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

[Ruin Explorer]

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).

We are - Rogues took a huge nerf going from the September to October playtests I see (I was looking at the former), so actually they're pretty rubbish - the numbers you give are right, and they're far, far lower than classes like Fighters even with 100% SA.

Also, they can no longer "work" for Assassinate in the October one - it's Surprise-only.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My group is starting to think up of characters to use with the Basic Starter Set when it comes out in July. One player wants to play an elven archer, but the missing spot in the party is the rogue. Based on what we know so far, does it seem feasible for an elven rogue to be a decent archer in combat?

Of note, you could also use a light crossbow if you really wanted to, at no appreciable loss of efficacy. The big benefit that an elven rogue would get over, say, a halfling or human rogue, is some extra range out of the longbow (and reduced weight, at an increased cost of 25gp).

The Loading property of a crossbow does not matter in the slightest to a rogue, who is limited to one attack per round (and one sneak attack) regardless.

 

[Starfox]

We are - Rogues took a huge nerf going from the September to October playtests I see (I was looking at the former), so actually they're pretty rubbish - the numbers you give are right, and they're far, far lower than classes like Fighters even with 100% SA.

Also, they can no longer "work" for Assassinate in the October one - it's Surprise-only.

If this is true its sad - I got the impression rogues could actually contribute to combat in 5E from earlier points in the thread.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If this is true its sad - I got the impression rogues could actually contribute to combat in 5E from earlier points in the thread.

It was true in October last year - no idea where WotC took it in the end, of course. There's hope!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If this is true its sad - I got the impression rogues could actually contribute to combat in 5E from earlier points in the thread.

In practice, a rogue contributes solidly (as long as your point of comparison isn't a great-weapon fighter with the currently-broken feat to deal double damage). With sneak attack, a rogue hits almost as hard as a fighter, which is really saying something.

The major trade-off is a lack of durability, which is balanced by their exceptional skill usage.

 

[Cybit]

Our Elven Archer Rogue is the single scariest contributor in battle throughout our game; and seeing as I am using the most recent ruleset for 5E that currently exists, I would most certainly not worry about their viability.

Assassinate + first round of combat = hilarity.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Our Elven Archer Rogue is the single scariest contributor in battle throughout our game; and seeing as I am using the most recent ruleset for 5E that currently exists, I would most certainly not worry about their viability.

Assassinate + first round of combat = hilarity.

I'm glad to hear this, Rogues need to be scary, not "almost as damaging as a Fighter!".

 

[Cybit]

I'm glad to hear this, Rogues need to be scary, not "almost as damaging as a Fighter!".

Most of the people in my group complain about how OP the Rogue is; hah. Class balance seems pretty well done so far; we have a monk, bard, barbarian, cleric, <redacted>, ranger, and rogue in our group. Everyone complains about how OP everyone else is. I'd say "balance achieved".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Most of the people in my group complain about how OP the Rogue is; hah. Class balance seems pretty well done so far; we have a monk, bard, barbarian, cleric, <redacted>, ranger, and rogue in our group. Everyone complains about how OP everyone else is. I'd say "balance achieved".

That's usually a good sign!

<redacted> really needs a nerf though!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm glad to hear this, Rogues need to be scary, not "almost as damaging as a Fighter!".

Assassins are scary, when they do their thing. Otherwise, rogues are still pretty scary, because they hit almost as hard as fighters and fighters are incredibly scary. Rogues aren't primarily fighters, though, so it's unfair to expect that from them.

I mean, rogues are no longer strikers and fighters are no longer defenders, but it's all way closer than it's been in any prior edition. It's a massive improvement from the old thieves of AD&D.