What if sneak attacking wasn't easy?

[Lalliman]

So in 5e, all that the rogue needs to get their sneak attack is to have an ally within 5 feet of the target, and not have disadvantage on their attack roll. They don't technically need to be flanking, and the rogue needs to have no mechanical advantage as long as the ally is there. This makes sneak attacking markedly easier than in 3rd edition, where the target has to be either flat-footed, or has to be literally flanked.

Now, I'm not here to reminisce about which way is better. But I am wondering: If we took away the pseudo-flanking mechanic, making it so that rogues can only sneak attack when they have advantage, what would the implications of this be?

Obviously sneak attack would be worse, since the rogue is balanced around getting their sneak attack almost every round. But how much worse? How far would we have to raise the damage to compromise? 1d6 per level? 1d10 per two levels? Would this change skew the game strongly in favour of parties with consistent access to advantage-granting abilities?

I'm curious what y'all think.

[Specter]

Rogue would be much worse in combat, and would never be considered for full builds unless you were a mounted combatant or something.

Also, I don't think it's easy: it's common for non-Assassin rogues to have a bad first turn, because usually there's no frontline aid yet. And if your allies get downed, you'll usually have to run or find a hiding place because 1d8+dex doesn't cut it.

But it's a good thing they removed the 3.5 restrictions: back in the day, any fight against oozes, undead and constructs (IIRC) just left rogue players groaning and thinking about how to be useful in combat (if you've played one back in the day, you surely remember that).

[Lalliman]

Rogue would be much worse in combat, and would never be considered for full builds unless you were a mounted combatant or something.
If unmodified, certainly. But what if you gave it a big buff in return, e.g. doubling the amount of sneak attack dice? Raising the damage would do something to offset it, but I imagine that it would hit a threshold where it goes from being terrible to suddenly creating a new master strategy of playing a rogue with a second PC as your dedicated advantage-giver.


Also, I don't think it's easy: it's common for non-Assassin rogues to have a bad first turn, because usually there's no frontline aid yet. And if your allies get downed, you'll usually have to run or find a hiding place because 1d8+dex doesn't cut it.
Maybe not easy, but markedly easier than in 3rd edition, and easier than the name implies too. This question came to mind because I recently started playing with some new players, and they keep repeatedly forgetting that you can get sneak attack just by having an ally nearby. The fact that something called sneak attack can be triggered by something so non-sneaky just doesn't compute with their brains, I think. Not that I'm thinking of changing it, I just wonder what would happen if you did.


But it's a good thing they removed the 3.5 restrictions: back in the day, any fight against oozes, undead and constructs (IIRC) just left rogue players groaning and thinking about how to be useful in combat (if you've played one back in the day, you surely remember that).
Oh yes I remember. Whoever decided that undead are immune to crits must not have seen a lot of zombie media. There was also the wonderful rule where sneak attack doesn't apply if your weapon damage doesn't pierce the target's damage resistance. Rogues are a special type of borked in 3rd edition.

[Cespenar]

This makes sneak attacking markedly easier than in 3rd edition, where the target has to be either flat-footed, or has to be literally flanked.

Remember that you could get SA on every attack in a round back in 3.5, making for some absolutely ridiculous multiattack shenanigans if you could pull it off.

Putting a clause as easy as 5e, coupled with the once in a round rule, clearly intends the rogues to contribute to the fight with the SA damage almost every round.

If you'd limit it to just advantages, assume the options of a generic party to create advantages during a 3 to 5 round fight. Could they do it reliably every other round? Just once? Try to simulate it a little bit, and adjust the damage accordingly.

[Tanarii]

Putting a clause as easy as 5e, coupled with the once in a round rule, clearly intends the rogues to contribute to the fight with the SA damage almost every round. But not necessarily against any target of their choice. As its depending on ally positioning, ability to Hide, or other ways of getting advantage.

Rogue play requires some different tactical thinking, both on the part of the Rogue player, and their allies. IMO it's a good balance as is. Solid and fairly consistent DPR, but different tactics from your typical Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger or Monk.

[OldTrees1]

Consider the impact of removing Sneak Attack entirely and granting some other abilities to fill the vacuum. How much did you need to add? Keep that in the back of your mind.

Looking at the ways for a Rogue to give themselves advantage we have
1) Using Cunning Action to hide
This relies on the 5E skill system which is highly DM dependant and Stealth is even more DM dependent because different DMs will require more elaborate excuses before even allowing you to make an attempt.
2) Flanking/Facing (optional rules the DM might not be using)

Without the "target is adjacent to my ally" clause, the frequency of Sneak Attack becomes severely DM dependent. The more DM dependent something is, the harder it is to answer design questions about balance. Sometimes removing that clause will do little more than cost the Rogue a bonus action each round. Other times you would need to add other abilities as if Sneak Attack were removed (remember from above?).

[Contrast]

You'd be nerfing melee rogues in particular pretty hard. Ranged rogues can get advantage from hiding whereas melee rogues are now either going to be relying on someone else in the party (*coughwolfbarbariancough*) to generate advantage for them or are going to have to do something else more inventive.

Also removes one of the key parts of being a swashbuckler so they'd need tweaking as well.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If unmodified, certainly. But what if you gave it a big buff in return, e.g. doubling the amount of sneak attack dice? Raising the damage would do something to offset it, but I imagine that it would hit a threshold where it goes from being terrible to suddenly creating a new master strategy of playing a rogue with a second PC as your dedicated advantage-giver.
You're correct that there's a threshold where you'd go from "terrible" to "overpowered." The "balance" point is probably [number of rounds/encounter]*[1d6/2 levels]/[number of rounds you'll be able to sneak attack]=[xd6/level]-- the same rough number of damage die thrown out in a particular encounter, divided by the number of times you'd expect to get your sneak attack in. The issue is that I'm not sure there's a balance point that's fun. If you did 1d6/level every two rounds instead of 1d6/2 levels every round, that means that half of your turns are kinda unfun; you're not contributing much. Skewing the balance farther means that you spend more of the encounter feeling like your turns are a waste of time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're correct that there's a threshold where you'd go from "terrible" to "overpowered." The "balance" point is probably [number of rounds/encounter]*[1d6/2 levels]/[number of rounds you'll be able to sneak attack]=[xd6/level]-- the same rough number of damage die thrown out in a particular encounter, divided by the number of times you'd expect to get your sneak attack in. The issue is that I'm not sure there's a balance point that's fun. If you did 1d6/level every two rounds instead of 1d6/2 levels every round, that means that half of your turns are kinda unfun; you're not contributing much. Skewing the balance farther means that you spend more of the encounter feeling like your turns are a waste of time.

And that also makes the balance very sensitive to the conditions. If you can reliably get Super Sneak Attack every turn, you're suddenly blowing things away too fast. And if you can't ever get it (or only half as much), your damage tanks horribly. In the current format, you can usually get it one way if not another just about every turn. And if you can't, it's usually due to poor tactics or because you had to pull away and you weren't getting any damage that turn. This smooths out the balance point quite considerably.

And to the OP: Why would you want this? What benefit does it bring? Why is more variability a good thing? Being dependent on factors that are largely beyond your control (because advantage can be shut down pretty easily) for your effectiveness sucks. Badly.

[2D8HP]

I effectively did just that for the first level of Phandelver.

Occasionally my Rogue could hide first and thus get advantage, but that was rare, and so seldom did anyone stand next to the enemy, allowing Sneak Attack by my Rogue, that we forgot about that option.

My Rogue (with Expertise in Perception and Stealth) main role was as a "scout" with only a marginal role in combat.

The game flamed out just after we reached second level.

It was only in another game that had a high AC and HP Barbarian, that often stood next to the enemy, that I found how effective Sneak Attack could be.

I imagine that eliminating "stand-next-to-sneak-attack" rule would make the Swashbuckler subclass (that can get melee Sneak Attack if the target is near no one else) more attractive, but would make being a single class 1st of 2nd level Rogue less popular.

[Luccan]

I don't think you could rebalance it, really. The advantage/disadvantage system is pretty simple, but kind of wonky (in my opinion). Not only is it going to be difficult to guarantee your Rogue gets advantage on any one round, anything that provides disadvantage means your Rogue automatically can't use sneak attack. It doesn't matter how good your sneak attack is if you never get to use it. This is why they gave it that little extra boost in applicability. Plus, if you can manage to both gain advantage and avoid disadvantage every round, as Grod and others have said, you instead have a super attack that takes out opponents even faster than normal. Suddenly the ability becomes much swingier.