Cunning Strike UA Discussion

[sayaijin]

Rogue is my favorite class, so whenever there's new content I naturally scroll right to the rogue. While I still think the class as a martial needs more help (along with Barbs, Fighters, and especially Monks), the Cunning Strike and associated Devious Strikes are a step in the right direction I think.

The feature moves the rogue into the controller role, and the only change I would like to see is to possibly make the damage dice spent refund if the enemy passes the saving throw. This would obviously make it risk-free, and whether or not that's too powerful is up for debate.

I'm curious what everyone else thinks of it. Is it stepping on the Monk's Stunning Strike feature too much? Is it too much overlap with the weapon masteries?

[Boverk]

I like the tradeoff they have, sacrifice some damage for some control...it really fits for the rogue, throwing dirt in their eyes instead of punching, that sort of thing. Give rogues some options to be the dirty fighters they were born to be.

I think it's an excellent addition, and sure there's some overlap, but there always will be.

I think all of the martials should have their niche, but all should be able to do some battlefield control. A lot of the casters do similar effects with different spells, this is kinda the same thing.

[Hael]

I also really like the trade off, and its a huge much needed buff to the rogue chassis.

In 5e, Rogues are in kinda a strange place. I think WoTC consider them a damage and skill monkey class, but in reality they are amongst the lowest damage in the game after tier1, and they are probably 2nd place in the utility/skill monkey category next to bards. Since the latter can be built to be a big damage dealer (with a much higher dpr ceiling) rogues get outdone in their role.

In some sense this is similar to wizard vs sorcerer, where the latter is kinda a good class but nevertheless always a suboptimal pick.

Adding a new dimension to their kit, thus gives them a way to separate themselves from the bard by now having at will, resource free CC. So its a big win in my book, and should have been there in the first place in 5e.

[MinimanMidget]

Like everyone else, I like Cunning Strike a lot. It is covering up another problem, though. In the previous playtest, they took away off-turn Sneak Attack. Everyone complained, and now it's back. The thing is, we didn't complain because we love off-turn SA, we complained because without it, the Rogue just doesn't do enough damage. Cunning Strike is cool, but if they're going to add a feature based on sacrificing damage, it'd be nice if Rogues had adequate damage to begin with.

[Kane0]

Its great, but Rogue damage is already pretty average. Dropping that damage for the CC effects brings you down to barely passable numbers. Sometimes i truly wonder how valuable something being resourceless actually is.

[Amechra]

Bear in mind that Rogues are mostly mediocre damage-wise due to stuff that has been somewhat nerfed in these playtest versions, and that Rogues got a massive buff in the form of being able to make off-hand attacks and use Cunning Action in the same turn..


Sometimes i truly wonder how valuable something being resourceless actually is.

It's not just resourceless, it's also actionless (since it's a rider for an attack that you get to choose to use in the last minute). And, on top of that, the options are either going to cost you ~3.5 damage (chump change, really) or are so good when they're good that the damage reduction doesn't really matter.

I really hope that the design team doesn't end up nerfing Cunning Strikes by making it so you have to choose specific options instead of just having all of them available.

[Psyren]

I think it's great! We saw this idea before - the Ambush Feats from Complete Scoundrel - but now they're baked into the class rather than requiring feat taxes.

As far as rogue damage being average, I think certain subclasses can have high damage, e.g. Assassin and Soulknife, maybe AT and Swashbuckler - but it shouldn't be all of them. Rogues do a lot of other things, so their damage just has to be "good enough."

[OvisCaedo]

Cunning strikes is, so far, just about the only change from this whole playtest that I actually think is a cool improvement in design. (that I believe was already a thing in Pathfinder 1 for rogues). Almost everything else has seemed like a downgrade or lateral move where something was just changed for the sake of changing it.

It's so bizarrely at odds with the rest of the design choices about martials that I... feel completely baffled by it, though. Where are everything else's meaningful round-to-round choices?

[Amechra]

(that I believe was already a thing in Pathfinder 1 for rogues)

It was originally a D&D 3.5 thing — Complete Scoundrel introduced Ambush Feats, which let you trade sneak attack dice for debuffs, and Drow of the Underdark added a few extra options. There was also the Lurk from Complete Psionic, which had really low base Sneak Attack damage, but could build-a-bear a better sneak attack from a menu (well, that was the idea at least. The execution was pretty poor).

[PhoenixPhyre]

(well, that was the idea at least. The execution was pretty poor).

You mean WotC has had good ideas that they implemented poorly? Shocking!

Seriously, this pattern has been a running theme of the UA and WotC in general. 4e was full of them--decent ideas implemented haphazardly or poorly or just too cautiously. At least for non-casters.

[RSP]

I like the design of Cunning Strike.

It does kind of feel, though, that they’ve essentially given BM Maneuvers to the Rogue class. I’m fine with that, so long as Maneuvers likewise get rolled into the main Fighter class chassis as well. Otherwise, every Rogue essentially has the capability of BMs, without the SR resource limits.

Roll Maneuvers into the base Fighter class and make BM do something else (or drop it) works for me, though.

[Melil12]

Well we have a chance to at least give some feedback and guide these poor decisions.

I honestly can’t wait for the survey results video on this play test package.

And I want an in-depth response … not just the one guy asking silly questions and JC gives a half response too.

[OvisCaedo]

It was originally a D&D 3.5 thing — Complete Scoundrel introduced Ambush Feats, which let you trade sneak attack dice for debuffs, and Drow of the Underdark added a few extra options. There was also the Lurk from Complete Psionic, which had really low base Sneak Attack damage, but could build-a-bear a better sneak attack from a menu (well, that was the idea at least. The execution was pretty poor).

Ah, it does make more sense that it was in a 3.5 expansion first. I tried looking up the base class and... wow the base rogue was REALLY barebones in 3.5.

[Oramac]

Personally, I absolutely LOVE Cunning Strike. It's possibly the best idea in the whole UA. My only real complaint about it is that Cunning Strike is what Weapon Mastery should have been.

As for the actual options, my only real critique is that I think the Swashbuckler's Awe and Parrying Stance options should switch places, with the cost of both reduced by 1d6 each.

[sayaijin]

It's definitely not a new idea, and it is questionable whether or not the options presented differentiate it enough from the weapon masteries like Topple, but I think moving the rogue into the non-caster controller role makes sense.

If you want a magic free campaign, the rogue could be the CC for that group.

I hope some subclasses either make use of the cunning strike mechanic and shore up the rogue's low damage output or help lean into the controller role more.

Maybe give us assassin subclass that has an assassinate cunning strike where you risk some number of d6 to force a save, and if they fail then you actually increase your damage. In flavor terms, this is the "called shot" mechanic I've seen a bunch

Maybe they could also give us a warlord subclass that further sacrifices rogue damage output but having even better cunning strike options.

[Oramac]

I hope some subclasses either make use of the cunning strike mechanic and shore up the rogue's low damage output or help lean into the controller role more.

They did. All 3 subclasses in the UA have features that reference or directly add to Cunning Strike. Arcane Trickster and Assassin reference it (Versatile Trickster and Envenom Weapons, respectively), and Swashbuckler straight up gets new options for use with it.

In any case, I agree that building upon Cunning Strike for subclasses is a great idea, and I hope to see more of it.

[sayaijin]

They did. All 3 subclasses in the UA have features that reference or directly add to Cunning Strike. Arcane Trickster and Assassin reference it (Versatile Trickster and Envenom Weapons, respectively), and Swashbuckler straight up gets new options for use with it.

In any case, I agree that building upon Cunning Strike for subclasses is a great idea, and I hope to see more of it.

You are correct that those subclasses use the Cunning Strike feature, but not in the way I was saying in the rest of my post.

The assassin could be the rogue subclass that actually lets you be a good source of single target damage that keeps pace with other classes. The current assassin Cunning Strike feature just adds 1d6. Instead you could get a crazy high risk / high reward use like "spend Xd6 to force a save. If they fail, you get your dice back and you crit."

I also mentioned sacrificing more damage output for even better control possibilities.

So again, you are correct that they are doing subclass specific Cunning Strike options, but not in the way I suggested.

[Oramac]

You are correct that those subclasses use the Cunning Strike feature, but not in the way I was saying in the rest of my post.
snip

That's fair. And I agree that the AT/Assassin features referencing Cunning Strike leave a lot to be desired. It's something we definitely need to put in our feedback when we can.

[Psyren]

They did. All 3 subclasses in the UA have features that reference or directly add to Cunning Strike. Arcane Trickster and Assassin reference it (Versatile Trickster and Envenom Weapons, respectively), and Swashbuckler straight up gets new options for use with it.

*cries in Thief*



If you want a magic free campaign, the rogue could be the CC for that group.

I would argue that if you want a magic-free campaign, you'll need multiple sources of CC rather than a dedicated practitioner. The Barbarian bear-hugs one guy, the Rogue makes the second drop his weapon, and the Fighter sweeps the third's legs out from under him with his polearm etc.


Maybe give us assassin subclass that has an assassinate cunning strike where you risk some number of d6 to force a save, and if they fail then you actually increase your damage. In flavor terms, this is the "called shot" mechanic I've seen a bunch

The Assassin's Envenom Weapons actually does this. You sacrifice 1d6 to attempt, and if it lands, they take 2d6 and are Poisoned.

[Oramac]

*cries in Thief*

Haha! Good catch. My mistake. Though to be fair, the Thief does gain an additional Cunning Strike option. IMO an overly complicated option, but an option nonetheless.


The Assassin's Envenom Weapons actually does this. You sacrifice 1d6 to attempt, and if it lands, they take 2d6 and are Poisoned.

True, though in this context I feel like it's not a big enough risk/reward for the scenario sayaijin is talking about. And, honestly, I agree. The fact that it ignores poison resistance is fantastic though.

[Skrum]

Its great, but Rogue damage is already pretty average. Dropping that damage for the CC effects brings you down to barely passable numbers.

This. Rogues should just get Cunning Strike, no cost. The effects are very tame in the overall scale of things, and rogues trading their already meager damage boost for minor effects while everyone else is getting a very large, unmitigated boost to damage and effectiveness, there's just no reason it should cost d6's.


Sometimes i truly wonder how valuable something being resourceless actually is.

It's worth very, very little IMO. In terms of pushing on for more encounters, well the rogue being resourceless while the rest of the party is tapped out isn't going to add up to the party pushing on. Even good characters can't make up for 4, and the rogue isn't a strong class.

The rogue being resourceless only matters if the DM goes out of their way to make it matter, but even then, they're gonna run into a fundamental feature of the game - there's a bunch of people at the table, and quietly listening to the rogue be 007 does not lend itself to fun for everyone.

[sayaijin]

The Assassin's Envenom Weapons actually does this. You sacrifice 1d6 to attempt, and if it lands, they take 2d6 and are Poisoned.

Like Oramac said, this isn't enough for the assassin. I'm not a game designer, so I can't tell you what the numbers should be, but if we're taking away the assassinate feature, then their subclass specific Cunning Strike should be a big risk / reward.

Preferably something that returns all dice spent AND makes the attack a crit.

[Psyren]

I agree that a net of +1d6 is too low a boost for a 13th level feature - I was more pointing out that the concept is there, they just need to tune it. Converting +1d6 SA to +3d6 or +4d6 poison sounds a bit better.

[ZRN]

I agree that a net of +1d6 is too low a boost for a 13th level feature - I was more pointing out that the concept is there, they just need to tune it. Converting +1d6 SA to +3d6 or +4d6 poison sounds a bit better.

It seems pretty likely the whole reason they're nerfing assassinate is that baseline rogue is pretty much where they want the class's damage potential to be capped. It's not like any other rogue subclasses significantly buff damage (aside from AT with scagtrips, which I think/hope they're getting rid of). They picked 2d6 poison instead of 4d6 because they think (based on whatever testing or calculations they do for this stuff) that 2d6 is the "balanced" amount.

[sayaijin]

It seems pretty likely the whole reason they're nerfing assassinate is that baseline rogue is pretty much where they want the class's damage potential to be capped. It's not like any other rogue subclasses significantly buff damage (aside from AT with scagtrips, which I think/hope they're getting rid of). They picked 2d6 poison instead of 4d6 because they think (based on whatever testing or calculations they do for this stuff) that 2d6 is the "balanced" amount.

If that is the design intent, then that's pretty depressing unless they really lean into making the rogue the de facto skill monkey AND martial controller.

Although I will say that Phantom can pump out some good damage increase at high levels, and it's a recent subclass. So there's hope that they don't want to cap the damage quite so low.

[RSP]

I guess I’m in the minority here, but we’ve had a Rogue in every campaign since we started playing 5e and I’ve not seen a reason for complaint.

BMs get a handful of maneuvers each SR, yet Rogue getting unlimited Disarm or Poisoned Condition is being met with “and have them do MORE DAMAGE”.

I like the design of Cunning Strike, but by itself it’s adding a whole lot of options to the Rogue base class.

Disarm is already the best maneuver for a BM when facing a caster (focus) or humanoid (weapon). That’s now at will for the Rogue with SA (which isn’t hard to get, in my experience).

BM doesn’t have anything close to Disadvantage on Attacks and Skill Checks for 1 minute (so at end of turn to end), and this is at will as well.

I’m wondering if sacrificing 3.5 damage is enough for this, not thinking it needs more damage.

[Psyren]

It seems pretty likely the whole reason they're nerfing assassinate is that baseline rogue is pretty much where they want the class's damage potential to be capped. It's not like any other rogue subclasses significantly buff damage (aside from AT with scagtrips, which I think/hope they're getting rid of). They picked 2d6 poison instead of 4d6 because they think (based on whatever testing or calculations they do for this stuff) that 2d6 is the "balanced" amount.

Bladetrips are in Tasha's so they're guaranteed to be in 5.5. And even without them, AT will have things like Shadow Blade and Haste that will let them deliver higher numbers than other rogues in a lot of cases.

Even putting AT aside, there are other subclasses that appear like they'll be allowed to spike above the Rogue baseline, such as Soulknife (free TWF style) and Phantom (cleave-focused). I think Assassin should be in that "higher-damage Rogue" camp; Assassinate and Envenom help with that, but I'm not sure they go far enough.



Disarm is already the best maneuver for a BM when facing a caster (focus) or humanoid (weapon). That’s now at will for the Rogue with SA (which isn’t hard to get, in my experience).

Unless it's more than an Object Interaction for them to pick up whatever you disarmed, I'm not seeing how it's so useful. At most what I can see it being used for is letting you back up without needing to Disengage. Granted there's also the scenario of you having a free hand to pick up whatever they dropped yourself, but that means you're giving up TWF/Nick.

[Skrum]

I guess I’m in the minority here, but we’ve had a Rogue in every campaign since we started playing 5e and I’ve not seen a reason for complaint.

BMs get a handful of maneuvers each SR, yet Rogue getting unlimited Disarm or Poisoned Condition is being met with “and have them do MORE DAMAGE”.

I like the design of Cunning Strike, but by itself it’s adding a whole lot of options to the Rogue base class.

Disarm is already the best maneuver for a BM when facing a caster (focus) or humanoid (weapon). That’s now at will for the Rogue with SA (which isn’t hard to get, in my experience).

BM doesn’t have anything close to Disadvantage on Attacks and Skill Checks for 1 minute (so at end of turn to end), and this is at will as well.

I’m wondering if sacrificing 3.5 damage is enough for this, not thinking it needs more damage.

Rogues do passable but not great damage. The problem is they did virtually nothing else. The entire rest of their combat toolkit is pretty well devoted to keeping themselves alive in one way or another.

Cunning Strike adds some cool riders, but there's no reason make that a trade-off for rogues. Rogues are *already* in need of a boost in the combat phase. Making their new toys come at the expense of their effectiveness *in combat* makes me think they're just not playing the same game that I am (or anyone else who identifies rogue as one of the weakest classes).

[ZRN]

Rogues are *already* in need of a boost in the combat phase. Making their new toys come at the expense of their effectiveness *in combat* makes me think they're just not playing the same game that I am (or anyone else who identifies rogue as one of the weakest classes).

They're not. In one of their videos they specifically said that rogues were among the highest-rated classes and they didn't want to screw that up. They don't think rogues are in need of major buffs, based on player feedback.

[Saelethil]

Making their new toys come at the expense of their effectiveness *in combat* makes me think they're just not playing the same game that I am (or anyone else who identifies rogue as one of the weakest classes).

My experience with low optimization tables suggests that this is indeed the case.

[Oramac]

They're not. In one of their videos they specifically said that rogues were among the highest-rated classes and they didn't want to screw that up. They don't think rogues are in need of major buffs, based on player feedback.


low optimization tables

Hmm....given both of these, I wonder what the spread is between "Low-Optimization Tables" and "High-Optimization Tables". I know from my experience there is a noticeable difference between them, but how common is one compared to the other? I'm really not sure.

[OvisCaedo]

Haha! Good catch. My mistake. Though to be fair, the Thief does gain an additional Cunning Strike option. IMO an overly complicated option, but an option nonetheless.



True, though in this context I feel like it's not a big enough risk/reward for the scenario sayaijin is talking about. And, honestly, I agree. The fact that it ignores poison resistance is fantastic though.

I mean... is it? I guess we'll have to see how much statblocks for monsters change going forward, but poison resistance is a pretty rare trait. Unless you're killing a lot of dwarves. It's full on poison immunity that there's a ton of in current 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm....given both of these, I wonder what the spread is between "Low-Optimization Tables" and "High-Optimization Tables". I know from my experience there is a noticeable difference between them, but how common is one compared to the other? I'm really not sure.

Hard to tell.

I know that rogues have a relatively narrow (without exotic measures) floor-ceiling gap. As long as you're getting sneak attack regularly, you're...ok...by system expectations. But not great by any measure. But there's not tons more you can do unless you can guarantee off-turn sneak attack or basically 100% advantage. And if you have 100% advantage...you're still not stellar. Much better, to be sure. But only in competition with a moderately optimized GWM/PAM (etc) fighter.

[RSP]

Rogues do passable but not great damage. The problem is they did virtually nothing else. The entire rest of their combat toolkit is pretty well devoted to keeping themselves alive in one way or another.

Cunning Strike adds some cool riders, but there's no reason make that a trade-off for rogues. Rogues are *already* in need of a boost in the combat phase. Making their new toys come at the expense of their effectiveness *in combat* makes me think they're just not playing the same game that I am (or anyone else who identifies rogue as one of the weakest classes).

Disadvantage on all attacks made is very significant. Not being able to cast or fight because you lost your weapon is likewise very significant. And any Rogue can do this at anytime they have SA, per the UA.

I’m not sure why the argument is “they need to do better than good damage AND best the BM at tactical combat options.


Hard to tell.

I know that rogues have a relatively narrow (without exotic measures) floor-ceiling gap. As long as you're getting sneak attack regularly, you're...ok...by system expectations. But not great by any measure. But there's not tons more you can do unless you can guarantee off-turn sneak attack or basically 100% advantage. And if you have 100% advantage...you're still not stellar. Much better, to be sure. But only in competition with a moderately optimized GWM/PAM (etc) fighter.

Except they also tend to be very capable in social and exploration. I’ve never seen them lack for options in social/RP areas.

I’d say it’s more than just a high optimized vs low optimized table, but also how much time is spent outside of combat.

[Theodoxus]

I think it's hilarious that they're pulling tricks out of 3rd edition and everyone seems to think they're new. And when I offered up the same idea 8 years ago, I was nicely told to sit down and stay silent.

But ok.

So, now not killing things as quickly as possible, but getting a nifty rider is ok? So weird. So very very weird.

[Skrum]

Disadvantage on all attacks made is very significant. Not being able to cast or fight because you lost your weapon is likewise very significant. And any Rogue can do this at anytime they have SA, per the UA.

I’m not sure why the argument is “they need to do better than good damage AND best the BM at tactical combat options.

I guess if you fight mostly humanoids. I feel like humanoids get used quite a bit at the table I play at and the overwhelming majority of foes are still of the monster type.

In my experience, the BM fighter is not a solid tactical choice because they can disarm someone. They're a good tactical choice* because they have 4 or more different options from a much larger list that can be chosen to complement the build AND give them options for different situations. And on top of that, their options increase their damage (which becomes its own option when it comes to crits). Cunning Strike has far more limited options and decreases the rogue's damage. But hey, at least it gets to be used all the time, or something.



*but only relative to other martial characters. And even then, a sentinel build is probably getting a better result. I would argue too that a rune knight brings more to the table in terms of tactical options than anything else the fighter or rogue does.

Edit: also, I personally find the Disarm option to be pretty....uncouth. Even as an optimizer, I would not take that route as it's quite annoying for the DM to have to rejigger statblocks on the fly, or once they know it's coming, prepare the extra stat block information in preparation for their NPC's weapons getting taken away. It's just a not a way I want to "win" the encounter.

[ZRN]

Disadvantage on all attacks made is very significant. Not being able to cast or fight because you lost your weapon is likewise very significant. And any Rogue can do this at anytime they have SA, per the UA.

I’m not sure why the argument is “they need to do better than good damage AND best the BM at tactical combat options.



Except they also tend to be very capable in social and exploration. I’ve never seen them lack for options in social/RP areas.

I’d say it’s more than just a high optimized vs low optimized table, but also how much time is spent outside of combat.

I think some people are still hoping to fix the martial/caster disparity, which won't happen because WOTC doesn't think it's a problem, because the disparity is only super prominent (1) at higher levels than most people actually play, and (2) at higher-optimization tables where the mages actually know which spells are overpowered and how, and most people don't play at those tables.

[sayaijin]

I think it's hilarious that they're pulling tricks out of 3rd edition and everyone seems to think they're new. And when I offered up the same idea 8 years ago, I was nicely told to sit down and stay silent.

But ok.

So, now not killing things as quickly as possible, but getting a nifty rider is ok? So weird. So very very weird.

You're absolutely right. This isn't a new idea. I can literally pull up several homebrew creations that include this for 5e - not even mentioning its historic context. My take is that this kind of feature is great *IF* it's both more meaningful than weapon masteries (which are nearly free) and the rogue is buffed in other ways.

[Amechra]

For everyone going "Envenom Weapon only gives back 1d6 damage": it doesn't say anything about the damage only happening when your target fails their initial save. And, you know, the Poison option gives your target a save to end it at the end of each of their turns...

It's not going to be terribly unlikely for it to effectively be at least +3d6 damage.

[Kane0]

For everyone going "Envenom Weapon only gives back 1d6 damage": it doesn't say anything about the damage only happening when your target fails their initial save. And, you know, the Poison option gives your target a save to end it at the end of each of their turns...

It's not going to be terribly unlikely for it to effectively be at least +3d6 damage.

Is that intended? If so that sounds pretty cool, especially since the Poisoned condition gives you disadvantage on your save against removing it and that extra damage.

[Amechra]

Is that intended? If so that sounds pretty cool, especially since the Poisoned condition gives you disadvantage on your save against removing it and that extra damage.

It... doesn't give you disadvantage on your save? Unless they changed it in a previous packet, Poisoned only affects attack rolls and ability checks.

[Kane0]

Oh probably just my memory failing me then

[Hael]

Regarding Rogue damage.

Its pretty bad after tier1, and especially in tier3/4. Every full spellcaster has the capacity to outdamage them (spirit guardians/conjure X/aoe/buffs/others/Eldritch blast).

Amongst martials, fighters and barbarians both easily outdamage them. So we are left with halfcasters and the monk. Rangers have very damaging spells (conjure animals) along with quite a lot of resourceless damage so they are well ahead.

So that really leaves the monk, the artificer and the paladin. The paladin is going to do relatively poor resourceless damage for most of his/her career, but has the capacity for enormously more nova damage, so I would give them the edge, especially if you allow their steed to contribute to the battle. That leaves the artificer and the monk.

The artificer has a really low damage floor, but they can be built to approach the higher end of rogue optimization (eg arcane tricksters and phantom rogues) but really requires a lot of system knowledge and its a bit hard to quantify their magic item advantage.

Monks are also probably behind on average/floor, but have a few ceiling builds that are roughly on par with arcane trickster level stuff.

[sayaijin]

For everyone going "Envenom Weapon only gives back 1d6 damage": it doesn't say anything about the damage only happening when your target fails their initial save. And, you know, the Poison option gives your target a save to end it at the end of each of their turns...

It's not going to be terribly unlikely for it to effectively be at least +3d6 damage.

Damage over time on an assassin?? In this action economy??

No but seriously good catch. I'm not sure if DoT is assassin-y or if it needs to be single turn nova damage to feel right, but 2d6 each round for just 1d6 up front is cool. Probably not 13th level feature cool (when casters are breaking reality), but still cool.

[Skrum]

At level 13, the DC for a rogue's Cunning Strike is very likely to be 18. It'll go to 19 at level 17, but there's no good way of boosting it any further.

Saving throws of monsters are honestly all over the map. A CR 14 adult blue dragon rocks a +11 Con save, a CR 12 archdruid has a measly +1, a CR 16 iron golem is immune to poison, a CR 12 grey render has a +9, and a CR 10 death slaad has a +4.

Poison immunity is not uncommon, but the overwhelming majority of monsters don't have it, so I'm going to mostly ignore this.

But, I think the slight problem the assassin rogue is going to run into is "what is the correct time to use this ability." As far as damage goes, it's best to use it in the first round of a fight against something that has a lot of HP. My strong suspicion though is that there's a correlation between having a lot of HP and having a pretty good Con save. All that said, I'm gonna use +4 Con save to do the math.

The ability needs to stick when it's first used, so Envenom has a 65% chance of activating and inflicting 2d6 (7) damage. 35% of the time, they'll save and take no damage

Round 2 the monster rolls again with the same odds. But overall, there's a 56.75% they will succeed on one of those two rolls

Round 3, same deal. But they've failed all three rolls is just ~27%. 73% of the time, it ends in round 3 or earlier

Round 4. 18% chance they failed through now. 82% of the time, it ends here or earlier. If it lasted this long, envenom has done 8d6 over 4 rounds, or 28 damage. But it is very very likely it didn't last this long.

Of course, the rogue can just apply it again. The assumption is the rogue is attacking every round anyway, and they don't really have another Cunning Strike option against monster-type foes, so sure, spam poison strike.

But still, this ability is severely undertuned. The actual value of it is gotten at level 5. A level 13 ability *maybe* doing a few points of damage over time, while targeting one of the stronger saves monsters are likely to have? I find this to be very frustrating.

5.5 seems to be attempting to crack down on multiclass synergies and discouraging multiclassing, but oh my goodness, maybe give some of these classes abilities that are worth staying in the class for. *13 levels of rogue* and this is what I get??

[Boverk]

At level 13, the DC for a rogue's Cunning Strike is very likely to be 18. It'll go to 19 at level 17, but there's no good way of boosting it any further.

Minor thing, but you can now take your Dex to 22 with the level 19 ASI. The cap is 22 only for the level 19 ASI.

[Skrum]

Minor thing, but you can now take your Dex to 22 with the level 19 ASI. The cap is 22 only for the level 19 ASI.

Oh that's interesting. So, DC 18 at level 13, DC 19 at level 17, and DC 20 at level 19

[Psyren]

The Cunning Strike saves are also a decent mix of Dex and Con effects; if you're up against something with strong Con saves, opt to blind, disarm, or trip them instead. Dex saves are pretty easy for your party to assist with landing, even at high levels, because targets who are subject to conditions like Restrained or Stunned will suffer penalties to them.

[Skrum]

The Cunning Strike saves are also a decent mix of Dex and Con effects; if you're up against something with strong Con saves, opt to blind, disarm, or trip them instead. Dex saves are pretty easy for your party to assist with landing, even at high levels, because targets who are subject to conditions like Restrained or Stunned will suffer penalties to them.

Fair enough, but as a 13 level ability of your subclass, making one particular option of Cunning Strike like 15% better is incredibly weak.

Half casters got 4th level spells
Full casters got 7th level spells

The barb's rage now lasts 10 minutes with no actions required
The fighter can now double up on their masteries for a weapon
The monk can use Deflect Missiles can now be used against any damage type

I mean, the fighter's and barb's ability is closer to Envenom than it is 4th or 7th level spells (by a long shot). Deflect Missiles and Envenom, about the same. Not much to write home about.

[sayaijin]

Fair enough, but as a 13 level ability of your subclass, making one particular option of Cunning Strike like 15% better is incredibly weak.

Half casters got 4th level spells
Full casters got 7th level spells

.

In light of what casters get at these levels, I am beginning to wonder if it's overpowered to just remove saving throws for all cunning strike and devious strike options.

Let's take the most extreme example: Knockout
For 6d6, (6 out of 7 you get) you knock an enemy unconscious. Yes this extremely powerful, but you give up nearly all your damage for the round. Meanwhile, your wizard buddy is holding hypnotics pattern or letting their summon do all the things. Not to mention all the things the wizard did out of combat before the fight to get to this point (planeshift, scrying, etc).

[Hurrashane]

Saving throws of monsters are honestly all over the map. A CR 14 adult blue dragon rocks a +11 Con save, a CR 12 archdruid has a measly +1, a CR 16 iron golem is immune to poison, a CR 12 grey render has a +9, and a CR 10 death slaad has a +4.



That works for me for Assassin's poison. For a person (the archdruid) you might send an assassin. For everything else you'd send a band of adventurers to kill/drive it off, which may include an assassin but their specialty is in inhuming people.

Now I wonder what the highest con save a humanoid NPC has.

[Psyren]

Fair enough, but as a 13 level ability of your subclass, making one particular option of Cunning Strike like 15% better is incredibly weak.

We're still talking bounded accuracy though. A small penalty or disadvantage goes a long way.



Half casters got 4th level spells
Full casters got 7th level spells

The barb's rage now lasts 10 minutes with no actions required
The fighter can now double up on their masteries for a weapon
The monk can use Deflect Missiles can now be used against any damage type

I mean, the fighter's and barb's ability is closer to Envenom than it is 4th or 7th level spells (by a long shot). Deflect Missiles and Envenom, about the same. Not much to write home about.

I never understand this kind of comparison. No one is picking rogue because they want 7th level spells, so saying they don't get 7th level spells is completely irrelevant. And even compared to other martials, I'm not expecting a rogue to routinely equal a barbarian or fighter's output, they have plenty of other areas in the game to shine. They should be to an extent dependent on luck to spike.

[Skrum]

I never understand this kind of comparison. No one is picking rogue because they want 7th level spells, so saying they don't get 7th level spells is completely irrelevant. And even compared to other martials, I'm not expecting a rogue to routinely equal a barbarian or fighter's output, they have plenty of other areas in the game to shine. They should be to an extent dependent on luck to spike.

What's there not to understand? DnD is a team-based game where 4 players play 4 different characters at the same table, within the same story. If there isn't some level of parity between the classes, it 1) gets harder for the DM to design encounters that are appropriate for all characters, and 2) players may begin to feel like they are stuck in an underperforming class.

Everyone else picking up shinier and shinier toys as you get situational, weak abilities is real feel bad.

A spell is a particular type of ability a class can get, but it's still an ability. At level 5, fighters and barbs get Extra Attack, wizards get fireball, and clerics get spirit guardians and revivify. The former might not be spells but in terms of class balance, all of these abilities need to be compared to one another

[RSP]

What's there not to understand? DnD is a team-based game where 4 players play 4 different characters at the same table, within the same story. If there isn't some level of parity between the classes, it 1) gets harder for the DM to design encounters that are appropriate for all characters, and 2) players may begin to feel like they are stuck in an underperforming class.

Everyone else picking up shinier and shinier toys as you get situational, weak abilities is real feel bad.

A spell is a particular type of ability a class can get, but it's still an ability. At level 5, fighters and barbs get Extra Attack, wizards get fireball, and clerics get spirit guardians and revivify. The former might not be spells but in terms of class balance, all of these abilities need to be compared to one another

I think this may just be optimizing tables, or specific tables where players compare themselves to other players in terms of “but they can do this…”.

I haven’t seen this at various tables I’ve played at.

Mostly, as I understand it, Players chose classes they want to play or that fit the RP of the character they have an idea for. We’ve been playing the premades for the majority of the campaigns so we’ve always known “this campaign is level 1-13” or whatever, so Players know what to expect and can plan any multiclassing and know what to expect with their character progression.

Players who want to play a Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter or Monk, don’t then go “wait a minute, how come they get spells and I don’t?!?”

If Players want to play a spell caster, they play a spell caster. If they want to play a Rogue, they play a Rogue.

In fact, the only time I’m aware of that anyone was disappointed with their character, is when I played a Hexblade Blade Warlock in SKT, and he just couldn’t hold up in melee after level 8 or 9 or so.

DM was willing to work with me on some options, but there just wasn’t an easy fix to making the Warlock durable enough. He just became an EB ranged Warlock at that point.

[Skrum]

“wait a minute, how come they get spells and I don’t?!?”

It's *not* a matter of spells vs not spells. It's a matter of the of one character being able to inflict 10d6 damage in a 60' cone (and that's the least bad thing that'll happen), or being able to do a few d6's to a single target but only if they fail multiple saving throws




If Players want to play a spell caster, they play a spell caster. If they want to play a Rogue, they play a Rogue.

Again, not a matter of spells vs not spells. Is your character contributing ~25% of the work, or do you do more watching the other characters do cool stuff while you struggle to remain relevant



In fact, the only time I’m aware of that anyone was disappointed with their character, is when I played a Hexblade Blade Warlock in SKT, and he just couldn’t hold up in melee after level 8 or 9 or so.

DM was willing to work with me on some options, but there just wasn’t an easy fix to making the Warlock durable enough. He just became an EB ranged Warlock at that point.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I personally feel like I would get quite frustrated playing a rogue all the way to 13, doing almost exactly the same thing the entire time, becoming relatively *worse* compared to the monsters I'm facing for my level, while other members of the party (particularly spellcasters, particularly full casters) scale to better match the competition.

A level 1 rogue has a 1d6 sneak attack. A CR 1 monster has 15-30 HP. Averaging all that out, the rogue's SA will do 15.5% of that monster's health in damage (3.5/22.5)

A level 13 rogue has a 7d6 sneak attack (24.5). A CR 13 monster has 195-210 HP (202.5) ===> 12% of the monster's health per SA hit.

That's not good

[Witty Username]

Quick thing, envenom weapon, is its damage doubled by death strike? Or crits?

Assassin is not great on the first brush of it, but it is probably better than the 2014 assassin. I think the 2014 version of assassinate is better in terms of fun but surprised is not a common thing without alot of work at it, the new feature will at least trigger more often.

I think this version but the +level damage replaced with your sneak attack is a crit would be fine, a significant bump to the 2014 one and smooth out some of the dip nonsense. But rogues need to get past the 5th level hump somehow.

I think envenom could be 3d6, that would put it as about an extra attack per turn (does it worth with off turn attacks?), that would give it the same point as the 11th ish bump of martials.

Futher, what would people's oppinion be of the cunning strikes being the same but not having a dice cost? They seem small enough to be fine (even knock out).

Sidenote: rogue, rapier, vex 100% advantage and applies to off turn attacks at level 2, your welcome.

[RSP]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I personally feel like I would get quite frustrated playing a rogue all the way to 13, doing almost exactly the same thing the entire time, becoming relatively *worse* compared to the monsters I'm facing for my level, while other members of the party (particularly spellcasters, particularly full casters) scale to better match the competition.

A level 1 rogue has a 1d6 sneak attack. A CR 1 monster has 15-30 HP. Averaging all that out, the rogue's SA will do 15.5% of that monster's health in damage (3.5/22.5)

A level 13 rogue has a 7d6 sneak attack (24.5). A CR 13 monster has 195-210 HP (202.5) ===> 12% of the monster's health per SA hit.

That's not good

A 13th level Rogue has at least six skills they’re proficient in, all of which benefit from Reliable Talent and +5 Prof Bonus. Four of those have Expertise as well.

So for those with Expertise, they have a 20, min, on their Skill Checks. For the others, at least a 15. I imagine it’s at least a 17 though.

Essentially, they’re doing what they want in exploration and social settings. And they’re probably good at a couple combat related checks like Perception, Stealth or Athletics: not getting surprised, finding the Invisible enemy, hiding when appropriate, grappling reliably (if that’s their thing), climbing walls, etc.

And they take half damage when hit, and zero damage, most likely, from Dex Svs. And they have an extra ASI.

And doing decent resourceless damage throughout the adventuring day.

Again, I haven’t heard complaints from anyone who’s played a Rogue in campaigns I play with and have actually always thought the Rogue was a well designed class. But if a Player doesn’t care about all of that, and just wants to do the most damage in combat, there’s other classes to choose from.

[Skrum]

Essentially, they’re doing what they want in exploration and social settings. And they’re probably good at a couple combat related checks like Perception, Stealth or Athletics: not getting surprised, finding the Invisible enemy, hiding when appropriate, grappling reliably (if that’s their thing), climbing walls, etc.

.

If the skill system in 5e wasn't laughably underdeveloped, especially compared to combat, I would agree with you. But as is, succeeding on skill checks is not the fun, rewarding, or climatic event that combat is. Rogues are good at something that the game barely supports.

[Psyren]

It's *not* a matter of spells vs not spells. It's a matter of the of one character being able to inflict 10d6 damage in a 60' cone (and that's the least bad thing that'll happen), or being able to do a few d6's to a single target but only if they fail multiple saving throws

What build is the latter? Seems intentionally bad.


Again, not a matter of spells vs not spells. Is your character contributing ~25% of the work, or do you do more watching the other characters do cool stuff while you struggle to remain relevant

If your benchmark for "cool stuff" is 7th level spells, then of course martials are going to disappoint you, but I doubt that's the line for most people that play this game.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. I personally feel like I would get quite frustrated playing a rogue all the way to 13, doing almost exactly the same thing the entire time, becoming relatively *worse* compared to the monsters I'm facing for my level, while other members of the party (particularly spellcasters, particularly full casters) scale to better match the competition.

A level 1 rogue has a 1d6 sneak attack. A CR 1 monster has 15-30 HP. Averaging all that out, the rogue's SA will do 15.5% of that monster's health in damage (3.5/22.5)

A level 13 rogue has a 7d6 sneak attack (24.5). A CR 13 monster has 195-210 HP (202.5) ===> 12% of the monster's health per SA hit.

That's not good

Are you a subclassless rogue with no magic items in this scenario?

[Skrum]

What build is the latter? Seems intentionally bad.

The comparison of prismatic spray vs envenom, which become available at the same level. Obviously envenom makes an existing ability better while prismatic spray is its own thing, but the ever so marginal improvement provided by envenom compared to the entirely new and complete ability that spells are, idk man the difference is laughable.




If your benchmark for "cool stuff" is 7th level spells, then of course martials are going to disappoint you, but I doubt that's the line for most people that play this game.

I wouldn't call it a benchmark; martials do lots of cool stuff. In fact, I play martials almost exclusively (well, some are gishes. But they're still mix it up in the front lines, mostly make attack rolls type characters). But envenom is not a cool thing that martials can do. It's a weak, underpowered thing that martials can do.




Are you a subclassless rogue with no magic items in this scenario?

The point was to demonstrate that sneak attack is losing relative power even as you get more damage dice. It was not meant to imply that it was literally the only thing that rogues can do

[Keravath]

Regarding Rogue damage.

Its pretty bad after tier1, and especially in tier3/4. Every full spellcaster has the capacity to outdamage them (spirit guardians/conjure X/aoe/buffs/others/Eldritch blast).

Amongst martials, fighters and barbarians both easily outdamage them. So we are left with halfcasters and the monk. Rangers have very damaging spells (conjure animals) along with quite a lot of resourceless damage so they are well ahead.

So that really leaves the monk, the artificer and the paladin. The paladin is going to do relatively poor resourceless damage for most of his/her career, but has the capacity for enormously more nova damage, so I would give them the edge, especially if you allow their steed to contribute to the battle. That leaves the artificer and the monk.

The artificer has a really low damage floor, but they can be built to approach the higher end of rogue optimization (eg arcane tricksters and phantom rogues) but really requires a lot of system knowledge and its a bit hard to quantify their magic item advantage.

Monks are also probably behind on average/floor, but have a few ceiling builds that are roughly on par with arcane trickster level stuff.

I'm not sure I agree. If you leave out the feats Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master and X-bow expert then rogue damage would appear to be inline with base damage from both fighters and barbarians for the most part.

A rogue with a rapier at level 9, assume using Steady Aim for advantage or using 2 short swords for two weapon fighting to increase the odds of landing sneak attack, would do average damage of d8+5d6 + stat = 27 (assume 20 dex for +5 stat) while a level 9 fighter is 2 (d8+7) = 22 (20 str+dueling with a shield) or 2 (2d6+6.5) = 27 with two handed sword and GWF. Barbarian would add +3 rage damage/attack for 33 but it uses a resource.

Of course a GWM reckless barbarian does far more damage. A Xbow expert/sharpshooter battlemaster will also do far more damage and neither of those has the additional bonus actions, evasion, uncanny dodge, expertise, extra skills and all the other elements that make a rogue effective in a variety of roles.

None of the martial classes keep up with a wizard or sorcerer for AoE damage. Few even keep up with a warlock with agonizing blast without feats especially into tier 3 and 4. However, these aren't issues with the rogue - they are fundamental design issues for casters vs martials AND specific feats that significantly enhance damage for specific classes.

Even the monk doesn't compare that badly 3 (d6+5) = 25.5 average damage using unarmed strikes plus the bonus action attack and 20 stat.

In tier 1 and 2, classes picking the damage enhancement feats will often have lower primary stats which reduces chances to hit and the stat damage on the attacks. However, when characters reach tier 3 and 4, characters will have maxed their stats AND have the damage enhancing feats - and in that case, the rogue and monk damage do fall behind because they don't have feat options to increase their respective damage in tier 3 and 4.

I'd suggest that the rogue doesn't need an enhanced base damage since it is already comparable to the base damage of other classes - what is needed (if the game is keeping GWM/SS) is feats that would be useful to a rogue or monk that will comparably increase their damage in tier 3/4.

P.S. One area where more attacks is better than a single attack with more damage, is static bonuses. A +3 sword will add +3 damage for a rogue with one attack but it could be a total of +3, +6, +9 or +12 or more for a fighter with 1-4+ attacks.

[Psyren]

The comparison of prismatic spray vs envenom, which become available at the same level. Obviously envenom makes an existing ability better while prismatic spray is its own thing, but the ever so marginal improvement provided by envenom compared to the entirely new and complete ability that spells are, idk man the difference is laughable.
...
I wouldn't call it a benchmark; martials do lots of cool stuff. In fact, I play martials almost exclusively (well, some are gishes. But they're still mix it up in the front lines, mostly make attack rolls type characters). But envenom is not a cool thing that martials can do. It's a weak, underpowered thing that martials can do.

I'm not against Envenom getting buffed, but an ability you can do 1/day using your most powerful resource should hit harder than one you can do every round without one. And other martials do get harder hitting abilities by the time they hit this level.


The point was to demonstrate that sneak attack is losing relative power even as you get more damage dice. It was not meant to imply that it was literally the only thing that rogues can do

As you get more stuff, of course any one feature will do a smaller percentage of your output than when it was the only thing you can do, even if it scales with level.

[sayaijin]

As you get more stuff, of course any one feature will do a smaller percentage of your output than when it was the only thing you can do, even if it scales with level.

I think the point is that martials aren't getting as much new stuff as casters, and that the new stuff isn't nearly as meaningful as casters new stuff. There's also the question of whether or not resourceless features that are weaker are good design when operating as a team. (I think it was mentioned in this thread that when the rest of the party is tapped out, it's not fun gameplay to sit and watch the rogue player be 007 for the entire rest)

These weapon masteries and cunning strikes seem to be a way to give martials new stuff, but to Skrum's point, 2d6 every round (even without a cost) pails in comparison to getting a new spell - especially one of 7th level.

I think the issue is class fantasy breaking down at high levels. I think everyone has a pretty good concept of what the highest levels of wizard or sorcerer should look like, but what does the highest tier fighter or barbarian or rogue in the world look like? I think the direction WotC went with high level class fantasy for those classes in 5e was the wrong direction, and I'd like to see them improve it in the next one.

[RSP]

If the skill system in 5e wasn't laughably underdeveloped, especially compared to combat, I would agree with you. But as is, succeeding on skill checks is not the fun, rewarding, or climatic event that combat is. Rogues are good at something that the game barely supports.

This, I think, is your issue. If you or your DM don’t partake in skills during social or exploration, then that will affect your view of the skilled class.

The skills work fine. At my tables, and the tables my other players play at, we’ve been using them since 2015, with various DMs and players.

A previous poster stated how high the Rogue rates in feedback, so I’m guessing it’s not just my tables who think so.

But “I want the class best suited for social and exploration to also be doing equivalent damage as the best damage dealers”, I don’t agree with; and I’m not really sure why you’d pick the Rogue to play, if more damage is the driving force behind character concept.

[Oramac]

I mean... is it? I guess we'll have to see how much statblocks for monsters change going forward, but poison resistance is a pretty rare trait. Unless you're killing a lot of dwarves. It's full on poison immunity that there's a ton of in current 5e.

A valid point. It would be awesome (and thematically fitting) for an Assassin to find a way to ignore poison immunity, even if only a couple times per rest.


I think some people are still hoping to fix the martial/caster disparity, which won't happen because WOTC doesn't think it's a problem, because the disparity is only super prominent (1) at higher levels than most people actually play, and (2) at higher-optimization tables where the mages actually know which spells are overpowered and how, and most people don't play at those tables.

This, sadly. WOTC sees no issue, so WOTC won't fix the [apparent] non-issue. That's up to us.


Damage over time on an assassin?? In this action economy??

I actually quite like the idea. It needs a power bump, imo, but it is pretty darn cool.


5.5 seems to be attempting to crack down on multiclass synergies and discouraging multiclassing, but oh my goodness, maybe give some of these classes abilities that are worth staying in the class for. *13 levels of rogue* and this is what I get??

I've been saying this in every damn feedback poll since they started these UAs. If they want to prevent MC, the higher level features need to be good enough for me to want to use them instead of MC. Just one more thing WOTC seems not to understand.

[Skrum]

This, I think, is your issue. If you or your DM don’t partake in skills during social or exploration, then that will affect your view of the skilled class.



We use skills all the time. But consider these two situations -

1) the characters are attempting to gain valuable knowledge of how to beat the lich Plageris once and for all. The only one who knows how to kill Plageris is the Sage of the Mountain, but he won't tell them anything unless they prove that their cause is just. But before that, they need to scale the Tower of Ellisis, a massive natural rock formation in the Shadow Mountains.

So, the players make a survival check to the find Tower of Ellisis
They make an athletics check to climb the Tower
They make a persuasion check to convince the Sage

Each of the these, and all skill checks, are simple pass/fail rolls where each skill encompasses a huge amount of different tasks. Minutes or even hours of in-game effort are condensed into a single roll.

2) while trying to find the Tower of Ellisis, the characters are ambushed by a raiding party of hobgoblins. In total, they are fighting a hobgoblin devastator, a captain, 4 soldiers, and their trained battle troll

During the battle, each character will be making turn to turn decisions about
What ability to use/attack to make, including non-standard but frequently useful things like grappling and shoving
Threat assessment, and who to attack
Movement
Positioning, particularly for flanking

And then maybe an ally goes down - now you've got to get them back up ASAP, and protect them so they don't go down again.
=========
These two examples are combat (a very well defined system with lots of different options, abilities, etc) and skills (a very low defined system where everything a simple pass/fail roll).

Players will literally make more rolls in an encounter that happens in 30 seconds of in-world time than they will doing a skill-based task that covers hours or even days of world time.

Has our table made use of skill challenges to expand on skills? Yes! But we had to do it ourselves, and it's still nothing compared to the wealth of options and development that combat has

[RSP]

We use skills all the time. But consider these two situations -

1) the characters are attempting to gain valuable knowledge of how to beat the lich Plageris once and for all. The only one who knows how to kill Plageris is the Sage of the Mountain, but he won't tell them anything unless they prove that their cause is just. But before that, they need to scale the Tower of Ellisis, a massive natural rock formation in the Shadow Mountains.

So, the players make a survival check to the find Tower of Ellisis
They make an athletics check to climb the Tower
They make a persuasion check to convince the Sage

Each of the these, and all skill checks, are simple pass/fail rolls where each skill encompasses a huge amount of different tasks. Minutes or even hours of in-game effort are condensed into a single roll.

Why? Each of those can be much, much more than simple pass/fail rolls. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such endeavors being resolved as such.

It’s within the DM’s power to resolve them that way, but it’s very much a choice, and one I’ve never seen utilized.



These two examples are combat (a very well defined system with lots of different options, abilities, etc) and skills (a very low defined system where everything a simple pass/fail roll).

Players will literally make more rolls in an encounter that happens in 30 seconds of in-world time than they will doing a skill-based task that covers hours or even days of world time.

Has our table made use of skill challenges to expand on skills? Yes! But we had to do it ourselves, and it's still nothing compared to the wealth of options and development that combat has

Again, if you (or your DM) chooses to resolve the first part with a pass / fail roll, that’s their choice. The system empowers DM to make that choice, or choose to flesh all that out into mini campaigns of their own.

“We chose to play 5e a very specific way which essentially eliminated out of combat role playing, social encounters and any sort of exploration in favor of combat filling all our playing time, so 5e is bad at anything but combat” isn’t a valid argument here, in my opinion.

[Skrum]

“We chose to play 5e a very specific way which essentially eliminated out of combat role playing, social encounters and any sort of exploration in favor of combat filling all our playing time, so 5e is bad at anything but combat” isn’t a valid argument here, in my opinion.

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear - we've *done* that. I've run hexcrawl-style where characters need to make navigation rolls (of which there are different types with different DC's with different outcomes), a method to find the path after being lost, they need to find shelter or be exposed to the elements and make more rolls associated with that...

The hexcrawl-style games are at the top end of complexity of our skill challenges, but quite frequently DM's incorporate skill challenges that are some variation on "X successes before Y failures" with small setbacks or penalties for failing individual checks as well as changing outcomes based on overall success.

These features are fun, and DM's put quite a bit of thought and care into them.

But that doesn't change two things
1) we made up this stuff on our own. The core game has very VERY little guidance on ways to use skill checks outside of "identify what the task is, pick a relevant skill, make a pass/fail roll." The options offered are along the lines of "hey maybe let someone use a non-standard ability score for a check, if it makes more sense."

2) the BBEG is never defeated in a skill challenge. Point being, skill checks, even in skill-heavy games, are about GETTING to the final showdown. But the showdown itself is gonna involve rolling initiative. Regardless of how combat-heavy our particular table is (I've been playing DND for 20 years with a variety of players; our table is not an outlier in this regard), I seriously doubt that even the most skill-check based games get to triumph over the Main Bad Guy without throwing down. DND is a cinematic, heroic experience. I.e., classes that don't have the tools to contribute to the climax of a story are getting short-changed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

2) the BBEG is never defeated in a skill challenge. Point being, skill checks, even in skill-heavy games, are about GETTING to the final showdown. But the showdown itself is gonna involve rolling initiative. Regardless of how combat-heavy our particular table is (I've been playing DND for 20 years with a variety of players; our table is not an outlier in this regard), I seriously doubt that even the most skill-check based games get to triumph over the Main Bad Guy without throwing down. DND is a cinematic, heroic experience. I.e., classes that don't have the tools to contribute to the climax of a story are getting short-changed.

Funny story--

I had an arc end when the BBEG was talked into a logical contradiction and suffered a catastrophic reality failure as a result. I'd expected it to come to blows, but I couldn't actually see a way consistent with the character of the enemy to force that based on what the players did.

And if you're not letting that happen at least some times...yeah. Maybe give it a try. It makes a large difference.

[RSP]

1) we made up this stuff on our own. The core game has very VERY little guidance on ways to use skill checks outside of "identify what the task is, pick a relevant skill, make a pass/fail roll." The options offered are along the lines of "hey maybe let someone use a non-standard ability score for a check, if it makes more sense."

As I understand it, the “very little guidance” is to not pidgeonhole DMs into playing a certain way.

If a table, indeed, only likes combat, then resolve your previous skill challenges as pass / fail and move onto the next combat - it’s what’s best to get that table to its most fun.

But it can also be expansive and challenging in how RP and players’ choices impact the skills, if that’s what the table enjoys.

It’s also meant to be flexible with what DMs want to be possible in their campaigns.



2) the BBEG is never defeated in a skill challenge. Point being, skill checks, even in skill-heavy games, are about GETTING to the final showdown. But the showdown itself is gonna involve rolling initiative. Regardless of how combat-heavy our particular table is (I've been playing DND for 20 years with a variety of players; our table is not an outlier in this regard), I seriously doubt that even the most skill-check based games get to triumph over the Main Bad Guy without throwing down. DND is a cinematic, heroic experience. I.e., classes that don't have the tools to contribute to the climax of a story are getting short-changed.

As PhoenixPhyre stated, but also, what are the Players (or their PCs) doing with their skills? What RP interactions are they pursuing? If you convince the BBEG’s lieutenant to turn on the BBEG (maybe by promising them they can supplant the BBEG if you work together), and buy time to enact a scheme where the lieutenant can undermine the BBEG’s authority; and succeed in the plan, the BBEG encounter maybe IS defeated by skill checks, in that you’re no longer fighting the BBEG and their minions, but rather the BBEG is fighting you and their own minions. Maybe the Relic of Whatever they relied upon was switched out, or turned off, or whatever, and they’re less of a threat. Or maybe they’ve just been sapped of whatever authority they had and run off, powerless.

This may or may not be a fun, fulfilling end of the storyline for the table: that depends on the make up of the table and how the interactions play out.

But nothing in the rules says you can’t do this, or that the BBEG has to just be some bag of HPs that can’t be interacted with outside of combat.

[clash]

As I understand it, the “very little guidance” is to not pidgeonhole DMs into playing a certain way.

If a table, indeed, only likes combat, then resolve your previous skill challenges as pass / fail and move onto the next combat - it’s what’s best to get that table to its most fun.

But it can also be expansive and challenging in how RP and players’ choices impact the skills, if that’s what the table enjoys.

It’s also meant to be flexible with what DMs want to be possible in their campaigns.



As PhoenixPhyre stated, but also, what are the Players (or their PCs) doing with their skills? What RP interactions are they pursuing? If you convince the BBEG’s lieutenant to turn on the BBEG (maybe by promising them they can supplant the BBEG if you work together), and buy time to enact a scheme where the lieutenant can undermine the BBEG’s authority; and succeed in the plan, the BBEG encounter maybe IS defeated by skill checks, in that you’re no longer fighting the BBEG and their minions, but rather the BBEG is fighting you and their own minions. Maybe the Relic of Whatever they relied upon was switched out, or turned off, or whatever, and they’re less of a threat. Or maybe they’ve just been sapped of whatever authority they had and run off, powerless.

This may or may not be a fun, fulfilling end of the storyline for the table: that depends on the make up of the table and how the interactions play out.

But nothing in the rules says you can’t do this, or that the BBEG has to just be some bag of HPs that can’t be interacted with outside of combat.

To add to this point. Any engaging boss battle I have ran always includes skill checks to some degree. Do you need to hide behind a pillar to gain advantage - stealth. Do I need to shut down a portal to prevent minions from being summoned -arcana. Do I need to scale the wall to attack a flying enemy - athletics. Do I need to find the boss use my hearing to pinpoint a boss that keeps turning invisible - perception. Do I need to disprove an illusion - investigation. They don't fight a boss in a vacuum a good number of the ones I play with have environmental effects.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm curious what everyone else thinks of it. Is it stepping on the Monk's Stunning Strike feature too much? Is it too much overlap with the weapon masteries?
I think weapon mastery was poorly implemented, and also is not aesthetic (swapping weapons out each turn).

"Weapon Mastery" should instead be "Combat Mastery" and take a form similar to Cunning Strike, which allows the martial interesting options turn by turn to take advantage of as the opportunity arises in combat, or as the party forces with strategy and tactics in combat.

So I think Cunning Strike is a great step in the right direction. I can't comment on the Sneak Attack cost because I'm not familiar enough with rogues (I don't play them and no one in my group has played one). But I think this concept should be expanded to Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks in some form.

[sayaijin]

I think weapon mastery was poorly implemented, and also is not aesthetic (swapping weapons out each turn).

"Weapon Mastery" should instead be "Combat Mastery" and take a form similar to Cunning Strike, which allows the martial interesting options turn by turn to take advantage of as the opportunity arises in combat, or as the party forces with strategy and tactics in combat.

So I think Cunning Strike is a great step in the right direction. I can't comment on the Sneak Attack cost because I'm not familiar enough with rogues (I don't play them and no one in my group has played one). But I think this concept should be expanded to Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks in some form.

I know they want this 6e or whatever they want to call it to be backwards compatible, but I almost wonder if the game should have two bonus actions. Then combat masteries, or maneuvers, or cunning strikes, or whatever can be a bonus action. Then to nerf spellcasters slightly, you make some spells take both an action and a bonus action to cast and some require an action and two bonus actions....

And... We've reinvented PF2e

[Kane0]

And... We've reinvented PF2e

I know it's blasphemy to say, but thats not inherently a bad thing. There are however many steps required to get there, and many stopping points along the way.

Every time i hear 'PF2e does that' i think 'yeah just like X is from 4e and 3.PF did Y first'. Crosspollination and self-reference is almost a feature of the hobby.

[Dr.Samurai]

Pathfinder has two bonus actions?

Well, to Kane0's point, Pathfinder did originate from 3.5. And in 3.5, IIRC, you had your Standard Action, Move Action, Swift Action, Free Action, and I think an Immediate Reaction?

[OvisCaedo]

Pathfinder 2 has more of an... action point system? Three actions a turn, some special actions cost multiple. I think spellcasting you can spend more actions on to do more components for stronger effects, or, something?

the action economy had potential but there was so much else about pf2 that I hated in the beta test that I never really kept up with how it all turned out. The way numbers and stuff scaled just felt horrible.

[Kane0]

Its almost the 3e action system but sort of disguised as action points. You have three actions, with most 'swift' and 'move' actions costing 1, 'standard' actions costing 2 actions and 'full round' actions costing 3. The multi-attack penalty and such is still there too.

[sayaijin]

My point was just that there seems to be a push to give martials something to do after an attack like we see in the masteries or with cunning strike, and it might just be easier to give them an extra unit in combat (action, bonus action, whatever). Of course having three units of time in combat starts to sound a lot like having three actions.

There's already precedent for using movement as a resource actually. The aim cunning action technically requires both your bonus action and your movement. I wonder if one way spellcasters could be nerfed would be that they have to use two "units" to cast a spell.

Back to the original topic though, I hope they continue to give martials more to do that does not require them to sacrifice their damage output - seeing as that is the main draw to those classes over spellcasters. [Even though spellcasters can also be primary damage dealers]

[Witty Username]

I'd suggest that the rogue doesn't need an enhanced base damage since it is already comparable to the base damage of other classes - what is needed (if the game is keeping GWM/SS) is feats that would be useful to a rogue or monk that will comparably increase their damage in tier 3/4.


On of the nice things on that is that the playtest feats do seem to be friendlier for the rogue generally. Less so for the monk because of the martial weapon requirements.
So hopefully improvements will be had on that in comparison to the current PHB.