

You have just changed my mind on how I'll do this if I do it. Thank you

Yeah, I kind of figured. When you mentioned how awesome it would be with flurry, that kind of gave it away.

[Kane0]

How about:

- Dex +1
- You gain the sneak attack ability of the rogue, to the value of 1d6. This does not increase with level.
I- f you already have the sneak attack ability, all melee weapons you use one handed that you are proficient in are treated as finesse for the purposes of dealing sneak attack.
If you later acquire the sneak attack ability through another source, you use that damage value and gain the benefits of the third bullet point of this feat.

Alternatively, 1-3 melee weapons that you are proficient in of your choice.

[jaydubs]

How about:

Dex +1
You gain the sneak attack ability of the rogue, to the value of 1d6. This does not increase with level.
If you already have the sneak attack ability, all melee weapons you use one handed that you are proficient in are treated as finesse for the purposes of dealing sneak attack.
If you later acquire the sneak attack ability through another source, you use that damage value.

Alternatively, 1-3 melee weapons that you are proficient in of your choice.

I'm not familiar enough with the issue or the maths to know how much or little of a problem it is. But I know there's an interaction there with quarterstaff, polearm master, and easy opportunity attacks that has the potential for problems.

[Kane0]

There was some discussion on a thread not long ago about changing the qualities of the quarterstaff which would make it usable with sneak attacks, a couple people arguing both sides on that one.

If you pursued the polearm mastery + opportunity attacks (or battlemaster ripostes, etc) route for a bit of cheese problems could arise, so it's something to be aware of.

[Daishain]

I don't even see a fluff reason for this feat to exist
You can't?

Training to take advantage of gaps in armor, to recognize where to strike to cause the most harm when the opponent is unaware of the impending attack is not exactly an uncommon fluff concept.

I don't like the balance of this feat either, for rogues it is OP, for everyone else it is underpowered. But fluff wise, there's no good reason for rogues to have the sole authority on planned attacks from stealth, and something like this would address that. (mechanically there is good reason, but I'm leaving that aside for the moment)

[jaydubs]

You can't?

Training to take advantage of gaps in armor, to recognize where to strike to cause the most harm when the opponent is unaware of the impending attack is not exactly an uncommon fluff concept.

I don't like the balance of this feat either, for rogues it is OP, for everyone else it is underpowered. But fluff wise, there's no good reason for rogues to have the sole authority on planned attacks from stealth, and something like this would address that. (mechanically there is good reason, but I'm leaving that aside for the moment)

I see a few issues with a balanced version of the feat.

1. Even if it's balanced vs other feats on its own, it might create imbalances in the system. You can't stack Great Weapon Master with Sharpshooter. But you could theoretically stack a sneak attack feat with Sharpshooter, or one of the melee dex builds. And that stacking would push power creep (something that I hope will be avoided for the most part in 5e).

2. If you want to introduce something that gives other classes benefits attacking from stealth, it should be a little further removed from sneak attack. Not for any balance purposes, but for perception purposes. That is, you should make it different enough that rogue players don't look at it and think "they're giving away my class ability."

[Easy_Lee]

My problem with it is that it's a variable benefit. This adds 1d4 damage on attacks with advantage for non rogues, and 1*(SA Die Number) for rogues. So its benefit ranges from 1 damage for level one rogues to 2.5 damage for non rogues to up to 9 damage for pure rogues.

I would use polearm mastery as an example of how to design this feat instead. Polearm mastery adds about 7.5 damage on the form of a bonus attack, and effectively doubles reaction attacks. Since the bonus action is required for polearm mastery, but you're also adding reaction attacks, but a sneak attack feat would only apply on advantaged attacks, but polearm mastery limits one's weapon choices, but then there's dual wielder which adds 1 damage per attack and 1 AC, let's call it a wash and say that our new SA feat should add about 7 damage.

So, I propose the following instead:
Dirty Fighting - you gain two sneak attack dice, adding to your existing total if you already have sneak attack.

[ChubbyRain]

I want to point out that saying "this isn't balanced" in 5e is a lot like saying "this is par for the course".

5e is not as balanced as what people claim it is. Sure everyone does relatively the same damage but some classes don't have to invest to do that damage while others do. Some classes only do damage and can't do much else effectively.

That being said, how I would work this feat. This feat is not for Rogues, though a Rogue could take it. This is to Rogues what Tavern Brawler is to Monks.

Cunning Tactics
- +1 Dex or Int
- Gain a Sneak Attack die (d6) that is usable as the Rogue class feature. The die from this feat does not increase as you level up. It is added to the Rogue's Sneak Attack dice if you have levels in Rogue.
- When you sneak attack a creature you may, as a Bonus Action, use the Disengage Action.

This is a strong feat, yes, however I see it being about on par with Warcaster. It may need some tweaking, I'm thinking that the ability boost may change to Int only. This feat isn't about being as dexterous as the Rogue but being smart enough to pull off similar abilities.

[Finieous]

It's Improved Sneak Attack from Traps & Treachery!

I don't know about "balance," but if you design your feat and it strikes you that every rogue would automatically take it, the design probably needs work. Following the Combat Superiority feat, you probably want to design it so that it's better for non-rogues than it is for rogues. I'm not personally fond of feats that duplicate core class features, including the Combat Superiority feat.

[Wolfsraine]

Just port over Craven:

Gain 1d6 sneak attack damage, if you already have a source of sneak attack you gain an additional die, i.e. If you already have 1d6, with this feat you will have 2d6.
Gain damage equal to your character level whenever you deal sneak attack damage.
You have disadvantage on saving throws vs fear, intimidation, etc.

[Easy_Lee]

Just port over Craven:

Gain 1d6 sneak attack damage, if you already have a source of sneak attack you gain an additional die, i.e. If you already have 1d6, with this feat you will have 2d6.
Gain damage equal to your character level whenever you deal sneak attack damage.
You have disadvantage on saving throws vs fear, intimidation, etc.

That feat is worth 23.5 damage at level 20. I believe that is too much.

[Wolfsraine]

That feat is worth 23.5 damage at level 20. I believe that is too much.

We can restrict the extra damage to be dependant on rogue levels. Then change the d6 to a progression ending somewhere around 3d6 or 4d6 extra dice. I don't think that breaks anything really. Seeing as a pure rogue only ever gets 1 attack, 2 if theyre spending their bonus action, should be rather balanced against the guys hitting 3-4 times a turn with a greatsword. I don't know how much more damage that equates to, but it seems reasonable.

[Finieous]

Seeing as a pure rogue only ever gets 1 attack, 2 if theyre spending their bonus action, should be rather balanced against the guys hitting 3-4 times a turn with a greatsword.

I personally don't think you want to "balance" it against that. YMMV.

[ChubbyRain]

That feat is worth 23.5 damage at level 20. I believe that is too much.

Really?

So how much damage is calling your god to do something or being able to wildshape at will worth?

I think 23.5 isn't worth as much as telling your god you want to do X or being an onion druid.

Level 20 features should be fantastic and I actually think 23.5 damage per round isn't worth being a level 20 feature.

[calebrus]

I personally don't think you want to "balance" it against that. YMMV.

Exactly.
Sneak Attack is already balanced against those guys.
(2d6+5)*4= ~48
1d6+5 attack +10d6 sneak attack +1d6 bonus= ~47

If the greatsword user misses an attack, his average damage total drops to 36
If the rogue misses his first or second attack his average damage total drops to 38.5 or 43.5, respectively.
This is exactly balanced, and this is the reason that the Rogue from the play test lost Extra Attack (which it used to have). Rogues are already the most reliable damage dealers in the game because they only have to hit once to do pretty much all of their potential damage.

[Easy_Lee]

Really?

So how much damage is calling your god to do something or being able to wildshape at will worth?

I think 23.5 isn't worth as much as telling your god you want to do X or being an onion druid.

Level 20 features should be fantastic and I actually think 23.5 damage per round isn't worth being a level 20 feature.

It's not a level 20 feature, it's a feat. It scales up with level, and would easy be the best fest choice on a rogue by a wide margin; that's why it's imbalanced. Further, with the monk, fighter, and particularly ranger capstones in mind, I don't think that this would even be fair as an alternate rogue capstone. If you believe that the class capstones are imbalanced (an you would be right), then you should balance those instead of creating imbalanced feats.

[MadBear]

I want to point out that saying "this isn't balanced" in 5e is a lot like saying "this is par for the course".

5e is not as balanced as what people claim it is. Sure everyone does relatively the same damage but some classes don't have to invest to do that damage while others do. Some classes only do damage and can't do much else effectively.


disagree. 5e has been very well balanced.

[Easy_Lee]

disagree. 5e has been very well balanced.

Comparatively speaking, yeah

[ChubbyRain]

Comparatively speaking, yeah

Pretty much this...

Compared to 3e? Hell yes.
Compared to 4e? Hell no.

Classes compared to each other versus the game? Hell no (Bard can do its own thing and do the ranger's thing, all at an earlier level... Without really optimizing.)

At-will damage: Mostly yes but not always.

Every works off the basic core rules? Yes and No.

Subclasses within a class compared to each other versus the game? Hell no. (Trickery Cleric versus Knowledge Cleric... Necromancy Wizard versus Enchantment Wizard).

So when you only look at 5e and 5e alone the game is not balanced. They somewhat tried but they didn't do it. Maybe if the book wasn't so heavy on the magic and gave martials more options (that isn't just MOAR damage) the game might have been balanced.

But that's kinda off topic.

When it comes to martials everyone always says "skills" but also "feats". The Fighter and Rogue, the most non casterish of them all get more ASI than others. Rogue 6 and Fighter 7 compared to everyone else gaining 5 and in AL and many games feats are a core options that is used. If a feat, a class ability outside what others get, allows them to do a bit more martial damage then that is fine. They need more help at higher levels anyways even though MOAR damage isn't the way to fix things, it at least would make an attempt.

Within a normal day is that boost in damage worth a meteor swarm? Or even a True Polymorph? How about a true resurrection? I'm sorry but that measly damage just doesn't cut it at high levels. How much faster will creatures die with that damage? 1 or 2 rounds faster? If they aren't immune or resistant to the damage type of course.

Doing a bit more damage doesn't make the rogue that much more powerful or special. Just like in 3e, HP damage just isn't impressive. Everyone can boost their damage in some way or with some tactic. A hold person + sneak attack allows you to double weapon and sneak attack damage dice. And this is doable at low levels (which is one of the reasons I'm not a huge assassin fan, sorcerer + rogue makes for a deadly team).

[calebrus]

Compared to 4e? Hell no.

It's easy to make a game balanced when every single class has the exact same combat options, with different fluff, and only a word changed here or there in the crunch.
But I'm not going to start an edition war with Eslin.

[SharkForce]

i would say that they put a lot of effort into making 5e "balanced enough". i'm not sold on the belief that they truly succeeded at high levels, and certainly archetypes are not all equal (though some classes are certainly better than others; i'd say that while all the wizard archetypes are not exactly equal, they each bring some pretty cool things to the table. meanwhile, barbarian almost may as well only have one archetype because so much of berserker's power is tied up in frenzy, which is an absolutely terrible ability).