D&D 5E [5E] A Rogue "unnerf" - Extra Attack

[DND_Reborn]

As an aside, one of the biggest issues I have with SA is that it is universal. I preferred the old-school back-stab and don't really feel SA working against all creatures is right. However, that discussion has already been done so I am trying to rehash it; just an aside.

 

[Kinematics]

We removed expertise as a number boost. It now grants advantage. Any feature which grants "double proficiency bonus" now grants advantage instead.

Hmm. That's a rather interesting idea. And it fits in well with the idea of bounded accuracy.

The flat addition to the roll from double proficiency breaks higher difficulty caps. A level 10 rogue could have +13 Stealth, which could potentially put the total roll over 30. That's outside the bounds of what almost anyone else could get with Perception, and breaks the idea of "this is the range you can achieve at this level" semantics that you get with most skills for most classes.

It sort of breaks the contract that most contested skills would have, compared to the attack vs AC design that specifically worked to avoid that. Stealth vs Perception, Insight vs Deception, Athletics vs Acrobatics, etc. Using advantage puts it in the same design space as the combat roll mechanics, which I think almost everyone agrees is an improvement over the piecemeal bonuses of earlier editions. You can still have circumstantial bonuses (eg: partial cover), but flat bonuses to skills should be as rare as flat bonuses on weapons or armor.

It helps avoid the issue of escalating DCs just to keep the expertise characters in check, which can be impractical for non-expertise characters to even achieve.

I like it.

As a corollary to how offense vs defense works, in terms of bonus rarity, I might consider a similar disparity in "offensive" vs "defensive" skill bonuses attached to gear. EG: A bonus to Perception would be easier to find than a bonus to Stealth. But that's just a side thought, and would require digging into what's even available.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm. That's a rather interesting idea. And it fits in well with the idea of bounded accuracy.

The flat addition to the roll from double proficiency breaks higher difficulty caps. A level 10 rogue could have +13 Stealth, which could potentially put the total roll over 30. That's outside the bounds of what almost anyone else could get with Perception, and breaks the idea of "this is the range you can achieve at this level" semantics that you get with most skills for most classes.

It sort of breaks the contract that most contested skills would have, compared to the attack vs AC design that specifically worked to avoid that. Stealth vs Perception, Insight vs Deception, Athletics vs Acrobatics, etc. Using advantage puts it in the same design space as the combat roll mechanics, which I think almost everyone agrees is an improvement over the piecemeal bonuses of earlier editions. You can still have circumstantial bonuses (eg: partial cover), but flat bonuses to skills should be as rare as flat bonuses on weapons or armor.

It helps avoid the issue of escalating DCs just to keep the expertise characters in check, which can be impractical for non-expertise characters to even achieve.

I like it.

As a corollary to how offense vs defense works, in terms of bonus rarity, I might consider a similar disparity in "offensive" vs "defensive" skill bonuses attached to gear. EG: A bonus to Perception would be easier to find than a bonus to Stealth. But that's just a side thought, and would require digging into what's even available.

Yep, that is all pretty much why we went to it. It wasn't universally accepted at first. I liked it (as one of the rogue players), but the other player didn't--he missed his Stealth +10 (at 4th level, FYI).

It wasn't until I showed him the math. +10 with no advantage averages 20.5 (simple enough), +7 with advantage averages 20.835. So, the "typical result" is the same as what he would otherwise do, but now his range is 8 to 27 instead of 11 to 30, giving monsters a slightly better chance to notice him.

Also, he will typically perform better than others who have the same bonuses, so expertise still serves as a benefit without potentially being overkill.

Anyway, I hope it helps spark more creativity!

 

[Esker]

It wasn't until I showed him the math. +10 with no advantage averages 20.5 (simple enough), +7 with advantage averages 20.835. So, the "typical result" is the same as what he would otherwise do, but now his range is 8 to 27 instead of 11 to 30, giving monsters a slightly better chance to notice him.

Not to reopen this whole can of worms, but you've given monsters a worse chance to notice him. Unless they have passive perception of 11 or less, or 25 or more, which is... not many (well, some have 10 or 11, I guess).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not to reopen this whole can of worms, but you've given monsters a worse chance to notice him. Unless they have passive perception of 11 or less, or 25 or more, which is... not many (well, some have 10 or 11, I guess).

Yeah, I really don't want to and you are right, but I hope you consider the whole picture...

You should think about what it accomplishes. It makes expertise more valuable at lower levels since advantage is worth more than a flat bonus when proficiency is lower. It makes expertise not as useful at the highest levels because advantage is worse than a flat +6 bonus.

That is why I find peoples' difficultly liking this idea, it actually makes expertise worth more for most of the levels many people play in. Also, since it doesn't inflate floors and ceilings, it at least gives a chance for success against it, as where before a nat 20 + perception simply couldn't reach his total if he rolled well.

To continue with the example, he has +7 by our house-rule and +10 RAW. If his roll was 13, that is 20 versus 23. If the target has no proficiency in perception and only a +1 WIS mod, that is a 10% chance to notice him (19 or 20) vs. 0% since a 20 + 1 would not hit the 23 of his roll.

That's the issue with inflating numbers. It is also nice because the really high DCs are still hard to hit, even if only a little below RAW. The same character has a 27.75% to hit DC 25, but 30% RAW. A DC 30 would be impossible, but for RAW he has a 5% chance still. Sorry, but I am okay with a lower level character not having a chance to hit DC 30 quiet yet.

So far, any way, it works great for us. If I see any problems arising, I'll rehash it with the group then. Now, I REALLY have to get to sleep before our 12+ hour session tomorrow.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

While looking over the classes, it occured to me that Rogues are the only "battler" class (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Ranger, and Rogue) that don't every get the Extra Attack feature. The other five classes all get it at 5th level. Is there some reason behind this? They are limited to one sneak attack per turn, so it isn't as though they could get more sneak attacks or something. I thought maybe one of their archetypes would get it at least, like College of Swords for Bards, but there wasn't anything there either.

While enough rogue nerfing has been going on, would it be crazy to unnerf them a bit and allow Extra Attack at some point? If not 5th level (like most others, except Bard), then 6th?

Thoughts, anyone?

I wouldn't say it's crazy per se but I would say rogues, generally speaking, don't need Extra Attack to be balanced versus the classes you listed. Expertise is dope, reliable talent is dope, evasion is dope, uncanny dodge is dope, most rogue archetype abilities are pretty solid. That said, it doesn't make a lot of sense that the Rogue Archetypes Scout and Swashbuckler don't ever award an Extra Attack, even a conditional Extra Attack. There are numerous Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard builds that excel best outside of combat, so I am fine with Rogues shining best outside of combat as well.

Not sure if you remember 3.5/have played 3.5 but Rogues were terribad, esp. in combat, and relegated solely to the position of skill monkey, an even less desirable party role than "heal bot". The problem was that undead, constructs, elementals, plants, and so on were all immune to sneak attack (as well as, annoyingly for everyone, critical hits). Allowing Rogues to Sneak Attack anything (with anything, by the way, don't say nowhere in the rules a rogue can't sneak attack with a greatsword if he's proficient with it from a one level dip into fighter or whatever else) was the huge, major unnerf they needed to be playable in this edition, and they got it.

However, having mentioned Sorcerers and Wizards (and for that matter, Clerics and Druids; all the full casting classes) Extra Attack would push Rogues towards parity with them, but they'd still be weaker overall than the full casting classes, just like Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, and (probably) Paladins & Warlocks too.

 

[Kinematics]

@dnd4vr - The only problem, that someone pointed out to me, was that it conflicts with how the Enhance Ability spell works. Since Expertise now simply gives advantage, now anyone with the spell can give themselves Expertise in whatever category they want, rather than it being two separate bonuses that could potentially stack.

The question then becomes how often that comes up, how much that may seem to devalue the rogue's or bard's class feature, and whether it's fair given the spell slot cost. You may want to look into how Enhance Ability is applied. I had a meandering thought of changing the spell so that it sets a skill floor, instead of giving advantage, with the floor being 2x the spellcaster's magic ability mod. Though that then stumbles into Reliable Talent, and the whole train continues.

Allowing Rogues to Sneak Attack anything (with anything, by the way, don't say nowhere in the rules a rogue can't sneak attack with a greatsword if he's proficient with it from a one level dip into fighter or whatever else) was the huge, major unnerf they needed to be playable in this edition, and they got it.

Quick correction: A rogue can only sneak attack with a finesse or ranged weapon.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

I can't find that in the rules. Correction: I couldn't find that in the rules until now. Surprising how easy it always is to miss the last sentence in a paragraph.

Edit: Random forum question. Is giving XP not a thing anymore? I wanted to give Kinematics XP for correcting me, butdont' see any such button.

 

[Kinematics]

Edit: Random forum question. Is giving XP not a thing anymore? I wanted to give Kinematics XP for correcting me, butdont' see any such button.

XP was a reskin of the "like" feature, so using the like button is the current equivalent. Hopefully Morrus will also listen to my suggestion to add variants for Informative or Insightful and such (since the new forum has that as a basic built-in feature), as that would be more appropriate for something like this.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

Me and the entire table of PCs all read that exact same paragraph describing the Sneak Attack feature on page 96 when we were seeing if the Tiefling Fighter 1/Rogue 9 could sneak attack with his bastard sword of life stealing, and not a one of us caught that last sentence of the first paragraph. Weird, but it's why I was so sure.

Oh well. Rule of cool. The Rogue in question is not a PC anymore, so no harm, no foul that he made a devastating sneak attack or two with his bastard sword of life stealing on the Froghemoth that was eating the party's river boat and every one on it.

* There isn't, strictly speaking, such a thing as a "bastard sword"in D&D 5E (that I know of), but with Longswords being given the Versatile property, there's no reason not to think of any given longsword as a bastard sword.