D&D 5E Rogues are Awesome. Is it the Tasha's Effect?

[Don Durito]

Really the practical elements of the rogue are this.

1) Without sneak attack the rogue is weak. It's not so bad at low levels, but by mid levels they're comically weak.
2) By mid levels even with sneak attack they're nothing extraordinary. They're about equal to the average adamage of a Fighter or Paladin who is not doing a nova.

Basically, the corollary of this is the rogue needs advantage. How difficult this is depends on the GM. Most of the time, in my experience, this plays out in fairly simple terms. Eg. The Arcane Trickster's familiar does the help action every turn.

Basically, if Advantage is too hard to get, then the rogue is frustrating. It's not much fun if you have to be clever just to get up to par. If Advantage is too easy, then the rogue is boring - it's just single target damage every round until the end of time.

So basically, the purpose of sneak attack is to make something dull mildly interesting by making it necessary to explain it every round.

You could probably just square the whole thing by saying the rogue gets advantage every round so long as they can provide a brief description of how they do it - and they're not allowed to do it the same way twice. Just bypass rules and ruling altogether.

 

[fearsomepirate]

If someone can clearly see you, you are not hidden.

Agreed. And since it's your Action that caused you not to be hidden, the question is when that applies. When is the d20 rolled? Before leaning out to aim? Or after loosing the arrow?

As far as I can tell, the d20 roll does not correspond to any moment in time. It simply abstracts away the entire sequence of combat events. The rules specify the timing of events during an Attack in terms of before or after dice are rolled, not before or after you aim your weapon.

It's up to the DM and the group to find the right balance. Since it's going to vary from table to table and there is no "right" answer I don't see a reason to argue.

This started with someone else telling me that RAW, if a rogue makes a ranged attack while hidden, he loses the benefits from hiding before rolling, not after, and I've simply been doing it wrong.

 

[Oofta]

Really the practical elements of the rogue are this.

1) Without sneak attack the rogue is weak. It's not so bad at low levels, but by mid levels they're comically weak.
2) By mid levels even with sneak attack they're nothing extraordinary. They're about equal to the average adamage of a Fighter or Paladin who is not doing a nova.

Basically, the corollary of this is the rogue needs advantage. How difficult this is depends on the GM. Most of the time, in my experience, this plays out in fairly simple terms. Eg. The Arcane Trickster's familiar does the help action every turn.

Basically, if Advantage is too hard to get, then the rogue is frustrating. It's not much fun if you have to be clever just to get up to par. If Advantage is too easy, then the rogue is boring - it's just single target damage every round until the end of time.

So basically, the purpose of sneak attack is to make something dull mildly interesting by making it necessary to explain it every round.

You could probably just square the whole thing by saying the rogue gets advantage every round so long as they can provide a brief description of how they do it - and they're not allowed to do it the same way twice. Just bypass rules and ruling altogether.

So the rogue, who is more useful outside of combat, a class that can frequently do cool things with their bonus action has to out-damage a fighter at all levels? No thanks. If you're not getting sneak attack most rounds, you're doing something wrong in my experience.

Not everything needs to be about DPR and being behind a couple of points of DPR to a super optimized fighter is not going to matter. I've played a rogue up to 20, only rarely getting advantage. It was fun. YMMV.

 

[Oofta]

Agreed. And since it's your Action that caused you not to be hidden, the question is when that applies. When is the d20 rolled? Before leaning out to aim? Or after loosing the arrow?

As far as I can tell, the d20 roll does not correspond to any moment in time. It simply abstracts away the entire sequence of combat events. The rules specify the timing of events during an Attack in terms of before or after dice are rolled, not before or after you aim your weapon.



This started with someone else telling me that RAW, if a rogue makes a ranged attack while hidden, he loses the benefits from hiding before rolling, not after, and I've simply been doing it wrong.

You can't attack until you can see your target. In most cases if you can see them they can see you. Whether they are paying attention to that particular location is up to the DM.

Anyway, that's how I rule. Feel free to rule differently.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I bolded a different part of your quote. If you can be seen when you make an attack you are no longer "unseen" and therefore no longer "hidden"

There is no need to see how much time it takes to raise a shield, as soon as you poke your head out you are not
unseen".

Choosing a target and aiming doesn't happen before the attack. It's part of the attack. No need to see when, exactly, in the attack sequence, your head emerges from cover precisely enough for you to be seen. In relation to the d20 roll, its effects apply after resolution.

While I am at it - you have disadvantage on enemies you can't see, so if your arguement is that sticking your head out and flinging a dagger is not enough time for an enemy to "see" you, then it is logically not enough time for you to "see" your enemy either.

Hiding doesn't require you to be unable to see whomever you're hiding from.

 

[Don Durito]

So the rogue, who is more useful outside of combat, a class that can frequently do cool things with their bonus action has to out-damage a fighter at all levels? No thanks. If you're not getting sneak attack most rounds, you're doing something wrong in my experience.

Not everything needs to be about DPR and being behind a couple of points of DPR to a super optimized fighter is not going to matter. I've played a rogue up to 20, only rarely getting advantage. It was fun. YMMV.

Why do you quote me and then make up your own questions to answer?

Engage or not but don't waste my time.

 

[fearsomepirate]

You can't attack until you can see your target. In most cases if you can see them they can see you. Whether they are paying attention to that particular location is up to the DM.

Anyway, that's how I rule. Feel free to rule differently.

In the case of a hiding spot where you can't see out without moving out, such as a Fog Cloud or Darkness, your Move is what broke your cover, and I rule the same way.

In cases where I'm explicitly allowing an attack from a hiding place, the assumption is some combination of camouflage, stillness, and enemy distraction is allowing a rogue to hide more like a hunter in a duck blind.

 

[Oofta]

Why do you quote me and then make up your own questions to answer?

Engage or not but don't waste my time.

Rude much? You're the one who's claiming the rogue must have advantage because a fighter might do more damage.

I simply disagree. They work just fine and in my experience do just as much damage as the fighter, or so close that it doesn't matter outside of a spreadsheet.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Oofta]

In the case of a hiding spot where you can't see out without moving out, such as a Fog Cloud or Darkness, your Move is what broke your cover, and I rule the same way.

In cases where I'm explicitly allowing an attack from a hiding place, the assumption is some combination of camouflage, stillness, and enemy distraction is allowing a rogue to hide more like a hunter in a duck blind.

Which is why I said "in most cases". There are definitely cases where the rogue can see the target and the target cannot see the rogue.

 

[Mistwell]

It can be significant. Rogue is behind tree, bad guy cannot target them unless using an area effect. Rogue steps out, attacks, steps back behind tree. Rinse and repeat, rogue can never be targeted directly.

As opposed to guy standing out in the open, not moving that can be seen and targeted by the enemy? I think that's a pretty huge difference.

Bad guy moves to an angle they can see them...done. I mean, how common is it that your foes are so far away they cannot do that? Seems like a corner case. The overwhelming majority of the time, it shouldn't come up. I mean shoot, they had to do that anyway if you are behind full cover!