One D&D: New Rogue Nerfed

[Person_Man]

So as we all know, the new playtest for “Expert” classes was released: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/expert-classes/kpx0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf

Sneak attack is nerfed, limiting it to just your turn. (Removing the ability to Sneak Attack twice per round with an Opportunity Attack or Haste +Readied Action).

Thief subclass is nerfed, as Fast Hands can no longer Use an Object.

Rangers now get Expertise, giving you less of a reason to play a Rogue. (Though in fairness, this has been the case since Skill Expert was released in Tashas).

On the plus side Rogues get more/better high level class features, and they’re not just duplicating spells. Which is good! But are they worth waiting so long to get?

Thoughts?

[Scarytincan]

Also moved up how long it takes to get subclass features, which is very nice

[Psyren]

While the loss of the reaction sneak attack definitely hurts, Subtle Strikes looks to be a solid DPR boost. Assuming you weren't getting the reaction SA every round (which most rogues weren't), it might even be a net increase. In addition, the TWF changes mean melee rogues don't have to choose between attacking twice and getting Cunning Action (or Steady Aim, for those DMs that will allow Tashas optional features in 1DD.) And lastly, not needing to save your reaction for a potential second sneak attack means you can devote it to other things like Uncanny Dodge.

[BoutsofInsanity]

So as we all know, the new playtest for “Expert” classes was released: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/expert-classes/kpx0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf

Sneak attack is nerfed, limiting it to just your turn. (Removing the ability to Sneak Attack twice per round with an Opportunity Attack or Haste +Readied Action).

Thief subclass is nerfed, as Fast Hands can no longer Use an Object.

Rangers now get Expertise, giving you less of a reason to play a Rogue. (Though in fairness, this has been the case since Skill Expert was released in Tashas).

On the plus side Rogues get more/better high level class features, and they’re not just duplicating spells. Which is good! But are they worth waiting so long to get?

Thoughts?

Complicated.

I REALLY like the direction the Ranger is going. I think the Bard is also fine where it sits as well. Neither are perfect or where I would want them. But I'd be down to play either of those classes.

The Rogue sits in a weird spot. I don't think the nerfs are warranted per say. But I don't see them as big of a deal as others are making it out to be. The Thief Subclass seems buffed. Fast hands and cunning action are still bonkers strong. And the Thief being able to bonus action search is HIGHLY underated.

I think what's missing, is something that pops. If you remove the Sneak Attack feature, which again, is not as big of a deal as it's made out to be, I'd like it replaced with something a bit more exciting.

The Ranger too.

Ill say this. I like the direction all of the classes shown are going. BUT I'd like to see them pushed maybe 20 to 30 percent more in those directions.

[elyktsorb]

Thief subclass is nerfed, as Fast Hands can no longer Use an Object.


Was the using an Object the best part of fast hands? Like, I'll miss is, but if the items they have access to is the same quality as the current stock, that's not really a big deal.

The fact that they straight up get a climbing speed as opposed to climbing no longer costing extra movement seems like a good buff.

I'm more concerned with the fact that it seems like they can no longer use any magic item, though I suppose an extra attunement slot is nice.

[Mastikator]

Here are my thoughts of the new UA rogue class features.

Weapon proficiencies
Longsword is removed, longsword was a weird weapon proficiency that rogues get in 2014 PHB. I don't mind that it's gone, even though it's strictly a nerf.

Expertise
Same, as it used to be. No opinion

Sneak attack
Can no longer be used on a reaction, so you get one per round. It's another nerf, but setting up the second one always felt janky to me, now players will feel less compelled to do janky stuff. I don't mind.

Thieve's cant
You also gain a language proficiency, this is useful if DM uses languages in their campaign.

Cunning Action
Unchanged

Uncanny Dodge
unchanged

Evasion
Unchanged except you get it 2 levels later

Reliable Talent
Unchanged

Subtle strikes
Rogues basically get pact tactics, neat. No opinion on this TBH, I'm surprised that I don't. It's just a neat thing.

Slippery Mind
Also applies to charisma saves, I like.

---

My thoughts on the thief subclass

Fast hands
Can't use object with this, nerf, IMO unnecessary nerf. Not happy with this nerf.

Second-Story Work
You gain climb speed equal to your speed and you can use dex instead of str when you jump. This is much cleaner and simpler than the 2014 PHB version which IMO is a big improvement. It's technically weaker in some scenarios but in most should be stronger.

Supreme Sneak
Seems like the same as the 2014 PHB version but you get it sooner? I like.

Use Magic Device
You can now attune to 4 magic items, depending on the campaign that might be huge, or it might be nothing if you got a stingy DM.
You have a 1/6 chance to not use up charges on magic items with charges, that's really nice
Using scrolls seems like the same as 2014 PHB

Thief's Reflexes
Proficiency bonus times per day, you can take a second bonus action. This is kinda awesome?


--

overall I like that they didn't change too much, I like the change to second story work and I don't mind the nerf to sneak attack. So I'm happy. But not as happy as I am with the bard and the ranger TBH.

[stoutstien]

You beat me to the rogue.
This is definitely the biggest conceptual shift. The reduction to one sneak attack a round maximum but it looks like they are really leaning into more of a scrappy combatant with skills to back it up. I also think a lot of the damaging adventure items are going to be moved to the weapon table so it's possible that you're not actually going to lose out on sneak attack of holy water angle.

It is funny because they've always been a lot tankier than you would expect in 5e. They are doubling down on it.

The thief feels like it almost should be an Artificer option.

[Woggle]

Weapon proficiencies
Longsword is removed, longsword was a weird weapon proficiency that rogues get in 2014 PHB. I don't mind that it's gone, even though it's strictly a nerf.

I personally would have preferred to see the Sneak Attack restriction to finesse weapons lifted and replaced with any non-heavy weapon. Then keeping longsword as a proficiency, with the added benefit of being able to sneak attack with clubs and maces, for example. But it's not that big a deal to me in the end.

[stoutstien]

I personally would have preferred to see the Sneak Attack restriction to finesse weapons lifted and replaced with any non-heavy weapon. Then keeping longsword as a proficiency, with the added benefit of being able to sneak attack with clubs and maces, for example. But it's not that big a deal to me in the end.

Honestly if they are limiting sneak attack to once per round tops there's no reason for any weapon restrictions.

[nickl_2000]

Here are my thoughts of the new UA rogue class features.

Weapon proficiencies
Longsword is removed, longsword was a weird weapon proficiency that rogues get in 2014 PHB. I don't mind that it's gone, even though it's strictly a nerf.



I'm pretty sure Longsword only existed due to tradition. I don't think it's a nerf because you lost Longsword (which few rogues used) and added Whip, which many rogues would love.

[Damon_Tor]

The fact that they straight up get a climbing speed as opposed to climbing no longer costing extra movement seems like a good buff.

If anything it's a nerf because you can't mix move speeds now.

[Mastikator]

I'm pretty sure Longsword only existed due to tradition. I don't think it's a nerf because you lost Longsword (which few rogues used) and added Whip, which many rogues would love.

Good catch! This would technically give high level rogues with whips long range pack tactics. TAKE THAT KOBOLDS! BOW BEFORE THE MIGHTY ROGUE AND HIS 15 FEET PACK TACTICS (also with ranged weapons, sharpshooter with longbow could get 600 feet pack tactics, which is insane)

[Segev]

While the loss of the reaction sneak attack definitely hurts, Subtle Strikes looks to be a solid DPR boost. Assuming you weren't getting the reaction SA every round (which most rogues weren't), it might even be a net increase. In addition, the TWF changes mean melee rogues don't have to choose between attacking twice and getting Cunning Action (or Steady Aim, for those DMs that will allow Tashas optional features in 1DD.) And lastly, not needing to save your reaction for a potential second sneak attack means you can devote it to other things like Uncanny Dodge.

Could you elaborate on this? Do you just mean that you have advantage more often, so will hit more often? Or is there something I'm missing about it allowing more sneak attacks? If I am reading it correctly, it gives advantage in cases where you would already have sneak attack enabled; it doesn't actually enable sneak attacks you couldn't have already made.

[Stangler]

The change to sneak attack being effectively once per round is a necessary change because it has an oversized impact on the balancing of feats like sentinel or spells like haste or abilities like commander strike. From a game design POV the choice for more damage should be clearer to the player and balanced against other similar choices. The capacity to land sneak attack on a reaction attack seems like a nice feature but the balance implications should be considered.

The biggest changes between old and new rogue is the level 1 feat and easy access to half feats at level 4, plus the change to TWF. Create a level 5 rogue using the changes from the two UAs and you are looking at a really fun class with a lot of interesting customization options IMO. Alert + Charger is my favorite feat choice combo ATM.

Ranger is really OP early so don't get jealous.

Bard is still a primary spell caster and those still scale up really well.

As is, the game needs more feats and ways to scale up non spell related aspects of the game.

[follacchioso]

Here are my thoughts of the new UA rogue class features.

Sneak attack
Can no longer be used on a reaction, so you get one per round. It's another nerf, but setting up the second one always felt janky to me, now players will feel less compelled to do janky stuff. I don't mind.
My Order Cleric / Evocation Wizard specialized in Silvery Barbs is weeping for this. Such a great combo. But I agree that this is something that does not happen frequently at many tables. I also agree that rogues should not have been able to use Sneak Attack on Reactions anyways.

Another silent nerf is that Sneak Attacks are not doubled on Critical Hits, although it seems that may be changed in other UAs.



Cunning Action
Unchanged
They could have added the Jump action, it feels something Rogues would do better than other classes.



Subtle strikes
Rogues basically get pact tactics, neat. No opinion on this TBH, I'm surprised that I don't. It's just a neat thing.
Slippery Mind
Also applies to charisma saves, I like.
I agree, these are good changes.





Fast hands
Can't use object with this, nerf, IMO unnecessary nerf. Not happy with this nerf.
Fast Hands has always been a confusing feature. By raw it doesn't work on Healing Potions because they are magical. Alchemist Fires and the likes are very expensive to use, and Rogues do not have a way to craft them. I think this is a simplification more than a specific nerf.

The Search action allows you to roll a Perception check to see hidden creature - it's the Inquisitive Eye for Detail feature. This is very strong in many situations, and very roguish.



Second-Story Work
You gain climb speed equal to your speed and you can use dex instead of str when you jump. This is much cleaner and simpler than the 2014 PHB version which IMO is a big improvement. It's technically weaker in some scenarios but in most should be stronger.


Use Magic Device
You can now attune to 4 magic items, depending on the campaign that might be huge, or it might be nothing if you got a stingy DM.
You have a 1/6 chance to not use up charges on magic items with charges, that's really nice
Using scrolls seems like the same as 2014 PHBAttuning to 4 magic items is very strong at high levels. I'll take it any day.
The scroll thing is unclear - does the scroll disintegrates if you succeed the Arcane check?
It's an interesting feature, but scrolls are expensive and rogues have no way to make them by themselves.

[Yakk]

The Light weapon rule makes rogues significantly stronger. Because they can now TWF *and* cunning action, as TWF does not require your bonus action anymore.


Could you elaborate on this? Do you just mean that you have advantage more often, so will hit more often? Or is there something I'm missing about it allowing more sneak attacks? If I am reading it correctly, it gives advantage in cases where you would already have sneak attack enabled; it doesn't actually enable sneak attacks you couldn't have already made.
Yes, it is advantage more often, hence more damage.

The high-op rogue was using readied actions (or similar) to get more than 1 sneak attack per round. But it required very specific techniques (like reliably getting haste) to pull off.

This was removed. But the baseline rogue is getting near-free advantage at level 13, which ups accuracy.

...

My baseline rogue is the two short sword rogue. With 60% hit and 5% crit chance, it gets 0.1 weapon crits, 1.2 weapon hits, 0.08 sneak attack crits and .84 sneak attack hit rate.

The readied action rogue (say, scimitar of speed) gets 0.1 sneak attack hits and 1.2 sneak attack hits per round.

The D&DOne L 13 rogue gets advantage, upping single-weapon hit rate to 84% and crit to 10%. This gives it a 1.68 weapon hits 0.2 weapon crits, 0.97 sneak attack hits and 0.11 sneak attack crits.

We'll give the Readied action rogue a Scimitar of Speed, and the D&D One Rogue a Flametongue.

L 13 Scimitar Readied Action 5e Rogue: 1.5 * 3.5 * 7 sneak attack, 1.5 * 3.5 weapon dice, 1.4 * 7 static damage = 51.8 DPR
L 13 Flametongue D&DOne Rogue: 1.08 * 3.5 * 7 sneak attack, .94 * 4 * 3.5 weapon dice, .84 * 5 static damage = 43.8 DPR
L 13 Flametongue 5e Rogue: .92 * 3.5 * 7 sneak attack, .65 * 4 * 3.5 weapon dice, .6 * 5 static damage = 34.6 DPR
L 13 SCAG Cantrip 5e Rogue (+2 sword): .75 * 3.5 * 7 sneak attack, .75 * 1 * 3.5 weapon dice, .75 * 4.5 * 2 Cantrip, .7 * 5 static damage = 31.3 DPR
L 13 Naive 5e Rogue (+2 sword): .75 * 3.5 * 7 sneak attack, .75 * 3.5 weapon, .7 * 7 static = 25.9 DPR
L 13 Naive 5e Rogue: .65 * 3.5 * 7 sneak attack, .65 * 3.5 weapon, .6 * 5 static = 21.2 DPR


And some other options as well.

It definitely boosts the baseline DPR of a T3 rogue nicely. The impact is large compared to most modest optimizations.

[Psyren]

Using scrolls seems like the same as 2014 PHB

The 5e Thief didn't need a check to use any scroll. Now, if the scroll is higher than 1st they do, making them a bit more MAD as they'll want Int.


Thief's Reflexes
Proficiency bonus times per day, you can take a second bonus action. This is kinda awesome?

Yeah, though to note, one or both of them have to be Cunning Action. Still, it's a nice way to say, Steady Aim + Dodge + Attack + Uncanny Dodge in one round.

[Yakk]

The 5e Thief didn't need a check to use any scroll. Now, if the scroll is higher than 1st they do, making them a bit more MAD as they'll want Int.
Reliable talent makes this a bit easy.

You can take expertise (arcana) to make it auto-succeed.

Without it, and 12(+1) int, at level 11 you can auto-succeed on everything up to level 5.

At level 17 you auto-succeed on up to 7th level spells.

Admittedly, if you don't have Arcana proficiency, it is more of a crapshoot.

L 8 and 9 scrolls are going to be pretty rare and expensive even in T4. If you really need to, getting +1 or +2 to your check via a bard, guideance cantrip, ion stone, luckstone are all options.

With advantage (from someone arcana trained aiding you) and guideance, your chance of casting a L 9 spell with arcana(+7) is:

75% (you roll an 11+7+1d4 or higher, min possible is 9).
+25% (reliable talent kicks in) * 75% (you roll a 2+ on guideance).
= 94% success chance. Still nail biting.

[Psyren]

Reliable talent makes this a bit easy.

You can take expertise (arcana) to make it auto-succeed.

Without it, and 12(+1) int, at level 11 you can auto-succeed on everything up to level 5.

At level 17 you auto-succeed on up to 7th level spells.

Admittedly, if you don't have Arcana proficiency, it is more of a crapshoot.

L 8 and 9 scrolls are going to be pretty rare and expensive even in T4. If you really need to, getting +1 or +2 to your check via a bard, guideance cantrip, ion stone, luckstone are all options.

With advantage (from someone arcana trained aiding you) and guideance, your chance of casting a L 9 spell with arcana(+7) is:

75% (you roll an 11+7+1d4 or higher, min possible is 9).
+25% (reliable talent kicks in) * 75% (you roll a 2+ on guideance).
= 94% success chance. Still nail biting.

I agree that with the right investments you can make it pretty reliable. But it's still a change from it being automatic.

[Pooky the Imp]

With regard to Sneak Attack, it's honestly something I'd really prefer to see the rogue move away from altogether.

To me at least, it just feels like a really boring mechanic that dangles around the neck of the class.

I'd much prefer to see a rogue along the lines of the Swordsage from the Book of 9 Swords (in 3.5). As in, a class with far more tricks up its sleeve in combat than just stabbing people in the back. Surely we could just offload that to the inevitable Assassin subclass?

[da newt]

Yeah, though to note, one or both of them have to be Cunning Action. Still, it's a nice way to say, Steady Aim + Dodge + Attack + Uncanny Dodge in one round.

Huh? Did Dodge or Attack become a BA with this new UA? I thought it added a second BA, not a second action so you could Steady Aim, attack, HIDE on one turn but not take 2 actions.

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with the change to Sneak Attack, looking for ways to use it off turn was a big part of the optimization of them for a while now, and its one of those "features" that I feel creates a "barrier of entry" of sorts.

Getting a subclass feature between 3 and 9 is good, independently of what those features are, they can be analyzed in a case by case basis.

Very relevant to the Rogue now, is the added support for dual wielding, which has historically been associated with Rogues, now that is not competing with you Cunning Action.

Thief in particular ended up much worse.

Second Story Work, seems a bit weaker than before, adding Dex mod feet to your distance jumped is the same as having Prof + Str + Dex for long jumps, and Prof + Str + 2*Dex for high jumps (as long as Str does not have a penalty).

Climbing speed instead of climbing not costing additional, I think is kind of a wash cause I don't believe this UA movement rules are gonna stick.

Fast Hands is strictly worse now, and subjectively I think it'll be almost useless, I question how often getting to make a search action as a BA instead of an action will come into play, it is used to find hidden enemies, so I might be worng here. Use an Object was the best part of it for me.

UMD is a different feature, an extra attunement slot is good, but being able to use staffs anymore is fundamentally changing how Thieves can be played once you get that feature.

[Psyren]

I'd much prefer to see a rogue along the lines of the Swordsage from the Book of 9 Swords (in 3.5). As in, a class with far more tricks up its sleeve in combat than just stabbing people in the back. Surely we could just offload that to the inevitable Assassin subclass?

They said Rogue had over 90% satisfaction in the PHB survey so your hopes of them removing sneak attack entirely are pretty slim.

Besides, "maneuver martial" is much more likely to be the realm of a Dex Battlemaster or a Monk.

[gloryblaze]

Could you elaborate on this? Do you just mean that you have advantage more often, so will hit more often? Or is there something I'm missing about it allowing more sneak attacks? If I am reading it correctly, it gives advantage in cases where you would already have sneak attack enabled; it doesn't actually enable sneak attacks you couldn't have already made.

While this maybe isn't what the person you quoted is referring to (since they already responded discussing something else), one thing that Subtle Strikes does is improve your ability to Sneak Attack when you would normally have disadvantage, like if you're at long range, shooting in melee, blinded, restrained, etc.

In a situation in which you have an ally within 5 feet of the target but also disadvantage, you'd be SOL in 5e because disadvantage is a hard off-switch for Sneak Attack. In One DND, Subtle Strikes would cancel the disadvantage and let you proc the sneak attack.

[Catullus64]

As someone who has played the Rogue class more than all other classes combined:

Getting Search added to Fast Hands (I guess you feel up your environment really quickly) is neat, though if this is meant to be backwards-compatible like they claim it steps on the toes of the Inquisitive.

So glad that Second-Story Work has had its game terminology clarified and brought in line. It was always such a weirdly worded feature. Also, there might be a standardized Jump Action now?

Swapping around 2nd Expertise, Evasion, and 2nd Subclass feature... I'm of mixed opinion about this. Putting something as cool as Evasion even further off rankles me, and the mid-tier Rogue features are seldom game-defining. I would have preferred:

6th: Evasion
7th: Subclass Feature
9th: Expertise

As for the Sneak Attack thing... it is a nuisance, and I find myself puzzled by the design rationale, but it's truly not a big deal. I think that optimization circles tend to overstate the importance of reaction-Sneak Attacking. For most people, I think that it's a neat occasional bonus rather than a key part of playing a Rogue.

Didn't look in as much detail at the Bard and Ranger, since they're not my favorite class like the Rogue, but it looks like there's a lot of sanding off of mechanical quirks and unique mechanics, which makes me sad. Natural Explorer needed a boost to its general applicability, but it was a great feature. Replacing it with generic expertise is so dull. The Hunter subclass loses cool stuff like Horde Breaker. I'm also not pleased if OneD&D is doing away with spells-known vs. prepared casting, which looks like the case given that the Bard and Ranger are now prepared.

All in all, this seems like a retreat into one of the things that bothered me about Fourth Edition: it achieved balance at the cost of a strong sense of class identity. This isn't quite as extreme as that edition, but note the signs: subclass feature levels standardized across classes, spell lists and preparation standardized across classes, wide proliferation of formerly-rare features like Expertise. Not to my taste.

[Chaos Jackal]

The nerf is overstated. Yes, at times, off-turn Sneak Attacks could end up accounting for a high percentage of a rogue's damage. A lot of other times though, that off-turn Sneak Attack was only some extra perk you were happy to use once in a while. After all, pulling it off on your own required you being a 13th level Arcane Trickster (that's a lot of levels and a lot of time spent without it), multiclassing to something that could more easily drop reaction attacks like Battle Master (which, however, meant weaker Sneak Attack overall), specific feats or specific classes/subclasses in the party who could give you the required boost. At the same time, it also locked you in melee (not good), as a d8 HD character (not awful but not ideal) without a reaction, including Uncanny Dodge 9 (very bad). There were plenty of cases where even being in a position for an off-turn Sneak Attack would be dangerous, let alone spending that reaction and leaving yourself completely open. And ranged rogues, who have some significant advantages over melee ones, never relied on it anyway.

So overall, yeah, this is a nerf, but it's not that big of a nerf and it doesn't come without anything in return. Pack Tactics at the same level an AT would get to haste themselves once a day is definitely big when you do the comparison, free off-hand attack means you get some of the damage back and makes Cunning Action available more often and the fact many skill uses have been clarified and spelled out in more specific, mechanical manners is also an obvious buff to the class, which can now leverage its Expertise and later on Reliable Talent with the appropriate skills to automatically succeed at a number of things that now have clear, defined, mechanical impact. The rogue, at least the baseline chassis, is probably better off in that UA than it is right now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thief subclass is nerfed, as Fast Hands can no longer Use an Object. That really stinks. It was one of the really cool features of Rogue/Thief, particularly with healer kit/feat.

On the plus side Rogues get more/better high level class features, and they’re not just duplicating spells. Which is good! But are they worth waiting so long to get? I like the added attunement slot, not sure if I like the scroll limitation.

[Hael]

We will need to see dpr values for the other classes in the game to really judge whether this was a relative nerf or not. I think the 5.5 Ranger is already going to be significantly outdamaging what we see here.

In 5.0 the rogues damage was high in tier1, then fell off like a rock b/c other classes got extra attack and class features/feats that really scaled better than sneak attack. Consider that a rogue in 5.0 could multiclass out at 11, and only lose 4d6 damage * accuracy (not a relevant damage increase in tier3/4). At least with the reaction SA, it was 8d6 scaling (not great but workable).

My worry is that greater access to advantage in 5.5 (inspiration etc) seems like it might devalue classes that rely on easy advantage like the rogue and further make the SA scaling problems apparent.

[Rukelnikov]

I like the added attunement slot, not sure if I like the scroll limitation.

The scroll limitation is a complete deal breaker, UMD is fundamentally a different feature now.

[Dr.Samurai]

Rather than remove off-turn SA, the Rogue should have received an improvement to Uncanny Dodge at later levels that let them make an OA as part of using Uncanny Dodge against a melee attack.

[Person_Man]

Overall, this conversation reinforces my initial impression that WotC should just give Rogues more candy. I get why they limited Sneak Attack - to try and limit the more confusing/unintuitive combos to trigger it on another creatures turn. I get why they removed Use and Object from Fast Hands, because there has always been confusion about using magic items, and improvised weapon proficiency. Simple rules are generally better rules, and I’m fine with that.

But if you’re going to make these nerfs, then WotC should give them more low-mid level buffs. Give back old UMD ability, and give them something extra besides attunement (which steps on Artificers niche). Let Sneak Attack be used with any non-heavy weapon. (Which would also open up multiclass options with Monk, Druid, casters, etc). Give something better than just Expertise at 9th level. Etc.

[Rukelnikov]

Overall, this conversation reinforces my initial impression that WotC should just give Rogues more candy. I get why they limited Sneak Attack - to try and limit the more confusing/unintuitive combos to trigger it on another creatures turn. I get why they removed Use and Object from Fast Hands, because there has always been confusion about using magic items, and improvised weapon proficiency. Simple rules are generally better rules, and I’m fine with that.

But if you’re going to make these nerfs, then WotC should give them more low-mid level buffs. Give back old UMD ability, and give them something extra besides attunement (which steps on Artificers niche). Let Sneak Attack be used with any non-heavy weapon. (Which would also open up multiclass options with Monk, Druid, casters, etc). Give something better than just Expertise at 9th level. Etc.

As a side not, stepping on toes IS one of the characteristics of Experts by design, they get to play with others toys.

[Yakk]

The scroll limitation is a complete deal breaker, UMD is fundamentally a different feature now.
No it isn't a fundamentally different feature?

You get reliable talent at 11. With basic Arcana proficiency and 12 int you auto succeed on scrolls up to 5th level, 6th at 13, 7th at 17. If you used one of your 4 expertise slots on arcana and have 8 int, you auto succeed on up to 7th level, 9th at 13 (or 9th at level 11 if you have 12 int).

I agree, if reliable talent wasn't right around the corner, you'd have a point. But it is. And it works great here.

[Psyren]

But if you’re going to make these nerfs, then WotC should give them more low-mid level buffs. Give back old UMD ability, and give them something extra besides attunement (which steps on Artificers niche). Let Sneak Attack be used with any non-heavy weapon. (Which would also open up multiclass options with Monk, Druid, casters, etc). Give something better than just Expertise at 9th level. Etc.

UMD should stay a Thief thing, they are the ultimate utility rogue.

They already have the means to make Fast Hands simpler - using Magic Items now requires the Magic action, just disallow that from CA.

Agree on Sneak Attack being a bit broader (or alternatively, just make club or quarterstaff a finesse weapon.)

[Rukelnikov]

No it isn't a fundamentally different feature?

You get reliable talent at 11. With basic Arcana proficiency and 12 int you auto succeed on scrolls up to 5th level, 6th at 13, 7th at 17. If you used one of your 4 expertise slots on arcana and have 8 int, you auto succeed on up to 7th level, 9th at 13 (or 9th at level 11 if you have 12 int).

I agree, if reliable talent wasn't right around the corner, you'd have a point. But it is. And it works great here.

Idk how its at your table, but getting enough scrolls to make use of liberally has not usually been a thing at mine.

Getting a staff however is very different, you get it once and now you are only limited by how many charges you spend during the day.

[Brookshw]

Idk how its at your table, but getting enough scrolls to make use of liberally has not usually been a thing at mine.


Somehow I still end up rolling mostly scroll for a t3 party when randomly generating, it's kinda bizarre. Wouldn't say no to adjusting the random loot tables.

[Kane0]

Sneak Attack: Thankyou for wording it more clearly! Can only sneak attack with the Attack action now, which is notable.

Thieves Cant: Now comes with some other language. Buy one, get one free!

Cunning Action: No change, still great. Notably we don’t have the Tasha’s Snipe option.

Subclass: It appears there is a standard pattern of 3, 6, 10 and 14 now, that’s good.

Uncanny Dodge: No change, still great

Evasion: Two levels later, which sucks quite a bit. Still a good feature though

Reliable Talent: No change, still good

Subtle Strikes: replaces Blindsense, and I think it’s a change for the better

Slippery Mind: Another buy one, get one free so that’s nice.

Elusive: No change, still good

Stroke of Luck: Now applies to all d20 tests and can get you a guaranteed Critical Hit. Ironically this is one of the times I would have really liked to see Prof times per LR

Epic Boon: There are a few there that felt like they should have just been rogue features or part of Skulker or another, similar feat. None really strike me as excellent and a cut above your average feat.


Thief Rogue:
Fast Hands: Bonus Action search should have been a ranger thing! Damnit! Also, no more fun stuff like bonus action use an item which sucks out a lot of the fun

Second Storey Work: Climbing 4 levels before the Rang– wait wait wait Jump ACTION? That's just silly, you don't even get Jump in your Cunning Action options to mitigate the awkwardness of not being movement anymore (its movement and difficult terrain except when it isn't).

Supreme Sneak: OK fine, but whats the problem with armor really? It's not a balance concern surely, you're just artificially reinforcing tropes.

Use Magic Device: Doesn’t actually let you attune to things that would ordinarily be restricted. Still, extra attunement plus potentially free charges is cool if DM/campaign reliant.

Thiefs Reflexes: Makes much more sense than additional turns, but I don’t see why you need the Prof times per day limitation at level 14. Cmon guys, I wouldn’t worry about MCing shenanigans at this stage, unless you don’t have faith in your Bonus-Action-granting feats?

Overall Rogue feels really... baseline. It has a very set floor and ceiling, so it will pretty much never under- or over-achieve. Little to really complain except the vanillaness.

[Psyren]

Subtle Strikes: replaces Blindsense, and I think it’s a change for the better


Note that you can pick up blindsight via Skulker if you want that. Not only is it a half-feat, but the other benefits are pretty fantastic for rogues too.

[Kane0]

Note that you can pick up blindsight via Skulker if you want that. Not only is it a half-feat, but the other benefits are pretty fantastic for rogues too.

Yes and i wrote that before seeing the feat too. Skulker looking good next to Speedster, TWF working better for rogues by not sucking uo BA and some of the 'epic boons' are also quite tasty for rogues.

[solidork]

Something I haven't seen a commented on so far: you can't pick Thieves' Tools as your Expertise option anymore.

[Gignere]

So as we all know, the new playtest for “Expert” classes was released: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/expert-classes/kpx0MvyfBGHe0XKk/UA2022-Expert-Classes.pdf

Sneak attack is nerfed, limiting it to just your turn. (Removing the ability to Sneak Attack twice per round with an Opportunity Attack or Haste +Readied Action).

Thief subclass is nerfed, as Fast Hands can no longer Use an Object.

Rangers now get Expertise, giving you less of a reason to play a Rogue. (Though in fairness, this has been the case since Skill Expert was released in Tashas).

On the plus side Rogues get more/better high level class features, and they’re not just duplicating spells. Which is good! But are they worth waiting so long to get?

Thoughts?

Chances are they did nerf sneak attacks but they haven’t released the rules for OA and readied actions yet.

If they changed OA/readied attack to an attack action you take as a reaction rogues can still off turn sneak attack just fine.

So I wouldn’t say off turn sneak attack is totally dead.

[Stangler]

Yes and i wrote that before seeing the feat too. Skulker looking good next to Speedster, TWF working better for rogues by not sucking uo BA and some of the 'epic boons' are also quite tasty for rogues.

I am a big fan of charger on the rogue. Extra damage or a push and more movement on a dash.

[Psyren]

Something I haven't seen a commented on so far: you can't pick Thieves' Tools as your Expertise option anymore.

Yeah, good call. That would be an easy way to make the Rogue's Expertise stand out from the other two.



If they changed OA/readied attack to an attack action you take as a reaction rogues can still off turn sneak attack just fine.

So I wouldn’t say off turn sneak attack is totally dead.

Even if they made it an Attack action, the new sneak attack still specifies on each of your turns rather than each turn. So it would still be dead.

[stoutstien]

Something I haven't seen a commented on so far: you can't pick Thieves' Tools as your Expertise option anymore.

I Believe it's a slight of hand check now so it still possible.

[Kane0]

I Believe it's a slight of hand check now so it still possible.

May as well rename it Thievery, or would that be the straw that breaks the 4e's back?

[stoutstien]

May as well rename it Thievery, or would that be the straw that breaks the 4e's back?

Yea. I know most ppl overlooked tool expertise other tham thieves but I think it's unnecessary reduction.

[Corran]

I get why they limited Sneak Attack - to try and limit the more confusing/unintuitive combos to trigger it on another creatures turn.
I think they should have kept it and restricted it to melee OAs or something like that. Does an enemy turn their back and try to leave? Sneak attack! To me something like that suits better to an opportunistic way of fighting which is more representative for the rogue than trying to normalize the damage. Lower damage than the fighter but with big spikes when the opportunity comes along was a nice differentiation IMO and it suits the theme of the class.



Let Sneak Attack be used with any non-heavy weapon.v(Which would also open up multiclass options with Monk, Druid, casters, etc). Give something better than just Expertise at 9th level. Etc.
To me this sounds better suited to a rogue subclass than to the main class.

[solidork]

I Believe it's a slight of hand check now so it still possible.

Interesting! It's listed that way in Fast Hands, so it makes a kind of sense. In that case, it should be pretty easy to benefit from the rule where prof in relevant Tool and a Skill gives you advantage.

I wonder if this means that there is always going to be a skill associated with an ability check? It'd be nice if strong guys could add Athletics to feats of strength.

[stoutstien]

Interesting! It's listed that way in Fast Hands, so it makes a kind of sense. In that case, it should be pretty easy to benefit from the rule where prof in relevant Tool and a Skill gives you advantage.

I wonder if this means that there is always going to be a skill associated with an ability check? It'd be nice if strong guys could add Athletics to feats of strength.

If they do decide to revert back to skill checks taking president over ability checks Isee that as huge step back.

[Snowbluff]

Was the using an Object the best part of fast hands? Like, I'll miss is, but if the items they have access to is the same quality as the current stock, that's not really a big deal.


Depending on how you read it, you could double SA by bonus action flasking (which may be impossible now also due to sneak attack need an attack action, oh boy I hate this version) then readying your action to attack.

Even if it didn't it had a bunch of other cool options like laying out traps and healing friends with a healing kit. It was a fun and versatile ability that provided a lot of creative uses.

[Sception]

i like the overall direction, and getting rid of off turn sneak attack is a nerf, but still good for the game for removing unintuitive jank combos that throw off the balance of thematically unrelated options. but yeah, the overall result still feels a bit undertuned, & could stand to be pushed a bit harder.

[Xihirli]

Depending on changes to the battle master (or maybe the base fighter if they’re finally gonna make maneuvers the fighter’s core mechanic like they should have from the start), taking away Reaction Sneak Attack also turns off one of my favorite battle master builds, the "Commander" that tactically directs the party to victory. Commander’s Strike is generally bad, but gets way better with a rogue in the party. Paladin can fit in too, but in a party with a Paladin I’m a) unlikely to make a fighter, b) not usually using my class abilities to help other players’ characters shine. Paladins don’t need the help.

[jas61292]

Limiting sneak attack to only one per round is fantastic. It always felt like an exploit to do it more than once (outside something like the Scout's high level feature). Good optimization should be noticeable, but it should not be a straight up 100% increase in damage.

Personally, I would have fixed it by just saying once per round, as that's how a lot of people already thought it worked, but this is totally fine too.

[Unoriginal]

Thieves' Can't technically got a boost, since it was available to non-Rogues in the UA before that.

It may seems counter-intuitivethat it veing non-exclusive makes it stronger, but the more people have a language, the more useful it is.

[Frogreaver]

My initial thoughts.

With the change to TWF, rogues can now cunning action and TWF. That's huge!

This also makes a subclass like swashbuckler be able to bonus action dash, TWF at an enemy and then move back (swashbuckler ability stops OA's from enemies you've attacked).

Even being able to bonus action disengage while TWF is big for other rogues.

It is a nerf to high tier rogues damage, but i think tier 1 and tier 2 rogues will tend to feel alot better.

I will miss using multiclass Rogue to produce high damage opportunity attacks with a really beefy barbarian or fighter.

[Segev]

Depending on changes to the battle master (or maybe the base fighter if they’re finally gonna make maneuvers the fighter’s core mechanic like they should have from the start), taking away Reaction Sneak Attack also turns off one of my favorite battle master builds, the "Commander" that tactically directs the party to victory. Commander’s Strike is generally bad, but gets way better with a rogue in the party. Paladin can fit in too, but in a party with a Paladin I’m a) unlikely to make a fighter, b) not usually using my class abilities to help other players’ characters shine. Paladins don’t need the help.

Maybe they'll let you grant attack actions with it. Still an issue that rogues can only do it "on their turn." They'd need it worded as "when you take the attack action" rather than "when you take the attack action on your turn."

Nothing currently gives attack actions off-turn, just allows attacks. So you wouldn't have an unforeseen proliferation, most likely. But you could make sure to enable some specific combinations of character abilities that work together well.

[Stangler]

With the change to TWF, rogues can now cunning action and TWF. That's huge!



I strongly agree. Melee rogues have gotten a big buff in terms of general functionality with the TWF changes. Combine that with the feat changes and you have a much stronger rogue at the lower levels.

[Psyren]

I do hope they bring back reaction sneak attacks. Ranger does a ton more damage now; even with Subtle Strikes in Tier 3 I don't think Rogues have much prayer of keeping up with them, and I expect that the Warrior group will be even further ahead.

[Yakk]

Idk how its at your table, but getting enough scrolls to make use of liberally has not usually been a thing at mine.

Getting a staff however is very different, you get it once and now you are only limited by how many charges you spend during the day.
I don't understand your response.

You are saying that the requirement to make a check for scrolls makes it a fundamentally different feature. I pointed out that reliable talent makes it really easy to nullify the check, and you get reliable talent at level 11, 2 levels before the current Thief gets the ability to read scrolls.

And with reliable talent, the arcana check to cast from a scroll is an auto-success in almost every case.

Unless your DM is showering you with 9th level spell scrolls at level 13 *and* (you don't have training in arcana *or* your int is low).

At level 13 you have +5 proficiency. Add in 14 int and you auto-succeed at casting 7th level spell scrolls. Add in expertise arcana and you auto-succeed at 9th level spell scrolls with 8 or higher int.

This is because reliable talent means you can't roll under a 10. 10+10 proficiency-1 int is 19, which is enough to read a 9th level spell scroll.

In exchange for having to have some skill at arcana, you get an extra attunement slot and you get to do it levels earlier.

This isn't "an entirely different feature". It is now a feature you have to invest in to get the old feature back, but with almost no investment gets you 90% of the previous feature.

With 10 int and arcana proficiency, at level 13 you auto-succeed at up to 5th level spell scrolls.

[Rukelnikov]

I do hope they bring back reaction sneak attacks. Ranger does a ton more damage now; even with Subtle Strikes in Tier 3 I don't think Rogues have much prayer of keeping up with them, and I expect that the Warrior group will be even further ahead.

Rogues should not be dealing as much damage as rangers, they should be more apt at something else.

[Yakk]

I do hope they bring back reaction sneak attacks. Ranger does a ton more damage now; even with Subtle Strikes in Tier 3 I don't think Rogues have much prayer of keeping up with them, and I expect that the Warrior group will be even further ahead.
Reaction Sneak attacks where a thing in 4e. They where intentionally added.

But in 4e, the Sneak Attack damage of a Rogue wasn't 90% of their damage output; it was roughly a 25%-50% boost (more the less you optimized). So getting it on a reaction attack was a nice feature, not crucial.

The problem is that if you give reaction sneak attacks, that almost doubles the rogue's damage output. You now have a choice; to you assume this is going to occur, or not?

If you assume it is going to occur, then you have to provide ways for it to occur without jumping through hoops, so it actually does occur.

If you don't assume it is going to occur, your rogue class will either be crappy without it, or seriously ridiculous if it does happen all the time.

...

Now, I sort of like assuming it will occur, and embracing it.

So one "fix" I like is that at 5th level, Rogues get a "disruptive strike" reaction. Whenever a creature is hit, the rogue can spend a reaction to disrupt the attack.

If the reaction attack succeeds, the triggering attack has to reroll, and if it lands, the target takes half damage.

This is "uncanny dodge" turned into a damage source. And it means that you *can* assume when giving a rogue its power budget that most turns it has a chance to land sneak attack twice.

...

But short of something like that, it seems unfair to assume a rogue can reliably get a reaction; on the other hand, you can't assume the rogue CAN'T get a reaction, because you can do some optimization and make it reliable.

[Stangler]

I do hope they bring back reaction sneak attacks. Ranger does a ton more damage now; even with Subtle Strikes in Tier 3 I don't think Rogues have much prayer of keeping up with them, and I expect that the Warrior group will be even further ahead.

I feel like they should add a couple of feat options that can increase damage by a fair amount and one of them is having sneak attack on reactions. I feel like it can be a really fun way to build and play a rogue but I think it should be clear that there are other ways to play that are in some way balanced against that option.

[Rukelnikov]

I feel like they should add a couple of feat options that can increase damage by a fair amount and one of them is having sneak attack on reactions. I feel like it can be a really fun way to build and play a rogue but I think it should be clear that there are other ways to play that are in some way balanced against that option.

Why? 10chars

[Stangler]

Why? 10chars

I have no problem with a rogue that wants to increase DPR by playing towards reactions. If that is inherent in all rogues then it quickly becomes the dominant build. Other choices allow for more ways to build a rogue.

The haste trick and interactions with things like the order cleric ability are just bad design.

[Talionis]

The change to sneak attack being effectively once per round is a necessary change because it has an oversized impact on the balancing of feats like sentinel or spells like haste or abilities like commander strike. From a game design POV the choice for more damage should be clearer to the player and balanced against other similar choices. The capacity to land sneak attack on a reaction attack seems like a nice feature but the balance implications should be considered.

The biggest changes between old and new rogue is the level 1 feat and easy access to half feats at level 4, plus the change to TWF. Create a level 5 rogue using the changes from the two UAs and you are looking at a really fun class with a lot of interesting customization options IMO. Alert + Charger is my favorite feat choice combo ATM.

Ranger is really OP early so don't get jealous.

Bard is still a primary spell caster and those still scale up really well.

As is, the game needs more feats and ways to scale up non spell related aspects of the game.

We were already able to Sneak Attack off turn and I’ve heard zero complaints that Rogues do too much damage. So why nerf? I think it was a counterintuitive rule and they want to simplify things where possible but it is a serious nerf to Rogues where Rogues were not OP.

Use Objects was really nice. Throwing a vial of acid, caltrops, or smoke bomb was in character and doesn’t add up to more damage.

Second Story Work needs a small amount of increase to jump distance. Climbing speed has always been less an issue than jump distance as usually my thieves are not racing but if you cannot make a jump across a street then it can be less effective.

Using any Magic Item was important to Thieves. It’s possible in the new rules this isn’t an issue but being able to use any magical item was a reason I play Thief.

This is a Martial character, they need good things since they don’t have spell casting.

[Rukelnikov]

I have no problem with a rogue that wants to increase DPR by playing towards reactions. If that is inherent in all rogues then it quickly becomes the dominant build. Other choices allow for more ways to build a rogue.

The haste trick and interactions with things like the order cleric ability are just bad design.

But why do you think they need to add feats that increase damage by a fair amount? If anything, the change to GWM may be pointing towards going away from those (Though personally, I'd prefer to see an option for power attacking somewhere)

[Stangler]

We were already able to Sneak Attack off turn and I’ve heard zero complaints that Rogues do too much damage. So why nerf? I think it was a counterintuitive rule and they want to simplify things where possible but it is a serious nerf to Rogues where Rogues were not OP.



The issue was never that rogues were too OP with it but that there ends up being huge swings in balance with or without it. This makes it difficult to not only effectively balance the rogue but balance a host of other abilities like the order cleric ability, haste, commander strike, sentinel, and more.

There are also plenty of new players who may not even be aware of how important it is to try and get a reaction off.

Personally I found the prospect of using haste to get it off to be especially problematic from a design POV because it just felt like a loophole. I liked the idea that some rogues would want to stay in melee and potentially take more damage with the hope they could trigger a sentinel reaction or something.

[Stangler]

But why do you think they need to add feats that increase damage by a fair amount? If anything, the change to GWM may be pointing towards going away from those (Though personally, I'd prefer to see an option for power attacking somewhere)

You can put power attack in a feat group where the other options increase damage in a comparable way. The problem with the old GWM was that it was mixed in with other feats that didn't provide an increase in damage that was as big. They could also just give out power attack for free.

The level 4 feats are generally well balanced against one another compared to the old way. Getting rid of the -5/+10 was a big part of that.

I am not against rogues getting the ability to sneak attack on reactions (although I think it should be reworded). If it is given to all rogues then when balancing the rogue it has to be assumed it is being used.

As for feats increasing damage more generically. I think looking at the Ranger it is pretty clear that there is a need for the game to scale up core martial damage over the levels. Rogue scales well already so it really just becomes more about power level than scaling for the rogue. I hope that improvements to sneak attack are part of that.

[Finney]

Ouch.

Rogues not only lost reaction sneak attack, they also lost booming blade sneak attacks since sneak attack requires the attack action now.

Feels like rogue just got “monked” in this UA.

[Hael]

I do hope they bring back reaction sneak attacks. Ranger does a ton more damage now; even with Subtle Strikes in Tier 3 I don't think Rogues have much prayer of keeping up with them, and I expect that the Warrior group will be even further ahead.

Relatively speaking yes, but in total damage they’ve been slightly nerfed b/c the loss of SS/CBE is such a big deal for martial damage. Old Ranger vs new Ranger is still pretty close.

Rogues meanwhile are going to be *well* behind the curve of where they used to be. Even if they only triggered a reaction sneak attack every two or three turns, thats a massive difference in output (ditto with booming blade).

So perhaps WotC is planning on nerfing everyones damage output…

[Yakk]

We were already able to Sneak Attack off turn and I’ve heard zero complaints that Rogues do too much damage. So why nerf? I think it was a counterintuitive rule and they want to simplify things where possible but it is a serious nerf to Rogues where Rogues were not OP.
Did you have Rogues at your table that pulled off off-turn sneak attacks 100% of the time?


Use Objects was really nice. Throwing a vial of acid, caltrops, or smoke bomb was in character and doesn’t add up to more damage.
Use Objects had interpretation problems. Could you use a wand of magic missiles with it? Intuitively yes, actually I think no. Or drink a potion?


Second Story Work needs a small amount of increase to jump distance. Climbing speed has always been less an issue than jump distance as usually my thieves are not racing but if you cannot make a jump across a street then it can be less effective.
How is "you can use dex to jump" not an increase in jump distance?


Using any Magic Item was important to Thieves. It’s possible in the new rules this isn’t an issue but being able to use any magical item was a reason I play Thief.
Yes, the inability to use staff of the archmagi (and similar) makes it not as good.

[Hael]

As for feats increasing damage more generically. I think looking at the Ranger it is pretty clear that there is a need for the game to scale up core martial damage over the levels. Rogue scales well already so it really just becomes more about power level than scaling for the rogue. I hope that improvements to sneak attack are part of that.

Rogues do not scale well in 5.0!!! If you compare generic martial damage to Rogue damage, the Rogues start off slightly ahead and then the others have a huge spike at 5 (essentially equalizing), and then the other martials outscale them the rest of the way through, to the point where its not even close at 20.

Its pretty bad actually. When you go from 18th to 20th, sneak attack shouldnt go up by a single d6.. Thats not relevant damage at those levels. At least other classes have dies that go up (d6->d8->d10), and its not like thats considered very good scaling either.

[Psyren]

Rogues should not be dealing as much damage as rangers, they should be more apt at something else.

I think they should be situationally capable of dealing comparable damage. But maybe that'll be more an Assassin/Soulknife thing than a general rogue thing.

As it stands right now though, I can't think of any circumstance that the new rogue would be able to be on par with the new ranger damage-wise, unless the latter was completely out of slots and LR features for the day.


Reaction Sneak attacks where a thing in 4e. They where intentionally added.

But in 4e, the Sneak Attack damage of a Rogue wasn't 90% of their damage output; it was roughly a 25%-50% boost (more the less you optimized). So getting it on a reaction attack was a nice feature, not crucial.

The problem is that if you give reaction sneak attacks, that almost doubles the rogue's damage output. You now have a choice; to you assume this is going to occur, or not?

If you assume it is going to occur, then you have to provide ways for it to occur without jumping through hoops, so it actually does occur.

If you don't assume it is going to occur, your rogue class will either be crappy without it, or seriously ridiculous if it does happen all the time.

...

Now, I sort of like assuming it will occur, and embracing it.

So one "fix" I like is that at 5th level, Rogues get a "disruptive strike" reaction. Whenever a creature is hit, the rogue can spend a reaction to disrupt the attack.

If the reaction attack succeeds, the triggering attack has to reroll, and if it lands, the target takes half damage.

This is "uncanny dodge" turned into a damage source. And it means that you *can* assume when giving a rogue its power budget that most turns it has a chance to land sneak attack twice.

...

But short of something like that, it seems unfair to assume a rogue can reliably get a reaction; on the other hand, you can't assume the rogue CAN'T get a reaction, because you can do some optimization and make it reliable.

I agree it's an issue in that it's not necessarily intuitive to trigger it off-turn, and also annoying (if the DM ignores you your damage drops considerably, and you might end up pestering your party members to help you trigger off-turn sneak attacks too. Neither is great design.)

I suppose what I'm after is, if they're killing off-turn sneak attacks, something in return would be nice. Pack Tactics Subtle Strikes helps a lot, but it comes online after most games are over.

[Stangler]

Rogues do not scale well in 5.0!!! If you compare generic martial damage to Rogue damage, the Rogues start off slightly ahead and then the others have a huge spike at 5 (essentially equalizing), and then the other martials outscale them the rest of the way through, to the point where its not even close at 20.

Its pretty bad actually. When you go from 18th to 20th, sneak attack shouldnt go up by a single d6.. Thats not relevant damage at those levels. At least other classes have dies that go up (d6->d8->d10), and its not like thats considered very good scaling either.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am differentiating between scaling (how things change) vs power (how strong it is). In my mind when looking at scaling it is better to have a smooth curve as you go up in levels compared to a spiky one that sees large increases and then relatively flat sections.

In other words the consistent power increases the rogue gets from sneak attack scaling are a more solid design than the spikey power increases of the fighter. It would take relatively little effort to shift the rogue power level up because at its core is a method of scaling up their power that just works better. Fighters on the other hand have big spikes in power and adding more attacks can result in inconsistent increases in power because it interacts with things like GWM and SS. Paladin has a relatively solid progression of power where the spell progression combined with improved divine smite create a relative smooth power scaling curve compared to the fighter.

The UA Ranger has a particularly problematic scaling curve where it starts high and only gets higher through level 5 and then plateaus hard.

When judging classes DPR progression I think it is good to look at the rogue because it has such a clear advantage in terms of scaling.

[stoutstien]

Rogues do not scale well in 5.0!!! If you compare generic martial damage to Rogue damage, the Rogues start off slightly ahead and then the others have a huge spike at 5 (essentially equalizing), and then the other martials outscale them the rest of the way through, to the point where its not even close at 20.

Its pretty bad actually. When you go from 18th to 20th, sneak attack shouldnt go up by a single d6.. Thats not relevant damage at those levels. At least other classes have dies that go up (d6->d8->d10), and its not like thats considered very good scaling either.

They scale fine. They just don't have an easy way to leverage the +/- feats. In featless games they are sitting within 10% of the heavy hitters.

[Snowbluff]

I do hope they bring back reaction sneak attacks. Ranger does a ton more damage now; even with Subtle Strikes in Tier 3 I don't think Rogues have much prayer of keeping up with them, and I expect that the Warrior group will be even further ahead.

I agree. I think the old way the class feature was written allowed for many more interesting combinations, tricks and builds. Flask rogue, Booming Blade Rogue, reaction rogues are all just gone with nothing to fill the game. And you know me, I'd rather have something interesting than "balanced," and even then most "balance" changes seem to accomplish the opposite anyway.

[Psyren]

I agree. I think the old way the class feature was written allowed for many more interesting combinations, tricks and builds. Flask rogue, Booming Blade Rogue, reaction rogues are all just gone with nothing to fill the game. And you know me, I'd rather have something interesting than "balanced," and even then most "balance" changes seem to accomplish the opposite anyway.

I'd go further and say I think it's unbalanced currently. Ranger is allowed to do Warrior-level damage and Bard is allowed to have Mage-level casting (and Priest-level healing/protection?) while Rogue doesn't really get to compete on any of these fronts as they currently stand. They are the clear losers from this playtest.

I like the TWF change but that's about all they really got in the first two tiers. Subtle Strikes in tier 3 helps but most campaigns are over by then.

[Rukelnikov]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am differentiating between scaling (how things change) vs power (how strong it is). In my mind when looking at scaling it is better to have a smooth curve as you go up in levels compared to a spiky one that sees large increases and then relatively flat sections.

In other words the consistent power increases the rogue gets from sneak attack scaling are a more solid design than the spikey power increases of the fighter. It would take relatively little effort to shift the rogue power level up because at its core is a method of scaling up their power that just works better. Fighters on the other hand have big spikes in power and adding more attacks can result in inconsistent increases in power because it interacts with things like GWM and SS. Paladin has a relatively solid progression of power where the spell progression combined with improved divine smite create a relative smooth power scaling curve compared to the fighter.

The UA Ranger has a particularly problematic scaling curve where it starts high and only gets higher through level 5 and then plateaus hard.

When judging classes DPR progression I think it is good to look at the rogue because it has such a clear advantage in terms of scaling.

It doesn't plateu hard necesarilly, spells can be used for damage, and you get more of those, whatever people like to say, magic weapons are a thing, and after level 5 is usually when they start falling in the hands of PCs, and extra damage on weapons favor more attacks, they also get the rather lousy damage increment at 18, and finally you can increase damage via Dex bumps.

[Snowbluff]

I'd go further and say I think it's unbalanced currently. Ranger is allowed to do Warrior-level damage and Bard is allowed to have Mage-level casting (and Priest-level healing/protection?) while Rogue doesn't really get to compete on any of these fronts as they currently stand. They are the clear losers from this playtest.

I like the TWF change but that's about all they really got in the first two tiers. Subtle Strikes in tier 3 helps but most campaigns are over by then.

Yeah exactly, rogue was nice before but it took work to make work, and we're losing that work. Regardless if their intentions were for balance or conforming to their fantasy for the class, it is weaker now. :smallfrown:

It goes like this in my head. "What is the role in your party?" Well you're an an expert so you got some expertise and skill stuff. "Ok what else do you do." Well ranger has spells and some warrior stuff, bard is a full caster even if I'm not super happy with it right now, and rogue... does middling to poor conditional damage. What's supposed to elevate this beyond the handful of sentence of class features it shares with 2 other classes?

[Rukelnikov]

It goes like this in my head. "What is the role in your party?" Well you're an an expert so you got some expertise and skill stuff. "Ok what else do you do." Well ranger has spells and some warrior stuff, bard is a full caster even if I'm not super happy with it right now, and rogue... does middling to poor conditional damage. What's supposed to elevate this beyond the handful of sentence of class features it shares with 2 other classes?

Currently, I guess mobility due to cunning action and the obtuse movement rules that appear in this UA, and I guess Reliable Talent later on. They do get an extra feat which means more versatility, but it does feel like they should have something else relevant before Reliable Talent.

[Kane0]

They scale fine. They just don't have an easy way to leverage the +/- feats. In featless games they are sitting within 10% of the heavy hitters.

Worth noting that it appears featless games is going to become less and less the norm.

[Hael]

Worth noting that it appears featless games is going to become less and less the norm.

Even in featless games Rogues are going to have scaling problems (martials have scaling problems in general in featless games).

For instance they don’t take buffs well, eg something like elemental weapon is better on almost anything else. Also giving them advantage isn’t really helpful (since its already a core part of their kit to get to within the dpr benchmark in the first place). And indeed the only good buff they can use (haste) has been nerfed with the SA changes.

Magic weapon scaling? Yea not really a good place to be for a rogue relative to other classes (you give the flametongue rapier to the ranger or fighter first). At least there they had subclass features that gave them access to a variety of items (like staff of power on a thief), but well thats been nerfed too.

The bottomline is that unless every class is being seriously toned down damage wise, its hard to see Rogues being relevant as written.

[Rilmani]

Rather than remove off-turn SA, the Rogue should have received an improvement to Uncanny Dodge at later levels that let them make an OA as part of using Uncanny Dodge against a melee attack.
Or allow Uncanny Dodge even when a rogue’s reaction is spent/unavailable. In 4e Reflex saving throws benefited from Dexterity and Intelligence- I could see the wording of Uncanny Dodge getting adjusted to reflect that. Or perhaps expanded at a higher level.

Reaction Sneak attacks were a thing in 4e. They where intentionally added.

But in 4e, the Sneak Attack damage of a Rogue wasn't 90% of their damage output; it was roughly a 25%-50% boost (more the less you optimized). So getting it on a reaction attack was a nice feature, not crucial.

The problem is that if you give reaction sneak attacks, that almost doubles the rogue's damage output. You now have a choice; to you assume this is going to occur, or not?

If you assume it is going to occur, then you have to provide ways for it to occur without jumping through hoops, so it actually does occur.

If you don't assume it is going to occur, your rogue class will either be crappy without it, or seriously ridiculous if it does happen all the time.

...

Now, I sort of like assuming it will occur, and embracing it.

So one "fix" I like is that at 5th level, Rogues get a "disruptive strike" reaction. Whenever a creature is hit, the rogue can spend a reaction to disrupt the attack.

If the reaction attack succeeds, the triggering attack has to reroll, and if it lands, the target takes half damage.

This is "uncanny dodge" turned into a damage source. And it means that you *can* assume when giving a rogue its power budget that most turns it has a chance to land sneak attack twice.

...

But short of something like that, it seems unfair to assume a rogue can reliably get a reaction; on the other hand, you can't assume the rogue CAN'T get a reaction, because you can do some optimization and make it reliable.
I do like this ability, but I have to wonder- will this be restricted to rogues in melee? If not, then how in the world would you write it? It is a challenge. Particularly if WotC adds an extra layer to it and says it only works on creatures size Large and smaller- which seems quite in character in my opinion.

I'd go further and say I think it's unbalanced currently. Ranger is allowed to do Warrior-level damage and Bard is allowed to have Mage-level casting (and Priest-level healing/protection?) while Rogue doesn't really get to compete on any of these fronts as they currently stand. They are the clear losers from this playtest.

I like the TWF change but that's about all they really got in the first two tiers. Subtle Strikes in tier 3 helps but most campaigns are over by then.


Yeah exactly, rogue was nice before but it took work to make work, and we're losing that work. Regardless if their intentions were for balance or conforming to their fantasy for the class, it is weaker now. :smallfrown:

It goes like this in my head. "What is the role in your party?" Well you're an an expert so you got some expertise and skill stuff. "Ok what else do you do." Well ranger has spells and some warrior stuff, bard is a full caster even if I'm not super happy with it right now, and rogue... does middling to poor conditional damage. What's supposed to elevate this beyond the handful of sentence of class features it shares with 2 other classes?
I agree, Psyren and Snowbluff. A few solutions that makes sense to me involves giving Rogues a Bonus Action: Ready Action option, additional Reactions, Yakk’s suggested Disruptive Strike ability, an Impair ability which works like Caltrops, Nets etc.

Actually, how would everyone feel about Rogues explicitly getting traps? Rangers get the Snare spell, but Rogues could get non-spell Reactions to inflict poisons and blindness. I’m not sure if they should be stronger or weaker than battlemaster maneuvers (or Stunning Strike) but they could learn from that setup. If you want to be REALLY wild you could base rogue traps off of Infused Items- meaning you could give them to allies. The Mind Sharpener for example is not restricted to Artificers, why should choking and sneezing dust (poisoner’s kit, example trap) be restricted to Rogues for safe use?

[stoutstien]

Worth noting that it appears featless games is going to become less and less the norm.
Crossing wires here. The 5e system isn't balanced around feats and we don't have the full picture for one as of yet.

Even in featless games Rogues are going to have scaling problems (martials have scaling problems in general in featless games).

For instance they don’t take buffs well, eg something like elemental weapon is better on almost anything else. Also giving them advantage isn’t really helpful (since its already a core part of their kit to get to within the dpr benchmark in the first place). And indeed the only good buff they can use (haste) has been nerfed with the SA changes.

Magic weapon scaling? Yea not really a good place to be for a rogue relative to other classes (you give the flametongue rapier to the ranger or fighter first). At least there they had subclass features that gave them access to a variety of items (like staff of power on a thief), but well thats been nerfed too.

The bottomline is that unless every class is being seriously toned down damage wise, its hard to see Rogues being relevant as written.


Rogues get more from attack bonus and reaction attacks(as of now who knows what One will hold). Seems pretty balanced to me.

[Psyren]

Currently, I guess mobility due to cunning action and the obtuse movement rules that appear in this UA, and I guess Reliable Talent later on. They do get an extra feat which means more versatility, but it does feel like they should have something else relevant before Reliable Talent.

"But it has mobility" is exactly what stuck us with the 5.0 core Monk. We've got to nip this in the bud while we have the chance.

I can understand them possibly viewing off-turn sneak attacks as inelegant, and also possibly too swingy for some tables' optimization tastes. I'm okay with them very clearly stating "you can sneak attack on your turn and that's it." But they need to replace it with something. I might have thought it would be a 5.0 Ranger situation where the subclasses are their primary source of competitive damage, however Thief has shown that that isn't going to be the case either.

I don't even mind if whatever they get is lower damage than a second sneak attack per round. It could be as simple as another feat at 6th or something.

[Rukelnikov]

"But it has mobility" is exactly what stuck us with the 5.0 core Monk. We've got to nip this in the bud while we have the chance.

I can understand them possibly viewing off-turn sneak attacks as inelegant, and also possibly too swingy for some tables' optimization tastes. I'm okay with them very clearly stating "you can sneak attack on your turn and that's it." But they need to replace it with something. I might have thought it would be a 5.0 Ranger situation where the subclasses are their primary source of competitive damage, however Thief has shown that that isn't going to be the case either.

I don't even mind if whatever they get is lower damage than a second sneak attack per round. It could be as simple as another feat at 6th or something.

I'm also saying they need something more, I don't get why that sommething more has to be damage, or damage related. Access to scrolls at T2, and to any magic item at T3 is IMO more ftting and interesting than just damage.

[Psyren]

I'm also saying they need something more, I don't get why that sommething more has to be damage, or damage related. Access to scrolls at T2, and to any magic item at T3 is IMO more ftting and interesting than just damage.

That would be fine in an edition like 3.5 where specific magic items and consumables are an expected part of progression. But 5e characters have no guarantee of any scrolls at all, never mind useful ones.

I agree that "more damage" isn't interesting either. What I would give them is another feat, somewhere between 5-7. That gives them the choice of spending it on more damage, more defense, or more utility, in a way that separates them from the other two experts who are stealing from the Warrior bucket and the Mage bucket respectively.

[Person_Man]

So I think we have a rough consensus that WotC limited Sneak Attack the Rogue's turn because its too swingy and hard to predict. Player optimizes to get it regularly, and they're twice as effective. Player doesn't optimize for it or doesn't realize how to pull it off because they're new, and now they're sub-par. Same issue with Fast Hands getting Use and Object. Either you optimize for it and its a big boost, or you don't and its mostly worthless because you don't know what you're doing.

So what do we give the Rogue at low-levels to bring them back into line with other classes, while remaining relatively simple and easy to use, since the Rogue is the skill monkey of choice for players who don't want to use use spells? My suggestions, drawn from existing 5E stuff:

Level 1: Expertise in Thieves' Tool: Should be given along with Expertise in 2 Skills of their choice, as a way of setting them apart from other Experts.
Level 2: Steady Aim: As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn. Given along with Cunning Action, as written.
Level 5: Assassinate: You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit. A very solid reason to stick with Rogue for at least 5 levels, and a great alternative to Extra Attack. (This would also mean abolishing or reworking the Assassin subclass, which I'm fine with). If not this, then Rogues need some other reliable damage buff.
Level 7: Uncanny Dodge and Expertise (again): Assassinate is enough for level 5. Push Uncanny Dodge to level 7. Expertise by itself is way too weak an ability for level 7.
Level 11: Reliable Talent+: If you roll 9 or lower on an Ability Check, you can treat a roll of 9 or lower as 10. (Not limited to Skill and Tool checks. So it also buffs Initiative, untrained checks).
Level 15: Slippery Mind: You gain proficiency in Wisdom and Charisma Saves, and you make Int, Wis, and Cha Saves with Advantage. At this level Rogues have to deal with high level spells. They should have some strong defense against them. (Keeping in mind that this is still weaker than a Paladin's Save boosting Aura).
Level 20: A actual capstone: I don't actually care what it is. But all classes should get a real capstone that makes taking 20 levels of one class truly worth it. But I'm sure there are lots of options.

[Rukelnikov]

That would be fine in an edition like 3.5 where specific magic items and consumables are an expected part of progression. But 5e characters have no guarantee of any scrolls at all, never mind useful ones.

I agree that "more damage" isn't interesting either. What I would give them is another feat, somewhere between 5-7. That gives them the choice of spending it on more damage, more defense, or more utility, in a way that separates them from the other two experts who are stealing from the Warrior bucket and the Mage bucket respectively.

Matching the fighter featwise could be okay, though in general I still expect everyone to get more feats, I hope following class iterations will have feats every 3 levels or ASI+Feat or something.

[Corran]

I'm also saying they need something more, I don't get why that sommething more has to be damage, or damage related. Access to scrolls at T2, and to any magic item at T3 is IMO more ftting and interesting than just damage.
Well, it doesn't. I could be AC, or HP, or spells. But damage is what they are missing the most when you look at the name of the class and when you also think of what combines nicely with the mobility potential. Ideally swingy damage. Because you dont want rogues to outperform a weapon specialist like the figher, unless they fight dirty/smartly/something (ie I dont want the rogue to feel like a fighter who trades lineary some points of damage/AC/HP for some kind of expertise, I want it to feel more of its own thing, and swingy damage helps with that more than it's being credited for I think).

[Psyren]

Level 1: Expertise in Thieves' Tool: Should be given along with Expertise in 2 Skills of their choice, as a way of setting them apart from other Experts.
Level 2: Steady Aim: As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is 0 until the end of the current turn. Given along with Cunning Action, as written.
Level 5: Assassinate: You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit. A very solid reason to stick with Rogue for at least 5 levels, and a great alternative to Extra Attack. (This would also mean abolishing or reworking the Assassin subclass, which I'm fine with). If not this, then Rogues need some other reliable damage buff.
Level 7: Uncanny Dodge and Expertise (again): Assassinate is enough for level 5. Push Uncanny Dodge to level 7. Expertise by itself is way too weak an ability for level 7.
Level 11: Reliable Talent+: If you roll 9 or lower on an Ability Check, you can treat a roll of 9 or lower as 10. (Not limited to Skill and Tool checks. So it also buffs Initiative, untrained checks).
Level 15: Slippery Mind: You gain proficiency in Wisdom and Charisma Saves, and you make Int, Wis, and Cha Saves with Advantage. At this level Rogues have to deal with high level spells. They should have some strong defense against them. (Keeping in mind that this is still weaker than a Paladin's Save boosting Aura).
Level 20: A actual capstone: I don't actually care what it is. But all classes should get a real capstone that makes taking 20 levels of one class truly worth it. But I'm sure there are lots of options.


1) Agree with them getting Thief Tool Expertise, either as an option or in addition to their two expertises. In fact its a bit weird that none of the Experts have this option, but Rogues especially.

2) I wouldn't mind Steady Aim being another Cunning Action use.

3) Assassinate shouldn't be a base rogue feature. I would keep Uncanny Dodge here.

4) I would put a bonus feat at 6 (so you get a feat/ASI at the regular cadence of 4/6/8/10) and move the subclass feature to 7. That should allow rogues to have pretty solid offense and defense in a very approachable and exciting way through all the Tiers.

5) I'm fine with Reliable Talent only working with things you're proficient in. You have to train with something to make it reliable after all - and if it can't be trained (Initiative) then there's no way to be reliable at it.

6) Slippery Mind granting proficiency is enough. Advantage to all the mental saves would be a slap in the face to Gnome Rogues.

7) The problem with the Epic Boon Feats is that they suck. That's what needs to be fixed here.


Matching the fighter featwise could be okay, though in general I still expect everyone to get more feats, I hope following class iterations will have feats every 3 levels or ASI+Feat or something.

Given that they're keeping the baseline of ASIs/feats at 4/8/12/16/19 I expect that's what it will stay for most classes. Warriors (and Warrior-hybrids like Ranger, Paladin and Rogue) will then get more than other classes.

[Corran]

So I think we have a rough consensus that WotC limited Sneak Attack the Rogue's turn because its too swingy and hard to predict. Players optimizes to get it regularly, and they're twice as effective. Players doesn't optimize for it or doesn't realize how to pull it off because they're new, and now they're sub-par. Same issue with Fast Hands getting Use and Object. Either you optimize for it and its a big boost, or you don't and its mostly worthless because you don't know what you're doing.
Emphasis added (along with the letter s). It usually takes more than one player doing something to have the rogue's sneak attack trigger twice per round. Also, because I've seen it in other posts, twice effective is a horrible exhaggeration. They are not even twice effective offenssively, cause it's hard to keep of turn SA procing round after round.

But yes. It takes some system mastery and some teamwork to get the most out of a rogue's damage output. So in a way, removing pff turn SA's makes the class more self contained. Which sounds good but it doesn't have to be. Giving fighters rage and reckless attack would make them more self contained. Giving barbarians healing/regeneration would make them more self contained. But then you have a fighter who looks like a barbarian, and a barbarian who looks like, I dunno, a troll? (Off topic: Though regeneration on a barbarian sound like a very cool capstone-y level class/subclass ability). Normalizing the rogue's damage makes them look more lik fighters and rangers. Swingy damage adds to the things that set them apart, and more importantly, it is kind of on theme if you think about it. All that said assuming they do get a damage buff in the first place, other than subtle strikes (even if it comes in the form of feats, similarly to GWM, PAM and SS work for the warrior types). So, IMO swingy damage buff. Ie, old sneak attack, probably with a few restrictions (eg allowed only with melee weapon OAs), to reduce unintented combos (eg sentinel, haste, etc).

[Rukelnikov]

Given that they're keeping the baseline of ASIs/feats at 4/8/12/16/19 I expect that's what it will stay for most classes. Warriors (and Warrior-hybrids like Ranger, Paladin and Rogue) will then get more than other classes.

I doubt this batch of 12 classes will be the last time we see UA on classes, that's why I said in the following iteration.

[Psyren]

I doubt this batch of 12 classes will be the last time we see UA on classes, that's why I said in the following iteration.

Point, and you're right, we'll definitely see multiple iterations of these classes.

Having said that, I feel if they were planning to change something as fundamental as the ASI/feat progression they'd have tried it here - the design and power progression of every class and subclass depends on it, after all. For example, if they planned on making feats every 3 levels instead of every 4, balancing feats around 4th and 8th level is just wasted work that will need to be redone.

[Rukelnikov]

Point, and you're right, we'll definitely see multiple iterations of these classes.

Having said that, I feel if they were planning to change something as fundamental as the ASI/feat progression they'd have tried it here - the design and power progression of every class and subclass depends on it, after all. For example, if they planned on making feats every 3 levels instead of every 4, balancing feats around 4th and 8th level is just wasted work that will need to be redone.

Hmm yeah, idk... still feels like the feat at lvl 1 isn't enough to fix the feeling of too few feats.

[Garfunion]

On the topic of Fast Hands feature. Looking at the tavern brawler feat, we might be moving away from improved weapons in general. Thus the use an object action may become less of a thing. Items such as alchemist’s fire, acid, and holy water may have different proficiencies and probably use a regular attack action.

[Ortho]

I asked in another thread, but how are people reliably triggering off-turn attacks with rogues?

Opportunity attacks only happen if the DM decides to move the enemy. Readying an action with Haste requires another party member to set it up. Sentinel won't trigger if the creature attacks you. And Uncanny Dodge is always competing for your reaction anyways.

It would be nice to have, sure, but how the heck is this a common enough event that we're planning around it?

[Psyren]

I asked in another thread, but how are people reliably triggering off-turn attacks with rogues?

Opportunity attacks only happen if the DM decides to move the enemy. Readying an action with Haste requires another party member to set it up. Sentinel won't trigger if the creature attacks you. And Uncanny Dodge is always competing for your reaction anyways.

It would be nice to have, sure, but how the heck is this a common enough event that we're planning around it?

Arcane Trickster can currently trigger Sentinel solo with Mirror Image as it changes the attack's target from you to one of your images.

I can't speak for the other subclasses though - and again, I'm okay with them removing reaction SA as long as they get something else.

[Segev]

The easiest way to "spike increase" rogue damage would be to up their sneak attack die size at certain levels. The more sneak dice they have, the bigger a jump a die size boost becomes.

[Hael]

Or they could bite the bullet and bring back big critical hits.. Perhaps with expanded crit range, as well as larger multipliers.

Rogues are known for that sort of thing in the first place.. It dont know why they are so afraid of those sorts of builds (nerfing that was a bad takeaway from 3.5 experiences)

[Ortho]

Arcane Trickster can currently trigger Sentinel solo with Mirror Image as it changes the attack's target from you to one of your images.

I can't speak for the other subclasses though - and again, I'm okay with them removing reaction SA as long as they get something else.

I figured Arcane Tricksters could pull off something, but that doesn't fully answer my question.

[Psyren]

Or they could bite the bullet and bring back big critical hits.. Perhaps with expanded crit range, as well as larger multipliers.

Rogues are known for that sort of thing in the first place.. It dont know why they are so afraid of those sorts of builds (nerfing that was a bad takeaway from 3.5 experiences)

They did bring back crit sneak this UA :smallconfused:


I figured Arcane Tricksters could pull off something, but that doesn't fully answer my question.

Not sure what to tell you then, that was the answer - AT, OAs, or allies.

It wasn't quite 2x SA but it was much better than 1x.

[Corran]

I figured Arcane Tricksters could pull off something, but that doesn't fully answer my question.

1)[/B] Let's start with the second, ie finding ways to attack when it's not your turn.
a) The first thing you want to look at here is your allies. Depending on if and on how much they can help with that (eg battlemaster with commander's strike, order cleric, ally cater with disonant whispers, fear, eyebite; some DMs will allow command too), you'll have to invest accordingly to fill the gap.
b) For a ranged approach, the only way I know of to attack off turn is through haste (attack on your turn with your haste action and use your action to ready an attack that will(?) trigger outside your own turn). It has a bad rap, but I think this is because it's just game-y. I wouldn't call it overpowered by any means, it's just powerful and very nice to have once it becomes available (either through an ally and later on from you, so you can free your ally's concentration to be used for something more useful for starters, assuming they are still hasting your butt at tier 3). At tier 3, haste means that you get to become a range speciallist one/a few times per day.
c) For a melee approach there are two ways I know of. Sentinel is one of them. Stick next to an ally and hope that not everyone will focus on you (whenever I am thinking about a sentinel rogue I am thinking literally of a moving target). This can work if you ally is built both to invite yet at the same time to somehow also endure a lot of pressure, while you make yourself enough of an unattrctive target despite having sentinel when compared to that ally of yours. And you do that by stacking as much AC as you can, and by getting your hands on retributory abilities that punish enemies for focusing on you (eg riposte being great here as a kind of bluff, since you really want to keep your reaction free for that sentinel attack). This approach sacrifices mobility obviously and is demanding on building for AC and countermeasures that I'd say it kind of shoehorns you into an inflexible melee build, at least most of the time. I'd still take sentinel on an arcane trickster rogue that does not speciallize too fast and too much on this kind of melee approach, but I'd probably delay it until the high levels (and I'd most likely rely on multiclassing -battlemaster- to impove this approach's overall effectiveness still).
d) The other way to attempt off turn sneak attack with a melee build is through OA's. As mentioned earlier, spells like disonant whispers and the like can help here. But so can spells that create a heavily obscured area if you have a way to see through it. Blindsense comes at level 14, so this may not be an option, or it may be an option for later. But if you want, you can get devil's sight or blind fighting through a feat or (preferably) through multiclassing, and pair them with spells like fog cloud and darkness (which may come from you or from an ally) as approrpiate. Inside a heavily obscured area no one has to stay still, because OA's generally wont apply. So you can hide with your bonus action and end your turn next to an enemy who will need to move on their turn; if you allied inside the obscured area keep moving on their turn, this enemy could be any enemy at all. Ideally pick one that needs to go down fast and who also happens to get their turn after enough enemies have already acted since your last turn. This mean that you reveal your position only after enough enemies have already gone. Because if you are using this to take down a nasty, which will have the opportunity to attack you on its turn since you attacked it with an OA during its turn and before it ended, you probably dont want any more attention than that. So yeah, that's the jist of it. Attack with BB and advantage enemy A on your turn, then hide and move next to any enemy, and when that enemy starts moving you get an OA attack with advantage against them. Meanwhile you have a chance at being hidden between the end of your turn and your OA's occurence. And if the enemy you are using your OA on is not the same enemy you attacked with BB on your turn, then BB's secondary damage triggers when enemy A moves at their turn too. Cut down on the number of OA's if survivability starts becoming an issue, and be wary of enemies' readied actions and of grapples; particularly of readied grapples. You want expertise in stealth for sure, and some anti-grappling defense; at the very least expertise in either athletics or acribatics. Darkness is mobile, lasts longer and is easier to pick up since it's an illusion spell, but fog cloud eats a lower level slot, covers a larger area and affects more enemies than darkness does. If you cannot count for allies for either of these and you have to pick one yourself, it's a tough choice, and you'd have to also take into account which of blind fighting or devil's sight is more to your preference and/or easier to get.
ps: Greater invisibility can be used to the same effect. You can get it at level 19, so it practically falls under the kind of synergy you'd be looking at your allies for. But it's a spell that is definitelly worth mentioning when discussing rogues.

[Unoriginal]

There are a couple features that let you make a teammate attack on your turn. From what I've seen over the years on this forum, having said teammate be a Rogue was favored.

[Stangler]

It doesn't plateu hard necesarilly, spells can be used for damage, and you get more of those, whatever people like to say, magic weapons are a thing, and after level 5 is usually when they start falling in the hands of PCs, and extra damage on weapons favor more attacks, they also get the rather lousy damage increment at 18, and finally you can increase damage via Dex bumps.

Yeah relying on some Dex bumps and +1 weapons for damage increases is still a plateau. Relying only on spells means a very slow rate of progression with large spikes in progression which is the exact problem I am talking about. Level 6 and 7 are two of the more boring levels out there. It is hard to make these levels better because the Ranger is so OP at level 5.

Overall in terms of power progression the class sees very clear plateaus in level progression and spikes that are mostly fueled by spells as opposed to their core power which is martial. It is so bad it just doesn't make sense from a design POV.

To me this points to a pretty big rework of HM/pets and a continued rework of martial related feats.

[Stangler]

Giving Rogues a choice between archer or DW fighting styles at level 5 seems like an easy and obvious fix. If they later add improvements to fighting styles the Rogue can benefit but may be a bit behind the curve of martials.

[Unoriginal]

Giving Rogues a choice between archer or DW fighting styles at level 5 seems like an easy and obvious fix. If they later add improvements to fighting styles the Rogue can benefit but may be a bit behind the curve of martials.

I'd rather have the Rogues not get Fighting Styles. Except for subclasses like Swashbuckler who are a further specialisation.

[Stangler]

I'd rather have the Rogues not get Fighting Styles. Except for subclasses like Swashbuckler who are a further specialisation.

It is really hard to balance them without it. Especially if they introduce additional martial feats that build off fighting styles as a pre-requisite. We still really don't know how they are scaling up martials yet but once that is more settled it will be easier to explore options for the rogue.

They don't have to go the fighting style route of course but some baseline increase at level 5 would go a long way to making the rogue more competitive in terms of DPR.

[Yakk]

The easiest way to get an off-turn attack is "Scimitar of Speed". It lets you make an attack as a bonus action without using your attack action.

Then you use your action to ready an action on an obvious trigger that occurs soon. Like, "an ally makes an attack" when your ally is next in the initiative order, or whatever.

But the point is getting off-turn attacks is possible, and making a build that does it reliably isn't hard.

It isn't trivial, but it almost doubles a rogue's damage output.

They could ignore it. And then the aim Rogue damage output to where they want it, relative to everyone else.

And optimized rogues outdamage everyone else by almost 2x. Because this optimization, while quirky, isn't that resource intensive.

They could factor it in. And optimized Rogues damage output is equal to other classes optimized damage output.

And unoptimized Rogue damage output is abysmally bad, because 2x is a huge optimization swing that other classes are unlikely to hit.

They could spit the middle. Then baseline rogues will sort of suck, and optimized rogues will be better than other damage dealers.

The problem is, getting an off-turn attack isn't a huge resource investment, and the designers don't want it to be. For most classes, an off-turn attack past T1 gives them a 25% to at most 50% damage boost. For most rogues, we are talking almost 100%. If off-turn attack difficulty (order cleric, sentinal, etc) is based off of most melee classes, then the cost is going to be really low, and Rogue +100% damage output will make it insanely optimized for the cost. If it is based off of Rogue ROI, then off-turn attack abilities for everyone else will suck.

Going back to 3e, every Rogue attack had sneak attack, and rogues where expected to make 2-4 on their turn. An off turn attack with SA wasn't a huge %.

In 4e, the Rogue sneak attack feature was +1.5T damage dice. The attacks you made on your turn where usually large enough that the sneak attack damage dice gave you like +50%-75% damage.

Your off-turn attack was like 1/2 to 1/3 of the base damage of your on-turn attacks (past early heroic); X+.5X + .5X was 2X without SA, and 2.5X with SA off-turn, a 25% damage boost from allowing off-turn sneak attack. It was still substantial, but it didn't nearly double your damage dealing abilities.

(And this was in a game where off-turn attacks where really common).

Myself, I like the idea of giving Rogues a reaction attack baseline. Because it fits the Rogue "tricky fighter" thing, and gives Rogues a reason to pay attention off their turn.

If the Rogue is expected to get an off-turn attack 50% of the time or more, then getting it up to 100% is only a 33% boost, a reasonable ROI from optimization, not a 100% boost.

[Snowbluff]

Level 5: Assassinate: You have advantage on attack rolls against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in the combat yet. In addition, any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit. A very solid reason to stick with Rogue for at least 5 levels, and a great alternative to Extra Attack. (This would also mean abolishing or reworking the Assassin subclass, which I'm fine with). If not this, then Rogues need some other reliable damage buff.



I agree, Psyren and Snowbluff. A few solutions that makes sense to me involves giving Rogues a Bonus Action: Ready Action option, additional Reactions, Yakk’s suggested Disruptive Strike ability, an Impair ability which works like Caltrops, Nets etc.

Actually, how would everyone feel about Rogues explicitly getting traps? Rangers get the Snare spell, but Rogues could get non-spell Reactions to inflict poisons and blindness. I’m not sure if they should be stronger or weaker than battlemaster maneuvers (or Stunning Strike) but they could learn from that setup. If you want to be REALLY wild you could base rogue traps off of Infused Items- meaning you could give them to allies. The Mind Sharpener for example is not restricted to Artificers, why should choking and sneezing dust (poisoner’s kit, example trap) be restricted to Rogues for safe use?
I kinda like the idea of rolling some subclass features into the base class. Sadly, using items as a bonus action was one of the removed option, so it's unlikely to return in this current form. It would be a better way to make the class interesting, but with the way sneak attack is worded right now, it's still a worse form of how Fast hands used to work, which did let you do some flask rogue shenanigans.

As for how traps perform, there is some narrative potential. You could make a vague zone where there's 1 trap, have a literal trap like the bear trap (hard to work with DMs knowing everything), or just go entirely out of the narrative with reaction "but really it was always there." I like the zone idea personally, since I think it has a good balance of being effective and hidden, but also not being entirely made up. Also a rogue trap should probably go off even if they can't take a reaction. :smalltongue:

[Witty Username]

Hm, A brief note that the rogue appears to be losing steady aim, which could be considered a nerf to cunning action. At least based on the ranger gains and losses in their features.
Also, sneak attack is unchanged but also nerfed by the changes proposed to crits is a nerf to rogue damage due to no longer applying to sneak attack.

Hm, Weapons: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons that
have the Finesse Property

looks like they also lost proficiency in hand crossbow, unless there is a redesign I am unaware of.

[Talionis]

The issue was never that rogues were too OP with it but that there ends up being huge swings in balance with or without it. This makes it difficult to not only effectively balance the rogue but balance a host of other abilities like the order cleric ability, haste, commander strike, sentinel, and more.

There are also plenty of new players who may not even be aware of how important it is to try and get a reaction off.

Personally I found the prospect of using haste to get it off to be especially problematic from a design POV because it just felt like a loophole. I liked the idea that some rogues would want to stay in melee and potentially take more damage with the hope they could trigger a sentinel reaction or something.

I think it was more a problem with Haste and readied actions than Sneak Attack. The inability to ready a haste action is a little weird.

I’ve been at tables with rogues using Haste. There isn’t a balance or damage problem. At optimal tables it’s a big way for Rogues to keep up. But if you have similarly optimized characters the Rogue isn’t the high damage dealer.

All this is really doing is taking away opportunities for Rogues to keep up at the table doing what they do.

[Vorpalchicken]

If limited to only sneak attacking on your turn I agree that the sneak attack damage should be higher. A progression something like 1,2,2,3,4,4,5,6,6,7,8,8,9,10,10,11,12,12,13,14 would be nice. I'd rather keep d6s as if you're going to have 14 of one sort of die it will likely be d6s.

If criticals are also not going to apply to sneak attack (as hinted at in the character origins document) then I think sneak attack could be a number of dice equal to the rogue's level.

Another possible compromise bone to throw the rogue is to allow it to make an off turn sneak attack if they were not able to use it during their own turn.

[Corran]

Myself, I like the idea of giving Rogues a reaction attack baseline. Because it fits the Rogue "tricky fighter" thing, and gives Rogues a reason to pay attention off their turn.
+1


If the Rogue is expected to get an off-turn attack 50% of the time or more, then getting it up to 100% is only a 33% boost, a reasonable ROI from optimization, not a 100% boost.
That 50% is very prone to variance. So a change that can help offset this variance and at the same time does not mess with your quote above, would be to increase sneak attack damage and restrict how much of it can be applied off turn, say, with an OA. This way you can still hit lower than the fighter under normal conditions, probably higher or on par with the fighter when doing something rogue like, and rogues still have some incentive getting up front while reducing the gap between their OA and the next best non-spell one, also while they still get to stab in the back fleeing foes instead of giving them the equivalent of a pinch.

[jas61292]

Another possible compromise bone to throw the rogue is to allow it to make an off turn sneak attack if they were not able to use it during their own turn.

While I welcome the removal of double sneak attack, I think this should be the case. Just word it as before, but change turn to round. That's how a ton of people thought it worked already.

Doing it this way eliminates needing to do unintuitive or silly things to optimize damage, but does not get rid of the ability to ready an action and sneak attack with it, which is very important, given rogues will typically have high initiative. Going first would suck if you can't get Sneak Attack and also can't ready an action to get it once an ally moves into melee.

[Segev]

There are a couple features that let you make a teammate attack on your turn. From what I've seen over the years on this forum, having said teammate be a Rogue was favored.

I think they could keep the "when you take the attack action" wording to prevent unintentional sneak attack access, but they should re-enable off-turn sneak attacks when other PCs are deliberately handing out attack options by making those other PC abilities let them grant full-on attack actions (which may or may not permit only one attack regardless of multiattack/extra attack; see: haste).

[Xihirli]

Yeah, that would be a good way to make sure that only the features intended to work with Sneak Attack work with Sneak Attack.

[Stangler]

I think it was more a problem with Haste and readied actions than Sneak Attack. The inability to ready a haste action is a little weird.

I’ve been at tables with rogues using Haste. There isn’t a balance or damage problem. At optimal tables it’s a big way for Rogues to keep up. But if you have similarly optimized characters the Rogue isn’t the high damage dealer.

All this is really doing is taking away opportunities for Rogues to keep up at the table doing what they do.

If this was the only change sure, but they are re doing a lot of things so a change that gets rid of a feature that creates massive balance challenges for the developers is a good thing. Still need follow up on rebalancing the rogue but this feature was never a good solution to that problem.

[Kane0]

Could add the ability to add sneak attack to opportunity attacks at level 5, would sort of mimic warriors getting extra attack at 5

[Dr.Samurai]

It seems to me more inelegant to say "rogues can deal greater damage with precision strikes if they are able to hit an enemy with Advantage, or an enemy that is also fighting the rogue's ally in melee combat........ but only on their turn".

That last part actually seems more inelegant to me than the complaints about Haste or OAs or Riposte. Seems much more gamist than a feature that is telling us "the rogue is lethal when they have advantage".

[Stangler]

Could add the ability to add sneak attack to opportunity attacks at level 5, would sort of mimic warriors getting extra attack at 5

If I am a rogue I don’t necessarily want to be next to the enemy even if I am a melee rogue. If they want to increase damage then there should be a change that applies to more styles of play.

[Kane0]

If I am a rogue I don’t necessarily want to be next to the enemy even if I am a melee rogue. If they want to increase damage then there should be a change that applies to more styles of play.

So, attacks made using your reaction instead of opportunity attacks?

[Stangler]

So, attacks made using your reaction instead of opportunity attacks?

I thought it was already made clear why that is problematic.

From a game design pov it makes little sense to funnel so much damage through reactions.

[Dr.Samurai]

Would conditional bleed damage be a possibility? Like an enemy that took SA damage on the rogue's last turn takes x damage if they do y thing?

[Kane0]

Would conditional bleed damage be a possibility? Like an enemy that took SA damage on the rogue's last turn takes x damage if they do y thing?

Ooh thats an idea. Lingering damage after a sneak attack, they take half again at the start of their turn or something

[Stangler]

Would conditional bleed damage be a possibility? Like an enemy that took SA damage on the rogue's last turn takes x damage if they do y thing?

Could be a bunch of different poison options and can certainly mimic booming blade.

[Gignere]

Actually with the new wording it also kills sneak attack with booming blade. Since casting booming blade isn’t an attack action.

These changes are obvious nerfs to the AT so it isn’t the best rogue DPR option.

[Witty Username]

Why do we need the once per turn restriction for rogue again?

[Hael]

Why do we need the once per turn restriction for rogue again?

Presumably b/c they are afraid of geometric scaling with multiclass options, like in 3.5 or pathfinder. Dipping rogue and procurring lots of extra attacks was a common way of surpassing damage thresholds.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why do we need the once per turn restriction for rogue again?

There's a few reasons, some better than others.
-To shift that power elsewhere
-To close the gap between an optimized Rogue and a casual Rogue
-For simplicities sake

We can tell at this point that they've accomplished the latter 2 - there's no longer anything to optimize about sneak attack mission accomplished and the ability is much simpler to understand as a consequence, no more confusion on whether an off turn sneak attack is even possible from the more casual playerbase.

Now, if they had done both of those while also accomplishing bullet point 1, there might be some justification. They didn't do that though, the Rogue is overall not that much better (arguably, not better in any meaningful way) and so all we've received is what is probably a well intentioned design change that accomplished the goals it set out to in the worst possible way.


Actually with the new wording it also kills sneak attack with booming blade. Since casting booming blade isn’t an attack action.

These changes are obvious nerfs to the AT so it isn’t the best rogue DPR option.
There's another "good" reason: Bring Subclass choices closer. Now they're all pretty bad at dealing damage.

[Rukelnikov]

I don't think its reasonable to argue wether the damage is currently too low or too high until we have a better picture of 5.1, especially at least until we get some monsters.

[Segev]

I don't think its reasonable to argue wether the damage is currently too low or too high until we have a better picture of 5.1, especially at least until we get some monsters.

We have monsters. Not only is the "backwards compatibility" of 5.1 D&D specifically mostly about module compatibility, but all signs are that Monsters of the Multiverse is the prototype for how 5.1 monsters will be designed. If MM 5.0 is obsoleted in 5.1, then MotM still should not be.

[Psyren]

In addition, while we don't have monster HP we do definitely have ranger damage (both old and new) as a comparison point. I'll crunch some numbers in Ludic's calculator when I have downtime.

[Willie the Duck]

Actually with the new wording it also kills sneak attack with booming blade. Since casting booming blade isn’t an attack action.

These changes are obvious nerfs to the AT so it isn’t the best rogue DPR option.
I deeply suspect that SCAGtrips, if they show up at all in 5.1, will be reworked. They decidedly warped gameplay around them/made builds without them feel sub-par, probably as much or more than the things they have nipped in the bud like CBE/SS or rogue-reaction-SA or 1H quarterstaf PAM+shield or all the rest of the 'was this intentional?' stuff.

Exactly who is going to win out in the shuffle is still very much up in the air, but what I'm getting communicated most strongly is that they want to curtail the odd-confluence-of-rules ways to go about being effective.

[Yakk]

SCAG blocked TWF, and TWF was almost as good as SCAG cantrips.

With a 60% hit chance, SCAG did ([T]-1)*.65*4.5 extra damage, but cost you [SA]*.27 + .65*3.5 sneak attack damage.

[SA]*3.5*.27 + .65*3.5 < ([T]-1)*.65*4.5
[SA]*3.5*.27 + 2.275 < ([T]-1)*2.925
[SA]*3.5*.27 + 2.275 < [T]*2.925-2.925
[SA]*3.5*.27 + 5.2 < [T]*2.925
[SA] + 5.5 < [T]*3.1
basically, in the main target, TWF outdamages SCAG cantrips.

Unless the SCAG can get advantage.

[Willie the Duck]

SCAG blocked TWF, and TWF was almost as good as SCAG cantrips.

Well, yes*, but I didn't mean just for rogues. I think 1-level MC dipped (cleric, fighter, or artificer) wizards with SCAGtrips are the reason they will be reworked. Arcane Tricksters are just caught in that (again, I'm just predicting) blowback. Also just that they are a really weird (I think people have been using the term 'janky') way of addressing single-attack characters that may (or may not) need a damage boost. Making a weapon attack as part of a spellcasting action just opens up the game for all sorts of strange interactions. From a purely design level, it'd be one of the first things I'd clear up (by replacing them with just giving whomever needs more damage just plain more damage) if I were revising a game like 5e.
*although SCAGtrips left your bonus action free

[MadBear]

Why do we need the once per turn restriction for rogue again?

Honestly, it's probably due to the fact then when they were creating it, they thought it'd be a neat damage boost that rarely took effect and didn't impacte the game that often (heck, I remember early 5e, that battlemaster's ability that let the rogue sneak attack again was considered great for this purpose). With all the options currently available, it's way easier then they probably ever meant it to be for it to go off.

That's my best guess, as a once in a blue moon ability and a every turn ability are gonna impact the game in vastly different ways.

[Gignere]

SCAG blocked TWF, and TWF was almost as good as SCAG cantrips.

With a 60% hit chance, SCAG did ([T]-1)*.65*4.5 extra damage, but cost you [SA]*.27 + .65*3.5 sneak attack damage.

[SA]*3.5*.27 + .65*3.5 < ([T]-1)*.65*4.5
[SA]*3.5*.27 + 2.275 < ([T]-1)*2.925
[SA]*3.5*.27 + 2.275 < [T]*2.925-2.925
[SA]*3.5*.27 + 5.2 < [T]*2.925
[SA] + 5.5 < [T]*3.1
basically, in the main target, TWF outdamages SCAG cantrips.

Unless the SCAG can get advantage.

But TWF requires your bonus action, and so it should be a bit better, however rogues are the kings of getting advantage on a single attack since Tasha’s especially for an AT that can get the familiar help action along with steady aim.

[Selion]

Jumping late in the discussion
Let's address the elephant in the room: current rogue is broken (meaning dysfunctional, not overpowered).
That's because the primary damage source of a rogue (which is supposed to do a lot of damage), has a dmg scaling which is lackluster, it's not that bad, but it's barely in line with other baseline sources of dmg which don't have the same restrictions.
The community, though, has found ways to make it work, which are clearly not intentional to the designers.
What it has been found, is that the dmg output of a rogue does increase la lot if any of all of the following options apply
- SCAG cantrips (marginally)
- crit fishing (either with additional attacks or with crit range)
- advantage (it does affect crit fishing)
- reaction attacks.

Why i say that it's dysfunctional: i have a friend who is currently playing in a group with me, he's usually really really good with rules and with math, but he simply focuses in other aspects in a RPG, and above all, he doesn't follow d&d optimization communities.
So, he picked a rogue, he choose the best subclass (arcane trickster) and the best base race (elf/half elf), he looked at the player handbook, picked a couple of thematic spells, and rolled with them.
Right now its dmg is not keeping up with other martials, because he didn't know any of the stated options.
He could have had picked booming blade, he did not, he could have had picked elven accuracy, he did not, because he doesn't read forums on internet. That's all.
Optimization is a thing, ok, every class has benefits from it, but if a class needs to optimize in obscure ways just to keep up there's something wrong (and don't tell me that hunting for boots of haste or dipping in champion for critical scaling and triggering reactions with action surge, or feeling obliged to pick a specific cantrip, from your race, from a dip or from a feat, is a natural and clear way to build your character).
Conversely a archer fighter could pick any subclass, any feat, and still be a good dmg dealer, and you know what a player not interested in optimization would pick if they really want to focus in archery?
Archery style and sharpshooter. They don't even need to read the rules, the right options are clear as the sun, just from their names!

What happened in One D&D is that they did fix rogues rules, preventing rules oddities.
Rogue baseline has had minor effects from this, what has been nerfed for the main part is not the class "rogue", but the class "optimized rogue".
So, now everyone has noticed that rogues are bad in damage dealing, and always have been, the king is naked!
The right answer IMHO is using a buff hammer on this class, it's a shame it hasn't happened in the UA playtest (furthermore the thief subclass is not good, just like any other subclass which has been disclosed)

In addition to injury, insult! Rogues are the ones most affected by the crit new rules (together with paladins). I really hope they will not make it in the final cut, new criticals are the one thing i hate in new rules.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In addition to injury, insult! Rogues are the ones most affected by the crit new rules (together with paladins). I really hope they will not make it in the final cut, new criticals are the one thing i hate in new rules.

Only the most recent rules glossary is in active playtest, the crit rules are already back to normal.

HOW TO PLAYTEST THIS MATERIAL
We invite you to try out this material in play. When you do so, you’re welcome to combine this article with the “Character Origins” article from August 2022. If you do combine this article with the previous one, use only the rules glossary found here. In the One D&D Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each article supersedes the glossary of any previous article

Jump Action is the new "this is really terrible and bad" example.

[Corran]

Jumping late in the discussion
Let's address the elephant in the room: current rogue is broken (meaning dysfunctional, not overpowered).
That's because the primary damage source of a rogue (which is supposed to do a lot of damage), has a dmg scaling which is lackluster, it's not that bad, but it's barely in line with other baseline sources of dmg which don't have the same restrictions.
They are lacking feat support when it comes to boosting raw damage figures compared to most other martials. Their combat feat suport is still excellent if you stop thinking of rogues as fighters though.



The community, though, has found ways to make it work, which are clearly not intentional to the designers.
I'd guess that maneuvers like brace and riposte were not intentional since allowing a rogue to get them defeats the point of having a battlemaster with well timed strong offenssive reactions, but that happens when you think it's a good idea to allow tons of features to be shared.

Sentinel was probably not designed with that in mind but I cannot believe it was something they did not catch on, they just left it be. And I dont see that as a bad move, getting sentinel on a rogue is a tough and interesting decision that shapes your playstyle (sometimes all the way up to the moment your rogue bit more than they could chew).

Haste (and greater invisibility) on rogues is less about rogues and more about buffers. Removing the synergy hurts buffers more than it does the rogue. So I think this should be best examined whhen talking about buffers as an option of the game.

But OA's? I'd wager definitely intentional. The really awkward part is how you could end up with one that might not trigger sneak attack (though advatage/disadvantage at DM's discretion can definitely weight in). There's a big gap between the rogue's OA and the next best one (exluding BB), so that seems like something that definitely should be addressed.



Why i say that it's dysfunctional: i have a friend who is currently playing in a group with me, he's usually really really good with rules and with math, but he simply focuses in other aspects in a RPG, and above all, he doesn't follow d&d optimization communities.
So, he picked a rogue, he choose the best subclass (arcane trickster) and the best base race (elf/half elf), he looked at the player handbook, picked a couple of thematic spells, and rolled with them.
Right now its dmg is not keeping up with other martials, because he didn't know any of the stated options.
He could have had picked booming blade, he did not, he could have had picked elven accuracy, he did not, because he doesn't read forums on internet. That's all.
Even without character damage optimization a rogue can still hit above their expected dpr if allies utilize the rogue's uniqness (compared to other martials), ie that of being able to hit hard one time. Such as by granting them extra attacks or advantage, or forcing enemies triggering OA's from the rogue, or buffing them with a few certain spells.

Even if none of that happens the rogue is still an excellent (and powerful) class, at the hands of those who enjoy the possibilties and playstyle offered. High raw damage is not part of that, at least not in a very consistent basis. And that's ok if the class can make up for that in other ways. This way it pays off when you want to play a rogue in order to do rogue stuff, or when you want to play a barbarian to do barbarian stuff, etc. If it's all similar then you do pretty much the same stuff and at most you'll get a slightly different dressing. And that gets old after a little while. I know cause I tried it and I ended up liking 5e much better.

Also, dont get too hung up on damage optimization, especially when we are talking about a class that's not the barbarian and most fighters. That's not to say that rogues can afford to neglect dpr. But all the optimization talk I've been reading in this thread revolves solely around it and that can be misleading.




Optimization is a thing, ok, every class has benefits from it, but if a class needs to optimize in obscure ways just to keep up there's something wrong
Fullcasters. Though they can more than keep up.

Rogues should try hard to keep up with the damge of fighters and barbarians IMO, and I am not sure if I would even wanted them to be able to do so. At least whn fighting fair. They should definitely have their moments though and there should be conditions under which they would easily outperform the martial beasts (eg fighting in a dark alley, on slippery surfaces, rooftops, etc).

I dont have a strong opinion on how obvious or hidden their damage optimization options should be*. I only care if their features make sense from what I would expect from the class (and let me tell you that puny OA's attacks is not what i have in mind), and how much the playstyle of the class differs from my other not too disimilar options.

I'll repeat though that your issue here seems far more directed at spellcasters.

*I do think that it will be unavoidable that rogue optimization will be a little more involved than that of your typical spell-less warrior. Cause when you throw (to a noticeable extent) all of mobility, tankiness and damage into the same mix, then optimization becomes a larger set of decisions.



Conversely a archer fighter could pick any subclass, any feat, and still be a good dmg dealer, and you know what a player not interested in optimization would pick if they really want to focus in archery?
Archery style and sharpshooter. They don't even need to read the rules, the right options are clear as the sun, just from their names!
Personaly I like that rogue archers play differently. Not saying that I like them more. Sometimes I just prefer a fighter archer that goes for top damage. Other times I just like an archer who trades a bit of damage (most of the time) for the opportunity to get in and out of melee combat quickly and as necessary. It's nice having different options assuming they are well supported by the game. Not every option will be for you and you are allowed to have favourites (that may or may not change over the time) of course. If I've misinterpreted your point and you are just thinking that rogues should be top tier damage dealers, that would be a whole different conversation, so I am replying assuming that this was not your point at all.



What happened in One D&D is that they did fix rogues rules, preventing rules oddities.
They created a few oddities. Though I am glad that some options are gone (even if I actually enjoyed them), such as riposte/brace sneak attack, cause these combinations did hurt the battlemaster. I think I would very much prefer the battlemaster entirely gone and the maneuvers becoming generally a martial thing, but that's probably too hopeful to think of, so I guess I have to be happy with what's IMO the next best thing, ie trying to preserve the battlemater's identity since we seem to be stuck with it as a subclass.



Rogue baseline has had minor effects from this, what has been nerfed for the main part is not the class "rogue", but the class "optimized rogue".
There's no such class. I think you mean damage optimization though even that's false. Removing a strong OA from the rogue is something that can be felt by anyone. Even I will miss it, and my current rogue is snipping most of the time.



So, now everyone has noticed that rogues are bad in damage dealing, and always have been, the king is naked!
The right answer IMHO is using a buff hammer on this class, it's a shame it hasn't happened in the UA playtest (furthermore the thief subclass is not good, just like any other subclass which has been disclosed)
I'll use a big exhggeration now. If the rogue offers me 5 ways to choose from regarding how to approach any one encounter, and the barbarian offers me one or two ways at most, with possibly one out of one or one out of two being the dumb option, who needs a boost in combat numbers the most? Obviously a rhetorical question. Not because the answer is obvious, but because I didn't provide anything with which one could answer. But the question does (hopefuly) provide (you) something to think about. I am not saying that a dpr boost for the rogue would be a bad move. I am saying that some very few and carefully selected kinds of assymetric balance are necessary in order for classes to have purpose (and at least some appeal to the individual; though that's not an end goal).

[Witty Username]

But TWF requires your bonus action, and so it should be a bit better, however rogues are the kings of getting advantage on a single attack since Tasha’s especially for an AT that can get the familiar help action along with steady aim.

Worth noting that the UA two-weapon fighting is now part of the attack action, so for the kill of booming blade Rogues get more usability for two weapon fighting.

[elyktsorb]

I understand the nerfs here, tho I don't understand what the big deal is on not getting to do sneak attacks off your turn. I played several rogues in long running campaigns, and I think I got a sneak attack off my turn, not more then five times? I just sat in the back and shot at things with advantage constantly.

I also never really thought I was dealing bad damage either. In one game I was almost always doing comparable or more damage than the fighter. And I don't think that fighter was doing poorly either.

[Witty Username]

I understand the nerfs here, tho I don't understand what the big deal is on not getting to do sneak attacks off your turn. I played several rogues in long running campaigns, and I think I got a sneak attack off my turn, not more then five times? I just sat in the back and shot at things with advantage constantly.


This is definitely an optimized tables thing, I expect most players wouldn't notice this.

But it kills a bunch of builds that optimizers used for rogue damage to keep up with other optimized builds. A few would still work like phantom and soulknife Rogues have a few builds that don't use melee much, but just about every melee rogue build gets taken out by it.

As for how well to Rogues keep up with damage, generally an attack is roughly equal to 2d6 (1d4 -1d8 weapon) or 3d6 (d10 -2d6 weapon) sneak attack damage
This makes for 5th level for Rogues to feel like a rough spot for some, since extra attack classes tend to out damage rogue. Coupled with the tendencies of those classes to have additional ways to increase damage (hunter's mark, action surge, divine smite, rage) and people feel more like rogue is playing catch up. YMMV on how important this is.

[Sorinth]

For sure Rogue needs some sort of DPR boost, especially if the Ranger is in line with a new baseline.

Adding back Steady Aim would be a nice first step as would giving something similar for melee Rogues, perhaps a BA to feint and next melee attack is at advantage. The additional accuracy is a decent DPR boost but I'm not sure it's enough. You could do something with subclasses, ie Assassin gets a usable Poison damage option. But perhaps it would be easier to scale the SA die size so that it becomes a d8 @5, d10 @11, d12 @17.

EDIT: I'm actually fine with SA being once per round but it should be worded so that if you miss on your turn but manage a reaction attack you'd still get the SA damage. The loss of doubling the SA for criticals is arguably as big an issue in terms of DPR loss and general fun.

[Kane0]

This makes for 5th level for Rogues to feel like a rough spot for some, since extra attack classes tend to out damage rogue. Coupled with the tendencies of those classes to have additional ways to increase damage (hunter's mark, action surge, divine smite, rage) and people feel more like rogue is playing catch up. YMMV on how important this is.

Thats why i thought the bleed idea above was a good fit for level 5.

I dont think adding steady aim back in will really help much, thats adding accuracy and not damage.

[Sorinth]

Thats why i thought the bleed idea above was a good fit for level 5.

I dont think adding steady aim back in will really help much, thats adding accuracy and not damage.

Improving accuracy improves DPR though.

But accuracy doesn't seem like it will be enough of a DPR boost if the Ranger is a good baseline (Which to be fair it probably isn't). So yeah a bleed ability or being able to poison your weapons, or just increasing the SA damage die at various levels would all be solid options.

[Mastikator]

This is definitely an optimized tables thing, I expect most players wouldn't notice this.

But it kills a bunch of builds that optimizers used for rogue damage to keep up with other optimized builds. A few would still work like phantom and soulknife Rogues have a few builds that don't use melee much, but just about every melee rogue build gets taken out by it.

As for how well to Rogues keep up with damage, generally an attack is roughly equal to 2d6 (1d4 -1d8 weapon) or 3d6 (d10 -2d6 weapon) sneak attack damage
This makes for 5th level for Rogues to feel like a rough spot for some, since extra attack classes tend to out damage rogue. Coupled with the tendencies of those classes to have additional ways to increase damage (hunter's mark, action surge, divine smite, rage) and people feel more like rogue is playing catch up. YMMV on how important this is.

A level 5 ranger with hunter's mark and two weapon fighting style and two shortswords would do 2x (2d6 + dex), a rogue with two shortswords would do 5d6 + dex. We're basically trading one 1d6 for the dex modifier. Rangers are marginally better if and only if they use a resource.

[stoutstien]

A level 5 ranger with hunter's mark and two weapon fighting style and two shortswords would do 2x (2d6 + dex), a rogue with two shortswords would do 5d6 + dex. We're basically trading one 1d6 for the dex modifier. Rangers are marginally better if and only if they use a resource.
Aye. Everyone is thinking the gap is huge but it's pretty reasonable unless the ranger is dropping 2+ slots a turn and that's not exactly standable. Note you do need to add in the single damage die from prey in the Hunter subclass and the extra attack. So your napkin math for them is 3(1d6+mod)+1d8 then 3(2d6+mod)+1d8 with HM. (Assuming only needing to move it once per turn max). Little larger gap but not something to bring out the touches over.

The rogue is roughly 2d6 behind the substantial ranger output. They can cut that in half with 2a few feat picks and/or the gap shrinks as they both advance due to how twf scales backwards. By the time the ranger is dealing 1d10 with HM the rouge will have 9d6 per SA.

Arguably the rouge is behind at lower levels now but honestly I don't think the gap here is worth complaining about as long as they fix the movement rules.

[Sorinth]

A level 5 ranger with hunter's mark and two weapon fighting style and two shortswords would do 2x (2d6 + dex), a rogue with two shortswords would do 5d6 + dex. We're basically trading one 1d6 for the dex modifier. Rangers are marginally better if and only if they use a resource.

It's 3x not 2x though.

[Kane0]

Improving accuracy improves DPR though.

But accuracy doesn't seem like it will be enough of a DPR boost if the Ranger is a good baseline (Which to be fair it probably isn't). So yeah a bleed ability or being able to poison your weapons, or just increasing the SA damage die at various levels would all be solid options.

D8s at level 5, d10s at level 11, d12s at level 17?

[Sorinth]

D8s at level 5, d10s at level 11, d12s at level 17?

Yeah something like that would be a decent damage boost for Rogue and something that players have to look forward to. It also keeps things super simple compared to a bleed type mechanic. The bleed/poison type stuff could then go into a specific subclass, Assassin would be a good fit since it failed to hit the mark on the first go.

[Sorinth]

Aye. Everyone is thinking the gap is huge but it's pretty reasonable unless the ranger is dropping 2+ slots a turn and that's not exactly standable. Note you do need to add in the single damage die from prey in the Hunter subclass. So your napkin math for them is 3(1d6+mod)+1d8 then 3(2d6+mod)+1d8 with HM. (Assuming only needing to move it once per turn max). Little larger gap but not something to bring out the touches over.

Ignoring accuracy and say a +4 mod the Ranger is at 27 without HM and 37.5 with it. Meanwhile the Rogue is at 21.5. How is 37.5 vs 21.5 not a huge gap, it's a 75% increase in damage when using resources and still 25% better without using resources.

Now it's worth noting since Rogue can get advantage easier and SA being on any hit when you factor accuracy into the equation the gap closes a bit. But as of now the Rogue is seriously behind the curve compared to the Ranger.

[stoutstien]

Ignoring accuracy and say a +4 mod the Ranger is at 27 without HM and 37.5 with it. Meanwhile the Rogue is at 21.5. How is 37.5 vs 21.5 not a huge gap, it's a 75% increase in damage when using resources and still 25% better without using resources.

Now it's worth noting since Rogue can get advantage easier and SA being on any hit when you factor accuracy into the equation the gap closes a bit. But as of now the Rogue is seriously behind the curve compared to the Ranger.

And 2 is 100% more than 1 but no one would really care once you frame it in absolute value rather than %. The rogue can grab CBE and get their modifier added to the off hand attack basically giving them the same resource free damage. The rangers can spike it with HM but the rogue has better mobility and easier advantage generation. Beware of only looking at the damage and losing sight of the whole picture.

We don't know what the curve is. we've only seen three classes and a subclass each. For all we know the hunter is going to be the more damaging ranger subclass and they might introduce an assassin that completely blows it away. The thief is obviously not a combat oriented option.(it has problems but overall it makes the hunter look awful from a fit n finish perspective. 1/6 chance to not use a charge on a magic item? Yes please.)
I'm not defending this UA. It has a lot of poorly worded and implemented crap but the damage Gap here isn't even in the top 25

[Sorinth]

And 2 is 100% more than 1 but no one would really care once you frame it in absolute value rather than %. The rogue can grab CBE and get their modifier added to the off hand attack basically giving them the same resource free damage. The rangers can spike it with HM but the rogue has better mobility and easier advantage generation. Beware of only looking at the damage and losing sight of the whole picture.

We don't know what the curve is. we've only seen three classes and a subclass each. For all we know the hunter is going to be the more damaging ranger subclass and they might introduce an assassin that completely blows it away. The thief is obviously not a combat oriented option.(it has problems but overall it makes the hunter look awful from a fit n finish perspective. 1/6 chance to not use a charge on a magic item? Yes please.)
I'm not defending this UA. It has a lot of poorly worded and implemented crap but the damage Gap here isn't even in the top 25

And in a game where dealing 1hp of damage per round was the norm an ability that pushed that to 2 would be a powerful ability.

[Yakk]

Out of the box...

What if Rogues used 1d6s for finesse weapons (like a monk) and got 2d6 at level 5, 3d6 at level 11 and 4d6 at level 17.

Then we got a weaker sneak attack that required advantage and baked in reaction attacks and the like.

(I only use d6s, because Rogues are buckets of d6s).

You'd get a strong reaction attack. You'd scale with more attacks better (as your extra weapon dice works on it).

A fighter 5/rogue 5 does 2d6+dex x3 with two daggers, which isn't a problem. Even a fighter 11/rogue 5 with 2d6+dex x4, or rogue 11/fighter 5 3d6+dex x3.

Get +1d6 sneak attack at 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19.
Get 1d6 finesse damage at 1, 2d6 at 5, 3d6 at 11, 4d6 at 17.

Heck, keep full SA progression and stack on extra finesse weapon damage on top of it; it causes a power spike at level 5, but everyone gets one.

But that is probably out of scope.

[ZRN]

And 2 is 100% more than 1 but no one would really care once you frame it in absolute value rather than %. The rogue can grab CBE and get their modifier added to the off hand attack basically giving them the same resource free damage. The rangers can spike it with HM but the rogue has better mobility and easier advantage generation. Beware of only looking at the damage and losing sight of the whole picture.

We don't know what the curve is. we've only seen three classes and a subclass each. For all we know the hunter is going to be the more damaging ranger subclass and they might introduce an assassin that completely blows it away. The thief is obviously not a combat oriented option.(it has problems but overall it makes the hunter look awful from a fit n finish perspective. 1/6 chance to not use a charge on a magic item? Yes please.)
I'm not defending this UA. It has a lot of poorly worded and implemented crap but the damage Gap here isn't even in the top 25

I think it's worth assuming the designers gave us enough stuff in the playtest to make some distinctions. For example, the feat Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting, which they added to this playtest specifically so that we would try it out and comment on it, requires a Warrior-group class, which is the exact proximate cause of this disparity; they could amend that one feat to include Expert classes and voila, melee-focused rogues do better melee damage, a bit below a ranger who's not using any spells. Or they could NOT make that change, because they DO intend rogues to be worse at melee damage than rangers, which we should also be reacting to.

[stoutstien]

I think it's worth assuming the designers gave us enough stuff in the playtest to make some distinctions. For example, the feat Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting, which they added to this playtest specifically so that we would try it out and comment on it, requires a Warrior-group class, which is the exact proximate cause of this disparity; they could amend that one feat to include Expert classes and voila, melee-focused rogues do better melee damage, a bit below a ranger who's not using any spells. Or they could NOT make that change, because they DO intend rogues to be worse at melee damage than rangers, which we should also be reacting to.

We still have to wait on the warrior classes to see. We have no baseline to judge ranger against as a pseudo warrior without a baseline. Rangers dealing more situational damage could be 100% intentional or maybe they flubbed the math. That's one reason I hate UA without a design intent provided.

Melee rogues having cunning action is pretty big IMO. I'll gladly trade ~5 dpr for the ability to hit the target I want rather than one I can reach.

[stoutstien]

And in a game where dealing 1hp of damage per round was the norm an ability that pushed that to 2 would be a powerful ability.

We have no norm. We have 1/9 of a system and a lot of guesses.

[Zalabim]

If they want to remove off-turn sneak attacks, then they need to balance that by making on-turn sneak attacks more consistent. Then they can give the rogue a reasonable level of combat balance with other classes. Remove the prohibition on disadvantage, at least.


And 2 is 100% more than 1 but no one would really care once you frame it in absolute value rather than %. The rogue can grab CBE and get their modifier added to the off hand attack basically giving them the same resource free damage. The rangers can spike it with HM but the rogue has better mobility and easier advantage generation. Beware of only looking at the damage and losing sight of the whole picture.

We don't know what the curve is. we've only seen three classes and a subclass each. For all we know the hunter is going to be the more damaging ranger subclass and they might introduce an assassin that completely blows it away. The thief is obviously not a combat oriented option.(it has problems but overall it makes the hunter look awful from a fit n finish perspective. 1/6 chance to not use a charge on a magic item? Yes please.)
I'm not defending this UA. It has a lot of poorly worded and implemented crap but the damage Gap here isn't even in the top 25
Rogues aren't proficient with Hand Crossbows, so it takes two feats to grab CBE, and they're starting out behind on damage compared the Ranger using no feats and no spells. I don't know how you think a TWF rogue is getting advantage that a TWF ranger can't. The rogue can dash or disengage as a bonus action. The ranger can get +10 feet of movement, climbing, and swimming speed and has spells that are being ignored here, as well as better armor proficiency and a higher hit die. It's not clear how much more mobile the rogue even is, and it's certainly not worth the difference in damage and ease of play.

There is a problem that the Ranger has a subclass that mostly works and the new Thief subclass does nothing thanks to the removal of fast hands, broken jump action, changed hiding rules, uncertainty of gaining magic items, and butchering of Thief's Reflexes. Compared to the Ranger, the rogue is missing a subclass, a reliable combat action, and five levels of spellcasting. You say HM can't always be counted in the Ranger's damage, but it's more available to every Ranger than Sneak Attack is to every Rogue. Sneak attack isn't hard to qualify for, except when it's impossible to qualify for. But a thief rogue that always qualifies for sneak attack is still behind a hunter ranger that never casts a spell.

We still have to wait on the warrior classes to see. We have no baseline to judge ranger against as a pseudo warrior without a baseline. Rangers dealing more situational damage could be 100% intentional or maybe they flubbed the math. That's one reason I hate UA without a design intent provided.

Melee rogues having cunning action is pretty big IMO. I'll gladly trade ~5 dpr for the ability to hit the target I want rather than one I can reach.

If you want to hit the target of your choice, pick up a crossbow, find somewhere to hide, and choose any target you have advantage against. Otherwise, rogues are the worst class about target choice since you have to choose the target you can sneak attack, or lose most of the damage you do have. The ranger though really can go attack whatever target they want. Heck, if you don't want to count Hunter's Mark, then cast Longstrider, take the Speedster feat, and have as much speed as the dashing Rogue at level 7.

Up to levels where the playtest definitely, and the game usually, breaks down anyway. Conjure Barrage, really?

[stoutstien]

If they want to remove off-turn sneak attacks, then they need to balance that by making on-turn sneak attacks more consistent. Then they can give the rogue a reasonable level of combat balance with other classes. Remove the prohibition on disadvantage, at least.


Rogues aren't proficient with Hand Crossbows, so it takes two feats to grab CBE, and they're starting out behind on damage compared the Ranger using no feats and no spells. I don't know how you think a TWF rogue is getting advantage that a TWF ranger can't. The rogue can dash or disengage as a bonus action. The ranger can get +10 feet of movement, climbing, and swimming speed and has spells that are being ignored here, as well as better armor proficiency and a higher hit die. It's not clear how much more mobile the rogue even is, and it's certainly not worth the difference in damage and ease of play.

There is a problem that the Ranger has a subclass that mostly works and the new Thief subclass does nothing thanks to the removal of fast hands, broken jump action, changed hiding rules, uncertainty of gaining magic items, and butchering of Thief's Reflexes. Compared to the Ranger, the rogue is missing a subclass, a reliable combat action, and five levels of spellcasting. You say HM can't always be counted in the Ranger's damage, but it's more available to every Ranger than Sneak Attack is to every Rogue. Sneak attack isn't hard to qualify for, except when it's impossible to qualify for. But a thief rogue that always qualifies for sneak attack is still behind a hunter ranger that never casts a spell.


If you want to hit the target of your choice, pick up a crossbow, find somewhere to hide, and choose any target you have advantage against. Otherwise, rogues are the worst class about target choice since you have to choose the target you can sneak attack, or lose most of the damage you do have. The ranger though really can go attack whatever target they want. Heck, if you don't want to count Hunter's Mark, then cast Longstrider, take the Speedster feat, and have as much speed as the dashing Rogue at level 7.

Up to levels where the playtest definitely, and the game usually, breaks down anyway. Conjure Barrage, really?

The rouge has nigh constant advantage after lv 13. No spells, set up, or movement needed. Just an ally. You don't even need to be able to see the target for this to work. Before that they still have CA and hide got buffed big time for experts thanks to flat DC.


They get an extra feat. If damage is important use it for that.

Sure they have smaller HD and less immediate armor but they also have better saves and a pretty solid reaction that reduces damage (that suddenly got a whole lot less crowded thanks to no off turn sneak attack).

Theu could also pick up HM/hex if 2d6 is so much damage that the game explodes without it.

[Damon_Tor]

Rogues should ABSOLUTELY have sneak attack on opportunity attacks. If they want to prohibit them from working on granted attacks and readied actions and attack cantrips, fine, I get that. But the ONLY reason a rogue has to be in melee is to get opportunity attacks. If this change goes through every rogue is a ranged rogue because there would be zero reason to be anything else.

[Psyren]

They get an extra feat. If damage is important use it for that.

My issue is that Ranger ALSO gets an extra feat - much earlier in the game no less - on top of all the other benefits (both damage and utility) they get from spellcasting. And even without the casting Ranger has a superior chassis, and now, nearly equal facility with skills. And all of that is on top of systemic improvements that either benefit both classes equally (TWF changes) or that favor the Ranger (e.g. all racial spells are now effectively bonus preparations for them.)

In short, Rogue could use a buff. A second bonus feat in Tier 2 would be my preference.

[ZRN]

Crossposting some basic math to facilitate discussion here. Here are some basic damage calculations for a level 20 TWF rogue, TWF ranger (with HM and Elemental Weapon active), TWF fighter, and dual-hand-crossbow ranger (with HM and Swift Quiver active):



Rogue: 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6 (offhand) + 10d6 (sneak attack) = 12d6 + 5 = 47

Ranger (TWF): 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (offhand) + 1d6+5 (Extra Attack) + 3d10 (Foe Slayer HM) + 4d4+4 (L5 Elemental Weapon) = 3d6 + 3d10 + 4d4 + 19 = 56

Ranger (dual hand crossbows): 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (extra attack) + 1d6+5 (offhand) + 2d6+10 (swift quiver BA) + 5d10 (HM) = 5d6 + 5d10 + 25 = 70

Fighter w/Dual Wielding (because he's got like 50 feats at this point): (1d8+5) x 4 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (offhand) = 5d6 + 25 = 53.5

Ranger (out of spells): 1d6+5 (main hand) + 1d6+5 (extra attack) + 1d6+5 (offhand) = 3d6+15 = 25.5

Other factors: rogue is more likely to have advantage with Subtle Strikes and can auto-hit with Stroke of Luck; ranger gets an extra 1d8 (4.5) per round against wounded enemies; TWF ranger has +2 attack over the others on his main hand attacks from Elemental Weapon; melee ranger has to use his BA first round to activate HM (and has to have Elemental Weapon running beforehand) but otherwise all still have their bonus actions free except crossbow ranger using Swift Quiver. Fighter can use Action Surge to double his damage (including offhand damage) a couple times per rest. Access to magic weapons would let fighter pull ahead. I have no idea if upcasting Elemental Weapon is an effective way to boost DPS, but it lasts an hour, which is nice.

So the thief rogue is a bit behind but in the same ballpark as the melee ranger with spells active for damage, but he's way ahead of the no-magic ranger - which is basically what you'd be aiming for when comparing a zero-resource class to a half-caster.

[Yakk]

Adding up damage and comparing when the two kinds of damage have fundamentally different levels of accuracy is misleading.

Rogues get two chances to land their sneak attack damage. With a 60% hit/5% crit rate, they get 0.65 * 2d6 from 2 weapon attacks and 0.92 * 10d6 from their 10d6 sneak attack on average.

Every other source of damage listed doesn't have a 2nd chance to land if the first chance misses.

[stoutstien]

My issue is that Ranger ALSO gets an extra feat - much earlier in the game no less - on top of all the other benefits (both damage and utility) they get from spellcasting. And even without the casting Ranger has a superior chassis, and now, nearly equal facility with skills. And all of that is on top of systemic improvements that either benefit both classes equally (TWF changes) or that favor the Ranger (e.g. all racial spells are now effectively bonus preparations for them.)

In short, Rogue could use a buff. A second bonus feat in Tier 2 would be my preference.
little bit different between a bonus feat that's limited to a select list of fighting styles and a bonus feat/asi. It is a little peculiar that they added in a few warrior gated seats but didn't include any of the expert ones which I assume are going to exist.

I do agree rogue could probably use a little bit of a restructure given the information we have been exposed to so far but I think it's actually early game that they need help not t2 and adding more damages a cop out.
If it wasn't for multi-classing issues I would say just move uncanny Dodge and evasion down a few lvs and be done with it. Of course multi-classing is always been favorable to rogue because they have such a gentle progression and a few iconic abilities and then they can jump off. Little bit harder to jump earlier now thanks to a few features like constant advantage or two saving throw proficiencies but the overall rouge chassis always felt like it lack cohesion.

*If I had it my way I'd probably remove sneak attack as part of the base class and move it to a subclass Or at least modify how each subclass applies it. That way you can have your cake and eat it too. You can have an assassin who likes to stack all their sneak attack onto a single powerful strike or you could have a more Frontline skirmisher subclass that can break up their speak attack over multiple attacks including opportunity attacks.*

[ZRN]

Adding up damage and comparing when the two kinds of damage have fundamentally different levels of accuracy is misleading.

Rogues get two chances to land their sneak attack damage. With a 60% hit/5% crit rate, they get 0.65 * 2d6 from 2 weapon attacks and 0.92 * 10d6 from their 10d6 sneak attack on average.

Every other source of damage listed doesn't have a 2nd chance to land if the first chance misses.

I’ll upload a spreadsheet tomorrow with more granular calculations, but that kind of granularity isn’t always more helpful in practice.

[Yakk]

I’ll upload a spreadsheet tomorrow with more granular calculations, but that kind of granularity isn’t always more helpful in practice.
Sure, but if you add up damage done for every other class, you get a 95% accurate representation of how much damage they'll do after you account for misses and crits etc.

If you do the same for Rogues, you are like 25%-35% under the damage they do; the 2nd chance for sneak attack is a huge part of a Rogue's damage output. So you'll get a false picture that Rogues do really bad damage.

[Person_Man]

I’m very firmly in the “Rogue’s need buff at low levels” camp - with my preferred option previously posted on this thread. But when doing the high level math, its also worth noting that Subtle Strikes both increases your to-hit and your crit chance. And Subtle Strikes will get a ton of milage from Elven Accuracy Feat or Halfling Lucky racial feature (assuming they still exist post reboot).

[ZRN]

Sure, but if you add up damage done for every other class, you get a 95% accurate representation of how much damage they'll do after you account for misses and crits etc.

If you do the same for Rogues, you are like 25%-35% under the damage they do; the 2nd chance for sneak attack is a huge part of a Rogue's damage output. So you'll get a false picture that Rogues do really bad damage.

Depends. Subtle Strikes means rogue can get advantage a lot more often; Archery style means that crossbow rangers have much higher DPR than crossbow rogues (who can't get a fighting style without multiclassing); ranger spells like Elemental Weapon increase their attack bonus.

I'm not even going to try to account for crits or natural ones, since the two UA packets make them do very different things with the changes to Inspiration.

[ZRN]

Depends. Subtle Strikes means rogue can get advantage a lot more often; Archery style means that crossbow rangers have much higher DPR than crossbow rogues (who can't get a fighting style without multiclassing); ranger spells like Elemental Weapon increase their attack bonus.

I'm not even going to try to account for crits or natural ones, since the two UA packets make them do very different things with the changes to Inspiration.

OK, some results:



Target AC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
TWF Rogue 46.9 46.7 46.5 46.1 45.6 45.0 44.2 41.8 38.1 32.7 25.0 14.3
Dual Crossbow Rogue 51.8 51.6 51.3 50.8 50.2 49.4 48.4 45.6 41.3 35.3 26.8 15.3
TWF Ranger 59.1 56.3 53.5 50.7 47.8 45.0 42.1 36.3 30.4 24.4 18.1 11.7
No Spell Ranger 27.4 26.2 24.9 23.6 22.2 20.9 19.5 16.7 13.7 10.6 7.3 3.8
Dual Crossbow Ranger 74.5 71.0 67.5 64.0 60.5 57.0 53.5 46.5 39.4 32.2 24.7 17.0
TWF Fighter 41.9 39.5 37.2 34.9 32.6 30.2 27.9 23.3 18.6 14.0 9.3 4.7
Greatsword Fighter 54.0 51.3 48.7 46.0 43.3 40.6 37.8 32.3 26.6 20.6 14.2 7.4
Greatsword Fighter (Adv) 58.8 58.1 57.2 56.0 54.5 52.8 50.8 46.0 40.0 32.9 24.2 13.6
Heavy Crossbow Fighter 48.0 45.9 43.8 41.7 39.6 37.5 35.4 31.0 26.6 22.0 17.2 11.9
Heavy Crossbow Fighter (Adv) 48.0 47.9 47.6 47.1 46.3 45.4 44.2 41.3 37.5 32.8 27.1 20.1
Rog15/Rgr5 77.0 74.9 72.7 70.6 68.3 66.0 63.5 58.3 52.3 45.4 37.3 28.0
OLD GWM/PAM Ftr (Adv) 96.1 92.3 87.9 83.0 77.6 71.7 65.2 50.6 33.3 12.4 12.4 12.4



Some assumptions:
1. I'm assuming the rogue always has advantage from Subtle Strikes.
2. I'm assuming the ranger always gets the d8 from Hunter's Prey.
3. I'm taking the UA at its word that rogues can't get a fighting style feat without multiclassing, even though that seems odd.
4. I'm ignoring the fact that rogues in the UA don't get hand crossbow proficiency, because that's just idiotic. (If that's really the case, just cross ranged rogues right off the list here.)
5. The TWF ranger is using HM + level 5 Elemental Weapon; the xbow ranger is using Swift Quiver + HM. (Feel free to suggest different spell options.)
6. I tossed in some fighter options for comparison; the (Adv) ones are with all attacks at advantage (for samurai), the easiest subclass benefit to model here. Remember they can Action Surge twice as well.

Analysis:
1. The dual crossbow ranger blows every other rogue and ranger build out of the water, thanks to Archery style being amazing and Swift Quiver shenanigans.
2. TWF rogue outdamages self-buffed TWF ranger with targets above AC19; ranger is better against lower ACs.
3. Ranger with no spells does pathetic damage.
4. Heavy crossbow now seems to be the best ranged fighter option, because GWM applies to heavy crossbow attacks. Major Guts from Berserk vibes (and I doubt it's hard to max both Dex and Str as a level 20 fighter with so many half-feats now).
5. A multiclass rogue/ranger build (using HM and elemental weapon) outdamages everything else across the board.
6. Even with no magical bonuses to boost attack, a samurai fighter using the current (pre-UA) 5e rules with PAM/GWM easily outdamages everyone else against targets under AC23.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ooh thats an idea. Lingering damage after a sneak attack, they take half again at the start of their turn or something Great if the targets are beasts or humanoids, what about creatures that don't bleed? I like the idea, but the fiddly bits may become annoying.
I dont think adding steady aim back in will really help much, thats adding accuracy and not damage. You can't damage what you don't hit. :smallwink:

D8s at level 5, d10s at level 11, d12s at level 17? Now there's a fine idea. :smallsmile:

We have no norm. We have 1/9 of a system and a lot of guesses. True.

[Yakk]

Wait, are you assuming dual hand crossbow with swift quiver gets 2+1+2 attacks?

[ZRN]

Wait, are you assuming dual hand crossbow with swift quiver gets 2+1+2 attacks?

Yes; that's how the wording would work out with Swift Quiver as it's printed, and they gave us a whole twenty-level playtest packet for ranger without bothering to adjust it, so it is what it is. It'll be on my feedback for sure!

If you want to sub in, say, Elemental Weapon, you get the following:



Enemy AC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
Avg Damage 64.70 61.90 59.10 56.30 53.49 50.67 47.85 42.14 36.34 30.43 24.37 18.14



...which is still ahead of everything else except ranger/rogue or a fighter using subclass resources, but more in line.

[Bobthewizard]

Yes; that's how the wording would work out with Swift Quiver as it's printed, and they gave us a whole twenty-level playtest packet for ranger without bothering to adjust it, so it is what it is. It'll be on my feedback for sure!

How are they reloading their crossbows. Even with crossbow expert, it still has the ammunition property, right?

[Psyren]

How are they reloading their crossbows. Even with crossbow expert, it still has the ammunition property, right?

You can unequip or re-equip a weapon as part of each attack now (UA 30). Essentially every attack gets a free object interaction before or after (your choice).

[Bobthewizard]

You can unequip or re-equip a weapon as part of each attack now (UA 30). Essentially every attack gets a free object interaction before or after (your choice).

Did they eliminate the ammunition property, then? Even if you can equip for free, you still need a free hand to load it if it has the ammunition property. Equipping isn't the same as loading. It seemed to me that the new rule applied to things like daggers and javelins. Or are you planning on carrying a separate loaded crossbow for each attack?

[Psyren]

Did they eliminate the ammunition property, then? Even if you can equip for free, you still need a free hand to load it if it has the ammunition property. Equipping isn't the same as loading. It seemed to me that the new rule applied to things like daggers and javelins. Or are you planning on carrying a separate loaded crossbow for each attack?

The trick is that you don't have to equip/unequip the weapon you're firing - you can fire one and stow/draw the other or vice-versa. The same goes for drawing the ammunition to reload, because both weapons use the same ammunition. This means you unequip the OTHER weapon, and now your hand is free to load the one you're about to fire. Both reloading and swapping occur as part of your attack action now.

Below assumes no War Caster or Dual Wielder:

Round 1:
1) Ranger starts combat with two handcrossbows - A and B. One is drawn and the other is stowed. Both are loaded.
2) Attack 1: He draws B and fires A as part of the same attack. As he was holding both A and B when he fired A, this triggers TWF.
3) Attack 2 (TWF): He fires B, stows B, and reloads A with his now free offhand.
4) Attack 3 (Extra Attack): He fires A again and reloads A again with the free offhand. He now has one loaded crossbow in main hand (A) and one unloaded one stowed (B).
5) Bonus Action: He casts Swift Quiver with his free offhand.

Round 2:
1) Bonus Action (SQ): He fires and reloads A twice using his free offhand. A is therefore still loaded.
2) Object Interaction: He draws B. He is now holding A (loaded, main hand) and B (unloaded, offhand.)
3) Attack 1: Holding both, he fires A (triggering TWF), stows A, and reloads B with his mainhand.
4) Attack 2 (TWF): He fires and loads B, then draws A.
5) Attack 3 (Extra Attack): He fires B again, stows B, and reloads A with his now free offhand. He now has one loaded crossbow in hand (A) and one unloaded one stowed.

Subsequent rounds repeat Round 2 (swapping HM movement for SQ as needed.)

[Dr.Samurai]

Ok but... how is this less janky than readying an action to counter-attack someone? This is like when people get 4 attacks out of a TWF-ing Beast Barbarian. It's like, sure, you can do it, but I wouldn't be caught dead bringing this to a table.

So a newbie can't figure out that Sneak Attack applies even on other turns if the conditions are met, but they're going to juggle TWF rules with Object Interaction rules with Ammunition rules?

I want to meet one of these newbs one day and have a conversation...

[Yakk]

Juggling two hand crossbows is a lot like hasted/scimitar of speed ready action reaction sneak attacks.

Except it boosts your damage by about 25% instead of about 90% and is jankier.

[Psyren]

To be fair, my example is about a minimum 17th-level Ranger (the level you get SQ), so if the juggling sequence I describe is too much for your table then you have plenty of time to grab Dual Wielder and make it a lot simpler. Or just obtain Repeating handcrossbows.

That might even have been the intent; I was just pointing out that (at least by the proposed rules) you don't actually need these.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sorry, I wasn't going after your specific example, so to speak. More asking generally that if they're changing rules to reduce "jankiness", juggling hand crossbows seems to have been missed.

[Bobthewizard]

Round 1:
1) Ranger starts combat with two handcrossbows - A and B. One is drawn and the other is stowed. Both are loaded.
2) Attack 1: He draws B and fires A as part of the same attack. As he was holding both A and B when he fired A, this triggers TWF.
3) Attack 2 (TWF): He fires B, stows B, and reloads A with his now free offhand.
4) Attack 3 (Extra Attack): He fires A again and reloads A again with the free offhand. He now has one loaded crossbow in main hand (A) and one unloaded one stowed (B).
5) Bonus Action: He casts Swift Quiver with his free offhand.

Round 2:
1) Bonus Action (SQ): He fires and reloads A twice using his free offhand. A is therefore still loaded.
2) Object Interaction: He draws B. He is now holding A (loaded, main hand) and B (unloaded, offhand.)
3) Attack 1: Holding both, he fires A (triggering TWF), stows A, and reloads B with his mainhand.
4) Attack 2 (TWF): He fires and loads B, then draws A.
5) Attack 3 (Extra Attack): He fires B again, stows B, and reloads A with his now free offhand. He now has one loaded crossbow in hand (A) and one unloaded one stowed.

Subsequent rounds repeat Round 2 (swapping HM movement for SQ as needed.)

You can load a ranged weapon as part of the attack, but you cannot load another weapon as part of the attack, or load that weapon after the attack, since that is not the ammunition for that attack. It says you can draw the ammunition as part of the attack, not any piece of ammunition.

"Drawing the Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

So in your round one, I think #3-4 don't work, and in your round 2, I think #3-5 don't work.

Dual Wielder doesn't remove the ammunition property so won't help. It does work with two repeating hand crossbows.

[Psyren]

You can load a ranged weapon as part of the attack, but you cannot load another weapon as part of the attack,

Disagree - the action is to draw the ammunition (PHB 146), and hand crossbow A uses the same ammunition as hand crossbow B. You yourself quote this line.

[Bobthewizard]

Disagree - the action is to draw the ammunition (PHB 146), and hand crossbow A uses the same ammunition as hand crossbow B. You yourself quote this line.

In your interpretation, the line would need to say, "Drawing a piece of Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)." Since it says "the" it needs to be the specific ammunition for that attack. By using "the" it says that it is not the type of ammunition, but the specific arrow/bolt/rock/dart used in the attack.

It may be the same type of ammunition, but it is not the ammunition used in the attack, which what "the ammunition" means.

[ZRN]

It's explicit in the new Crossbow Expert feat that you're able to dual wield with hand crossbows.

[Stangler]

In your interpretation, the line would need to say, "Drawing a piece of Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)." Since it says "the" it needs to be the specific ammunition for that attack. By using "the" it says that it is not the type of ammunition, but the specific arrow/bolt/rock/dart used in the attack.

It may be the same type of ammunition, but it is not the ammunition used in the attack, which what "the ammunition" means.

This is one of those discussions that demonstrates that by its mere existence the way the rules are written is horrific.

I really hope they change some of their language to be explicit in what it allows players to do. Relying on players to navigate all these different rules just to know whether they can do something is ridiculous.

[Bobthewizard]

It's explicit in the new Crossbow Expert feat that you're able to dual wield with hand crossbows.

It's not the dual wielding that's the issue. The problem is that the crossbows still have the ammunition property, which requires a free hand to reload. I think the Crossbow expert feat is meant to let you use a loaded hand crossbow in your off-hand in the first round, not to use it repeatedly.

[ZRN]

This is one of those discussions that demonstrates that by its mere existence the way the rules are written is horrific.

I really hope they change some of their language to be explicit in what it allows players to do. Relying on players to navigate all these different rules just to know whether they can do something is ridiculous.

I think the real issue is that most players (myself certainly included) basically think of crossbows as fantasy guns and want to go all John Wick with them, and the rules are making a wan attempt to gesture to reality.

[Psyren]

It may be the same type of ammunition, but it is not the ammunition used in the attack, which what "the ammunition" means.

It is the same ammunition, because it's coming from the same quiver and is usable in both weapons. If you needed to have a separate quiver/separate ammunition for each hand crossbow I would see your point, but you don't.

[Yakk]

It is the same ammunition, because it's coming from the same quiver and is usable in both weapons. If you needed to have a separate quiver/separate ammunition for each hand crossbow I would see your point, but you don't.
No, the ammunition used to fire a crossbow -- that bolt -- is not the same ammunition used to reload it afterwards -- a different bolt.

The game doesn't let you mess with any piece of ammunition and put it in any weapon. It lets you place the ammunition required for the attack you are making into the weapon and fire.

This isn't the same as firing a weapon, putting it away, then using that hand to pick a different bolt and put it in a different weapon. It is similar, but not the same.

Hence, janky.

A DM could say "sure", but honestly I suspect a DM is more likely to just let you ignore the ammunition problem than say "that description of a sequence of moves and rules interpretations changed my mind, go ahead".

[Psyren]

No, the ammunition used to fire a crossbow -- that bolt -- is not the same ammunition used to reload it afterwards -- a different bolt.

Yeah, the bolt you fire and the bolt you put back in are different bolts. That's generally how reloading works :smalltongue:



A DM could say "sure", but honestly I suspect a DM is more likely to just let you ignore the ammunition problem than say "that description of a sequence of moves and rules interpretations changed my mind, go ahead".

If they didn't want us juggling weapons, making equip be part of the attack instead of an object interaction is a funny way to go about it. (Not that I'm complaining, mind you.)

[Person_Man]

I think the real issue is that most players (myself certainly included) basically think of crossbows as fantasy guns and want to go all John Wick with them, and the rules are making a wan attempt to gesture to reality.

This is certainly the case for some, probably most, people. Though on the other hand, history/weapon/simulationist nerds (and I’m not using that word pejoratively here - I am a nerd of many subjects) hate it when a character can do something that is physically impossible, unless they’re using magic.

So the rules just need say specifically what you can and cannot do. Otherwise its just going to lead to endless arguments and confusion.

My preferred option would be that crossbows deal slightly more damage but have the loading property, which requires you to have a free hand open throughout your turn if you want to load it. And a crossbow cannot be stored while loaded. Then the crossbow expert feat says you ignore the loading property of crossbows and may reload them without having a free hand, and may wield and reload a hand crossbow in each hand and use it with TWF - because magic (or whatever). Because thats what most people want to do with it anyways, so lets just say so and avoid the arguments.

[Witty Username]

The rogue is roughly 2d6 behind the substantial ranger output. They can cut that in half with 2a few feat picks and/or the gap shrinks as they both advance due to how twf scales backwards. By the time the ranger is dealing 1d10 with HM the rouge will have 9d6 per SA.


Hm,
Quick comparison
SA, and twf
9d6 + 2d6 + mod(5)
11d6+5
43.5?
Vs
Twf Ranger with Hunter's Mark
3 *(1d6 +1d10 + mod(5)) +1d8
Or 3d6 + 1d8 + 3d10 + 15
10.5 + 4.5 + 16.5 + 15
46.5

So the Ranger is still beating the rogue out on damage. Additional things I would point out:
- scaling factors, this is close to the damage ceiling of the rogue based on the released content, while this is pretty close to the ranger's floor when it comes to damage, and this is not just a spellcasting thing but a feat support thing and weapon thing, GWM and PAM for example are accessible to the Ranger, which Rogues are much more limited in because of sneak attack restrictions
-relative position, this is, by way of scaling sneak attack, the strongest relative position of rogue (almost, technically speaking it is 19th level with 10d6 sneak attack), the worst relative position being 5th level,
Ranger
3 × (2d6 + mod (3 or 4)) +1d8
6d6 + 9(or 12) +1d8
34.5 (or 37.5)
w/o HM (for combats lasting longer than 4 hours, consult your cleric)
23 (or 27)
Rogue
5d6 + 4
21.5
-split damage, since rogue sneak attack is 1/turn, most to all damage needs to go to one target, ranger has more capacity to split damage across 2 targets, also comes up when dealing with Uncanny Dodge like effects, that affect only 1 attack (not alot of that on monsters but it does come up).
- rogue doesn't really have any means to contribute to combat apart from damage, ranger gets that primal spell list, and ability to invest in strength for grappling and shoving, for examples.

I think that last one is the major annoyance here, if I am being honest, rogue should have the dust in the face, arterial stabbing, leg cutting, dirty fighting stuff. But all they do in a fight is straight damage.
Maybe subclass ideas, maybe something to add to the base class, either way, stuff the rogue should be doing, I think.

[Bobthewizard]

Yeah, the bolt you fire and the bolt you put back in are different bolts. That's generally how reloading works :smalltongue:

If they didn't want us juggling weapons, making equip be part of the attack instead of an object interaction is a funny way to go about it. (Not that I'm complaining, mind you.)

None of the ammunition property, crossbow expert feat, nor the new equipping rules allow reloading after the attack. They allow you to load the attack you're making without using an object interaction and then stow or draw a weapon.

I think the new equipping rules appear to be trying to get rid of the janky old rules that required you to drop your current weapon and use your object interaction to draw the new one when you switch from a bow to a sword, and to allow things like daggers and javelins to work with extra attack, both of which are great changes to the game.

Trying to use this new rule to get around the ammunition property for dual wielding hand crossbows seems like a misreading of the rules. I don't think that's what they were meant for and that's not how they are worded.


This is certainly the case for some, probably most, people. Though on the other hand, history/weapon/simulationist nerds (and I’m not using that word pejoratively here - I am a nerd of many subjects) hate it when a character can do something that is physically impossible, unless they’re using magic.

So the rules just need say specifically what you can and cannot do. Otherwise its just going to lead to endless arguments and confusion.

My preferred option would be that crossbows deal slightly more damage but have the loading property, which requires you to have a free hand open throughout your turn if you want to load it. And a crossbow cannot be stored while loaded. Then the crossbow expert feat says you ignore the loading property of crossbows and may reload them without having a free hand, and may wield and reload a hand crossbow in each hand and use it with TWF - because magic (or whatever). Because thats what most people want to do with it anyways, so lets just say so and avoid the arguments.

Just to be specific, what you are describing is the ammunition property, which requires a free hand. The loading property in 5e limits crossbows to one attack per round unless you have the crossbow expert feat.

I don't have a problem with the image of dual wielding crossbows. I think it's cool. But I don't think we should be misreading the rules in order to create an option that is mathematically superior to every other option.

[Sorinth]

I'm pretty sure dual wielding crossbows works fine because you can use your 1/turn free object interaction at any time during the attack action to reload (When you have a free hand).

Start with 2 hand crossbows, 1 loaded and 1 unloaded
1) Declare the Attack Action this triggers being able to use your offhand attack since you have a light weapon in each hand
2) Make your Mainhand attack
3) Stow main hand crossbow (Triggered from step 2)
4) Make your Offhand crossbow attack reloading as part of that attack
5) Use your free object interaction to reload your Offhand crossbow
6) Draw your mainhand crossbow (Triggered from step 4)

So every turn you simply alternate which crossbow is loaded and use that one to attack first.

[stoutstien]

Hm,
Quick comparison
SA, and twf
9d6 + 2d6 + mod(5)
11d6+5
43.5?
Vs
Twf Ranger with Hunter's Mark
3 *(1d6 +1d10 + mod(5)) +1d8
Or 3d6 + 1d8 + 3d10 + 15
10.5 + 4.5 + 16.5 + 15
46.5

So the Ranger is still beating the rogue out on damage. Additional things I would point out:
- scaling factors, this is close to the damage ceiling of the rogue based on the released content, while this is pretty close to the ranger's floor when it comes to damage, and this is not just a spellcasting thing but a feat support thing and weapon thing, GWM and PAM for example are accessible to the Ranger, which Rogues are much more limited in because of sneak attack restrictions
-relative position, this is, by way of scaling sneak attack, the strongest relative position of rogue (almost, technically speaking it is 19th level with 10d6 sneak attack), the worst relative position being 5th level,
Ranger
3 × (2d6 + mod (3 or 4)) +1d8
6d6 + 9(or 12) +1d8
34.5 (or 37.5)
w/o HM (for combats lasting longer than 4 hours, consult your cleric)
23 (or 27)
Rogue
5d6 + 4
21.5
-split damage, since rogue sneak attack is 1/turn, most to all damage needs to go to one target, ranger has more capacity to split damage across 2 targets, also comes up when dealing with Uncanny Dodge like effects, that affect only 1 attack (not alot of that on monsters but it does come up).
- rogue doesn't really have any means to contribute to combat apart from damage, ranger gets that primal spell list, and ability to invest in strength for grappling and shoving, for examples.

I think that last one is the major annoyance here, if I am being honest, rogue should have the dust in the face, arterial stabbing, leg cutting, dirty fighting stuff. But all they do in a fight is straight damage.
Maybe subclass ideas, maybe something to add to the base class, either way, stuff the rogue should be doing, I think.

You have to consider the near constant advantage of the rogues are getting after level 13. So far in actual play testing the rogue is consistently been doing better than the ranger unless the ranger decides to start spinning additional resources on top of the Hunter's Mark. The ranger was blowing the rogue away in the first four levels however.

The big issue we're running into the rogue is just how static it's become. There's very little deviation into your decision tree every turn. They also double down on the invertently tankiness of the rogue. Of the three experts it's easily the most durable. Tomorrow night I actually get to play test one myself where I'm going to lean into this heavily and see how brutish I can make one.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm pretty sure dual wielding crossbows works fine because you can use your 1/turn free object interaction at any time during the attack action to reload (When you have a free hand).

Start with 2 hand crossbows, 1 loaded and 1 unloaded
1) Declare the Attack Action this triggers being able to use your offhand attack since you have a light weapon in each hand
2) Make your Mainhand attack
3) Stow main hand crossbow (Triggered from step 2)
4) Make your Offhand crossbow attack reloading as part of that attack
5) Use your free object interaction to reload your Offhand crossbow
6) Draw your mainhand crossbow (Triggered from step 4)

So every turn you simply alternate which crossbow is loaded and use that one to attack first.

I think this almost works. The new equipping rule says "You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action" I think that means immediately after, not any time later in your turn. So you couldn't do #6 after #5.

[Sorinth]

I think this almost works. The new equipping rule says "You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action" I think that means immediately after, not any time later in your turn. So you couldn't do #6 after #5.

But it doesn't say immediately and I don't think you can just assume it since there isn't a lot of context to draw assumptions from.

[Bobthewizard]

But it doesn't say immediately and I don't think you can just assume it since there isn't a lot of context to draw assumptions from.

It says "as part of that action." Once you move on to your object interaction, you have finished your attack action and are doing something else. So the free reload no longer falls under "as part of that action" and can't be taken then.

[Sorinth]

It says "as part of that action." Once you move on to your object interaction, you have finished your attack action and are doing something else. So the free reload no longer falls under "as part of that action" and can't be taken then.

Object interaction specifically mentions it can be done during other actions. You can for example attack, open a door, move into the next room, and finally make your extra attack to end your attack action.

[Bobthewizard]

Object interaction specifically mentions it can be done during other actions. You can for example attack, open a door, move into the next room, and finally make your extra attack to end your attack action.

Maybe. I still think the equip/unequip needs to be adjacent to the attack, but I can see how your interpretation might fly at some tables.

[Psyren]

Object interaction specifically mentions it can be done during other actions. You can for example attack, open a door, move into the next room, and finally make your extra attack to end your attack action.

Glad that's settled! :smallcool:

I do plan on asking in the feedback survey whether the intent is for non-Thri-Kreen / non-Hadozee to be able to dual-wield handbows.

[Witty Username]

Tomorrow night I actually get to play test one myself where I'm going to lean into this heavily and see how brutish I can make one.

I am interested to hear how that goes. My direct experience is limited on Uncanny Dodge, but based on similar abilities I have misgivings on its effectiveness against multiple attacks.
The other big feature would be evasion? Not going to argue against that being good, my only concern with it is if it will be applicable enough of the time.

[Talionis]

Did you have Rogues at your table that pulled off off-turn sneak attacks 100% of the time?


Use Objects had interpretation problems. Could you use a wand of magic missiles with it? Intuitively yes, actually I think no. Or drink a potion?


How is "you can use dex to jump" not an increase in jump distance?


Yes, the inability to use staff of the archmagi (and similar) makes it not as good.

No the off turn sneak attack works a little less than half the time. It makes the Rogue feel very successful, it’s not rare.

Use object is easy to rule. Using a magical item is a different action than Use Object. So no potions or wands as a bonus action. It’s a clean line and understandable. It limits the ability and helps keep the ability to feel more mundane.

Jumping is a replacement effect so you no longer add Dexterity but you replace Strength. Applied this way you jump as well as a Barbarian. Jumping isn’t great after tier 1 maybe tier 2. Without it truly getting longer it’s very limiting.

Using any magical item was really good and helps a Rogue keep up in tier 3 and 4. It’s a great tool for a DM to gift a Rogue with interesting magic items to keep players characters on par with each other.

I don’t mind Thief being an Artificer lite but there isn’t a reason to weaken a Rogue or Thief.

[Yakk]

No the off turn sneak attack works a little less than half the time. It makes the Rogue feel very successful, it’s not rare.
So, it is quite possible to make a Rogue that gets an off-turn sneak attack 90%+ turns.

I think Rogues getting specific triggers for sneak attack off turn is a good idea.

It being any off-turn attack that it runs into problems, because it turns entire spectrums of abilities into stealth rogue optimizations.

Or, for example, if Rogues did 1d6 weapon damage per tier with finesse weapons (like, L5 they can replace finesse weapon damage dice with 2d6, L11 3d6 and L 17 4d6), and had an extra Level/2 d6 sneak attack on their turn, it would make Rogue off-turn attacks remain strong, but it wouldn't be a x2 damage optimization. (This is a "baked in" SCAG cantrip, but works on OAs).

[Kane0]

Or, for example, if Rogues did 1d6 weapon damage per tier with finesse weapons (like, L5 they can replace finesse weapon damage dice with 2d6, L11 3d6 and L 17 4d6), and had an extra Level/2 d6 sneak attack on their turn, it would make Rogue off-turn attacks remain strong, but it wouldn't be a x2 damage optimization. (This is a "baked in" SCAG cantrip, but works on OAs).

Neat concept, and stays within that 'bucket of d6s' paradigm that rogues live in.

Edit: May also tempt some rogues into going for one finesse weapon rather than twin light ones too.

[Talionis]

So, it is quite possible to make a Rogue that gets an off-turn sneak attack 90%+ turns.

I think Rogues getting specific triggers for sneak attack off turn is a good idea.

It being any off-turn attack that it runs into problems, because it turns entire spectrums of abilities into stealth rogue optimizations.

Or, for example, if Rogues did 1d6 weapon damage per tier with finesse weapons (like, L5 they can replace finesse weapon damage dice with 2d6, L11 3d6 and L 17 4d6), and had an extra Level/2 d6 sneak attack on their turn, it would make Rogue off-turn attacks remain strong, but it wouldn't be a x2 damage optimization. (This is a "baked in" SCAG cantrip, but works on OAs).

I think you are right. We only have a mildly optimized table my issue would be taking this away from Rogues. Even if you can sneak attack twice a round an optimized Fighter can easily put damage out better than a Rogue and safer.

It must be hard balancing for optimizing tables and unoptimized tables. But Rogues do feel like the are getting nerfs and no new toys.

Rogues are one of the best role play classes to have but they don’t get a lot mechanically and can easily be over shadowed in all phases of the game by casters in tier 3/4.

[Talionis]

Rogues could probably use a way to avoid detection by Magic by tier 3.

[Corran]

Rogues should ABSOLUTELY have sneak attack on opportunity attacks. If they want to prohibit them from working on granted attacks and readied actions and attack cantrips, fine, I get that. But the ONLY reason a rogue has to be in melee is to get opportunity attacks. If this change goes through every rogue is a ranged rogue because there would be zero reason to be anything else.
I agree that rogues should retain a strong OA. It doesn't have to be sneak attack, it could even be something like an extra prof.bonus*dX's, that would thus always proc unlike sneak attack (thus fixing the oddity of no sneak attack OA that can happen under the current rules). But I dont think that rogues need that because otherwise they will never ever get into melee. I want that because it is thematic for the rogue to exploit the kind of openings that a fleeing enemy would allow.

Even without something like that the rogue will still want to go into melee from time to time. For tanking some attacks in some cases, for baiting enemies into chasing them in some others. Removing a strong OA's of course diminishes (but does not nullify) the incentive for them to go into melee, and that's mosy likely an unintentional and most definitely an unfortunate consequence, but it's the going against the theme of the class (in how that is manifested during combat) that's the really awkward thing.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm pretty sure dual wielding crossbows works fine because you can use your 1/turn free object interaction at any time during the attack action to reload (When you have a free hand).

Start with 2 hand crossbows, 1 loaded and 1 unloaded
1) Declare the Attack Action this triggers being able to use your offhand attack since you have a light weapon in each hand
2) Make your Mainhand attack
3) Stow main hand crossbow (Triggered from step 2)
4) Make your Offhand crossbow attack reloading as part of that attack
5) Use your free object interaction to reload your Offhand crossbow
6) Draw your mainhand crossbow (Triggered from step 4)

So every turn you simply alternate which crossbow is loaded and use that one to attack first.

This shows using the offhand crossbow when you have one main attack. Can this work with extra attack too? Two main hand attacks and then the off-hand attack. Or with Swift Quiver's bonus action attacks.

[Corran]

So, it is quite possible to make a Rogue that gets an off-turn sneak attack 90%+ turns.

I think you are right. We only have a mildly optimized table my issue would be taking this away from Rogues. Even if you can sneak attack twice a round an optimized Fighter can easily put damage out better than a Rogue and safer.

It must be hard balancing for optimizing tables and unoptimized tables.
It's not about optimized and unoptimized tables. Let me explain.

First of all, the impression that I get from the whole thread is that the pinacle of rogue optimization is about getting off turn sneak attack. I dont agree but I'll roll with it for the sake of the conversation. So with that noted, yes, there are certain abilities in the game that would allow a rogue to get a reaction attack. Now, a party might be filled with characters who get such abilities, or it might have zero of it. Optimization does not have a 1:1 correlation with that, cause when optimizing a party, boosting the rogue's dpr does not necessarily have to be one of your priorities (either because you have more pressing needs, or because the investment is too much for the potential benefit).

So, you end up with games where rogues hit harder and with games where rogues hit softer. Is it an issue that the rogue's performance (in this case damage performance) will vary from game to game? Dont you have the same with fighters when they are played in a game where allies can provide a source of advantage compared to playing them in a game where no advantage is to be found? Isn't a barbarian far more effective in a party with good combat healing and status denial than in a party without? Doesn't a glass canon perform better in a party that can cover for it than in one that cannot? I think that I can produce about 20 solid examples (simply by going through my memory of past campaigns before even trying to think of hypothetical ones), where the effectiveness of a class (generalizing from a character of that class) will vary significantly depending on the party. That's not something that needs to be fixed, it's what adds depth to the game and what makes thinking of the mechanics interesting.

The perceived issue of the damage variance could be very well toned down a bit, especially if it looks like it annoys too many people. But this should be done with care in regard to two things. Firstly, dont mess with the class's theme by getting rid of mechanics that help portray aspects of it (eg dont make rogue OA's more trivial than they currently are, cause it's non sensical for the rogue to tickle enemies who turn their back to flee). Secondly, dont make the rogue perform more similarly to a fighter than they currently do. So let enough variance to a rogue's damage to differentiate offensive combat performance enough from the fighter's, and by no means dont make their combat contribution similar. We dont need rogues that strike as (consistently) hard as fighters. We need rogues who can fight in ways that fighters cannot, and a few damage spikes (that will match or outdo a weapons' specialist performance like the fighter is) under circumstances that make sense for the rogue class to excel under.

[stoutstien]

I am interested to hear how that goes. My direct experience is limited on Uncanny Dodge, but based on similar abilities I have misgivings on its effectiveness against multiple attacks.
The other big feature would be evasion? Not going to argue against that being good, my only concern with it is if it will be applicable enough of the time.

It went ok overall. Still had issues with becoming one noted in later levels.

[Bobthewizard]

Maybe they should add back sneak attack for opportunity attacks when someone leaves your reach, but not for other reaction attacks.

Once on each of your turns when you take the Attack Action, and if you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack when an enemy moves out of your reach, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an Attack Roll if you’re attacking with a Finesse Weapon or a Ranged Weapon and if at least one of the following requirements is met...

This would allow an extra sneak attack for a normal opportunity attack but remove the riposte, commander's strike, order cleric stuff.

[Gignere]

Maybe they should add back sneak attack for opportunity attacks when someone leaves your reach, but not for other reaction attacks.

Once on each of your turns when you take the Attack Action, and if you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack when an enemy moves out of your reach, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an Attack Roll if you’re attacking with a Finesse Weapon or a Ranged Weapon and if at least one of the following requirements is met...

This would allow an extra sneak attack for a normal opportunity attack but remove the riposte, commander's strike, order cleric stuff.

They need to bring it back for ready an attack action because everyone else can use their abilities on ready attacks except for rogues. Say a rogue can’t reach a target and they ready an action to attack or ready an attack so an ally can get close to the enemy so the rogue could qualify for sneak attack, these tactics should allow for SA.

[Corran]

Maybe they should add back sneak attack for opportunity attacks when someone leaves your reach, but not for other reaction attacks.

Once on each of your turns when you take the Attack Action, and if you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack when an enemy moves out of your reach, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an Attack Roll if you’re attacking with a Finesse Weapon or a Ranged Weapon and if at least one of the following requirements is met...

This would allow an extra sneak attack for a normal opportunity attack but remove the riposte, commander's strike, order cleric stuff.
If I am not mistaken, attacks granted by riposte, brace, sentinel, commander's strike, voice of authority and haste are not OA's. Rather, you are using your reaction to make a weapon attack.

Also, even with the current implementation, you can still end up with rogue OA's that dont proc sneak attack (which IMO is also something we could do without).

Lastly, and while I personally dont see it, it seems like for many folks the potential to double on sneak attack damage is looking like a vast difference in efficiency when playing a rogue, to the point that the class feels totally different when playing in a party that allows for lots of reactions for the rogue and when playing in a party that does not do that(again, I dont agree, but perception -even not totally accurate ones- are important when you want a class to be liked by an certain big number of people.

So, IMO they should find a way to deal with all 3 of the above simultaneously. One way to do this, would be to rewrite sneak attack as they have, but add one extra clause under sneak attack. This extra clause would go something like this. ".... Additionally, the rogue can add a Y amount of DX's on their opportunity attacks.". So this would disallow riposte and the like to have synergy with sneak attack, it would also allow the rogue to retain a strong OA even when they dont have advantage or an ally next to the fleeing enemy, and (assuming low enough values for Y and X) it would lower the damage variance a little more when reactions are utilized offenssively, which seems to put off some people.

My only concern is whether there are features that grant reaction attacks (that are no OA's) that should be allowed to work efficiently when used on a rogue. For example, while I dont think it's good game design to allow a rogue use riposte and brace more effectivelly than a battlemater while at the same time the battlemaster is the game's promise for playing someone good at these things is not good game design (not because it might be not obvious to some, but because it is misleading when glancing at the game mechanics), I have to wonder if it's a good idea to disallow features like commander's strike, voice of authority, sentinel and haste working efficiently with the rogue. It's not necessarily a bad thing making such options work with the rogue much more in line with how they would work when applied on other characters (say a fighter), but do these options then remain good enough to be worthwhile picking up? Maybe having the rogue add a ton of situational value to such options is not an ideal solution, but negating that means that these options should probably be reworked to offset losing that situational value from when being applied on a rogue, or abandoned entirely for new ones that would be worthwhile to pick up.

[Bobthewizard]

They need to bring it back for ready an attack action because everyone else can use their abilities on ready attacks except for rogues. Say a rogue can’t reach a target and they ready an action to attack or ready an attack so an ally can get close to the enemy so the rogue could qualify for sneak attack, these tactics should allow for SA.

For classes with extra attack, I thought you could only ready a single attack, not the full attack action. Is that right? If that's true, then maybe sneak attack shouldn't be allowed on a readied attack, since a fighter would only get one attack. I also think they were trying to get rid of the Haste or scimitar of speed readied action sneak attacks with rogues.

I'm interested to see what they end up doing with paladins. They nerfed GWM/SS which were a fighter's main way to keep up with smites, and they nerfed rogue's off-turn sneak attacks. I bet they'll do the same with paladin's smites, "Once on your turn when you take the attack action."

[Gignere]

For classes with extra attack, I thought you could only ready a single attack, not the full attack action. Is that right? If that's true, then maybe sneak attack shouldn't be allowed on a readied attack, since a fighter would only get one attack. I also think they were trying to get rid of the Haste or scimitar of speed readied action sneak attacks with rogues.

I'm interested to see what they end up doing with paladins. They nerfed GWM/SS which were a fighter's main way to keep up with smites, and they nerfed rogue's off-turn sneak attacks. I bet they'll do the same with paladin's smites, "Once on your turn when you take the attack action."

No you can’t extra attack but they’ll also have to get rid of maneuvers and rage damage off turn along with smite.

[Corran]

For classes with extra attack, I thought you could only ready a single attack, not the full attack action. Is that right? If that's true, then maybe sneak attack shouldn't be allowed on a readied attack, since a fighter would only get one attack.
Or maybe they should. I am not 100% sure of this, but I would not dismiss it as an option so that the rogue can be more in line with how fighters interact with readied actions (also, why would that be an actual game design goal anyway?). Leaving game balance aside for a minute and looking at themes, it makes sense for the rogue to be able to exploit opportunities better than a weapon specialist might. Say an enemy flier is using hit and run against a fighter. It makes sense for your average fighter to be thrown a little off their footing in that scenario, and they should rely on less conventional tools (like readying a grapple, or a special technique like sentinel) to counter the unfair enemy and even the odds. But a rogue? Do we want the rogue to rely on these alternative fighter techiques and turn to methods like grappling? Or do we want the rogue to be able to spot for opportunities and severely hurt the flier as it tries to pick them up (probably because the rogue is acting all scared and presents themselves as an easy target while in fact they are just waiting for the unassuming enemy to come close enough for them to deal a serious blow)?

[Xihirli]

Because that was the problem with 5e, too much melee damage from martials!
If everyone gets nerfed then that's cool I guess, I don't mind lower-powered games, but the designers looking at the thief rogue and saying "this does too much damage, and has an ability that's too fun and interesting" rubs me the wrong way something fierce.
Use an object bonus action was cool! It made caltrops and ball bearings relevant!
Gah!