Rogue haste + readied attack RP

[nickl_2000]

I’ve read all about using haste to read an action to attack on someone else’s turn (I.e. an extra use of sneak attack per round).

How do you justify it from a RP perspective? It just seems like an odd thing to describe at a table.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Pretty easy in my opinion, the spell hones your reflexes to such a level that you can still strike with precision when the opportunity is exceptionally narrow where it would normally be nonexistent.

If your DM is open the the idea it could be fluffed as an afterimage sort of thing where you're so quick you strike twice. This works narratively since combat isn't turn based in world.

[kazaryu]

In addition to the above, another alternative is that sfter you make your initial strike, you lean back and pause for a moment as you line up your follow up strike.

[Mellack]

For me it would depend on what you are choosing as your trigger. Going after another player? You are waiting until your opponent is distracted by the action to seize an opening. If you choose the opponent attacking, you are waiting until he extends himself to deftly counterstrike.

[nickl_2000]

My struggle that I am running into is that I'm an optimizer. I want to make the best possible character who roll all the dice all the time and this is a way to do that. However, as I am maturing as a player I am trying to avoid the feeling that I'm doing something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you look at it from outside the game.

It's a constant struggle in my mind of optimization verses RP :smallbiggrin:

[Keravath]

It's pretty easy. Haste is making you so fast you are capable of making two sneak attacks in a round. It really doesn't take much more than that.

Mechanically, you have to use the Haste provided action to make one attack and your regular action to Ready a second attack. You have to use your regular action because the Haste action doesn't allow for Ready as an option. You can trigger the readied action based on anything that your character could perceive. The readied action uses your reaction.

From a role play perspective, you just say "I attack X and I prepare to attack Y as soon as my friend does something". The extra "time" between the attacks gives the character the opportunity to get in proper position (or take proper aim) to land a second sneak attack.

[Coffee_Dragon]

As a rogue player I wouldn't use readied actions only to get a second sneak attack. If you get it with an opportunity attack or if you readied for some specific purpose anyway, that's nice, but deliberately playing the mechanics that way is cheese.

[BigRedJedi]

The answer, as with most things in D&D is: It's magic! From an RP standpoint, Haste is accelerating your movement to superhuman levels, so not only are you rapidly striking an opponent's weak spots, you're moving quickly enough that you recognize that you can exploit an opening in their defenses when your ally distracts them with their attacks or movement.

From a mechanical standpoint, it is unequivocally not "cheese" to play tactically smart and use the resources at hand. Playing suboptimally to maintain some imaginary standard of believability or non-cheesiness is both laughable - in a world where dragons and magic and supernatural occurrences are commonplace - but also actively choosing to make yourself less valuable to the group of adventurers with whom you play. The latter, in particular, is selfish and illogical.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As a rogue player I wouldn't use readied actions only to get a second sneak attack. If you get it with an opportunity attack or if you readied for some specific purpose anyway, that's nice, but deliberately playing the mechanics that way is cheese.

In fiction, would it not be a goal of every higher skill Rogue (or whatever title those who observe their skills gives them) to be the best at what they do? These types of fighters would be looking for every opportunity to strike with lethal precision.

In fiction, the sneaky type people with a magical inclination discovered that going faster means you can more readily take advantage of drops in the opponent's guard. From a mechanical standpoint, I'm positive that sneak attack is intentionally something that you can get multiple times in a round with careful planning because it's not something you can make reliable without investing into it. That said, it's the exact reason I dislike the Revived Rogue UA, it takes every bit of investment or planning away and gives "have two sneak attacks a round for free while you bonus action disengage" as a class feature.


From a mechanical standpoint, it is unequivocally not "cheese" to play tactically smart and use the resources at hand. Playing suboptimally to maintain some imaginary standard of believability or non-cheesiness is both laughable - in a world where dragons and magic and supernatural occurrences are commonplace - but also actively choosing to make yourself less valuable to the group of adventurers with whom you play. The latter, in particular, is selfish and illogical.

Although I agree with your general point, there are times where going too far can disrupt your tables good time. I don't think sneak attacking twice per round is one of those things if anything I would think it would excite the table, players love when the Rogue/Paladin/Fireballer bring out their pile of dice for a big hit, that's been my experience at least.

[nickl_2000]

As a rogue player I wouldn't use readied actions only to get a second sneak attack. If you get it with an opportunity attack or if you readied for some specific purpose anyway, that's nice, but deliberately playing the mechanics that way is cheese.

You see, this is my struggle. I see it making perfect sense that a rogue would do everything they can to do as much damage as possible, but they way you do it seems off without a good explanation.

I think for me it comes down to this, I want to use the tactic and do more damage but I also want a good explanation so it doesn’t feel like cheese.


I’m having the same struggle with booming blade on this character. It is a large damage increase for him, but he isn’t the kind of person who would be running around creating large booms. It’s just too loud for his personality.

[Contrast]

You see, this is my struggle. I see it making perfect sense that a rogue would do everything they can to do as much damage as possible, but they way you do it seems off without a good explanation.

I think for me it comes down to this, I want to use the tactic and do more damage but I also want a good explanation so it doesn’t feel like cheese.

It sounds gamey because you're playing a game. If you're in melee you can describe it as a counter. If you're at range or in melee you can just describe waiting until they're distracted/drop their guard before lunging in for another strike.


I’m having the same struggle with booming blade on this character. It is a large damage increase for him, but he isn’t the kind of person who would be running around creating large booms. It’s just too loud for his personality.

DM territory there - the spell doesn't explicitly say its loud but is it thunder damage after all. You could ask the DM to swap to lightning damage and have an electric cage spring up but I don't know if a light show would have the same issue :smalltongue:

[CorporateSlave]

You see, this is my struggle. I see it making perfect sense that a rogue would do everything they can to do as much damage as possible, but they way you do it seems off without a good explanation.

I think for me it comes down to this, I want to use the tactic and do more damage but I also want a good explanation so it doesn’t feel like cheese.

TL DR, but first of all you cannot use the Haste Action to Ready, the spell description specifies exactly what Actions can be taken, and Ready isn't one of them.

Of course, that's mostly just semantics because you can of course simply Attack with your Haste Action and use Ready with your normal Action. I guess it could come into play if you have something else specific you can only do with your regular Action (say, Dodge), so you couldn't also Ready the Haste Action that Turn.

RP-wise though, this is pretty easy to justify - I'd say a Rogue trying to Sneak Attack has better RP justification than most cases - Sneak Attacks work on taking advantage of distractions or openings to attack for maximum effect, if a Rogue were to fire a shot (for example) from hiding for Sneak Attack, but then his enemy has his guard up, an instant follow up shot wouldn't make sense. Now, if he knows he can just wait a moment to line up a shot and wait for the fighter to move in and distract his target juuuust long enough for another shot to the chinks in the enemy armor, well...


I’m having the same struggle with booming blade on this character. It is a large damage increase for him, but he isn’t the kind of person who would be running around creating large booms. It’s just too loud for his personality.

Yeah you're on your own there. Unless you can convince the DM to make it Whispering Blade or something...but I would think it rather explicitly is supposed to be noisy and impossible to make a sneaky hit.

[Coffee_Dragon]

From a mechanical standpoint, it is unequivocally not "cheese" to play tactically smart and use the resources at hand. Playing suboptimally to maintain some imaginary standard of believability or non-cheesiness is both laughable - in a world where dragons and magic and supernatural occurrences are commonplace - but also actively choosing to make yourself less valuable to the group of adventurers with whom you play. The latter, in particular, is selfish and illogical.

Note though how during this paragraph you slid over from the crunch - yes, mechanically, exploiting the edge case is superior - to the fluff - no, there's no need to represent not exploiting an edge case as your character choosing not to do their job.

"It's good, therefore it's not cheese" is not really a good counter to the problem people have with perceived cheese. If it's not good, it tends not to show up on anyone's cheese-dar in the first place.


I’m having the same struggle with booming blade on this character. It is a large damage increase for him, but he isn’t the kind of person who would be running around creating large booms. It’s just too loud for his personality.

Incidentally, I would never use Booming or Green-flame Blade either - not specifically because they're faintly cheese-ish, but because I detest the flavour of it, and of everyone in (say) the Forgotten Realms suddenly running around making booms and green flames with their attacks when nobody did before.

[nickl_2000]

TL DR, but first of all you cannot use the Haste Action to Ready, the spell description specifies exactly what Actions can be taken, and Ready isn't one of them.

Of course, that's mostly just semantics because you can of course simply Attack with your Haste Action and use Ready with your normal Action. I guess it could come into play if you have something else specific you can only do with your regular Action (say, Dodge), so you couldn't also Ready the Haste Action that Turn.

RP-wise though, this is pretty easy to justify - I'd say a Rogue trying to Sneak Attack has better RP justification than most cases - Sneak Attacks work on taking advantage of distractions or openings to attack for maximum effect, if a Rogue were to fire a shot (for example) from hiding for Sneak Attack, but then his enemy has his guard up, an instant follow up shot wouldn't make sense. Now, if he knows he can just wait a moment to line up a shot and wait for the fighter to move in and distract his target juuuust long enough for another shot to the chinks in the enemy armor, well...



Yeah you're on your own there. Unless you can convince the DM to make it Whispering Blade or something...but I would think it rather explicitly is supposed to be noisy and impossible to make a sneaky hit.

Using your haste bonus attack to attack and using your action to ready is perfectly legit by the rules. Whether you like it or not is up to the table and DM.


As for the booming blade, I agree that is completely on me and the character’s personality. I wouldn’t ask it to be changed considering how powerful it is already.

[BigRedJedi]

Note though how during this paragraph you slid over from the crunch - yes, mechanically, exploiting the edge case is superior - to the fluff - no, there's no need to represent not exploiting an edge case as your character choosing not to do their job.

"It's good, therefore it's not cheese" is not really a good counter to the problem people have with perceived cheese. If it's not good, it tends not to show up on anyone's cheese-dar in the first place.

Note how you conveniently ignore the point I was making, namely, that each player should be contributing to the best of their ability, in both roleplay and rollplay facets of the game. I don't expect every player to min-max optimize their characters, unless that is an expectation of your particular table. I do expect a player to have some understanding of what their character is capable of doing and doing those things as best as they can. In this case, the player sees a tactical advantage in the use of a certain spell that is advantageous in combat, and the player should be encouraged to employ the tools and tricks that they have discovered.

In this case, one of the strongest arguments (certainly from a rollplay standpoint, but arguably from a roleplay one) for use of Haste on a Rogue is to maximize their opportunities to employ Sneak Attack, including the aforementioned off-turn usage. It is not "exploiting an edge case" in this regard, but a perfectly valid application of this specific usage of a specific spell, e.g. not cheese.

As someone who admits that you don't like Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade for their perceived cheesiness, do you simply disallow the use of magic in your games? By your apparent standards, most usage of magic would seem to fall within the gouda boundaries of a nice cheddar.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Note how you conveniently ignore the point I was making, namely, that each player should be contributing to the best of their ability, in both roleplay and rollplay facets of the game.

What, including by exploiting edge cases? No, there is no such "should". You can, obviously.


As someone who admits that you don't like Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade for their perceived cheesiness, do you simply disallow the use of magic in your games?

???

Do I disallow the use of magic in my games? How did the conversation arrive at this point? I choose not to pursue it.

[CorporateSlave]

As someone who admits that you don't like Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade for their perceived cheesiness, do you simply disallow the use of magic in your games? By your apparent standards, most usage of magic would seem to fall within the gouda boundaries of a nice cheddar.

Geez guys...I think he just means "funny how before SCAG nobody cast them in all of Faerun, and after SCAG booming melee attacks are such a go-to they have become run of the mill..." and just observing how excellent new spells or features can easily overpower older builds, and possibly by extension how this sort of "latest greatest" power creep has haunted every edition of D&D.

[Tanarii]

The simplest way to avoid triggering a DMs, and possibly your own, cheese-dar is to pick ready triggers that are not based on imperceivable mechanics nor automatically will happen.

Instead of "on X creatures next turn", go with "if they move away from me". Or "if they attack my adjacent Ally". Or "if they attack me."

If you've got the kind of DM likely to try and avoid your trigger, or that creatures know/perceive readied action triggers, pick one but you don't want to happen. Alternatively pick what you think the creature is most likely to do, because it's the creatures biggest benefit. Give it a devil's choice.

[JackPhoenix]

The simplest way to avoid triggering a DMs, and possibly your own, cheese-dar is to pick ready triggers that are not based on imperceivable mechanics nor automatically will happen.

That's pretty much a given, considering the trigger being perceivable is a requirement for Ready action.

[Arkhios]

Considering that initiative order is an abstraction and basically each participant's turn occur within same time period (1 round at a time), it's not that hard to justify. Haste makes you (re)act faster than normal.

In the big picture, looking at the whole round, not just individual turns, it doesn't really matter whether it's your turn or someone else's.

A round takes only 6 seconds. Whatever the initiative each participant uses, it all happens within the same 6 seconds, and then it starts over.

[Witty Username]

I think it is weirder that sneak attack is only once per turn than using haste to sneak attack twice per round.
I mean why would stabbing someone make them harder to stab, are you not allowed to stab the same place twice?

[Arkhios]

I think it is weirder that sneak attack is only once per turn than using haste to sneak attack twice per round.
I mean why would stabbing someone make them harder to stab, are you not allowed to stab the same place twice?

The way Sneak Attack used to work in 3rd edition was broken AF. Same damage progression as now, but you could sneak attack with every attack that hit the target, and the other prerequisites were met. Sure, it had a lot of restrictions in regards to which creature types were eligible targets at all, but still. In most cases, you could absolutely obliterate a target with multiple sneak attacks in just one turn (=your own). Especially if you had two-weapon fighting, which most rogues did have, due to Two-Weapon Fighting feats being dependent on high dexterity score (which most rogues had).
a high level rogue could have 5 attacks in a turn, easily. 6 if you had haste. All of which add the same amount of dice from sneak attack to their damage rolls. At the earliest this was possible at level 15, with each attack dealing an extra 8d6 from Sneak Attack. Even though Sneak Attack couldn't be multiplied with critical hit, 5 x [weapon] + 40d6 (sneak attack) is insane.

It was absolutely ridiculous, and played a part making the fighter class even worse than it was (which was still bad, even in a vacuum alone).

Once per turn restriction is, in my honest opinion, a wise change. Rogue is still able to dish out massive amount of damage, and not outshine the other classes designed to fill a same role too much.

[Witty Username]

I am not arguing balance on that one, I am arguing from the "that's cheese and gamey" angle. Only getting one sneak attack per turn is just as gamey as using haste to get an extra action to attack then hold to attack after your turn ends.

From a balance point, is haste + readied action causing problems in games? Are rogues doing too much damage because of it? But that doesn't contain any justifying from an RP perspective, that is a game argument.

My RP justification, the rogue is really fast, and being ambushed by a fast rogue sucks. Not a particularly compelling argument, but I don't think its wrong.

[Arkhios]

I am not arguing balance on that one, I am arguing from the "that's cheese and gamey" angle. Only getting one sneak attack per turn is just as gamey as using haste to get an extra action to attack then hold to attack after your turn ends.

From a balance point, is haste + readied action causing problems in games? Are rogues doing too much damage because of it? But that doesn't contain any justifying from an RP perspective, that is a game argument.

My RP justification, the rogue is really fast, and being ambushed by a fast rogue sucks. Not a particularly compelling argument, but I don't think its wrong.

Spending the Haste Action for Ready Action is, in my opinion, a fair cost, and doesn't break anything, from RP perspective or otherwise. Rogues can deal sneak attack with their opportunity attack anyway, and that's rules as intended.

But the thing is, in my opinion, while rogues are certainly fast, attacking a weak spot requires a certain amount of focus and precision from the rogue, and a turn lasts only for so long. Haste doesn't bend the flow of time in any way, it only accelerates your speed.

[Galithar]

Would people be saying the same thing if the proposal was just to use Sentinel and get more OA from movement and when enemies attack allies? Sure, it's a little less consistent, but it's also less risky. Sentinel users never have to worry about losing concentration and being stunned for a round. Plus it has the potential to be online from level 1. Haste and sneak attack has a minimum level of 5, and even higher if you're casting it on yourself.

If the problem is with the fluff, many others before have given good answers. If it is because it "feels cheesy" just know that this isn't exploiting some loop hole in the game logic. It's following the rules as written perfectly. Rogues are intended to be capable of more then one sneak attack per round, else they would have said once per round instead of once per turn.

[NecessaryWeevil]

But the thing is, in my opinion, while rogues are certainly fast, attacking a weak spot requires a certain amount of focus and precision from the rogue, and a turn lasts only for so long. Haste doesn't bend the flow of time in any way, it only accelerates your speed.

I agree that increased speed is useless without focus and precision, but it seems clear to me that Haste provides that in some way. Otherwise, people would be falling flat on their faces when they try to use Haste to run supernaturally fast, fighters would be fumbling their longswords when they try to swing them, etc.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Not sure that's relevant since it's not the speed granted by Haste or any other method of attacking multiple times in a turn that gives additional sneak attack damage. The character of the player who says, "I make another attack, lightning fast! Bam!" doesn't get additional sneak attack damage. It's only the character of the player who takes note of some rules interactions and juggles some abstract labels who gets additional sneak attack damage.

[stoutstien]

Not sure that's relevant since it's not the speed granted by Haste or any other method of attacking multiple times in a turn that gives additional sneak attack damage. The character of the player who says, "I make another attack, lightning fast! Bam!" doesn't get additional sneak attack damage. It's only the character of the player who takes note of some rules interactions and juggles some abstract labels who gets additional sneak attack damage.

Welcome to game mechanics? System mastery is an assumed part of the game and 5e has a pretty low ceiling at that.
Rogues getting sneak attack as a reaction was a know feature less than a week after the starter set box was released.

[Contrast]

Not sure that's relevant since it's not the speed granted by Haste or any other method of attacking multiple times in a turn that gives additional sneak attack damage. The character of the player who says, "I make another attack, lightning fast! Bam!" doesn't get additional sneak attack damage. It's only the character of the player who takes note of some rules interactions and juggles some abstract labels who gets additional sneak attack damage.

I mean...the player who says 'I make a sneak attack, super surprising! Bam!' also doesn't get sneak attack damage. It's only the character of the player who takes note of some rules interactions, likely making use of their bonus action to achieve advantage or moving through enemies to gang up with an ally, who gets additional sneak attack damage.

[No brains]

One thing I noticed while watching some competitive fighting games is that not only is the right move important, the timing is what makes the attack devastating. The right move at the right time can have vastly different properties on hit.

That's what Haste helps you to understand. You're attacking faster, but from your perspective, you're able to take your time- land your hits in the perfect way. You could never bounce someone off of one sneak attack onto another at normal speed, but now it's easier than trying to stab with two daggers at once.

If you're doing ranged attacks, just jump into the air like a John Woo or Maxtrix movie.

[Tanarii]

Welcome to game mechanics? System mastery is an assumed part of the game and 5e has a pretty low ceiling at that.
Rogues getting sneak attack as a reaction was a know feature less than a week after the starter set box was released.
But it's questionable if it's intended system mastery, or just a side effect of 5e not having much in the way of 1/round language. Things are either 1/turn, or until beginning of your next turn, etc.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But it's questionable if it's intended system mastery, or just a side effect of 5e not having much in the way of 1/round language. Things are either 1/turn, or until beginning of your next turn, etc.

It would have been perfectly reasonable for them to have worded it similarly to a reaction if they had intended for it to only be once per round. The fact that they could have done so and chose not to makes it a very reasonable assumption that they knew you had an opportunity (attack) to do it more than once per round and found that acceptable.

Things tend to only say 1/Turn or "you can't do X again until the beginning of your next turn" because the latter directly translates to "once per round", unless you have a mechanic that allows you multiple turns in a round, of which there is only one.

Actually, expanding on that last line, I think that's even more support for sneak attack being intended to work this way, because the class ability that gives you an extra turn is from a Rogue subclass. Clearly a lot of thought was put into this interaction. If there wasn't any though put into it, it's quite a miracle that it happens to synergize so well.

EDIT: The thought came to me as well, tracking resources at "once per round" could cause some shenanigans, since rounds are tracked by the top of initiative and not your own. Using the wording "until the start of your next turn" becomes functionally the same and doesn't cause any issue with how initiative could impact it.

[stoutstien]

But it's questionable if it's intended system mastery, or just a side effect of 5e not having much in the way of 1/round language. Things are either 1/turn, or until beginning of your next turn, etc.

There are quite a few things that where probably unintentional rule interactions but sneak attacking twice by use of a reaction was intentional.
During the play test they changed it from one a round to once a turn deliberately.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Rogues getting sneak attack as a reaction was a know feature less than a week after the starter set box was released.

As mentioned in, for instance, my first post in this thread.


It's only the character of the player who takes note of some rules interactions, likely making use of their bonus action to achieve advantage or moving through enemies to gang up with an ally, who gets additional sneak attack damage.

Yeah, is it actually all rules I have a problem with? Do I disallow use of rules in my games?


That's what Haste helps you to understand.

Again, though, it's not actually Haste that gives you this. If it did we wouldn't be having this exchange. It's just that it ends up allowing for playing some abstract rules interactions. (And as an aside, if I was the DM and a player insisted on doing this thing, I'd probably just say let's not do this abstract hoop-jumping but introduce a house rule to the same effect, because we're humans and we can set the rules we want to play with, not against.)

[Contrast]

Yeah, is it actually all rules I have a problem with? Do I disallow use of rules in my games?

...I don't know? I assume not if you play 5E. It does sound like you have a problem with players using rules knowledge to justify in character actions though.

You were complaining Haste+Sneak attack was too 'gamey' with particular reference to its reliance on the specific wording of how Sneak Attack works. My point was if we pretend that wording doesn't exist and that we don't want to use our understanding of how game mechanics work to inform in character decisions about what to do then you're going to have a rogue who rarely gets sneak attack.

Is it cheesy for a Glamour bard to try and charm a target before using Mantle of Majesty?

It is cheesy to cast Guidance on yourself before kicking down the door to the enemy stronghold to get +d4 on the initiative roll?


This may just be my opinion as well as Haste seems to get a lot of love but you really need a Rogue or someone optimised with SS/GWM in the party to make Haste actually worth the 3rd level spell slot, particularly considering the very hefty downside for losing concentration.