DM refusing sneak attacks

[varunrana]

Hi,

So I'm fairly new to DnD and I'm playing an arcane trickster.

My DM seems to not want me to use sneak attack very often and keeps coming up with reasons why I don't have it.

He thinks the ally within 5 ft rule is broken. So he said I can't use this unless the enemy is actively engaged with my ally and can't see me. Is this normal? Do most DMs play it this way or with the RAW? I don't really understand what he means by engaged.

Anyway I can live with that so I started using my owl familiar to give me advantage. From what I understand If the owl uses the Help action before my turn I get sneak attack. But he seems to think that too much time passes between the owl's action and my attack for the enemy to be distracted. We had a bit of a discussion about it and he decided to reluctantly let me use the owl this way. But he did seem to be annoyed by my attacks.

Again I thought using the owl this way was pretty common, just want to know if I'm wrong about anything? Does it matter how much time passes between the owl using the help action and my attack if it's in the same round?

Also he had some constructs that had blind sense. He said that I can't have melee sneak attacks on the constructs because they always know where I am. And as I've stated earlier I can't use the adjacent ally rule.

Does blind sense negate sneak attack?

From what I understand sneak attack is a broad term in 5e used to describe any time in which I have to ability to find and attack a weak spot and not just that I attack when hidden. Is this correct? And if so is there any detailed official description of this that I can show him?

I was hoping you guys could tell me if I am doing something wrong or if there's something I don't understand about sneak attacks. I thought rogues were meant to be able to get sneak attack on most of their turns.

He seems to think sneak attack is over powered is there any kind of comparison of damage between the different classes that I can show him? Is it actually over powered?

The last thing I want to do is cause any trouble especially for the DM. Is it worth me continuing as a rogue or should I ask if I can make a new character in a different class?

Sorry there are so many questions, I just really want to make sure I have this right before I play anymore.

Thank you for all your help.

[JNAProductions]

Your DM is needing you heavily-you’ve read the rules right.

I’d consider that to be pretty unfair-especially if the DM did not tell you this before the game started.

I’m not a fan of Find Familiar used in that way, but it’s RAW, and considering that the DM has completely gimped access to regular sneak attack...

[GreyBlack]

Ask if you can change class. The rogue is awesome, but that nerf is a little too much.

[moonfly7]

This is so unfair to you. Rogues need sneak the way they have it, you really need the flanking use here. Turns in a single round are supposed to be at the same time, same 6 seconds. So no, it is unfair. I don't know what you should do, but you should talk to your dm about it.

[MeeposFire]

In 5e (much like 4e) rogues are actually expected to get sneak attacks almost every round. That is why they made it so easy to get. If the DM wants to make it a more rare to use ability then he needs to do the work to give the rogue the ability to deal more damage when not getting sneak attack such as giving it extra attack.

Your DM has it backwards. A rogue not getting to use sneak attack is typically the exception while getting sneak attack is the norm. The only needing an ally nearby is to facilitate that and it is not broken. Rogue damage is nice but nothing insane even though it looks like it would be when you roll all of those dice.

[DeTess]

Sneak attack is not over-powered. Its not bad, but all it does is let the rogue fight on an even footing with everyone else, which is exactly as it should be. A rogue at 5th level gets about 10 bonus damage from their sneak attack, which is roughly equivalent to what someone with extra attack would get from their second attack if they where using a 2-hander. If you add in things that boost damage, like rage, martial superiority die, great weapon master or similar, rogue gets left behind.

If you want to discuss this with your DM, I suggest doing so either before or after a session, as its generally bad form to start such a discussion during everyone's playtime. I'd suggest asking the DM to explain why he thinks sneak attack is overpowered and ask for (and/or supply) some actual numbers. Xd6 isn't as impressive as it looks, as each d6 only adds about 3.5 damage on average, so a rpgue at 5th level would maybe do 4d6+4 damage (short-sword+ sneak attack) for 18 average, while a fighter with a great sword would do would do 2 times 2d6+4 (22 average). A sword and board fighter would do 2 times 1d8+6 (assuming they are using the dueling fighting style) for 21 average damage. A barbarian fighting with a great axe or greatsword while raging will do even more damage (2 times 2d6+6 for 26 average).

[JNAProductions]

Randuir has an excellent point, in that you should address the DM outside of a session. Mid-session arguments are not a good idea-though I do sincerely hope your DM is reasonable and doesn't make it devolve to argumentation.

[sithlordnergal]

Your DM is nerfing your sneak attack to the point where it is unusable, plain and simple. I suspect your DM is new to 5e, because back in 3.5 it was far harder for a Rogue to get sneak attack. Keep using the familiar option though, the aid will work

[Kane0]

You are expected to be able to sneak attack more often than not.
Which is the same in 3.PF, except you typically wont be full attacking as well since you need to get into flanks or maneuver into position.
You may want to point out to your DM that rogues only ever get one attack per round.

[JNAProductions]

You are expected to be able to sneak attack more often than not.
Which is the same in 3.PF, except you typically wont be full attacking as well since you need to get into flanks or maneuver into position.
You may want to point out to your DM that rogues only ever get one attack per round.

And, even if they DO get bonus attacks (TWF, Haste, five levels of a martial class) Sneak Attack is still once per turn.

[Rynjin]

What about 5e attracts people like this guy's GM, that have no concept of game design or balance and yet try to rebalance their games anyway?

I mean it was a thing in 3.5 and PF too when they were on top, but this particular brand of asinine stupidity seems to be more common with 5e for some reason.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Your DM is being unfair. There's no other way to say it-- Sneak Attack is the Rogue's main feature, it's how they contribute to fights, and they're expected to get it pretty much every round. Not giving it to them is like saying a Wizard has to take ten minutes to cast any spell; you're rendering the character pretty much incapable of fighting. I think your DM might be getting hung up on the name. Try pointing out that it's more "Backstab" than "Sneak."


What about 5e attracts people like this guy's GM, that have no concept of game design or balance and yet try to rebalance their games anyway?

I mean it was a thing in 3.5 and PF too when they were on top, but this particular brand of asinine stupidity seems to be more common with 5e for some reason.
Bad DMs unfairly nerfed Sneak Attack pretty often in 3e, too, to be fair. (Hell, Pathfinder nerfed Sneak Attack)

[Misterwhisper]

What about 5e attracts people like this guy's GM, that have no concept of game design or balance and yet try to rebalance their games anyway?

I mean it was a thing in 3.5 and PF too when they were on top, but this particular brand of asinine stupidity seems to be more common with 5e for some reason.

Because 5e is the game that lazy dms who don’t want to learn a lot of rules run.

That is not insulting to dms in general only to the lazy ones.

We used to play pathfinder, nwod, exalted, and shadowrun, now every dm just wants to run 5e because it is so rules lax.

[Razgriez]

The reason why Sneak Attack is so easy to access in 5e, is because Rogues pretty much play by the creed of "All-or-Nothing" in combat. Especially when it comes to their standard attack actions. If a Rogue is ever making a 2nd attack per turn, unless they're a Swashbuckler, they're typically either making a significant investment, sacrifice, or gamble to make it happen (such as X-Bow Expert Feat, or Multi-classing for Extra Attack, or trying to make an off-hand bonus attack, and therefore sticking them into melee combat with limited defense and unable to Cunning Action: Disengage). If a Rogue can't sneak attack, they are losing an overwhelming amount of their total damage potential.

As the others pointed out, Sneak Attack also can only occur once per the Rogue's turn. The only way to get it to happen more than once per round, is typically through a Reaction based event (such as an Opportunity Attack or from a certain Battle Master Fighter maneuver), which counts as another "turn" for the Rogue (though I fear if your DM was to realize this, they'd come up with another baffling and non-sense rule)

Your DM's call about "Oh it takes to long between your familiar's "Aid Another/Help" action and your turn" also makes no sense. because D&D as far as I remember since 3rd edition, has had each round happen during a simultaneous 6 seconds. Everyone is basically taking actions all during these 6 second rounds.

Is your DM seriously just only nerfing your Rogue, or are they nerfing every single other class. and even so, why?


Because 5e is the game that lazy dms who don’t want to learn a lot of rules run.

That is not insulting to dms in general only to the lazy ones.

We used to play pathfinder, nwod, exalted, and shadowrun, now every dm just wants to run 5e because it is so rules lax.

Uhm, what?:smallconfused: Yea people like 5e because it is streamlined and simplifies some of the rules, but to call people lazy because of that? I strongly disagree.

Further more, that's not the issue here. the issue here is that OP's DM has come up with a bunch of convoluted and nonsensical rules to severely limit a class' core source of damage/abilities.

[MeeposFire]

Because 5e is the game that lazy dms who don’t want to learn a lot of rules run.

That is not insulting to dms in general only to the lazy ones.

We used to play pathfinder, nwod, exalted, and shadowrun, now every dm just wants to run 5e because it is so rules lax.

This does not follow. In this example the DM knows the rule but decided it was too powerful (I would disagree with that assertion) and changed it. This is an example of a houserule not of a DM who did not know the rule. Further I have not noticed 5e DMs being anymore lazy than other editions personally.

Now as for why this is probably an example of a DM that had played a version of a game where such an ability was more rarely used (RAW backstab in pre 3e was much harder to pull off and was more of a rare special attack), afraid of a lot dice being rolled as being too much damage even though it really is around the curve of other weapon users, thinks that something called "sneak attack" needs to be more sneaky to be used due to the name, or possibly some combo of these. It is also possible that they may not have noticed the once per turn clause which some people do miss.

[djreynolds]

Who is your DM?

Is this Adventurer's League?

As a DM if your Owl is annoying me, I kill it. I kill familiars all the time, that's just me. Familiars are fair game.

Get a new DM.

[Whit]

He is wrong and nerfed you pretty hard. I do agree that the find familiar is annoying that way but it’s easy to remove.

As for not letting you get sneak attack, then I wold tell him if you still want to play with him that is “ I want to change my character since you are reducing the rogues abilities.
If he says no. Then either he has a grudge against you or just a bad dm.

[LudicSavant]

Is this normal? Do most DMs play it this way or with the RAW?

It is most definitely not normal. The devs have even commented that the game is basically balanced with the assumption that Rogues will be able to find a way to sneak attack pretty much every turn.

[Digimike]

Tell him you want to reroll paladin. Then he'll see what insane DPR looks like.

[JakOfAllTirades]

He's a jerk.

Find a new DM.

[The Kool]

Tell him you want to reroll paladin. Then he'll see what insane DPR looks like.

Multiclass it with a Warlock or something, I've heard this can burst insanely well.

[Kalashak]

What about 5e attracts people like this guy's GM, that have no concept of game design or balance and yet try to rebalance their games anyway?

I mean it was a thing in 3.5 and PF too when they were on top, but this particular brand of asinine stupidity seems to be more common with 5e for some reason.

There are a whole lot of new people coming into the hobby, this sort of thing is pretty common with new DMs.

[crayzz]

Hi,

So I'm fairly new to DnD and I'm playing an arcane trickster.

My DM seems to not want me to use sneak attack very often and keeps coming up with reasons why I don't have it.

He thinks the ally within 5 ft rule is broken. So he said I can't use this unless the enemy is actively engaged with my ally and can't see me. Is this normal? Do most DMs play it this way or with the RAW? I don't really understand what he means by engaged.

Anyway I can live with that so I started using my owl familiar to give me advantage. From what I understand If the owl uses the Help action before my turn I get sneak attack. But he seems to think that too much time passes between the owl's action and my attack for the enemy to be distracted. We had a bit of a discussion about it and he decided to reluctantly let me use the owl this way. But he did seem to be annoyed by my attacks.

Again I thought using the owl this way was pretty common, just want to know if I'm wrong about anything? Does it matter how much time passes between the owl using the help action and my attack if it's in the same round?

Also he had some constructs that had blind sense. He said that I can't have melee sneak attacks on the constructs because they always know where I am. And as I've stated earlier I can't use the adjacent ally rule.

Does blind sense negate sneak attack?

From what I understand sneak attack is a broad term in 5e used to describe any time in which I have to ability to find and attack a weak spot and not just that I attack when hidden. Is this correct? And if so is there any detailed official description of this that I can show him?

I was hoping you guys could tell me if I am doing something wrong or if there's something I don't understand about sneak attacks. I thought rogues were meant to be able to get sneak attack on most of their turns.

He seems to think sneak attack is over powered is there any kind of comparison of damage between the different classes that I can show him? Is it actually over powered?

The last thing I want to do is cause any trouble especially for the DM. Is it worth me continuing as a rogue or should I ask if I can make a new character in a different class?

Sorry there are so many questions, I just really want to make sure I have this right before I play anymore.

Thank you for all your help.

Everyone else is spot on. I just wanna single out the "too much time passes" part: in terms of actual time, everyones turn is happening basically simultaneously. All turns in a round happen within the same ~6sec interval, whether theres 6 people involved or 60.

Your DM is making some really weird, rather baseless rulings.

[Segev]

You also get sneak attack just for being hidden. Use your bonus action to hide every turn. Get smoke bombs or something if the DM claims you lack sufficient concealment to hide.

[The Kool]

Unless you can convince the DM that you are supposed to and expected to get your sneak attack all the time, that it is balanced and makes sense, nothing you do will get you regular sneak attacks. This DM has proven they will bend over backwards and change the rules to make it conform to their idea of fair, so the only way to succeed here is to get them on the same page of what fair is. If they refuse to, then you might be able to get by avoiding the classes or abilities they dislike. If not, then give up...

[Hail Tempus]

A Rogue who isn’t getting sneak attack 80%+ of the time isn’t really contributing to the party. The class is designed around SA in combat.

Your DM doesn’t understand this. A good DM could easily look up how the Rogue class is supposed to function, but your DM clearly hasn’t bothered. You should find another DM, or start your own game.

[Jamesps]

This is kind of ridiculous and will get more and more so as you level. At tier one having a rogue without sneak attack puts them on par with the sorceror using a crossbow. I mean sure, you have no spells, but at least you're not being outperformed by the weakest member of the party when they're opting not to use any special abilities.

But imagine being 20th level and not getting your sneak attack as a rogue? You're a 20th level character that does d8+5 damage once per round.

I mean the healthiest thing to do would be to talk to the GM about how ridiculous this is, but honestly I'd be tempted to just refuse to make attack rolls without sneak attack. Ask if you can make an attack with your damage bonus, and if you can't just cunning action outa there.

[mephnick]

There are a whole lot of new people coming into the hobby, this sort of thing is pretty common with new DMs.

Pretty much. I remember new DMs nerfing Monks in 3.5 because they had "so many awesome features" when they were easily one of the worst classes in the system.

[Laserlight]

Assuming your DM doesn't correct his mistaken ruling, take a PAM fighter or archery-style+sharpshooter and show him what "excessive damage" looks like.

Or find a reasonable DM.

[Particle_Man]

Yeah, if you lose sneak attacks you will likely be happier with a different class. The bard, perhaps.

[Telok]

Your DM doesn’t understand this. A good DM could easily look up how the Rogue class is supposed to function, but your DM clearly hasn’t bothered. You should find another DM, or start your own game.

Honest question here: Where?

I know the online community has come to that consensus but where is it in the books? I don't remember noting it anywhere when I read them. It's obvious that rogues have sneak attack, but I'm not certain that is says anywhere that they are assumed to get it nearly all the time.

I can't say that Misterwhisper is absolutely right (my experience more closely parallels Kalashak), but the DMs I know that want to only run 5e all want it for the 'new' and the 'easy' based on the billing of newer editions being better at everything and easy meaning that they don't have to read and absorb every sentence of the DMG. I've seen number of 'rulings not rules' used with the idea that you don't have to understand the purpose and function of the current rules before making a ruling on them.

[varunrana]

Hi, thanks for all the responses.

I'm glad everyone has confirmed I'm not doing anything wrong.

As for finding a new game/DM like many people suggested. It's not really an option, this is the only game I know of in my area.

Is there anything I can show him which explains the developer's intent regarding getting sneak attack every round?

Also me and another player have tried talking to him about it but he is still adamant that sneak attack is broken.

Did anyone have the answer regarding blind sense, does it negate my sneak attack?

Thanks for all the help.

[Segev]

If he won’t be convinced and will keep denying you your class feature, ask to change characters on the grounds that you aren’t having fun with this one without sneak attack.

[Innocent_bystan]

.
Is there anything I can show him which explains the developer's intent regarding getting sneak attack every round?
Sure, one of the developers tweeted about it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1051956159387656193

[JakOfAllTirades]

Assuming your DM doesn't correct his mistaken ruling, take a PAM fighter or archery-style+sharpshooter and show him what "excessive damage" looks like.

Or find a reasonable DM.

Going this route will most likely result in the DM nerfing the new character once they see how much damage it does. Some DM's are just convinced they have to "fix" everything, and this guy sounds like a typical example. There's no reasoning with them.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Hi, thanks for all the responses.

I'm glad everyone has confirmed I'm not doing anything wrong.

As for finding a new game/DM like many people suggested. It's not really an option, this is the only game I know of in my area.

Is there anything I can show him which explains the developer's intent regarding getting sneak attack every round?

Also me and another player have tried talking to him about it but he is still adamant that sneak attack is broken.

Did anyone have the answer regarding blind sense, does it negate my sneak attack?

Thanks for all the help.
Blindsense don't do a thing with your sneak attack, it only make it harder to hide.

If you can't get a new DM then ask him what he thinks broken and just don't use the "broken stuff". If he will nerf then too tell him the he sent you to this class and ask him why he nerf all the things you use. At that point I will leave even if there is no other game in the area but you may try to use the same stuff as other PC so he will have to nerf 2 PCs if he is after you.

[DeTess]

I decided to do a bit of actual math. For these calculations, I assumed an AC of 16 for the target. The rogue is armed with a rapier. One fighter has a longsword and the duelist fighting style, the other one has a greatsword. The barbarian is raging and recklessly attacking and has a greataxe. I didn't take crits into account, and I assumed the attacking stat (dex or strength) was 20 at all levels

https://i.ibb.co/Yp6Ss5s/DPR-graph.png



As you can see, rogue without sneak attack is better than a cantrip-slinging spellcaster at levels 1-5, and then worse than even that. Rogue with sneak attack, on the other hand, is competitive with the fighter at most levels, and also with the barbarian at high levels.

[Mikal]

Hi, thanks for all the responses.

I'm glad everyone has confirmed I'm not doing anything wrong.

As for finding a new game/DM like many people suggested. It's not really an option, this is the only game I know of in my area.

.

Same place you asked this question.
The internet!
Plenty of games can be found at roll20.net and Reddit’s lfg area.

[Hail Tempus]

Honest question here: Where?

I know the online community has come to that consensus but where is it in the books? I don't remember noting it anywhere when I read them. It's obvious that rogues have sneak attack, but I'm not certain that is says anywhere that they are assumed to get it nearly all the time. Without having to spend time looking up online discussions of sneak attack (some of which include the game designers’ thinking, and mathematical analysis of how much damage the rogue puts out), all a DM has to do is just let a rogue use sneak attack as written in the PHB. If you’re not putting extra limitations on when sneak attack occurs, you’ll find that the sneak attack rules result in the rogue getting sneak attack in the large majority of instances.

I know it’s kind of a circular argument, but if the natural result of applying the sneak attack rules as written is the rogue sneak attacking 80% or more of the time, that leads to the conclusion that is the intent of the sneak attack feature.

[Constructman]

Yeah, you need to clear this up with your DM, or find a new one.

In the future, should you find a table with more reasonable interpetations of Sneak Attack but still find it hard to come by, might I recommend the Swashbuckler from the SCAG and the Inquisitive from XGtE? The former can get Sneak Attack on a target as long as your target is the only creature within 5 feet of you, while the latter can get automatic Sneak Attack on a target for up to 1 minute if you can beat it in an Insight vs Deception contest.

[Particle_Man]

There is another option: become a dm yourself. Then the players (including the other dm if a player in your group) can see the rogue in action.

[GooeyChewie]

I agree with the "discuss with DM outside of a session" thing. Rogues often intimidate less experienced DMs because they can do so much damage in one hit. Sometimes they don't quite put together the fact that other martial classes are doing just as much damage, just spread out over multiple attacks in the same attack action. Getting Sneak Attack on a fairly consistent basis is just as important to Rogues as Extra Attack is to Fighters. If the DM still does not want to play Sneak Attack rules as written, then I agree with asking to change classes on the basis that you aren't getting to use your main class feature.

[varunrana]

I decided to do a bit of actual math. For these calculations, I assumed an AC of 16 for the target. The rogue is armed with a rapier. One fighter has a longsword and the duelist fighting style, the other one has a greatsword. The barbarian is raging and recklessly attacking and has a greataxe. I didn't take crits into account, and I assumed the attacking stat (dex or strength) was 20 at all levels

https://i.ibb.co/Yp6Ss5s/DPR-graph.png



As you can see, rogue without sneak attack is better than a cantrip-slinging spellcaster at levels 1-5, and then worse than even that. Rogue with sneak attack, on the other hand, is competitive with the fighter at most levels, and also with the barbarian at high levels.

This graph is a great help, thank you.

[Guy Lombard-O]

There's another possibility of what's going on with that DM. And I don't know that the DM (who is almost assuredly new to 5e) is actually going to be convinced that Sneak Attack needs to hit most of the time for a rogue to keep up in combat, if he doesn't think that rogues should keep up with martials in combat.

As others have pointed out, 5e has attracted a lot of new players recently. Some of those players, GMs specifically, would rather being playing a different game system. But as the recent stats show, 5e is where the players are for the most part. So it's possible that your DM feels stuck with a 5e game, even though he'd actually prefer a different system.

I've met DMs who strongly dislike how all of the classes can contribute even semi-equally to combat. This includes even some old-school AD&D players. They tend to feel like the martial characters should really shine in combat, and if others are stuck with the status of also-ran during combat, that's okay. The thief should scout and check traps, the magic user can blow up the mooks occasionally and do wondrous things out of combat (like teleports and divinations), and the clerics can take a few hits and healbot. But generally, the non-fighters should just live with throwing darts and hitting something with a short sword now and then during combat, while the fighter brings down the pain. The other characters will shine during non-combat pillars of the game.

If your DM has this attitude, you're not going to convince him/her with a numerical DPR output comparison. My guess is they'll nerf cantrip damage leveling as well, once you hit 5th level.

In that kind of game, you're probably stuck either playing a martial class, or hoping that combat's a rarity and that the DM does a lot of social/exploration pillar activities in the game, and does them well. Or, possibly, play something new to his experience which isn't yet pigeon-holed in his brain, like a warlock or bard?

Anyhow, good luck with it!

[varunrana]

Yeah, you need to clear this up with your DM, or find a new one.

In the future, should you find a table with more reasonable interpetations of Sneak Attack but still find it hard to come by, might I recommend the Swashbuckler from the SCAG and the Inquisitive from XGtE? The former can get Sneak Attack on a target as long as your target is the only creature within 5 feet of you, while the latter can get automatic Sneak Attack on a target for up to 1 minute if you can beat it in an Insight vs Deception contest.

Thing is if he followed the raw I would consistently get sneak attack as the party includes a barbarian monk that is always next to the target in combat.

Besides if he won't let me have the normal 5ft rule then I highly doubt that he'll let me use swashbuckler rules.

He seems to think sneak attack can only happen if you're hidden. I feel like they messed up with the naming. They should have called it Advantageous Attack or something along those lines.

What I don't understand is that he thinks I'm over powered but the party includes a barbarian/monk and a cleric/wizard.

They both do far more damage each round than I ever do.

Anyway thanks for all the help I was thinking I might ask to switch characters and make a PAM, GWM, Sentinel Fighter instead.

[Yunru]

the party includes a barbarian/monk

They both do far more damage each round than I ever do.

Now I know there's something wrong at your table :P
(Seriously, Barbarian/Monks render themselves subpar just getting the stats to be able to be a thing, they don't have a way to be effective too. I suspect more house-rules?)

[varunrana]

Now I know there's something wrong at your table :P
(Seriously, Barbarian/Monks render themselves subpar just getting the stats to be able to be a thing, they don't have a way to be effective too. I suspect more house-rules?)

Think he has only one level in monk, and they home-brewed some stuff to take away his disadvantage when making melee hits or something.

Mostly he uses an axe.

[The Glyphstone]

So your primary advantage is getting nerfed, and the primary disadvantage of the other players is being houseruled away. No wonder you can't do anything in combat.

[varunrana]

So your primary advantage is getting nerfed, and the primary disadvantage of the other players is being houseruled away. No wonder you can't do anything in combat.

Like i said he is letting me use the owl method most of the time but he made me feel so guilty that I stopped making booming blade melee attacks and just fired arrows for the rest of the session.

[ProphetSword]

Anyway thanks for all the help I was thinking I might ask to switch characters and make a PAM, GWM, Sentinel Fighter instead.

As a DM with over 30+ years of experience, I've run every version of D&D that exists. When a new system comes out, sometimes it changes the game in ways that seem overpowered on paper, but really aren't in practice. My knee-jerk reaction when I started running 5e was that the rogue was going to be overpowered due to the constant sneak attacks, as this definitely would have been the case in some previous versions of the system.

This turned out to be a non-issue, though, and I'm glad I stuck to my rule of running things as intended before making any changes (I don't feel the DM should change any system before running it as written first, but some people just can't help themselves). In fact, the rogue needed sneak attack to stay competitive with everyone else in the party, and this became clear after a couple of levels.

Your DM may need time to realize this. I think it would be a shame if you didn't stick to your guns in order to see this through. Changing classes because the DM has nerfed the class you have chosen to play is basically rewarding the bad behavior of the DM. Why would anyone ever play a rogue in any game run by that DM if they continue to do this? They wouldn't. So, caving in on this point will lead to future games where rogues don't exist except as NPCs.

A better approach could be to stay with the rogue. Use this thread and others on the Internet to help make your point in a non-confrontational way. Show off all the charts you can find (the one in this thread is not the only one that exists showing the damage output of characters across the levels, I can promise that). Show what the developers intended in tweets, and carefully explain that using sneak attack regularly is by intentional design.

I wouldn't expect you to stick with it if you don't want to or if you aren't having fun, but you can sometimes get through to even the most stubborn of DMs with a little time and patience. And, if you do, your play time will be better for it in the end.

[bid]

(Seriously, Barbarian/Monks render themselves subpar just getting the stats to be able to be a thing, they don't have a way to be effective too. I suspect more house-rules?)
Beside this MADness making unarmored defense underwhelming, the MC rules explicitely "destroys" the duplicate feature from the second class. If you start barbarian, you can only use 10+Dex+Con and never 10+Dex+Wis.

[varunrana]

A better approach could be to stay with the rogue. Use this thread and others on the Internet to help make your point in a non-confrontational way. Show off all the charts you can find (the one in this thread is not the only one that exists showing the damage output of characters across the levels, I can promise that). Show what the developers intended in tweets, and carefully explain that using sneak attack regularly is by intentional design.

I wouldn't expect you to stick with it if you don't want to or if you aren't having fun, but you can sometimes get through to even the most stubborn of DMs with a little time and patience. And, if you do, your play time will be better for it in the end.

I appreciate what you are saying. I really want to keep playing the rogue but I don't think it's doable with the rules the DM has.

I want to try and convince him and show him all the evidence I have but I actually barely know the people I'm playing with. They were kind enough to invite a stranger to their existing game.

The last thing I want to do is upset anyone and lose the game entirely. I've been wanting to play DnD since I was a kid I just didn't have anyone who wanted to try it with me. I also don't want to be resentful whenever I play the rogue because I can't do what I'm supposed to.

The more I think about it, I feel like I should just ask him to use the RAW for the sneak attack or let me make a new character if not.

I just wish he'd told me his home rules before we started playing. I wouldn't have gone with rogue in the first place if he had.

[Cygnia]

The last thing I want to do is upset anyone and lose the game entirely. I've been wanting to play DnD since I was a kid I just didn't have anyone who wanted to try it with me. I also don't want to be resentful whenever I play the rogue because I can't do what I'm supposed to.

Trust me on this -- Having no game is better than bad game. If you are not having fun in this game and if this GM refuses to consider any sort of reason or compromise -- LEAVE. You have plenty of options to play online via PBP/PbEM.

[Xihirli]

I’d like to reiterate that you can become a DM yourself and it’s easier than you think. Get two or three of your friends to play through a module with you as the DM.

Yes, at first you’ll get the rules wrong but you’ll get better.

[varunrana]

I’d like to reiterate that you can become a DM yourself and it’s easier than you think. Get two or three of your friends to play through a module with you as the DM.

Yes, at first you’ll get the rules wrong but you’ll get better.

Literally none of my friends want to try DnD I've been trying for years.

[Fnissalot]

We run our games without a grid and minis and we run sneak attack as usable as long as you don't have disadvantage on the attack and that has worked very well so far. It makes it a lot cleaner to run encounters and the rogue does still not do the most damage.

[CantigThimble]

While I understand people's concern that this is a bad group and the OP should leave, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Lots of people have a few weird hangups that they're a bit unreasonable about, but are otherwise totally fine. They often get over those hangups with time too. It's possible this DM just has that kind of hangup on sneak attack being used every round, when it was much more difficult to pull off in previous editions.

The plan of asking the DM to either play it RAW or let you change characters seems like a good one. Most DMs who houserule anything will let their players change their PC if houserules affect them in unexpected ways. (If he doesn't allow that, it's much more meaningful red flag)

If you get into a discussion about why you want to change characters or why you think the RAW is fine, then and only then, bring up stuff like this thread or other internet arguemnts for why RAW is fine. Don't walk in and throw internet public opinion at him and expect him to respond positively.

Edit: It may be worth offering to switch to a similar character who still has proficiency in theives tools and stealth and has the same personality or something but uses the ranger or fighter class or something. If you switch to someone totally different halfway through an adventure then some earlier things may no longer make sense and need to be retconned, which many people dislike for good reason.

[varunrana]

While I

Edit: It may be worth offering to switch to a similar character who still has proficiency in theives tools and stealth and has the same personality or something but uses the ranger or fighter class or something. If you switch to someone totally different halfway through an adventure then some earlier things may no longer make sense and need to be retconned, which many people dislike for good reason.

I've only been part of the game for 2 sessions, one of which was my introduction to the story and the other was filler because we were missing a player. I don't think swapping characters will affect anything.

[beargryllz]

Your DM is an idiot

[Tharkun]

I have been reading this tread and realizing it resonates with me so well because of one of my current games. My DM has been ridiculous in other ways. I thought I was handling it but this made me realize that it will just get worse.

I don't know your situation but I think I will exit the campaign that I find misrun. I wish you luck.

[Dungeon-noob]

Uhm, what?:smallconfused: Yea people like 5e because it is streamlined and simplifies some of the rules, but to call people lazy because of that? I strongly disagree.

Further more, that's not the issue here. the issue here is that OP's DM has come up with a bunch of convoluted and nonsensical rules to severely limit a class' core source of damage/abilities.
You've got it backwards, he's saying that the laxy people use 5e because it's easier on them, not that people who use 5e are lazy. You've got your grouping wrong.

And yeah, add a +1 on the pile of "This DM isn't in the right and is probably not as smart as he thinks."

[Witty Username]

For clarification, shouldn't a rogue already get sneak attack if the enemy cannot see them, since that gives advantage? That ruling would make the ally within 5ft. clause useless, outside of one case where you would have disadvantage on the attack roll canceling your normal advantage for being unseen.

[varunrana]

For clarification, shouldn't a rogue already get sneak attack if the enemy cannot see them, since that gives advantage? That ruling would make the ally within 5ft. clause useless, outside of one case where you would have disadvantage on the attack roll canceling your normal advantage for being unseen.

The 5 ft rule means you don't have to be hidden to use sneak attack.

From the rules:

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

[Witty Username]

He thinks the ally within 5 ft rule is broken. So he said I can't use this unless the enemy is actively engaged with my ally and can't see me.
This is what I was asking about.
I am mostly confused because requiring to be hidden is the same(almost) as removing the rule entirely, because being hidden grants sneak attack already.
PHB pg. 195 "when a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it"

I am aware of what the 5ft rule does normally.

[varunrana]

This is what I was asking about.
I am mostly confused because requiring to be hidden is the same(almost) as removing the rule entirely, because being hidden grants sneak attack already.
PHB pg. 195 "when a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it"

I am aware of what the 5ft rule does normally.

Oh sorry I misread what you said.

[Witty Username]

I would say that if you are still having fun with this group and this DM, then finding another group shouldn't be necessary. If you feel like you cannot contribute to combat, then bring this up. Now, your DM may respond that maybe you excel in areas other than combat, which could be fine, I think that depends on why you wanted to play a rogue. Also, It sounds like he has agreed for you using the owl so you can use your sneak attack that way, if that is what you need to contribute to combat, keep doing that.
Or maybe talk about this with the other players and see how they feel about your character or the sneak attack stuff, are they feeling like your character does alot as is, or that the house rule is making things difficult for you, or if they would be open to tactics that would allow you to sneak attack more often like knocking enemies prone or something(Does your game use flanking?). Heck, bring up with the other player the feelings your having about maybe playing another character because of this, I would think most play groups would empathize with the idea that there character isn't working the way you thought it would.

[stoutstien]

I could maybe see a DM having issues with a player getting 2+ sneak attacks per round but even that is a reach.
If the DM isn't allowing it I'd ask for a reroll maybe into a sword bard which can emulate a rogue quite well.

[Spriteless]

Perhaps, if you want to do as he says, and get sneak attack, you can get next to an opponent, declare "I ready my action to sneak attack, once my ally is attacking, then retreat" and then do the thing at the same time like he asked. Maybe even push your initiative down to match your favorite melee friend's, so it is actually happening at the same time.

Oh, that's not how rounds work? Well, if the GM thinks they aren't simultaneous, then they don't know how rounds work. If they disagree with this tactic, ask how can you actually attack at the same time as someone else. Since that is the only way sneak attack is allowed, you want to do that. So explain how to do that. Consistantly. If they keep moving the goalpost, ask for the goalpost, not for pieces of the way to the goalpost, lest GM will become Zeno and will always find more steps in-between you and what you want.

But, if the reason they come up with is gameplay, do bring up that Rogues are a little more powerful at early levels. However, once Fighters get extra attacks they become the most powerful, and once spellcasters get the good spells they become the most powerful. It is more balanced if Rogues have a time to shine, just like the other classes, but it just happens to be low level.

[Gilrad]

I think intention is an important factor here; Is the DM creating these restrictions because of a design or setting decision? (so more AD&D, or low damage to monsters, gritty combat where players aren't all that heroic) Or is he making these decisions out of a mistrust of his players?

I've had GMs from the second category before; every character is scrutinized to make sure I'm not playing anything "overpowered", every nonstandard request is denied because they're operating under the assumption that I'm trying to game some sort of "unfair advantage", any excitement I show for upcoming mechanical abilities unlocked in the next level is not shared with the GM.

I didn't realize how toxic this perspective was until I started playing with a GM who's response to my excitement was "You want to do that thing? Sure! I'll make sure you get plenty of opportunities to do the thing!"

[varunrana]

I think intention is an important factor here; Is the DM creating these restrictions because of a design or setting decision? (so more AD&D, or low damage to monsters, gritty combat where players aren't all that heroic) Or is he making these decisions out of a mistrust of his players?

I've had GMs from the second category before; every character is scrutinized to make sure I'm not playing anything "overpowered", every nonstandard request is denied because they're operating under the assumption that I'm trying to game some sort of "unfair advantage", any excitement I show for upcoming mechanical abilities unlocked in the next level is not shared with the GM.

I didn't realize how toxic this perspective was until I started playing with a GM who's response to my excitement was "You want to do that thing? Sure! I'll make sure you get plenty of opportunities to do the thing!"

I think it's because he doesn't understand what the rogue class and sneak attack is meant to do. And he seems hung up on the sneak part of the name.

Whereas we all understand that in combat if a rogue uses sneak attack thematically it means that he found a weak spot or an opening. And then he rolls to Attack to see if he can take advantage of the break in defence.

But because the name is Sneak he seems to think I can only use it if the enemy can't see or sense me. Hence why he believes that the 5ft rule is broken.

What I don't understand is that if he believes that we are now doing too much damage just by following the RAW, why doesn't he just scale up his encounters to make them more difficult?

Instead he's chosen to cripple my class and make me feel like I shouldn't be using my main ability.

[Unoriginal]

Question: could you describe the, say, last three encounters your group faced?

No need for details, just a list of who the enemies were.

[varunrana]

Question: could you describe the, say, last three encounters your group faced?

No need for details, just a list of who the enemies were.

Over a few encounters we've had: some zombies, a zombie t-rex, a vampire, some constructs, a dwarf.

I think.

[Unoriginal]

Over a few encounters we've had: some zombies, a zombie t-rex, a vampire, some constructs, a dwarf.

I think.

So your DM tends to make you fight solo enemies? Do you have more than one encounter between short rests?

[varunrana]

So your DM tends to make you fight solo enemies? Do you have more than one encounter between short rests?

I've only played two sessions with them so far but yes there have been multiple encounters between short rests.

The vampire was solo and the dwarf was solo.

[MoiMagnus]

Hi,

So I'm fairly new to DnD and I'm playing an arcane trickster.

My DM seems to not want me to use sneak attack very often and keeps coming up with reasons why I don't have it.

He thinks the ally within 5 ft rule is broken. So he said I can't use this unless the enemy is actively engaged with my ally and can't see me. Is this normal? Do most DMs play it this way or with the RAW? I don't really understand what he means by engaged.


If such a rule was in D&D3.5, a lot of peoples would say it is broken, which is probably why he think so.

But not in 5e: even though the damages are the same, it does not lead to imbalances, as the game is balanced around the rogue having sneak attack once every 2 turn, if not every turn. If you don't have your sneak attack every turn or near so, your rogue will probably be weak compared to other classes in combat: you don't have the HP of a fighter/barbarians, you do as much damages if not less (dex weapons), and don't have the variety of spells of a mage. At this rate, an Eldright Knight (roleplayed as a rogue) is probably doing your job in better.

[darknite]

Your DM's wrong, at least regarding RAW rules. Let them know that and that because of it you need to change characters or leave the game because of their arbitrary (ie done without your buy in) decision. While DMs do get to adjudicate rules, they don't get to flat out make them up without the player's consent.

[KorvinStarmast]

Get a new DM. Or, get a new class since the DM is violating RAW big time.

For the OP:

Show them the rules in Sneak Attack; Sneak Attack is not unbalanced, it's what makes a rogue a rogue. It's like being able to cast spells is the defining freature of a Wizard. It's like Divine Smite is the paladin's defining combat feature.

If they won't run it that way, there are 11 other classes to play.
1. Pick one.
2. Or find another hobby/ game group.
Bad gaming is not better than no gaming.

If this DM is the kind of people you are gaming with, find better uses for your time.

[varunrana]

Just a quick update.

I messaged the DM and asked if I could start a new character and he agreed.

It was all just kind of stressing me out and making me feel anxious.

I love the rogue I made and I'd rather save him for some other game than grow to hate him in this one.

I'm going to roll up a PAM, GWM, Sentinel Battlemaster Fighter. I want to see if he just had a problem with the rogue mechanics or the amount of damage I was doing.

Thank you for all your responses it was all really helpful.

[KorvinStarmast]

I messaged the DM and asked if I could start a new character and he agreed.

It was all just kind of stressing me out and making me feel anxious.

I love the rogue I made and I'd rather save him for some other game than grow to hate him in this one.

I'm going to roll up a PAM, GWM, Sentinel Battlemaster Fighter. I want to see if he just had a problem with the rogue mechanics or the amount of damage I was doing.

Thank you for all your responses it was all really helpful. Hooray! I hope your adventures are fun with your new Battlemaster.

[darknite]

Good news. Now find out what the DM thinks about the Sentinel feat... :smallbiggrin:

[varunrana]

Good news. Now find out what the DM thinks about the Sentinel feat... :smallbiggrin:

Yeah I plan on being very clear about what I plan on doing and ask if he is going to make any rule changes before we start.

If he does nerf anything again I think I might just give up on this game.

[Haydensan]

Yeah I plan on being very clear about what I plan on doing and ask if he is going to make any rule changes before we start.

If he does nerf anything again I think I might just give up on this game.

That's always the right way to go about things, glad to see he's going to discuss with you.

Make sure you keep us up to date with how your character goes.
Good luck!

[varunrana]

That's always the right way to go about things, glad to see he's going to discuss with you.

Make sure you keep us up to date with how your character goes.
Good luck!

I will do.

The thing that bothers me the most is that he knew exactly what I was going to play at least two weeks before my first session but he didn't tell me about his modified rules until we sat down to play.

If I had known how he felt about rogues is have picked a different class to begin with. So I'm going to make sure he understands the feats and the class I'm going to use and all him if he's going to change anything before we play.

[darknite]

Some DMs just like to tinker with the game system for 'their' games. That is probably one reason there are a bunch of optional rules in the DMG. That's cool as long as everyone knows what the differences are going to be ahead of time.

[CantigThimble]

Yeah I plan on being very clear about what I plan on doing and ask if he is going to make any rule changes before we start.

If he does nerf anything again I think I might just give up on this game.

I do kinda have to ask, why not just play something straightforward? PAM/Sentinel is something that regularly starts controversy online, I can only imagine it does the same in real life. It seems like playing a Battlemaster without that would be much less likely to make him think you're trying to cheat the system.

Just play with them for a while and chances are you'll get more comfortable with them and they'll get more comfortable with you and then all this drama over houserules and nerfing will blow over. But if you're really at the point where you're considering leaving the game right now, then maybe taking it easy for now would be best.

Just my 2 cents.

[varunrana]

I do kinda have to ask, why not just play something straightforward? PAM/Sentinel is something that regularly starts controversy online, I can only imagine it does the same in real life. It seems like playing a Battlemaster without that would be much less likely to make him think you're trying to cheat the system.

Just play with them for a while and chances are you'll get more comfortable with them and they'll get more comfortable with you and then all this drama over houserules and nerfing will blow over. But if you're really at the point where you're considering leaving the game right now, then maybe taking it easy for now would be best.

Just my 2 cents.

I mean you're not wrong, I suppose I'm being passive aggressive, just wanted to test what his limits are I guess.

Plus my gaming background before this has all been MTG and boardgaming which requires you to be as efficient and as strong as possible. I think I've just got into a bad habit.

I might drop Sentinel, but I think that's as far as I can go.

[JNAProductions]

I mean you're not wrong, I suppose I'm being passive aggressive, just wanted to test what his limits are I guess.

Plus my gaming background before this has all been MTG and boardgaming which requires you to be as efficient and as strong as possible. I think I've just got into a bad habit.

I might drop Sentinel, but I think that's as far as I can go.

That's not a bad habit-so long as you're having fun and not impinging on other people's fun, be as powerful as you like!

In fact, I'd dare say that most tables PREFER having a strong, competent companion PC than someone who built some 6 classes in 6 levels multiclass monstrosity that sucks at everything.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean you're not wrong, I suppose I'm being passive aggressive, just wanted to test what his limits are I guess.

Plus my gaming background before this has all been MTG and boardgaming which requires you to be as efficient and as strong as possible. I think I've just got into a bad habit.

I might drop Sentinel, but I think that's as far as I can go.

I actually don't blame you on attempting that. If a DM wants to sleight me, and tell me how much of a problem I'm trying to be, my instinct is to show him what actually trying looks like.

Eldritch Knight 6, picking up Sentinel, PAM, GWM, then grabbing some Abjurer levels, would be enough of a pain that he'd probably reconsider his stance on Rogues and how "overpowered" they are. Maybe I'm spiteful, but you don't screw with someone's primary class feature so dramatically the day you start your game.

People should always be allowed to learn from their mistakes, but they first have to learn what a mistake is.

[varunrana]

I actually don't blame you on attempting that. If a DM wants to sleight me, and tell me how much of a problem I'm trying to be, my instinct is to show him what actually trying looks like.



Thing is I wasn't even trying to be a problem before I was just trying to play a rogue like a rogue.

[Tallytrev813]

DM is wrong.

OP, you need to talk to your DM and just ask to change characters. Just say, "I had the wrong impression about how this class' mechanics would work" or something.

If you try to convince him to allow you to sneak attack more itll just cause friction at the table.

I just has a similar issue, i rolled a bard and my DM ruled that i was not allowed to see the roll before using cutting words. He actually ruled that i had to announce id be using cutting words prior to any rolls.

So basically, my Lore Bards main feature was destroyed and would have me using cutting words on rolls of 2 and 20 and such. I had a conversation with him about the mechanics of the ability, and showed him the text that explicitly stated i got to see the roll (but not know any modifiers or whether it hit/missed) prior to using Cutting words. He told me it was too OP that way and overruled RAW.

I just asked to change classes, i play barbarian now. No big deal, i like the guy a lot and it is a lot better just to play a different class and forget about it!

[Pex]

There will always be DMs who are deathly afraid of PCs getting away with something. Anything more than a PC doing "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" threatens their sense of power. They refuse to accept PCs are supposed to be powerful.

[Misterwhisper]

There will always be DMs who are deathly afraid of PCs getting away with something. Anything more than a PC doing "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" threatens their sense of power. They refuse to accept PCs are supposed to be powerful.

Or they hear a big number come from the rogue and freak out. Not realizing that their damage is at best average compared to people getting more attacks or using their own class abilities.

I can not tell you how many times when I was playing a rogue that the DM would freak out when I would do like 25 or 30 damage for my sneak attack but just ignore the figher/barbarian/monk who was doing just as much if not more spaced out over 3 or 4 attacks.

[varunrana]

There will always be DMs who are deathly afraid of PCs getting away with something. Anything more than a PC doing "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" threatens their sense of power. They refuse to accept PCs are supposed to be powerful.

Party has a barbarian that does crazy damage with a homebrew axe and a wizard cleric with fire spells everywhere. He even gave him a wand of fireballs to use on top of everything else.

I think he didn't like/understand rogues and/or doesn't know how to scale his encounters to the group.

[Man_Over_Game]

Or they hear a big number come from the rogue and freak out. Not realizing that their damage is at best average compared to people getting more attacks or using their own class abilities.

I can not tell you how many times when I was playing a rogue that the DM would freak out when I would do like 25 or 30 damage for my sneak attack but just ignore the figher/barbarian/monk who was doing just as much if not more spaced out over 3 or 4 attacks.

Party has a barbarian that does crazy damage with a homebrew axe and a wizard cleric with fire spells everywhere. He even gave him a wand of fireballs to use on top of everything else.

I think he didn't like/understand rogues and/or doesn't know how to scale his encounters to the group.



Average base attack of a Fighter: Roughly 10 damage per attack.

Average base damage of a Rogue: Roughly 7 damage per attack


Rogue Sneak Attack bonus: 1d6 every 2 levels (or 1.75 per level).

Fighters get double attacks at level 2 for a single round, and gets a second base attack at level 5.


Level 3 Fighter: 20 damage in turn 1, 10 damage every turn after.

Level 3 Rogue: 12 damage per turn.

Level 5 Fighter: 40 damage in turn 1, 20 damage every turn after.

Level 5 Rogue: ~16 damage every turn.

Fireball: 18 damage per creature hit (9 on a miss), in a 8x8 square that ignores cover.

And this is assuming a 100% sneak attack chance. So I'd really to hear this DM's reasoning behind why Rogues have it so good.

[Willie the Duck]

Just a quick update.

I messaged the DM and asked if I could start a new character and he agreed.

It was all just kind of stressing me out and making me feel anxious.

I love the rogue I made and I'd rather save him for some other game than grow to hate him in this one.

I'm going to roll up a PAM, GWM, Sentinel Battlemaster Fighter. I want to see if he just had a problem with the rogue mechanics or the amount of damage I was doing.

Thank you for all your responses it was all really helpful.

Okay, well when you are done with that, if they still don't budge and you ever want to play a 'rogue-the character concept (as opposed to the class),' there are many ways to make a lightly-armored character with a bunch of sneaky skills that does not need to utilize the rogue class (the simplest being a Dex-based fighter with Criminal or Urchin background).

Edit:
Also, I'm actually kinda glad that this seems to be a DM not recognizing the actual power of things, rather than a DM who just wants to shut down fun. Any DM who is handing out wands of fire to the wizards, but is afraid of a rogue's sneak attack is a textbook case of a straight-forward new-ish DM making new DM mistakes. We've all had them and most of them get better.

[Daithi]

It is doubtful that you are going to convince your DM, but maybe you can convince the other players instead. Provide them with Crawford's tweet indicating that rogues are supposed to get Sneak Attack most of the time. See if they will all discuss the issue with the DM as a group (nicely), because they want the Rogue in their group and hope he'll change his mind. If he won't then change characters, and consider changing DMs or becoming a DM yourself --- you seem to read the rules better than he does.

Crawford's Tweet
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1051956159387656193

[varunrana]

It is doubtful that you are going to convince your DM, but maybe you can convince the other players instead. Provide them with Crawford's tweet indicating that rogues are supposed to get Sneak Attack most of the time. See if they will all discuss the issue with the DM as a group (nicely), because they want the Rogue in their group and hope he'll change his mind. If he won't then change characters, and consider changing DMs or becoming a DM yourself --- you seem to read the rules better than he does.

Crawford's Tweet
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1051956159387656193

Other players have already tried talking to him about it but he's not budged. Anyway I've already decided I'm starting again.

A lot of people have said I should try to DM, I do plan on giving it a go eventually but I just feel like I don't have enough experience with the game yet. I tend to pick up rules pretty easy but DnD is about so much more than that.

I think if I tried to run a session now it would just be really messy and unenjoyable.

Again thank you to everyone for all the responses. You've all been really helpful and supportive, I appreciate it. So many game communities tend to be fairly toxic and so far this has been the complete opposite.

Thank you.

[Willie the Duck]

So many game communities tend to be fairly toxic and so far this has been the complete opposite.

Thank you.

Oh, just fair warning, there's no small amount of toxicity here.

[Yunru]

Oh, just fair warning, there's no small amount of toxicity here.

Take 12d6 poison damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

Take 12d6 poison damage.

Willie should have rolled a dwarf instead of a duck. Oh well.

[Willie the Duck]

Willie should have rolled a dwarf instead of a duck. Oh well.

Anyone familiar with Snarfquest want to clue M_O_G in? :smallbiggrin:

[varunrana]

So a quick update.

I asked if I could make a PAM GWM Battlemaster.

He said no to GWM which I'm fine with.

But for a moment he tried to tell me I only have 3 superiority dice at level 7 instead of 5.

But we settled on 5 so we'll see how it goes next session.

[Willie the Duck]

So a quick update.

I asked if I could make a PAM GWM Battlemaster.

He said no to GWM which I'm fine with.

But for a moment he tried to tell me I only have 3 superiority dice at level 7 instead of 5.

But we settled on 5 so we'll see how it goes next session.

Okay. Normally I'd say that of GWM, PAM, and Sentinel of the classic build, GWM is the least overpowering, but along with Battlemaster (and thus the Precision maneuver) I can see it. The 3 superiority dice at level 7 instead of 5 bit is just plain odd. That, of all things, is what would make you overpowered?

I'm seriously considering just sitting down with him and saying, "I'm done guessing my way around your strange hang-ups. You tell me what I'm allowed to play without you proceeding to take away whatever makes it unique or enjoyable."

[varunrana]

Okay. Normally I'd say that of GWM, PAM, and Sentinel of the classic build, GWM is the least overpowering, but along with Battlemaster (and thus the Precision maneuver) I can see it. The 3 superiority dice at level 7 instead of 5 bit is just plain odd. That, of all things, is what would make you overpowered?

I'm seriously considering just sitting down with him and saying, "I'm done guessing my way around your strange hang-ups. You tell me what I'm allowed to play without you proceeding to take away whatever makes it unique or enjoyable."

Well I figure I'll give this one more shot with a new character. If he changes the rules on me again I think I'll just quit the group.

At least the restriction this time isn't class breaking like his sneak attack modifications.

I did find a group to play online with got my first session with them this Sunday hopefully. Playing a lvl 1 half orc barbarian raised amongst human nobility that thinks he's a refined gentleman duelist.

[darknite]

I agree with Willie the Duck. If a DM is micromanaging their players' choices to this degree because they're concerned about 'balance' there's a problem. It's their job as DM to handle balance on their side and let the players handle their PCs within the context of the rules. When a DM gets this fussy it's usually because they've created a fixed path with fixed obstacles that they don't want (or are too lazy or inexperienced) to change and are worried the party will just walk over it. It's their job to know their party and prepare suitable challenges for them, not force the players to conform to their fixed encounters.

[allthingslich]

Don't be afraid to call it like it is. Your DM is being a banana.

[Yunru]

To be fair, he might not have noticed that you gain additional dice as you gain levels?
Although that doesn't make sense either as you start with 4.

[Skylivedk]

Don't be afraid to call it like it is. Your DM is being a banana.

That's uncalled for. Bananas have done nothing to ruin your game.

On topic: one of my players tried his hand at DMing. He was great at the roleplaying, but horrible at the mechanics. Knee jerk reaction to almost anything was that it was OP. I think a lot of new DMs hear about a skill and imagine perfect scenarios for them; ignore math and feel the feature can ruin the game. Ref. my signature: not my style.

I've yellow/orange lamps flaring from what I hear

[Cygnia]

I did find a group to play online with got my first session with them this Sunday hopefully. Playing a lvl 1 half orc barbarian raised amongst human nobility that thinks he's a refined gentleman duelist.

This sounds like a cool concept. Good luck with the online game!

[Hail Tempus]

I think a lot of new DMs hear about a skill and imagine perfect scenarios for them; ignore math and feel the feature can ruin the game. My advice to any new DM is to play the game with the rules as written. Thinking you can better "balance" the game than the designers, who do this for a living and had the benefit of thousands of hours of play-testing, is pretty arrogant.

[varunrana]

This sounds like a cool concept. Good luck with the online game!

Yeah I hope it goes well. I think the first couple of times he rages, the aftermath is going to be fun.

Like he's a perfect gentleman and 5 minutes later he's covered in blood and has no idea what happened.

Long term I want him to come to terms with himself. Be who he is, embrace both sides of himself and define his own culture rather than trying to fit in with either the orcs or humans expectations of how he should behave.

[Yunru]

Yeah I hope it goes well. I think the first couple of times he rages, the aftermath is going to be fun.

Like he's a perfect gentleman and 5 minutes later he's covered in blood and has no idea what happened.

Long term I want him to come to terms with himself. Be who he is, embrace both sides of himself and define his own culture rather than trying to fit in with either the orcs or humans expectations of how he should behave.

I had a similar character once (but was a Bugbear). He never raged, he merely "took off [his] top hat and pocketed [his] monocle."

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah I hope it goes well. I think the first couple of times he rages, the aftermath is going to be fun.

Like he's a perfect gentleman and 5 minutes later he's covered in blood and has no idea what happened.

Long term I want him to come to terms with himself. Be who he is, embrace both sides of himself and define his own culture rather than trying to fit in with either the orcs or humans expectations of how he should behave.

I would consider The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comic book version, not the movie) version of Jekyl/Hyde as some good source material for the concept.

[varunrana]

I would consider The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comic book version, not the movie) version of Jekyl/Hyde as some good source material for the concept.

I was thinking it wouldn't be that he is two different people more like he's hiding from himself. I think after the first couple of times he will be aware of what he's doing but won't be able to stop himself. He'll be afraid of what he's capable of but the most terrifying thing is that he likes the way it feels.

Then he'll come out of his rages and feel sick and horrible.

When he learns to accept himself he'll be more in control and less desperate to fit in. He'll make a space for himself in the world instead of trying to squeeze into the shape he thinks he should be.

[furby076]

Literally none of my friends want to try DnD I've been trying for years.

Find your local comic book or gaming shop and see if Adventurers league is inthe area. If not, or its not suitable for you, then ask if you can post to start a group or see if another group has posted to play. You would be surprised how many people are playing and are looking for players/DMs - just gotta look in the right spot :D

[Jerrykhor]

I'd straight up call out his bull**** if i were you. Am not going to wait for him to say 'You can play a Sorcerer but you will have less sorcery points', or 'You can play a paladin but you will have less Lay on Hands and less Smite damage'.

[JakOfAllTirades]

So a quick update.

I asked if I could make a PAM GWM Battlemaster.

He said no to GWM which I'm fine with.

But for a moment he tried to tell me I only have 3 superiority dice at level 7 instead of 5.

But we settled on 5 so we'll see how it goes next session.

I figured (actually, predicted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23919459&postcount=35)) your DM would do something like this. He's going to nerf anything you try to play.

Hope you find a better table, and soon.

[Segev]

I figured (actually, predicted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23919459&postcount=35)) your DM would do something like this. He's going to nerf anything you try to play.

Hope you find a better table, and soon.
Does the DM nerf the other players’ classes similarly?

[suplee215]

As a DM there are some players who I know are trying to get away with stuff but I tend to be up front and go with RAW strictly in those cases. Also the way they do it tends to be more asking about outside options (which I am happy to use, but I'll vet them first). This story also bugs me because it sounds like the DM is picking on the new guy he doesn't know while he is willing to work with his close friends to do what they want (I've had a game that devolved into this as a player and it just felt like the DM's best friend was the main character which sucks). The lowering of battle master dice would have personally been the last straw for me as that isn't even a DM misunderstanding (the idea of an easy sneak attack just rubs some DMs the wrong way, especially those who goes "its a SNEAK attack so of course you must be hidden if the rules didn't bother to write it). At the very least I recommend asking him for every single house rule on abilities he has now so you can accurately decide what will be fun to play as clearly the PHB is not accurate to the game that is being played. But then I might just be some random person on the internet getting pissed off at a story that doesn't even directly effect me so take that for what it's worth.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Does the DM nerf the other players’ classes similarly?

According to this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23921773&postcount=93) the OP's DM is doing anything but nerfing the other players. He's actually powering two of them up!

There's no way I'd stay at this table with a DM singling my character out for punishment like that when everyone else is getting the royal treatment.