D&D 5E Can an elf rogue be a decent archer in (Basic) D&D 5th edition?

[TerraDave]

I was going to say something similar (although Basic Rogue will likely have the Thief subclass, but it's not important here), but in fact I am a bit worried about sneak attack being too easy to do with ranged weapons.

I was thinking the same thing.

Can't we ever be satisfied.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yep. Your attack bonus and basic damage are equal to that of a fighter with a bow (assuming you take advantage of your racial proficiency with longbow). You won't get extra attacks like a fighter, ranger, barbarian, or paladin would, but sneak attack can make up for that and is pretty easy to get. You're also highly mobile when you want to be, so it's hard to pin you down or trap you in melee when you want to be ranged.

Sounds like a bow fighter gains HP and armored defenses and flexibility with weapons (ie, they're not as locked-down into a bow), while a bow rogue gains mobility and agile defenses and flexibility with skills (ie, they're not as locked-down into being an expert in one field), which is pretty much the trade-off I think most folks were looking for.

 

[Agamon]

This made me look up the text, and it's quite interesting. I always assumed that the rogue had to also be within 5' of the target to get sneak attack without advantage (essentially a really loose type of "flanking"), but it doesn't appear to actually say that. The text can be interpreted to let the rogue freely sneak attack anyone from a distance, as long as that person is engaged with a hostile within 5'.

Am I interpreting this correctly, or should I stick with my first gut instinct?

That is correct. Basically, the opponent is busy focusing on the engaged person, and the rogue can take advantage of it (though he doesn't get Advantage for it...poor word choice on my part)

 

[Kobold Stew]

Sounds like a bow fighter gains HP and armored defenses and flexibility with weapons (ie, they're not as locked-down into a bow), while a bow rogue gains mobility and agile defenses and flexibility with skills (ie, they're not as locked-down into being an expert in one field), which is pretty much the trade-off I think most folks were looking for.

Yup.

More: The fighter also gets extra attacks at higher levels, which means more potential victims, as opposed to the rogue who focuses on one.

Both builds benefit with a level of the other (or with 2 Ranger, since both map onto the two fighting styles that the Ranger in the play test chooses between).

I prefer the straight rogue, to be honest.

 

[Mistwell]

This made me look up the text, and it's quite interesting. I always assumed that the rogue had to also be within 5' of the target to get sneak attack without advantage (essentially a really loose type of "flanking"), but it doesn't appear to actually say that. The text can be interpreted to let the rogue freely sneak attack anyone from a distance, as long as that person is engaged with a hostile within 5'.

Am I interpreting this correctly, or should I stick with my first gut instinct?

Yup that is how it works. He gets sneak attack whenever his opponent is off-guard due to distraction from fighting someone else, even if the rogue attack is with a bow from 30 feet away.

 

[Jiggawatts]

So basically Haley Starshine is actually a viable character in 5E. This is a good thing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was going to say something similar (although Basic Rogue will likely have the Thief subclass, but it's not important here), but in fact I am a bit worried about sneak attack being too easy to do with ranged weapons.

I don't think that this is going to be actual problem, not because it won't be easy to get, but because Sneak Attack just isn't that scary once you realize the Rogue doesn't have multiple attacks and couldn't use it multiple times/turn even if he could - it doubles the damage from the Martial Damage Dice the Rogue spends on the attack in question (not the entire attack), and those can only be used once per turn - Those dice start at 1d6 (avg. 3.5, doubled to 7) and top out at 6d6 (avg. 21, doubled 42) - nice, to be sure, but when it's once per turn on one target, I don't think it's going to make the Rogue into some sort of horror (indeed unless something fancy happens post-11 I suspect it may kind of fall behind). Imo, of course!

EDIT - Unless I am drunk and looking at an aged playtest or something.

 

[Dausuul]

This made me look up the text, and it's quite interesting. I always assumed that the rogue had to also be within 5' of the target to get sneak attack without advantage (essentially a really loose type of "flanking"), but it doesn't appear to actually say that. The text can be interpreted to let the rogue freely sneak attack anyone from a distance, as long as that person is engaged with a hostile within 5'.

Am I interpreting this correctly, or should I stick with my first gut instinct?

You are interpreting it correctly. The thing to keep in mind is that rogues are supposed to get sneak attack damage. It's their contribution to combat. They have to pay attention to the battlefield and pick their targets in order to get it, but if they do pay attention, they should be adding sneak attack damage 90% of the time.

Even with sneak attack, the fighter has a slight offensive edge over the rogue thanks to multiple attacks and better weapons. On defense, there's no comparison. In the absence of clever things to do in the environment, a rogue without sneak attack might as well just sit in the corner and suck her thumb once a fight breaks out. And there's no good reason to say "Melee rogues can sneak attack all day long but archer rogues have to sit in the corner."

The attack that rogues have to work for, and should, is Assassinate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The attack that rogues have to work for, and should, is Assassinate.

Talking of reading correctly, can you Sneak Attack and Assassinate a target at the same time, and does that maximize the Sneak Attack damage (I know crits do in 4E)? If so it is presumably included in the doubled damage if the save is also failed. That might mean that, for the first time D&D history, Rogues can reliably assassinate sentries and the like.

EDIT - I suppose even if not you will at least be using your Martial Damage Dice, without doubling them, to add to the attack, which is then, in total, maximized and potentially doubled.

 

[Dausuul]

Talking of reading correctly, can you Sneak Attack and Assassinate a target at the same time, and does that maximize the Sneak Attack damage (I know crits do in 4E)? If so it is presumably included in the doubled damage if the save is also failed. That might mean that, for the first time D&D history, Rogues can reliably assassinate sentries and the like.

EDIT - I suppose even if not you will at least be using your Martial Damage Dice, without doubling them, to add to the attack, which is then, in total, maximized and potentially doubled.

I think we're looking at different playtests. I'm going off the last public playtest from October 14th of last year. Has there been an update released?

Anyway, based on the playtest I'm looking at, Assassinate has two paragraphs. The first gives you advantage against creatures that haven't acted yet. The second says: "If you attack and hit a creature that is surprised, you score a critical hit against that creature. If you use Sneak Attack on such a critical hit, instead of rolling for your Sneak Attack damage, use the maximum result for each Sneak Attack die."

So, yes--rogues who take the Assassination style can reliably use this ability to murder sentries. A 5th-level rogue with Dex 16 and a short sword can assassinate for 1d6+21 damage (short sword crit for 1d6+6, Dex for +3, and maximized sneak attack for +12).