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

[Ruin Explorer]

The idea of the first is to set up as a hidden sentry, picking off any individual who comes too close, or sounding the alarm if the risk becomes too great. For the second, I'm thinking an epic performance or contest that includes various feats of tumbling and agility and culminates in shooting an apple off of someone's head. Another option is an obstacle course, where the winner gets a valuable treasure. Whatever - my point is that essentially any situation that combines archery with skill use will be great for an archer-rogue. DPR isn't all there is to it.

The first situation is really complex, because you're including picking people off - take that out and the Rogue is cleanly superior, but with it in, it's too complex to analyze. You can't say the Rogue is superior - but probably he is competitive.

The second situation is essentially hiding inferior archery skills under fancy tomfoolery, which is very Rogue-ish! If you had an actual archery contest, the +1 to hit of the Fighter would eventually likely see him ahead (also any speed-shooting challenges the Rogue auto-loses, pretty much).

 

[The Hitcher]

Not arguing with specifics, but you're getting my point - a rogue archer can shine if they play to the rogue's overall strengths. Yes, they have to be more creative to have the impact a fighter gets by just headbutting people. But that's totally true to the archetypes, right?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Perception makes sense for the former. Once the shooting starts, you'd be better with a Fighter, but it's good until then. What about the latter, though?

Honestly, it depends what they are guarding. If their goal isn't to start any fights, just to make sure no one gets past them then it doesn't matter how good a fighter they are. They can nudge the fighter next to them when they see people approaching and have him kill them or raise an alarm and have everyone kill them. Even if it comes to a fight, it's better to have a Rogue who spotted the people trying to sneak past him and have a fight at ALL than have the fighter miss them and have the treasure stolen with no fight.

Besides, the original question was "Can an elf rogue be a DECENT archer in 5e?" I'd suggest that compared to all the other classes that don't get Extra attack, they are significantly better. Which I'd say makes them decent. And, as I've said before, who does the most damage in a round will swing randomly between Rogue and Fighter in a battle. Especially if we are considering an Archer Rogue with a Sword and Board Fighter which will likely happen in many games.

Yes, Fighters who want to be archers will be the best at it. But if we judge how good archers are based on their damage per round alone, then (assuming 5th level characters where both the fighter and rogue have an 18 dex and assuming an AC 12 target) on a scale of "Character with an 8 Dex picks up a bow without proficiency in it"(1.225) to "Fighter who chose the Archery class feature"(13.6) then the Rogue(11.625) is about 85% in his effectiveness as an archer. Which I think definitely qualifies him as "decent".

And when you consider the Rogue's abilities with skills, stealth(ability to avoid battles entirely and create ambushes), maneuverability(cunning action to move in and out of combat so he won't even be there for the enemies to retaliate against or to hide entirely), and Evasion(to absorb damage) as a character they make up for their lack of damage fairly dramatically.

 

[Mistwell]

The topic is purely about Rogue archers, not Rogues in general. Archer Rogues are inferior at doing damage during combat after level 4, by anywhere between 11% and 31% (or a bit more if we factor in overkill and occasional lack of SA). They also have less on-paper survivability (a great deal less, even with Evasion factored in) and control, but as Mistwell points out, if the player is crafty enough and DM agreeable, they may find it easier to pull off spectacular improvised not-on-paper actions, and to prevent themselves being a viable target at all by hiding. That's non-quantifiable, and doesn't directly relate to archery, by and large.

Wait wait wait. It absolutely relates to archery. You start your attack at range with archery. But you can (full) move, then shoot, then (full) move as a rogue. If you do this with the shot taking place still at just inside regular range, then you have made yourself a MUCH harder target for your foe. First, you can much more easily use cover. Second, you can much more easily use long range. Third, you much less frequently risk attacks of opportunity from your foe or their allies. All around, the archer range has a great deal of defensive advantage over the melee rogue. You don't have to be particularly crafty - pretty much anyone knows a wall provides better cover than open territory, and that it's often easier to get to a wall if you don't have to run up to a foe first before running to the wall.

The repeated assertions about being better at killing sentries are in error post-level-4, repeating them does not change that. Due to high stealth skills, Rogue archers may have an easier time approaching sentries, but must get within 30ft to use SA/Assasination

No "may" about it. It's a heck of a lot easier to get surprise from range, than it is from right next to something! And as your PS noted, there is no more 30 feet requirement. Our half-elf, who has a 35 move, will hide and move within range, assassinate, and then retreat another 35 feet. Now the target, if they survived, typically still cannot even get to the rogue (if they can even find him) with even a double move. It's a lot easier for that archer rogue to deal with the sentries than the melee rogue.

If there are two guards, the Rogue is screwed, sadly, unless they can't see each other, and the DM kindly rules that your attack killed one without causing a commotion (so this relies largely on DM co-operation and player persuasiveness).

Usually there is blocking terrain somewhere within range of your target, so the rogue is not screwed they are instead retreating and hiding again, typically further away than their target can reach in even a double move.

As for the rest of your analysis involving feats and such, let's leave feats out of this as they're purely optional.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wait wait wait. It absolutely relates to archery. You start your attack at range with archery. But you can (full) move, then shoot, then (full) move as a rogue. If you do this with the shot taking place still at just inside regular range, then you have made yourself a MUCH harder target for your foe. First, you can much more easily use cover. Second, you can much more easily use long range. Third, you much less frequently risk attacks of opportunity from your foe or their allies. All around, the archer range has a great deal of defensive advantage over the melee rogue. You don't have to be particularly crafty - pretty much anyone knows a wall provides better cover than open territory, and that it's often easier to get to a wall if you don't have to run up to a foe first before running to the wall.

I agree - but it's not really quantifiable.

No "may" about it. It's a heck of a lot easier to get surprise from range, than it is from right next to something! And as your PS noted, there is no more 30 feet requirement. Our half-elf, who has a 35 move, will hide and move within range, assassinate, and then retreat another 35 feet. Now the target, if they survived, typically still cannot even get to the rogue (if they can even find him) with even a double move. It's a lot easier for that archer rogue to deal with the sentries than the melee rogue.

Yes - but easier for an archer Fighter than an archer Rogue, if we're talking dropping sentries. Both will be firing from 150ft or so if they can anyway. There are situations which will favour the Rogue, though. Actually the main problem I can potentially see here is that with Cunning Action a Rogue could go SO "stealth mission" that they might tie up the DM for quite a while trying to resolve this whole thing!

Usually there is blocking terrain somewhere within range of your target, so the rogue is not screwed they are instead retreating and hiding again, typically further away than their target can reach in even a double move.

No, they're screwed because the guard is screaming for help and sounding the alarm, not because he's able to kill them. Sorry to be unclear.

In order to kill two guards the Rogue has to separate them from each other somehow - this might actually be easier for a melee Rogue because he can hold bodies instead of having them fall.

As for the rest of your analysis involving feats and such, let's leave feats out of this as they're purely optional.

Be interesting to see how that plays out when the game goes live. People without feats are going to see significantly different performance from certain setups and classes. Archery Master is huge for any archer.

 

[The Hitcher]

I agree - but it's not really quantifiable.

Unquantifiable factors are still relevant (and become quantifiable with enough testing (which WotC have done).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unquantifiable factors are still relevant (and become quantifiable with enough testing (which WotC have done).

I think you're missing the point - they're relevant but they're not quantifiable, so making strong claims based on their value is unreasonable.

Also "which WotC have done" - if you really think WotC's playtesting was that strong, I sincerely hope you will not be making any complaints about 5E's mechanics, post-release.

 

[The Hitcher]

And I think YOU'RE missing the point, because the OP's question was about the feasibility of an archer rogue in play. In that regard, the posters who gave actual play reports of archer rogues doing well are worth more than all the DPR analysis in the kingdom. Because even if many of the factors in the archer rogue's effectiveness are unmeasurable, they are sill missing from the DPR analysis, which makes its practical usefulness limited.

And I reserve the right to complain or not complain about 5E post release, but my complaints are much more likely to be based on unquantifiable factors like "flavour" than supposedly-more-quantifiable things like "game balance" (which is much less of an issue in RPGs than some would have you believe).

EDIT: And was their playtesting "that strong"? It certainly had quantity of testers on its side. In regards to quality, well that's obviously less quantifiable But everything I've heard from Mike and Rodney gives me hope that they're on the right track.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you're missing the point - they're relevant but they're not quantifiable, so making strong claims based on their value is unreasonable.

No, I hear claims like that all the time regarding basketball stats from newbie basketball fans. They look at things like points scored, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and then when someone brings up things which are much more difficult to quantity as a number (but which have real impact on the game for anyone who watches the game) like "ability to create your own shot" and "harassing defense" and "get's into passing lanes" and "always in the right spot" and such, they ignore them because it's harder to put a number on them.

And yet, those types of things existed in baseball, and people did the same thing there, until finally they WERE able to put numbers on them. And things changed - drastically - in the entire sport. Because those formerly-difficult-to-quantify things were having a huge impact on the game all along, and most people knew it by simply looking but they were having a hard time putting a number on it. And now, it even arguably changed who won the world series.

The ability to move more than your foe, to take advantage of cover and concealment and the ability to hide and move silently, these all are quantifiable things. You could calculate the percentages for how often it comes up in an average scenario (using a statistically relevant number of published scenarios or something), the average decrease in damage taken, or the average increase in damage done to the foe over time, and the ratios of damage done to damage received, etc..

It's just that they are harder to quantify than average DPR from a long sword, or armor class. But everyone who plays the game sees the power of those other things, and knows they are having significant impacts on the game.

It is perfectly acceptable to say "I might not know what impact this has on average damage, but I know, and everyone who plays the game knows, it has a huge impact on the game quite often". That's not an unreasonable thing to do.

The unreasonable thing to do is to pretend that, because you're having a hard time pinning a number on an ability, that no claims should be made about that thing concerning the game.

 

[The Hitcher]

Well said, Mistwell. Stats only tell you what they tell you, and nothing that they don't. As the expression goes: "There's three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics".