D&D 5E Sneak Attack: Is it broken?

[GMforPowergamers]

Hi GMForPowergamers,

I'm a programmer professionally, so I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way and I apologize if it does, but I think there's a problem with your analysis. It makes the Rogue look weaker than it actually is.

OK, I'll bite. I will start by saying I in no way think the rogue is weak, and that taking any 1 part of a class for comparison does have it's flaws...

By neglecting hit probability, your analysis renders itself meaningless.

yes and no, it only peels into one layer of the class, it's damage... accuracy involves many variables including luck... I have sat and watched 3.5 fighters (kings of accuracy) with ungodly str scores and 3 attack roll 1,2,2 and miss all three attacks, and I have watched in my current 5e game were our 8 str bard/assassin is basicly superman, and is yet to miss a str save or check.... (at 5th level he didn't want to try the str check 13 to unstick a door after the fighter failed, but decided to be funny and rolled a 15... over the last 30ish games it has become a running joke his superhuman str)

It's not enough to say "I'm not a big believer in DPR."

ok, let me explain a bit more then. I understand average damage will in the longrun come out, but in a given session or even a month or two of sessions it isn't enough rolls to bend toward the average.

Specifically, you cannot compare disintegrate with direct attacks because they have different hit probabilities; you cannot compare Rogue sneak attack with the direct attacks unless you are assuming that it's a sneak attack without advantage (i.e. neglecting Cunning Action Hide),

well 1/2 of the sneak attack is just an adjacent ally... in those cases no adv antage, just assume those numbers if it makes you feel better

BTW, why is the warlock doing d10+6 instead of d10+d6+5?

+5 cha and +1 froma magic item (implemtn) where is the d6 from?

edit: OK, I remembered hex after I submitted this... the warlock in our group misses his concentration check (with advantage and a +3 con) all the time and never keeps it for more then 2 hits...

 

[Rhenny]

Interestingly, the rogue in our group is basically all or nothing with attacks it seems. (Level 3 so far just about to get to level 4 - and many of the foes they have been facing have actually had pretty high AC - AC 16, 17 and 18 - Those pesky Earth Cultists in PoEE). So many times, he is missing, yet he does attack with primary and off hand a lot so that increases his odds of landing that sneak attack. Over the long haul, he lands some pretty nice attacks and it seems balanced overall with the fighter...just more variable.

In all actuality, I'd rather have sneak attack something that is a little harder to trigger than just when a foe is adjacent to an ally, and instead give the rogue more roguey type abilities, but that's just because I started playing with 1e where facing was a thing, and rogues didn't necessarily play the striker role.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

ok, let me explain a bit more then. I understand average damage will in the longrun come out, but in a given session or even a month or two of sessions it isn't enough rolls to bend toward the average.

Ah, I see. So you're kind of measuring the emotional kick that you get out of a successful attack--optimizing for (a certain kind of player's) fun instead of optimizing the PC's survivability. That's a valid thing to measure, especially if big damage is how you have fun.

(I'm the type that doesn't mind at all rolling low damage on a given attack--only aggregates matter to me. Five hits for 3 damage each and a single hit for 15 damage are exactly the same amount of fun, unless the little hits are rolled on d4s, because everyone hates d4s. )

+5 cha and +1 froma magic item (implemtn) where is the d6 from?

edit: OK, I remembered hex after I submitted this... the warlock in our group misses his concentration check (with advantage and a +3 con) all the time and never keeps it for more then 2 hits...

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

You can always separate the rogue from the party. Drop encounters on him solo. Engage in personal duels. There are ways to make a character shine or to make them understand their limitations. I've personally never encountered a situation where I felt Sneak Attack was too much, even in a synergistic sense - i.e. with the Battlemaster using Commander's Strike. Many opportunity attack situations that I've personall experienced don't really allow for Sneak Attack.

 

[redrick]

For a rogue to be reliably getting multiple double sneak attacks through features like Commanding Strike or a putative warlord reaction attack, they need to be in melee range of a (likely powerful) target. They can't do the old "sneak attack and hide" routine if they are making a second attack (and revealing their position) as a reaction. Nor can they do the old "sneak attack and disengage".

In my games, rogues have not done so well when locked into melee range with opponents. They're easier to hit than a heavily armored fighter and don't have the hit points to keep up.

 

[Celtavian]

After seeing sneak attack in multiple campaigns, it is most definitely not broken. It's even a little weak compared to what it was in 3E.

 

[discosoc]

Hi GMForPowergamers,

I'm a programmer professionally, so I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way and I apologize if it does, but I think there's a problem with your analysis. It makes the Rogue look weaker than it actually is.



By neglecting hit probability, your analysis renders itself meaningless. It's not enough to say "I'm not a big believer in DPR." Specifically, you cannot compare disintegrate with direct attacks because they have different hit probabilities; you cannot compare Rogue sneak attack with the direct attacks unless you are assuming that it's a sneak attack without advantage (i.e. neglecting Cunning Action Hide), because the increased reliability makes the sneak attack better than the raw damage numbers would appear. You can compare fighters to warlocks, since they will have similar hit probabilities against any given opponent, but 50% of your analysis is questionable including the part (sneak attack) that you really wanted to analyze.

BTW, why is the warlock doing d10+6 instead of d10+d6+5?

Honestly, it's kind of rare to miss attacks in 5e, especially after about level 8. AC just never scales up enough to make it a bit deal. Not on the monster side anyway.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Honestly, it's kind of rare to miss attacks in 5e, especially after about level 8. AC just never scales up enough to make it a bit deal. Not on the monster side anyway.

Sure, but it still impacts analysis. Consider an 11th level character against a Fire Giant (AC 18). The PC probably has +8 or +9 to hit, which means a 55% or 60% chance to hit. Missing is "kind of rare" in this situation, but neglecting miss chances will still mislead you into thinking that a rogue's Hide + sneak attack (damage on hit 30.50) is worse than a warlock's hex + Eldritch Blast (damage on three hits = 42) when in reality the Rogue will do slightly more damage (28.11 to 26.55). If you neglect hit probabilities the rogue looks underpowered compared to the warlock in this fight, but it's really not, even though both of them "rarely miss."

 

[Scorpio616]

And the rogue can do it himself with Sentinel or Mage Slayer. Opportunity cost: Uncanny Dodge.

And the foe has to give the OA. And then there is the variable of whether the DM runs the feats as obvious to foes or Gotcha!s.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And the foe has to give the OA. And then there is the variable of whether the DM runs the feats as obvious to foes or Gotcha!s.

Good points.

I was trying to illustrate precedents for multiple sneak attacks, moreso than making a tactical recommendation. I don't actually think Sentinel Rogues are a good idea. The anti-synergy between Sentinel, Uncanny Dodge, and melee is acute--you'd probably have to do some multiclassing in order for it not to be suicidal.

For the record, my ruling as DM is that they'd be Gotchas! for the monsters. "What, you thought you were going to charge right by the fighter and hit the wizard? Surprise, sucker! Fighter just hamstrung you. (You'll get better in six seconds.)"