Steady Aim in lieu of Cunning Action

[Vogie]

Back when the UA came out as Cunning Action: Aim, I allowed my players to use the feature.

It seemed relatively broken. So I nerfed it slightly, making it only usable for ranged attacks.

Still effectively broken in most fights - If the encounter didn't explicitly have a way to strike out at that Rogue Sniper, even if he was standing alone in a field, the Rogue would dish out an absurd amount of damage unchecked. It was a question of action economy. I just outright banned it, being UA and all.

Now that it's published content... should it just be in lieu of the Cunning Action feature? It's essentially a variation of bonus-action-hide-Attack, but with 0 movement speed instead of a stealth check.

[MaxWilson]

Still effectively broken in most fights - If the encounter didn't explicitly have a way to strike out at that Rogue Sniper, even if he was standing alone in a field, the Rogue would dish out an absurd amount of damage unchecked. It was a question of action economy. I just outright banned it, being UA and all.

Now that it's published content... should it just be in lieu of the Cunning Action feature? It's essentially a variation of bonus-action-hide-Attack, but with 0 movement speed instead of a stealth check.

I don't understand why you banned it in the first place. If the Rogue Sniper is standing motionless in a field... what's this about needing a way to "explicitly strike out"? He's motionless, in a field, 80' away or less (assuming shortbow usage). He's more vulnerable than he would be if kiting with Cunning Action, not less.

If your players want to trade away Cunning Action for Steady Aim they can, but it's a bad trade. Unlike shoot-then-hide it has no defensive benefits, and it pins you in place.

[Gignere]

I don't understand why you banned it in the first place. If the Rogue Sniper is standing motionless in a field... what's this about needing a way to "explicitly strike out"? He's motionless, in a field, 80' away or less (assuming shortbow usage). He's more vulnerable than he would be if kiting with Cunning Action, not less.

If your players want to trade away Cunning Action for Steady Aim they can, but it's a bad trade. Unlike shoot-then-hide it has no defensive benefits, and it pins you in place.

Yeah it’s really only for the situation where the rogue can’t move and hide that it is better than cunning action. Like being in a tight corridor or in a wide open plain, or somehow the rogue needs to tank.

I wonder if you can use aim, can you still drop down so range attacks will have disadvantage against you. Dropping prone coat no movement right?

[x3n0n]

I wonder if you can use aim, can you still drop down so range attacks will have disadvantage against you. Dropping prone coat no movement right?

Yes, I think that should work, but then if you stand up on the next round, you will have used half of your move and will no longer be eligible for Careful Aim, I'd think.

[clash]

The game mechanics are entirely balanced around a rogue getting sneak attack every turn. The only way he was putting out more damage than expected was if you are used to rogues not getting sneak attack every turn and therefore underperforming.

Add others have said as well it is actually a downgrade from the versatile cunning action.

[solidork]

Still effectively broken in most fights - If the encounter didn't explicitly have a way to strike out at that Rogue Sniper, even if he was standing alone in a field, the Rogue would dish out an absurd amount of damage unchecked.

See, this assumption is just wrong. A single class rogue getting one sneak attack with advantage every turn isn't even that powerful. Doing 10d6 with one attack every round seems exciting because that is a lot of dice, but other martials are going to do just as much or more.