D&D 5E Rogue Advice

[FrogReaver]

I would personally say that Swashbuckler is easier to play than Arcane Trickster, but not HUGELY so. At 3rd level you only have very limited spellcasting, so it's not a huge issue of tracking and managing your spell resources.

I love magic and every character I play can cast something in some way either through Ritual Caster or Magic Initiate or class levels or both though, so I might be biased on how easy AT is or isn't for a new player.

Playing spellcasters isn't the problem - it's reading through all the dang spells and casting mechanics before you play them that is! Arcane trickster is easy to play - but not so easy to figure out what spells to take with him.

 

[Esker]

Let's talk about probably the simplest way to stop the metagaming of a player having his owl do different things when someone doesn't perform an action on their turn.

Start using readied actions more often for non owl related triggers. Now suddenly the player never knows when his owl will be targeted or when it won't...

I don't see this as metagaming, really. Owl avoids the big thing staring at it and waiting to bash it seems like reasonable in game behavior to me.

But if the DM did do this, it makes the owl even more valuable. Most enemies in this category are doing less than they would otherwise if they're readying actions regularly. It's not that that many enemies have other uses of their reaction, it's that most melee enemies make multiple attacks on their turns.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe think about it this way. To make an attack at advantage not be at advantage it requires disadvantage. If you are telling me I could apply disadvantage to an enemy for the rest of the combat in exchange for a single attack from the group - then I'm taking that trade every time!

Bad comparison. The Rogue can get advantage without the familiar, and can SA without Advantage.

Which is similar to just using TWF. Once that first hit succeeds the second becomes unnecessary as only a small bonus compared to using cunning action. TWF cuts down on cunning action compared to the familiar but it's much cheaper and leaves an open option to replace however find familiar was required.

There are also other sources of advantage. When any of those become available the help action is superfluous.



The mastiff avoids the AoE by being on the opposite side of the target. Unless the target has an AoE around himself that doesn't include himself, AoE's himself, or someone else is AoE'ing everying including the target; AND assuming there's appropriate cover available; AND assuming there is s source of AoE happing often enough for this to become important it's a bit of a minor detail where the mastiff is likely to avoid AoE's.

AoE's have to be prevalent enough with total cover readily available at the same time within attack ranges to make this more than a minor detail and worth the cost.

Moral of the story -- I don't find that find familiar is worth the cost of picking up find familiar for a combat advantage. ;-)

You and I play in very different games. I find the familiar useful most of the time (either for myself or my allies), and it’s rare that I’m unable to get it to safety when it’s in owl form in between it using the help action.

I don't think you have the right concept of readied actions. When you ready the attack action to attack, you don't have to specify what enemies you will be attacking, just the trigger.

By the way - this argument that it's worth killing the familiar or mastiff if it can be targeted is much different than the position previously taken by you and others- which was that it was never worth targeting the familiar. I'm going to consider this a major victory! Because, if you are accepting that then we are really just talking about how easy it is to target a familiar with flyby.

Lol you can consider anything any way you want, doesn’t make it true. It’s almost like a discussion can be about multiple things!

Let's talk about probably the simplest way to stop the metagaming of a player having his owl do different things when someone doesn't perform an action on their turn.

Start using readied actions more often for non owl related triggers. Now suddenly the player never knows when his owl will be targeted or when it won't...

That is a lot of effort put into avoiding one application of advantage per round.

Again, I’d love it if my DM started doing this. Well, okay, I like being challenged, so I’d find it quite boring eventually.

 

[FrogReaver]

But if the DM did do this, it makes the owl even more valuable. Most enemies in this category are doing less than they would otherwise if they're readying actions regularly. It's not that that many enemies have other uses of their reaction, it's that most melee enemies make multiple attacks on their turns.

When they ready the attack action they make multiple attacks. I really think ya'll don't understand how readied actions actually work.

 

[Esker]

When they ready the attack action they make multiple attacks. I really think ya'll don't understand how readied actions actually work.

You can only make multiple attacks with a single attack action when you take the attack action on your turn. Monsters typically have a feature called "Multiattack" instead of "Extra Attack", but Jeremy Crawford, last I saw, has clarified that the RAI is that Multiattack has the same on-turn restriction as the PC "Extra Attack" feature.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can only make multiple attacks with a single attack action when you take the attack action on your turn. Monsters typically have a feature called "Multiattack" instead of "Extra Attack", but Jeremy Crawford, last I saw, has clarified that the RAI is that Multiattack has the same on-turn restriction as the PC "Extra Attack" feature.

Conveniently that's also not a rule in the rulebook.

 

[Esker]

Conveniently that's also not a rule in the rulebook.

What is your claim exactly? That Multiattack doesn't work like Extra Attack?

From the PHB:

Extra Attack

Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

 

[FrogReaver]

What is your claim exactly? That Multiattack doesn't work like Extra Attack?

From the PHB:

Right. Multiattack is an action of a creature such as a brown bear. It's spelled out that way in their statblock. You can ready any action you want.

Fighters don't get a double attack action. They get the attack action which their extra attack ability modified but only on their turn.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

@Esker is right that Crawford made that "clarification", but @FrogReaver is right that read as written, there's no reason a monster can't ready a Multiattack action. (For my part, I ignore the "on your turn" restriction even on Extra Attack.)

As for rogues, everybody is talking about the Swashbuckler and the Arcane Trickster, but I advise people to take another look at the good old Thief.

And their ability to use items as a bonus action.

And a giant sack of ball bearings, caltrops, and other party favors.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Esker is right that Crawford made that "clarification", but @FrogReaver is right that read as written, there's no reason a monster can't ready a Multiattack action. (For my part, I ignore the "on your turn" restriction even on Extra Attack.)

As for rogues, everybody is talking about the Swashbuckler and the Arcane Trickster, but I advise people to take another look at the good old Thief.

And their ability to use items as a bonus action.

And a giant sack of ball bearings, caltrops, and other party favors.

Yea, and of particular note is that ever since the shield master fiasco, everyone takes JC's rulings with a grain of salt.