Trading out sneak attack

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm a vedalken rogue in a sandbox homegrown world campaign. My character is antagonistically opposed to property rights, and has 6+1d4 bonus to sleight of hand checks, and 7+1d4 added to forgery.

The character avoids violence, and I only went rogue for the skill expertise and the bonus action thefting. But sneak attack is a rogue staple that kicks in.

I posited that sneak attack is out of place for the overall character and the dm is ok with trading it out for something roughly equivalent in power and utility. Divine magic is soft banned, and a new character wants to be the first paladin, so I don't want to rob that thunder.

So, what ability or abilities can you suggest to replace sneak attack.

[Willie the Duck]

D&D really isn't a game where a true pacifist/violence-avoidance type character will succeed. Most of the game rules are built around combat, and honestly, the rogue already has most of the non-violence-related abilities in the game. I'm not saying you shouldn't play the game this way, I just think that you will feel a little left out might be a forgone conclusion. That said, the bard and cleric are the other two classes which most often play 'support other people doing combat,' so look at stuff they have for taking. Or other rogue archetypes (be maybe a thief archetype and a arcane trickster archetype, but not get sneak attack). Or maybe get 1/3 to 1/2 bard spell progression. Stuff like that.

[OldTrees1]

The character avoids violence, and I only went rogue for the skill expertise and the bonus action thefting. But sneak attack is a rogue staple that kicks in.

How many levels of Rogue are you planning on? Multiclassing to Bard after Rogue 3-4 would reduce the amount of sneak attack dice but would mean missing out on Reliable Talent.

Sneak Attack is used to rebalance the combat math. Similar to Extra Attack at 5th + Improved Divine Smite at 11th for Paladin. The easy answer for replacing it would be to swap it for another combat skeleton. However that might not solve your avoiding violence issues.

What do you want to do during combat when it inevitable happens?

[Anymage]

What's the character's opposition to violence?

If it's about not wanting to get his hands dirty, violence is a fact of life for both criminal and adventurer types. (And someone who is morally opposed to property rights is going to wind up dealing with both law enforcement and other criminal types as a matter of course.) Being able to end a fight with brutal efficiency ends the current tussle quicker and discourages other people from trying in the future. Sneak attack works quite well for this.

If the character is a diehard moral pacifist, violence is still a fact of life for adventurer types. If you don't want to be in the room whenever a fight breaks out, you've basically made an NPC. If for some reason you refuse to personally inflict violence but are okay supporting/enabling it in others, I'd be inclined to give some spell progression that can only be used for buff/support spells, and/or something based off the Commander's Strike maneuver where you can spend your action to let someone else reaction-attack on your turn. At least then you get to do something in battle beyond passing your turn and feeling like a liability.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm a vedalken rogue in a sandbox homegrown world campaign. My character is antagonistically opposed to property rights, and has 6+1d4 bonus to sleight of hand checks, and 7+1d4 added to forgery.

The character avoids violence, and I only went rogue for the skill expertise and the bonus action thefting. But sneak attack is a rogue staple that kicks in.

I posited that sneak attack is out of place for the overall character and the dm is ok with trading it out for something roughly equivalent in power and utility. Divine magic is soft banned, and a new character wants to be the first paladin, so I don't want to rob that thunder.

So, what ability or abilities can you suggest to replace sneak attack.

Bardic Inspiration based on Int would seem like a decent swap. Your character gives really great insights into what to do.

[daremetoidareyo]

Bardic Inspiration based on Int would seem like a decent swap. Your character gives really great insights into what to do.

I'll pitch this if my suggestion for some superiority dice and maneuvers is rejected.

[DarknessEternal]

Why be a Rogue at all and not a Bard which will do that character better?

[JellyPooga]

It's important, when building any character, to work with the system, not fight it.

So with that in mind;

I would first ask you to consider the aspect of your character that abhorrs violence. Does their dislike of violence extend to true pacisfism? If so, how do they reconcile any action they perform in combat, including inaction, with that attitude toward violence. A true pacifist could not idly stand by and watch violence be commited, any more than they could assist another in committing violence. Are they instead, just looking for loopholes; does their dislike of violence come from a vow or contract that they can work around e.g. "I can't shed blood, but that doesn't mean I can't suffocate you with a pillow"? If that's the case, then the source of your non-violence is a very different thing. Is it something else? A distaste for blood? Cowardice? Lack of care? They just don't like to break a sweat? Why your character doesn't like violence is a really key question here, because as an adventurer in a party full of people that are quite happy to commit violence of the grossest and most physical kind, your character is going to be forced to question their non-violence. Frequently. Let alone the mechanical implications, even as a roleplaying conceit, this is going to come up frequently and if it doesn't or you're unwilling to, then you need to reevaluate your commitment to the character trait and whether you want it to be a part of the character you're playing and further, whether you're really justified in asking for a Sneak Attack replacement, or if you're just asking for a mechanical benefit for a roleplaying element you're unwilling to realise in play.

Secondly, I would ask you what you consider an "Attack" to be and by inference, what HP are. This might seem a little left field, but put it in the context of a) working with the system and b) the specific terms of your characters non-violence. If your character is just a coward that doesn't want to be in a combat at all (i.e. when initiative is rolled, you simply don't get involved at all, perhaps standing aside or even running away or hiding for the duration of the combat), then asking for a Sneak Attack replacement is probably warranted. If, on the other hand, your character is opposed to attacking others in the sense of just stabbing them with a knife...well, therein lies the crux of my query here; if your character is happy to trip and throw sand in peoples eyes, to distract and feint...in essence, if your character is happy to engage in combat at all, then you can still use Sneak Attack and maintain your non-violent persona.

I contend that an Attack is not necessarily just the swing of the sword or the thrust of a dagger any more than HP represents a characters literal ability to keep walking with a dozen arrows sticking out of his face. By consequence, Sneak Attack no more neccesitates drawing blood or committing violence in those terms. It can just as easily represent your characters ability to distract and hinder an opponent without recourse to physically attacking them in the "stabby" sense. Sneak Attack is a way of (quite literally) "sneakily" "attacking" someone; what's more "sneaky" an "attack" than an attack that isn't an "attack" (violent) at all? Roleplay your (sneak) attacks as fancy footwork putting foes off-balance, drawing their attention away from others, cutting belts or ties, flipping cloaks over faces, pinning clothes to walls...everything and anything you ever saw in a fight scene in a Three Musketeers film that wasn't a direct thrust...all of that can justifiably be described as a sneak attack.

So, in short, you need to ask yourself these questions before you start looking for homebrew alternatives;
1) How and why is your character non-violent?
2) How do you envision your character acting in combat?
3) Can you reconcile (2) with (1) and if so, what mechanical terms/abilities do you foresee being able to use?
4) Can you conceivably roleplay the abilities you have as a Rogue in light of (3)? If not, why not?

[Tvtyrant]

Not using homebrew is not innately worse then using homebrew. You don't need to ask yourself anything before using homebrew, the choice is neutral.

[Xapi]

How about keeping sneak attack mostly mehanically the same, but allowing you to use it as non-lethal damage, in order to be able to inapacitate foes without actually injuring them?

You could also try getting some sleep focused spells or substances to better rob people without them noticing, wich might have some value in combat also.

[daremetoidareyo]

How about keeping sneak attack mostly mehanically the same, but allowing you to use it as non-lethal damage, in order to be able to inapacitate foes without actually injuring them?

You could also try getting some sleep focused spells or substances to better rob people without them noticing, wich might have some value in combat also.

That's the agreement we came to. Sneak attack can be non lethal. And the DM is turning on the disarm optional standard action rule.

[Man_Over_Game]

Try it like this:

Make the "Attack roll". If you succeed, don't deal any damage but instead treat that "attack" as a distraction move that you rolled ahead of time. The next time the target would deal damage, reduce that damage by your Sneak Attack + Weapon total.

Or, instead of dealing damage, you just prevent it. You could probably tie it into the Reaction, but that would leave you with not much left to use your Action for.

[Contrast]

How about keeping sneak attack mostly mehanically the same, but allowing you to use it as non-lethal damage, in order to be able to inapacitate foes without actually injuring them?

If you're making melee attacks, this isn't changing anything mechanically - you can do that already within the rules.

Re OP. At lower tiers you can sort of get by using the Help action instead but regardless you are going to run out of meaningful things to do in combat as you level up if you don't have sneak attack or some other combat ability to replace it...and if you aren't doing a lot of combat you probably shouldn't be using 5E as your base system in the first place.

I agree with others that a bard may be the better choice as a base class if you don't want the character getting their hands dirty.

[JellyPooga]

Not using homebrew is not innately worse then using homebrew. You don't need to ask yourself anything before using homebrew, the choice is neutral.

I beg to differ. I could houserule that all Wizards (and only Wizards) get an additional 40 HP at lvl.1 and it would be, in most opinions, a fairly terrible houserule. However, before implementing it, I would have to ask myself why I'm implementing it; the question would be required. The question begs an answer, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) influence the answer i.e. even though +40hp Wizards seem like a bad idea on the surface, they could be justified in certain game settings or campaigns, pending other factors, including but not limited to other houserules in effect. Anything else is just arbitrary.

[JackPhoenix]

Propably too late for that, but have you checked the Expert sidekick from the Sidekick UA (or Essentials kit)? It's basically non-combat rogue, better in some ways, worse in others.

More skill proficiencies, simple weapons only, expertise, Help as bonus action, Extra Attack at level 5, something like bard's Jack of All Trades, extra bonus when you use Help action at higher levels....

[daremetoidareyo]

We kept talking, and im satisfied with sneak attack being a nonlethal option. The DM pitched a battlemaster subclass with d6 superiority die as an archetype and disallowed the non roguey maneuvers. So in all, im super satisfied. I'll pick up quick fingers feat at 4, and im set til level 20.

[daremetoidareyo]

Thanks for the help guys.

I know it's wierd to eschew combat, but im doing a bit of an experiment with this role play opportunity to be something wierd and dynamic: Heroically principled Chaotic good.

[Crucius]

Try it like this:

Make the "Attack roll". If you succeed, don't deal any damage but instead treat that "attack" as a distraction move that you rolled ahead of time. The next time the target would deal damage, reduce that damage by your Sneak Attack + Weapon total.

Or, instead of dealing damage, you just prevent it. You could probably tie it into the Reaction, but that would leave you with not much left to use your Action for.

Shoot. I was going to suggest the exact same thing. If it's pacifism and support you want then damage reduction based on sneak attack seems like a solid move! Not sure how the math is on this, since monsters tend to get HP faster than damage output, which is what sneak attack is balanced around. You'd have to find out the balance as you go I think.

[Willie the Duck]

Thanks for the help guys.

I know it's wierd to eschew combat, but im doing a bit of an experiment with this role play opportunity to be something wierd and dynamic: Heroically principled Chaotic good.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, I just think we are pointing out that trying to balance giving things to a character with that in mind is kind of a nightmarish proposition.

[Man_Over_Game]

Shoot. I was going to suggest the exact same thing. If it's pacifism and support you want then damage reduction based on sneak attack seems like a solid move! Not sure how the math is on this, since monsters tend to get HP faster than damage output, which is what sneak attack is balanced around. You'd have to find out the balance as you go I think.

Thing is, damage from a specific creature is circumstantial, while damage on a creature is not. A creature could do something that doesn't involve dealing damage, such as using the Help action for an ally, grappling or shoving a target, or using the Dodge action. Additionally, monsters often have more HP than players, and also are more likely to outnumber the players than vice-versa, meaning that there's a high risk of the full THP value being wasted even when it's useful (while the same might not be said about dealing SA as damage).

It's kinda how Riposte on the Battlemaster is really good, but it's also a lot more circumstantial than the other maneuvers. Just because it can be very good doesn't mean it always is. Which is why some Battlemasters opt just to spam Trip Attack.

[Vogie]

I'm glad you and the DM worked it out.

Another option you (or any one else in this situation) could do is actually INCREASING the Sneak attack dice per level, but having your "sneak attacks" act like the sleep or color spray spells.

You could also make them into faux-maneuvers (similar to a swords bard) that allows them to use those sneak attack dice in utility manners. For example, if the sneak attack die roll over the target's Hit points:

The target is knocked prone
Disarm the target
Confuse the target, as the spell confusion

And so on.

[Crucius]

Thing is, damage from a specific creature is circumstantial, while damage on a creature is not. A creature could do something that doesn't involve dealing damage, such as using the Help action for an ally, grappling or shoving a target, or using the Dodge action. Additionally, monsters often have more HP than players, and also are more likely to outnumber the players than vice-versa, meaning that there's a high risk of the full THP value being wasted even when it's useful (while the same might not be said about dealing SA as damage).

It's kinda how Riposte on the Battlemaster is really good, but it's also a lot more circumstantial than the other maneuvers. Just because it can be very good doesn't mean it always is. Which is why some Battlemasters opt just to spam Trip Attack.

Hmm, true. With regular sneak attack you control all the action, but with damage reduction/THP the enemy dictates your effectiveness largely. Interesting, hadn't thought of it like that.