PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Feat: Cloak And Dagger



Goober4473
2016-06-11, 08:33 PM
Looking at the new weapon mastery feat, and especially the concept put forward by the spear mastery feat, I thought it would be cool to have a feat that made daggers a more relevant weapon. Here's what I've got so far:

Cloak And Dagger
You have mastered the art of fighting with a dagger obscured behind a cloak.


When you use a dagger, its damage die changes from a d4 to a d8. [Edit]: d6 instead of d8.
If you are wearing a cloak, wielding a dagger, and have a free hand, you can use a bonus action to use your cloak to mask the movements of your dagger from one opponent. Choose an opponent within 30 feet that you can see and that can see you and make a Charisma (Deception) check opposed by the targetís Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Insight), whichever is higher. If you succeed, you gain advantage on the next attack roll you make with a dagger against that creature during the same turn.
If you are wearing a cloak and have a free hand, you can use a bonus action to use your cloak defensively. When you do, until the start of your next turn, you gain a +2 bonus to your armor class so long as you still wear a cloak and have a free hand. While you have this bonus, you are considered to be wielding a shield.


I had originally planned to give +1 to attacks, as with most of the weapon master feats, but I feel the other effects are powerful enough that it would be too much. I'm also a little conflicted on having an opposed roll as a bonus action in terms of adding extra dice rolls every turn, but it mirrors Shield Master pretty well in that sense, so I think it's fine.

What do you all think?

DracoKnight
2016-06-11, 08:34 PM
I would have it raise to 1d6, instead of 1d8.

Goober4473
2016-06-11, 08:48 PM
I would have it raise to 1d6, instead of 1d8.

That was my original idea, but the other benefits of the feat require an empty hand, meaning the dagger is really being compared more to a rapier than a short sword. Do you think the other benefits are powerful enough to warrant the lower damage die?

DracoKnight
2016-06-11, 09:43 PM
That was my original idea, but the other benefits of the feat require an empty hand, meaning the dagger is really being compared more to a rapier than a short sword. Do you think the other benefits are powerful enough to warrant the lower damage die?

Honestly, yes.

Seruvius
2016-06-12, 05:13 AM
Honestly, yes.

I agree with DracoKnight. The class most likely to want this feat is the Rogue. Giving the rogue a way to pit their deception (with expertise probably) vs someones perception/insight for an advantaged attack is basically giving the rogue sneak attack vs anyone that fails the check. Just for the fact it makes sneak attacking single enemies so much easier, and gives the rogue a nice way to boost their AC. The feat is good as is, making a dagger a d8 rather than a d6 is a bit nasty. On the note of d8 dagger, how does this feat interact with throwing daggers? Does this make them still a d8, or is the d8 only for melee combat?

Final Hyena
2016-06-12, 06:13 AM
Part of me wants to say, sleight of hand makes more sense. The other part says that would empower an already powerful, perhaps too strong feat.

Another aspects is all the extra rolling of opposed checks.
Have you considered keeping the damage at d4 maybe even removing stat mod, but removing the check?

DeAnno
2016-06-12, 07:56 PM
This feat actually seems kind of weak to me, as presented. The Advantage bonus action only applies to one attack, requires a successful opposed check, and competes with Cunning Action. Compare to the Inquisitive's Insightful Fighting, or the Swashbuckler's Rakish Audacity. Neither of those gives Advantage with Sneak Attack, but both are much easier to manage action-wise.

Trading your bonus action for AC means you won't be getting advantage with the earlier ability or using Cunning Action that turn.

Rerem115
2016-06-12, 10:14 PM
Actually, you can use Cunning Action and get bonus AC for the turn. RAW, Cunning Action says "You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action." In other words, Rogues get a second, free bonus action they can use to Dash, Disengage, or Hide.

With this in mind, I would honestly get rid of the bonus AC. Rogues are balanced around dashing through the fight, not standing in the front lines with a shield, and as such, they already have plenty of tools to keep themselves from getting hurt; they don't need a feat that lets them have as much AC as a fighter in full plate.

DracoKnight
2016-06-12, 10:20 PM
Actually, you can use Cunning Action and get bonus AC for the turn. RAW, Cunning Action says "You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action." In other words, Rogues get a second, free bonus action they can use to Dash, Disengage, or Hide.

With this in mind, I would honestly get rid of the bonus AC. Rogues are balanced around dashing through the fight, not standing in the front lines with a shield, and as such, they already have plenty of tools to keep themselves from getting hurt; they don't need a feat that lets them have as much AC as a fighter in full plate.

You only get one bonus action per turn.

Goober4473
2016-06-13, 12:08 AM
I agree with DracoKnight. The class most likely to want this feat is the Rogue. Giving the rogue a way to pit their deception (with expertise probably) vs someones perception/insight for an advantaged attack is basically giving the rogue sneak attack vs anyone that fails the check. Just for the fact it makes sneak attacking single enemies so much easier, and gives the rogue a nice way to boost their AC. The feat is good as is, making a dagger a d8 rather than a d6 is a bit nasty. On the note of d8 dagger, how does this feat interact with throwing daggers? Does this make them still a d8, or is the d8 only for melee combat?

I think dropping it to d6 is probably the thing to do. And as it changes the damage you deal with a dagger, it affects throwing them as much as melee.


Another aspects is all the extra rolling of opposed checks.
Have you considered keeping the damage at d4 maybe even removing stat mod, but removing the check?

See this from OP:


I'm also a little conflicted on having an opposed roll as a bonus action in terms of adding extra dice rolls every turn, but it mirrors Shield Master pretty well in that sense, so I think it's fine.




This feat actually seems kind of weak to me, as presented. The Advantage bonus action only applies to one attack, requires a successful opposed check, and competes with Cunning Action. Compare to the Inquisitive's Insightful Fighting, or the Swashbuckler's Rakish Audacity. Neither of those gives Advantage with Sneak Attack, but both are much easier to manage action-wise.

I'd compare it mostly to Shield Master. Bonus action to get advantage on one attack, including a ranged attack, since you can throw a dagger, but on only one attack. You don't need shield proficiency, which is quite nice for a rogue, who also only makes one attack per turn anyways. Plus, knocking someone prone might interfere with your ranged allies. I think it compares pretty well, given that the other effects of Shield Master are fairly small.


Trading your bonus action for AC means you won't be getting advantage with the earlier ability or using Cunning Action that turn.

The AC trade is mainly for situation where you either already have advantage, don't need it, or don't want to make an attack.


Actually, you can use Cunning Action and get bonus AC for the turn. RAW, Cunning Action says "You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action." In other words, Rogues get a second, free bonus action they can use to Dash, Disengage, or Hide.

1) No, Cunning Action is not a bonus bonus action. It just lets you spend your bonus action to do those things. There is no way to get more than one bonus action per turn in all of published rules.
2) None of the three options give you bonus AC. Hide can make you hidden, but only if you can actually hide.


they don't need a feat that lets them have as much AC as a fighter in full plate.

So Moderately Armored is out then?

Rerem115
2016-06-13, 12:24 PM
1) No, Cunning Action is not a bonus bonus action. It just lets you spend your bonus action to do those things. There is no way to get more than one bonus action per turn in all of published rules.
2) None of the three options give you bonus AC. Hide can make you hidden, but only if you can actually hide.


Yes, Cunning Action is really that stupid good. If all it did was let you use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide, it would read "You can use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." However, there are a few phrases that show that it gives a second bonus action, namely, "You get a bonus action", and "this bonus action can only be used to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." If Cunning Action only altered your regular bonus action, two-weapon rogues couldn't use their bonus action to attack! Ergo, Cunning action is a bonus bonus action.

While none of the options listed in Cunning Action give direct bonuses to AC, they do indirectly make the Rogue harder to hit, because of the increased mobility it offers; if the enemy can't catch you, they can't hit you.

As for Moderately Armored, I think I should have clarified my position. With Moderately Armored, you give up an ASI to gain Medium Armor and Shields. I'm fine with that; if you feel that giving up an ASI or another feat is worth essentially +2 AC, that's your call. What I didn't like about Cloak and Dagger was that it gave +2 AC, an easier sneak attack, and inexpensive throw-able rapiers. While I know that you can't use the easy sneak attack at the same time you get the AC bonus, the option is still there; in the campaigns I'm in, I've been far more likely to have an ally standing next to an enemy and me wishing for a shield than be alone and wish for a sneak attack.

JNAProductions
2016-06-13, 12:27 PM
Yes, Cunning Action is really that stupid good. If all it did was let you use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide, it would read "You can use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." However, there are a few phrases that show that it gives a second bonus action, namely, "You get a bonus action", and "this bonus action can only be used to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." If Cunning Action only altered your regular bonus action, two-weapon rogues couldn't use their bonus action to attack! Ergo, Cunning action is a bonus bonus action.

While none of the options listed in Cunning Action give direct bonuses to AC, they do indirectly make the Rogue harder to hit, because of the increased mobility it offers; if the enemy can't catch you, they can't hit you.

As for Moderately Armored, I think I should have clarified my position. With Moderately Armored, you give up an ASI to gain Medium Armor and Shields. I'm fine with that; if you feel that giving up an ASI or another feat is worth essentially +2 AC, that's your call. What I didn't like about Cloak and Dagger was that it gave +2 AC, an easier sneak attack, and inexpensive throw-able rapiers. While I know that you can't use the easy sneak attack at the same time you get the AC bonus, the option is still there; in the campaigns I'm in, I've been far more likely to have an ally standing next to an enemy and me wishing for a shield than be alone and wish for a sneak attack.

I don't know if it's RAW (though I'm pretty sure it's not), but it's definitely not RAI. In addition, name one DM who'd allow that at their table. One.

Amnoriath
2016-06-13, 12:32 PM
Yes, Cunning Action is really that stupid good. If all it did was let you use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide, it would read "You can use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." However, there are a few phrases that show that it gives a second bonus action, namely, "You get a bonus action", and "this bonus action can only be used to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." If Cunning Action only altered your regular bonus action, two-weapon rogues couldn't use their bonus action to attack! Ergo, Cunning action is a bonus bonus action.


That is because normally bonus actions do not exist as they aren't just merely dormant. You can only ever have one bonus action unless it would explicitly say otherwise like "another", "in addition", or "one more". Quote from the PHB, 189 "The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise donít have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available."

Amnoriath
2016-06-13, 12:35 PM
The feat is almost perfect as it but I would have to agree with a lot of others here that the damage increase is a bit much. Consider that by doing so you are allowing them to have a Light rapier that can be thrown. A d6 is plenty good as it is a more versatile short sword instead.

Sir cryosin
2016-06-16, 09:32 AM
Yes, Cunning Action is really that stupid good. If all it did was let you use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide, it would read "You can use your bonus action to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." However, there are a few phrases that show that it gives a second bonus action, namely, "You get a bonus action", and "this bonus action can only be used to Dash, Disengage, or Hide." If Cunning Action only altered your regular bonus action, two-weapon rogues couldn't use their bonus action to attack! Ergo, Cunning action is a bonus bonus action.

While none of the options listed in Cunning Action give direct bonuses to AC, they do indirectly make the Rogue harder to hit, because of the increased mobility it offers; if the enemy can't catch you, they can't hit you.

As for Moderately Armored, I think I should have clarified my position. With Moderately Armored, you give up an ASI to gain Medium Armor and Shields. I'm fine with that; if you feel that giving up an ASI or another feat is worth essentially +2 AC, that's your call. What I didn't like about Cloak and Dagger was that it gave +2 AC, an easier sneak attack, and inexpensive throw-able rapiers. While I know that you can't use the easy sneak attack at the same time you get the AC bonus, the option is still there; in the campaigns I'm in, I've been far more likely to have an ally standing next to an enemy and me wishing for a shield than be alone and wish for a sneak attack.

You do not have a bonus action unless something grants you one and in this case it cunning action. So if you don't have something giving you a bonus action you don't have one. There for you one have one for cunning action.

Gr7mm Bobb
2016-06-16, 10:28 AM
You do not have a bonus action unless something grants you one and in this case it cunning action. So if you don't have something giving you a bonus action you don't have one. There for you one have one for cunning action.

Agreed, original write up of DnD NEXT ran with an unlimited number of bonus actions, but the rogue is literally the class that ruined it for everybody. No joke, being able to move full, stab*, disengage, dash, then hide was oppressive as all get out and bogged down the game. That's why they moved to make it so you only have one of each action a round. The fighter is the only guy who truly breaks those rules. Hopefully that misconception has been thoroughly portrayed with the multiple different people nodding in agreement.