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

[Yunru]

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!

Hate. Soo much hate. All of it from my players, now I've decided to pit the up against "The Legendary Thief".

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

I saw this build in action not long after 5E landed. The Fighter+SS+CE. There is opportunity cost depending on how big the party is though.

Its one reason we do not hand out magical hand crossbows.

 

[hejtmane]

So only Evil rogues should use bows? (I kid, but your post titles make me think we're talking alignment here not effectiveness). (ETA - Dang it - Tony Vargas got the joke in first...)

Anyway, this is a problem with players belief in what a rogue "should" be (the sneaky guy who is fragile and can't take hits so should stay at the back) not matching what the 5e rogue actually is (the deft swashbuckler who isn't as fragile as you think and mathematically shouldn't be getting hit very often anyway).

I've found this mostly to be a problem with players who have played D&D since the old days or who think the of rogue as "a thief, like Bilbo in the Hobbit". Not so much of a problem for players who came in post 3rd edition or who glom onto the class as more Han Solo or Jack Sparrow types than Bilbo types. Or from players who are actively looking to be an effective ranged combatant and assume that must be the rogue because it would have been a thief when they played back in the 2nd edition days (or whenever they last played).

To the first group, sitting down and giving them a good explanation of what the class mechanically really is helps. To the second group, pointing them to the ranger and saying "that's the guy you probably really want to play in this edition" helps.

I just find Ranger or Fighter/Rogue multi class to make great sniper build concepts the one big shot that does a lot of damage plays a lot differntly than the standard Fighter SS builds

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Read those parts of the book again. You have to opt into using those rules. The default state of the game is to assume you aren't using those things, but they're presented in case you want to add them. There's nothing wrong with using any of those rules, of course, but you can't just assume that they're going to fly in any game unless someone tells you otherwise.

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.

You aren't some sort of weirdo for using house rules, either. The DM is supposed to come up with their own rulings, and especially their own content (monsters, magic items, feats if you use those). Both the optional rules that are printed in the book, and house rules that you make up yourself, are supported equally.

 

[Valetudo]

Its actually really hard to keep track of everyone on a real battlefield, especially if someones trying to axe your face. So yeah Im cool with range hiding.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

Heck, my Barbarians carry Longbows for just this reason. They might all have 8 Intelligence, but they are not *that* stupid.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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.

Then why does Adventurer's league not use the Flanking rules?

 

[Valetudo]

Then why does Adventurer's league not use the Flanking rules?

AL also doesnt let you roll for stats, and unfortunately thats being pushed as core by wizards. Even though they use stat array in all their online games.

 

[Brandegoris]

This is the 2nd Post I have seen where you equate Being a "good" Player with not using or doing something. Kind of close minded. Your criteria for being a "good: player seems much different than mine for sure.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Even though they use stat array in all their online games.

Um... what? Did you mean some definition of "all their online games" that doesn't include Dice, Camera, Action? Because the characters in that game definitely did not use stat array, the human paladin had a 19 strength at level 1, and with also having another 16 and 17 for scores it is blatantly clear that rolled scores were used.