How do you feel about this? Personally, I would like to see something like this. Maybe something where rogues get sneak attack damage based on how they're attacking their enemy, so you would have lots of damage for a target completely unaware of the rogue and perhaps half of that when the rogue has advantage on attacks against the target (to model the old 2e backstab and the 3e/4e sneak attack).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Threadsplit about rogue sneak attack.
- Thread starter B.T.
- Start date
FinalSonicX
First Post
The problem with giving Rogues sneak attack if the enemy did not attack the Rogue last round is that it provides a major incentive to focus fire on the rogue in melee. This would of course lead to Rogues being much more range-friendly and also probably lead to higher rogue mortality rates. If those match the design goals for the Rogue then great! Something tells me that these outcomes do not match the goals, however 
I do like the idea of sneak attack being full on a surprise round and halved if flanking or given advantage or whatever. That's a pretty good idea. I would like to see what other ideas people have on how to implement sneak attack to make it balanced and flavorful. I'm particularly interested in ideas people have as to implementing sneak attack without resorting to more positional/facing stuff.
I do like the idea of sneak attack being full on a surprise round and halved if flanking or given advantage or whatever. That's a pretty good idea. I would like to see what other ideas people have on how to implement sneak attack to make it balanced and flavorful. I'm particularly interested in ideas people have as to implementing sneak attack without resorting to more positional/facing stuff.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
The problem with giving Rogues sneak attack if the enemy did not attack the Rogue last round is that it provides a major incentive to focus fire on the rogue in melee. This would of course lead to Rogues being much more range-friendly and also probably lead to higher rogue mortality rates. If those match the design goals for the Rogue then great! Something tells me that these outcomes do not match the goals, however
Well, my thinking was that since it's thieves getting that technique, they should be hidden whenever possible so they CAN'T be (easily) targeted. They no longer have to hide every other round just to get a chance at a sneak attack, but they should still be highly aware that they're a juicy target, and the "hide" action should still be a pretty common one.
IMO it SHOULD be a really bad tactical decision to ignore a rogue in melee; part of the thief's job is to stay the hell out of the raging ogre's line of sight, because the ogre is going to remember being repeatedly stabbed in the kidneys.
FinalSonicX
First Post
If the outcomes I explained fit the design goals, then there's nothing wrong with this approach. Something tells me, however, that the designers and most other folks probably want incentives pointing towards fighting with the fighters and other front liners rather than the squishier folks, especially since we often talk about the fighters and such "protecting" the other party members like the wizard. Note that the focus-fire on the rogue is optimally a scenario that occurs before the rogue even begins the stabbing. So long as they always target the rogue, they can avert potentially high sneak attack damage. Since Rogue HP is also relatively low, this is a safe bet since there's an actually decent chance of dropping the rogue and then from there they can switch targets back to the other party members.
Consider the following: what's the purpose of the fighter's high HP if he will never be targeted if there's a rogue in the party? Why would rogues go melee at all if they can still get their sneak attacks or "backstabs" from range? If ranged rogues are not a supported character type, why is that? These are all design issues that arise from the interesting-but-potentially flawed mechanic.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
I agree, but I would rather this the ONLY way a rogue got extra damage. Thieves should be deadly from surprise, and only fair at dealing damage otherwise.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
I'd keep the damage the same between types of attacks, but open up the ability to sneak attack. Much as 3E sneak attack, i think rogues should get to use it if:
- They go first in combat (first on the first round, or attack a surprised foe)
- If they attack from hiding
- If they attack a distracted enemy (flanked, dazed, confused, etc)
Key it off advantage; give flanking, attacking from hiding, and attacking in the surprise round advantage and it all works.
How much damage? Depends on all of the other damage factors in the game to make the math work. IMO the rogue should probably have the potential to do as much damage as , or slightly more than, the two-handed fighter. The rogue won't get advantage all the time, but should be encouraged to mix it up and try -- but still shouldn't defend as well nor consistently hit harder than the fighter to avoid being the go-to fighting class.
Restricting sneak attack to one attack per round would probably help that.
- They go first in combat (first on the first round, or attack a surprised foe)
- If they attack from hiding
- If they attack a distracted enemy (flanked, dazed, confused, etc)
Key it off advantage; give flanking, attacking from hiding, and attacking in the surprise round advantage and it all works.
How much damage? Depends on all of the other damage factors in the game to make the math work. IMO the rogue should probably have the potential to do as much damage as , or slightly more than, the two-handed fighter. The rogue won't get advantage all the time, but should be encouraged to mix it up and try -- but still shouldn't defend as well nor consistently hit harder than the fighter to avoid being the go-to fighting class.
Restricting sneak attack to one attack per round would probably help that.
Sir Brennen
Legend
Maybe multiple situational amounts would be, but two is workable. Surprise on the first round, and everything else. Heck, make them different class abilities: Ambush and Sneak Attack (or Back Stab, if one is feeling more retro.)
Ambush does 1d6 per level against a surprised target (including attacking from hiding) in the first round of combat. Sneak attack is 1d6 per 2 levels for attacks with advantage (or other suggestions presented in this thread). Both are, of course, in addition to normal weapon damage and damage from other sources. Ambush and Sneak attack do not stack.
Just some other thoughts: remember that gaining advantage usually requires an action (like Hiding). I'd avoid expanding the scope of things that give the Rogue Advantage for Sneak Attack. Maybe divorcing SA from Advantage is one way to go. So perhaps Flanking allows SA, but it doesn't grant Advantage. Spending a Move Action to aim allows SA for ranged attacks (possibly only at short range). So SA wouldn't need Advantage,but it's great to have it for an SA.
Kelvor Ravenstar
Explorer
For me, either Rogues need a lesser version of Sneak Attack that doesn't require advantage (I'd put it at half SA dice or half - 1d6 SA dice), or the ways that Rogues can get Sneak Attack should be expanded.
The best idea I've had while reading this thread was that Rogues can deal Sneak Attack damage when they have advantage OR when the creature they are attacking is attacking at disadvantage.
Currently the only ways this can occur without the Rogue already have advantage are when the target is Intoxicated, or when the target is attacking with a ranged weapon in melee. These circumstances aren't likely to come up often enough, and are a bit too complicated for the class feature. Players and DMs would have to remember whether the target had attacked with a ranged weapon on its last turn. This could in turn lead to the free action ridiculousness of monsters attacking with a bow then switching back to a melee weapon at the end of their turn.
The best tactic for Rogues to deal damage in the current playtest is to Hide-Attack-Hide, and find places to hide where they hope the DM will trigger opportunity attacks by leaving the Rogue's threatened area. Since Opportunity Attacks are reaction attacks with advantage, Rogues can deal Sneak Attack damage on OA during rounds when they have not already used their Sneak Attack. This is very situational, and will not likely occur often enough for some Rogue players to feel like their are contributing as much as possible. I know I would not like to spend my turn hiding and not be able to attack.
The best idea I've had while reading this thread was that Rogues can deal Sneak Attack damage when they have advantage OR when the creature they are attacking is attacking at disadvantage.
Currently the only ways this can occur without the Rogue already have advantage are when the target is Intoxicated, or when the target is attacking with a ranged weapon in melee. These circumstances aren't likely to come up often enough, and are a bit too complicated for the class feature. Players and DMs would have to remember whether the target had attacked with a ranged weapon on its last turn. This could in turn lead to the free action ridiculousness of monsters attacking with a bow then switching back to a melee weapon at the end of their turn.
The best tactic for Rogues to deal damage in the current playtest is to Hide-Attack-Hide, and find places to hide where they hope the DM will trigger opportunity attacks by leaving the Rogue's threatened area. Since Opportunity Attacks are reaction attacks with advantage, Rogues can deal Sneak Attack damage on OA during rounds when they have not already used their Sneak Attack. This is very situational, and will not likely occur often enough for some Rogue players to feel like their are contributing as much as possible. I know I would not like to spend my turn hiding and not be able to attack.
Steely_Dan
First Post
The only thing I can say about the Rogue is that it's a bit cluttered.
