D&D 5E Why Good Rogues Should Not Use a Bow

[CapnZapp]

As a primary weapon. If you can't melee someone of course pull out a bow.

This thread is about a tendency of Rogues in 5E to default to a bow which to me is actually such a bad option you have in effect nerfed your PC.

In one case IRL one Rogue player asked me why his Rogue was sucking and I told him to get his ass into melee. The following week he was still hovering at the back plinking away for not much damage with a short bow. This is compounded by the Rogues mobility where some players use them as skirmishers that hang back as far as they can and often not achieve much. Even worse some of them do not ready an action and just fire a short bow for 1d6+3 (or 4 or 5) damage. This happens a bit due to dex based rogues winning initiative a lot. There are basically 3 types of Rogues in 5E.

Brave Rogues (Rogues that melee)
*snip vulgarity; please keep it clean -Darkness* Rogues ("Scouts" or "Skirmishers")
Brutal Rogues (keyed off strength or dex as secondary stat)

So why is using a bow so bad? Put simply because melee is so much better as the Rogue is built around sneak attack. A good Rogue wants to maximise that sneak attack potential and this means getting in melee and using 2 weapons. In effect you have doubled your chance of hitting and getting in sneak attack damage.

Also short bow 1d6+whatever.
Rapier 1d8+ whatever.

Elves and multiclass rogues get an upgrade to a long bow but the basic Rogue deals more damage with a rapier.

The other reason is firing into melee imposes a -2 penalty to hit. So not only have you halved your chance to get a sneak attack in you have sucked up a further -2 penalty a lot of the time to get that sneak attack in.

Around about now though someone may bring up the sharp shooter idea. This negates the -2 penalty for firing into melee. Ok kewl now you are back to where a normal rogue is not using a feat so its more or less a wash. You do get to use the -5/+10 part of sharpshooter but I would like to point out why it is a bad idea for rogues. With a Ranger or fighter using those feats you get multiple attacks and as long as around 50% of your attacks can be expected to hit the -5/+10 part of the sharp shooter feat is worth using. The -5 part causing a miss is hard on rogues as you have also missed out on dealing sneak attack damage. If you can get buffed and get your hit ratio above 50% the Rogue is also limited to a single attack and +10 damage on that is not that impressive compared to multi attacking PCs getting +10 damage per attack.

A melee Rogue can easily get +5-+10 damage without the -5 penalty. A single level of fighter gives you the two weapon style which lets you add dex to damage with your off hand. The sharpshooter feat also requires a feat to use as well (well duh) and fails to take into account the opportunity cost. A melee Rogue can take sentinel and try to get in extra sneak attacks probably dealing more damage overall than the sharpshooter Rogue using -5/+1-0 damage. Or the Rogue could take magic initiate pick up Green Flame Blade, mage armor (+1 AC) and another cantrip gaining an extra dice or more damage anyway without having to take a -5 penalty. A dual wielding Rogue can also use 2 rapiers for an extra 1d8 damage and +1 AC (via a feat) and gains the ability to switch between a bow and rapier in the same round (or draw another weapon for TWF). If that TWF Rogue has that fighter level they deal an extra 1d8+3 minimum extra damage and double their chance to sneak attack. How is that sharpshooter feat looking now?

But Zard you may ask this also over looks the other main appeal of a *snip vulgarity; please keep it clean -Darkness* Rogue, that being the Rogue gets to avoid taking damage. That is technically true but this should only matter for low level rogues and parties lacking healing. At 5th level you get uncanny dodge and the difference between a a Rogues AC and a warriors AC is often 1 or 2 points. Not only is having an extra body at on the front lines diverting NPC attacks it is also reducing NPC's damage potential via uncanny dodge. If you get hit hard then default to using a bow and hiding at the back. Rogues still have hit dice based healing to use, clerics exist along with the healing domain and healer feat.

The final point is a bit more metagame based. Magic short swords, rapiers, and daggers tend to me more common than magic bows in published adventures. Magic hand crossbows do not seem to exist in WotC APs. A bonus to hit is way better for a Rogue than most other class and there are a few finesse weapons in PotA for example.

Now I am not saying never use a bow but is is the weaker option. If you are low on hit points or lack the range by all means use one. Just do not default to using a bow. If you are using a bow and finding your Rogue to be underwhelming that is why.

I find this amusing.

I *think* you are trying to amuse yourself at the expense of power gamers, but if you are, you're failing.

Nobody would use a bow, that's true. But that doesn't mean melee holds a candle to ranged combat (unfortunately).

At the very end you mention the crossbow for the first time - let that be a hint to you.

Another hint: there is a way to gain the same main benefit as dual-wielding gives you (a second attack) while still remaining at range.

Another hint: there is a way to gain the exact same benefit that two weapon style gives you (adding dex to your second attack) without having to multiclass into fighter. Bonus hint: this approach even lets you pick a regular weapon style, in effect giving you two! (All with no multiclassing)

Another hint: there is a way to effectively fight just as well in melee as with melee weapons (no disadvantage when you're in melee) even without actually using melee weapons.

Another hint: this approach still allows the -5/+10 damage amplifier, so that the base damage is low:ish (d6) matters very little. Of course, as a good power gamer you would know this amplifier doesn't really work well together with sneak attacks, since the value of -5/+10 diminishes rapidly with higher base damage, so maybe you should ask yourself if your Good Rogue would even play a Rogue when there is a class offering as many as four base attacks to top off with your bonus attack?

But I'll grant you that this (not so) secret approach is clearly broken and is destroying the game we both love and WotC should have caught it and never have allowed it.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

Admittedly, this will depend on whether or not your DM allows you to use cover to hide-and-shoot, and to lean around cover/corners and shoot without losing stealth.
...

Unfortunately I am only DMing 5e.
How I ruled it lately:
1) shooting without losing stealth: impossible, unless special ability says so (feat, spell, ...)
2) leave cover, shoot, move back to cover, hide: only works if the rogue has more than
one place to "re-appear", depends on terrain and size of cover

Examples for 2):
- rogue hides behind a 1-foot pillar: no more sneak on next try, too easy to spot,
no big deal which side of the pillar he re-appears, easy to track
- rogue hides behind corner of big house, no sneak, always re-appears at same spot, see 1)
- rogue hides behind corner of small house, re-appears next time on roof or other side: sneak,
because unpredictable

 

[Caliburn101]

Actually a good Rogue uses a bow when going into melee would be a bad idea and keeps a bow handy so as not to be a one-trick pony, whilst favouring melee attacks wherever feasible.

 

[Zardnaar]

I find this amusing.

I *think* you are trying to amuse yourself at the expense of power gamers, but if you are, you're failing.

Nobody would use a bow, that's true. But that doesn't mean melee holds a candle to ranged combat (unfortunately).

At the very end you mention the crossbow for the first time - let that be a hint to you.

Another hint: there is a way to gain the same main benefit as dual-wielding gives you (a second attack) while still remaining at range.

Another hint: there is a way to gain the exact same benefit that two weapon style gives you (adding dex to your second attack) without having to multiclass into fighter. Bonus hint: this approach even lets you pick a regular weapon style, in effect giving you two! (All with no multiclassing)

Another hint: there is a way to effectively fight just as well in melee as with melee weapons (no disadvantage when you're in melee) even without actually using melee weapons.

Another hint: this approach still allows the -5/+10 damage amplifier, so that the base damage is low:ish (d6) matters very little. Of course, as a good power gamer you would know this amplifier doesn't really work well together with sneak attacks, since the value of -5/+10 diminishes rapidly with higher base damage, so maybe you should ask yourself if your Good Rogue would even play a Rogue when there is a class offering as many as four base attacks to top off with your bonus attack?

But I'll grant you that this (not so) secret approach is clearly broken and is destroying the game we both love and WotC should have caught it and never have allowed it.

It takes a while to come online though, level 12 (10 if human) if you want that 20 dexterity with the default array.

Its also assuming feats are allowed.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Nobody has mentioned that attacking With Advantage from being Hidden pretty much doubles Your chance of scoring a Sneak Attack Critical Hit compared to attacking With pseudo-advantage from TWF? Rolling all those Sneak Attack dice twice is a big deal.

 

[Awesome Adam]

Fine, but let's also not pretend that official rules from official sources are any more meaningful than house rules that I just made up.

That is wrong on soo many levels. Official rules, from official sources, are the baseline game. House rules, you just made up, only matter, at best, to your gaming group.

We can all assume that the default rules for the base game are in effect, unless they aren't.

Agreed.

Default rules mean fast healing, no feats, no multiclassing, no flanking, no third-party or SCAG or AG or UA or anything.

Your describing the baseline rules. If you are playing without the rules for feats, multiclassing, and flanking that not the "default" D&D 5E, your playing a limited version of the game, where you are willingly ignoring parts of it.

Once you cross that line, all bets are off.

No. I'm not making up rules that only I know. We're discussing a rule, that you clearly know about, but chose not to use, not something you have no reasonalbe chance about knowing about.

That's great for you, but there's no way that anyone else could know what you're talking about unless you specifically tell them what relevant changes you have made beyond the default game.

Other than reading the official rulebooks, or this forum, or the fact I was specifically discussing flanking being an official rule and not a houserule.

It's no different than if you had a house rule that sneak attack applied to every attack, or worked with heavy weapons.

Again, it's completely different. Flanking is an actual rule from the DMG, all of your example are ridiculous houserules you've made up off the top of your head, that no one would have any knowledge of.

The rules in the book support both official and house options equally.

Exactly. I was complaining about people pretending printed rules, from a core rulebook, are not widely known, or are as trivial as some DM's houserule, because they themselves choose not to use the rule.

Do you not use the Hat of Disguise, because it's in the DMG ?
Are you going to argue that if I use the Hat of Disguise I'm using a houserule, because it's not in the Player's Handbook ?

Please don't bother anwering the last two questions, they are rhetorical.

To me there is no difference between the rules for Hat of Disguise and for Flanking. You are not some sort of weirdo if you use either, and you shouldn't be considered some sort of outlier if you do.

 

[Yunru]

That is wrong on soo many levels. Official rules, from official sources, are the baseline game. House rules, you just made up, only matter, at best, to your gaming group.



Agreed.



Your describing the baseline rules. If you are playing without the rules for feats, multiclassing, and flanking that not the "default" D&D 5E, your playing a limited version of the game, where you are willingly ignoring parts of it.


No. I'm not making up rules that only I know. We're discussing a rule, that you clearly know about, but chose not to use, not something you have no reasonalbe chance about knowing about.


Other than reading the official rulebooks, or this forum, or the fact I was specifically discussing flanking being an official rule and not a houserule.


Again, it's completely different. Flanking is an actual rule from the DMG, all of your example are ridiculous houserules you've made up off the top of your head, that no one would have any knowledge of.



Exactly. I was complaining about people pretending printed rules, from a core rulebook, are not widely known, or are as trivial as some DM's houserule, because they themselves choose not to use the rule.

Do you not use the Hat of Disguise, because it's in the DMG ?
Are you going to argue that if I use the Hat of Disguise I'm using a houserule, because it's not in the Player's Handbook ?

Please don't bother anwering the last two questions, they are rhetorical.

To me there is no difference between the rules for Hat of Disguise and for Flanking. You are not some sort of weirdo if you use either, and you shouldn't be considered some sort of outlier if you do.

Wow, what a fallacy. Hat of Disguise is nowhere near the same as the Flanking rules. Why? Because Hat of Disguise isn't listed as optional.

Flanking is an official, optional, houserule. Nothing more.

 

[TwoSix]

That is wrong on soo many levels. Official rules, from official sources, are the baseline game. House rules, you just made up, only matter, at best, to your gaming group.

Isn't it fairly obvious that there's a spectrum of commonality of rule use?

1) Rules like stats, PHB races, and PHB classes, which you would need to explicitly explain to people that you're NOT using to have a meaningful conversation? (And you still might get some raised eyebrows.)
2) Rules like feats and multiclassing, which most people will assume you're using, but won't raise the aforementioned eyebrows if you say you've discarded.
3) Optional rules like flanking, or rest variants, or spell points, which people won't assume you're using, but will certainly have knowledge of if you bring it up, and will often have enough familiarity with to make points regarding their inclusion.
4) Homebrewed rules, whether self-created or collected from non-WotC sources. You always need to specify you're using these if you want any reliable feedback that touches on them. Only in the case of the most widespread homebrew do you have the chance that anyone will have familiarity with the concept.

There's a big difference between magic items, which are between 1 and 2 on my list (and much closer to 1 than 2) and flanking (which is 3, and has a lot of feedback about its problematic tendencies).

 

[CapnZapp]

It takes a while to come online though, level 12 (10 if human) if you want that 20 dexterity with the default array.

Its also assuming feats are allowed.

It does assume feats are used, yes.

As for when it comes online, I'd say level 6 (or level 4 if variant human). (If you ditched Rogue and went with Fighter instead, as a good minmaxer would)

It's much better to take Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert first, and maximize Dexterity later. Not only because ranged is safer and better than melee, but because you presumably want your chosen playstyle to "come online" as early as possible.

Besides, compared to melee fighters you start with +2 to hit (from Archery style) already from the beginning; a gobsmackingly huge advantage equal to having an ability score at start of 20 already when the melee fighters have 16.

But I can completely understand if you would fight with rapier/shield or twin shortswords for the first five levels; there is no way to avoid a short-term relative loss (compared to the greataxe-wielder).

Z

PS. Again, I'm not saying this to tout an OMGWFTBBQ build you gotta try. Instead I want to showcase a build I believe is harmful to the game - the only way to increase pressure on WotC to remove/nerf it is to build awareness that 1) yes, it really is this good and 2) yes, it really overshadows other martial builds.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nobody has mentioned that attacking With Advantage from being Hidden pretty much doubles Your chance of scoring a Sneak Attack Critical Hit compared to attacking With pseudo-advantage from TWF? Rolling all those Sneak Attack dice twice is a big deal.

Sure, but the mathematical impact is insignificant.

Sure the chance of a crit is "pretty much" doubled, but in absolute terms, the increase is only +4.75 percentage units. And even 10d6 (at 20th level) is, at 5%, only +7 damage on average, not worth your attention (especially at that level).

Instead you should focus on the way sneak attack is phrased: "Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature..."

That "once per turn" means you can inflict sneak damage once on your turn, and once more on somebody else's turn. Suddenly you're talking about +35 damage per round.

So I'd forget about criticals if I were you and instead exploring ways to make your reaction trigger as many rounds as possible (such as from an Opportunity Attack or an warlord-like ability of one of your allies)

Of course, the best scenario would be if you somehow managed to gain legendary actions (like an Aboleth or Beholder for instance), sneak attacking your enemies after each of their turns!