D&D 5E Samauri-thief discussion

[auburn2]

I mean I refute the OP's premise that Rogues don't get sneak attack most turns. I can count the times on one hand I've seen a Rogue not get Sneak attack in over 5 years of 5E weekly play.

That is not my experience. Hide then attack only gives advantage if you can attack without exposing yourself first, which you usually can't do after the first round of combat. You would also have to suceed on hide vs passive perception, which is not automatic.

Also this would presume in 5 years you can count on one hand the number of times you had a Rogue attacking with disadvantage due to being piosioned, attacking in the opponent being invisible, taking dodge etc?

Aim will change this a lot though and would make this Samauri ability largely irrelevant.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That is not my experience. Hide then attack only gives advantage if you can attack from a hidden location, which you usually can't so I can count on about 2 hands the number of times that works after the first round of combat.

You don't need advantage to sneak attack, you just need to have an ally attacking the same target and not have disadvantage. Most rogue subclasses have other ways to get sneak attacks as well. For example a swashbuckler just needs to not fight two enemies at once.

Also this would assume in 5 years you can count on one hand the number of times you had a Rogue attacking with disadvantage due to being poisioned, the opponent being invisible, taking dodge etc?

I don't think I have ever seen a rogue attacking under those conditions.

 

[jgsugden]

You know what else is a rule in the same rule book? “You don’t gain these features automatically.”

I've been assuming these will be as frequently accepted as the human variant and feat 'options'. So far, that seems true - most, but not all, games.