D&D 5E Ranged Rogues. Tasha's Changed My Mind

[Umbran]

Haste double sneak attack requires one simple step.

You use your haste action on your turn to make an attack.

You then ready an attack for, say, your ally picking their nose. Or moving. Or making an attack. Or anything that happens off of your turn.

That readied action then gives you another sneak attack.

That is contingent on the GM actually feeling a delayed action is not still part of your turn, just delayed.

Or, another way of putting it, "Once per turn" can be read as "once before the beginning of your next turn".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He still only gets one sneak attack per turn, even if he is Hasted. The only way to get multiple sneak attacks in a round of combat is by making an off-turn attack via OA or Commander's Strike.

Or using the ready action with your normal action, and then attacking on-turn with your hasted action.

The haste is pretty conditional and would benefit any class. Not sure it’s necessary for comparison purposes.

Haste benefits rogues more than most classes.

That is contingent on the GM actually feeling a delayed action is not still part of your turn, just delayed.

Or, another way of putting it, "Once per turn" can be read as "once before the beginning of your next turn".

No, it can’t be read that way. Those are completely different statements. It would have a massive impact on the game to read “once per turn” that way.

There is absolutely no RAW interpretation that gets you to a readied action being part of the same turn as when you took the Ready Action. It literally happens in a different turn.

 

[TheSword]

You don't need steady aim usually. But advantage is good.

It has advantages; on turn 1 when you win initiative, steady aim gives you advantage on your first attack. Then you ready an action for an ally being near an enemy. And now you still get 2 sneak attacks.

Except that you probably don’t have haste if you’re the rogue going first at that point.

 

[auburn2]

You don't need steady aim usually. But advantage is good.

It has advantages; on turn 1 when you win initiative, steady aim gives you advantage on your first attack. Then you ready an action for an ally being near an enemy. And now you still get 2 sneak attacks.

If you don't have disadvantage and if it actually works out that way. All the enemy has to do to beat this is close within 5 feet of you instead of someone else (giving you disadvantage on missile attacks), then you have disadvantage on the attack unless you have CBE or gunner feat. Alternatively he can take dodge and close with an ally and which time the ready conditions are met and you either need to use your reaction or let it go.

I think it is a way to try to land 2SAs in a round, but not necessarily all the time, which is what would be needed to double damage.

 

[Zardnaar]

Big fight this week was a shadow dragon using adult black dragon as the base.

And a shadow drake from Time of Beasts. Flying, range and the variety this week made him less impressive but still did alright.

Very crappy rolling. Hit chance was 50/50 normally and missed a couple of time with advantage+reroll. What's that 87% hit chance?

Haste got used once.

Guiding bolts more MVP this week.

Did alright despite a "bad" encounter.

 

[NotAYakk]

That is contingent on the GM actually feeling a delayed action is not still part of your turn, just delayed.

Or, another way of putting it, "Once per turn" can be read as "once before the beginning of your next turn".

Yes, the DM can even say "no, you cannot sneak attack, ever". They can change the rules of D&D. That is clear.

However, the ability to sneak attack as a reaction was intentional by the designers of 5e.

In 4e, originally it was once per round; they intentionally changed it to once per turn in errata later in the development cycle, because it felt right for sneak attack to go off on opportunity attacks. In 5e, they where aware of the difference, and used the wording "once per turn" and not "once on your turn" or "Once you use sneak attack, you cannot use it again until the start of your next turn" or a myriad of other "per round" wordings.

The odds that that wording was actually "ooops, once per turn, we didn't mean that" is basically zero.

But DMs are free to change the rules of D&D, as you have noted.

 

[jgsugden]

Whenever I build an archer, I find that the rogue makes a nice accent, but I can build a more efficient rogue with the fighter or ranger as the starting block and chassis. Every archer I have built for 5E (4 of them, now) started with 5 levels of ranger or fighter, and then multiclassed (often into assassin, a sorcerer for quickened spells, the other chassis class, cleric of order, etc...)

 

[Umbran]

Yes, the DM can even say "no, you cannot sneak attack, ever". They can change the rules of D&D. That is clear.

However, the ability to sneak attack as a reaction was intentional by the designers of 5e.

Cite, please.

In 5e, they where aware of the difference, and used the wording "once per turn" and not "once on your turn" or "Once you use sneak attack, you cannot use it again until the start of your next turn" or a myriad of other "per round" wordings.

In 5e, they have also been very clear that they are NOT generally hinging operation of the game on the excruciating specificity of individual word choices. They aimed for more natural language, to enable "rulings, not rules."

I also think a rules interpretation based on wording of an entirely different ruleset is goofy. Lots of people didn't play 4e, or played it little, and won't recall, "Wait, they used wording X there, so wording Y here has a different meaning". Interpretations shoudl be internally based, not external.

So, to prove designer's intent (as much good as that may be) you'd need a statement from the designers about 5e specifically.

 

[jgsugden]

A round and a turn are both defined terms. They put them in bold. They define them. They use them carefully. It is safe to say that they consider when to use each. While they rely upon DMs for more interpretation, they did not leave everything ambiguous, and this is not ambiguous.

Each turn has a beginning an end. Each combatant (generally) gets one turn per round. Sneak attacks are once per turn. That is absolutely clear RAW.

 

[NotAYakk]

Cite, please.



In 5e, they have also been very clear that they are NOT generally hinging operation of the game on the excruciating specificity of individual word choices. They aimed for more natural language, to enable "rulings, not rules."

I also think a rules interpretation based on wording of an entirely different ruleset is goofy. Lots of people didn't play 4e, or played it little, and won't recall, "Wait, they used wording X there, so wording Y here has a different meaning". Interpretations shoudl be internally based, not external.

So, to prove designer's intent (as much good as that may be) you'd need a statement from the designers about 5e specifically.

I am basing the fact that people who wrote 5e are aware of 3e and 4e D&D when they wrote it.

There are similar abilities that read "on your turn", like barbarian reckless attack. It doesn't work on reaction attacks. Meanwhile, the Rogue is worded to match exactly the changes they made in 4e to Rogues to allow them to use sneak attack on opportunity attacks. When they did that change, as an errata, they explicitly stated basically "this is because we thought it felt better if Rogues where good at sticking you with a shiv if you give them an opportunity".

They did an intentional change that matches this wording in the years immediately before 5e. They released 5e, aware of how 4e worked. They kept that change, and didn't match the very similar barbarian ability wording that excludes it.

I mean "once on your turn" would make it so that Rogues couldn't sneak attack on reactions. One and done. Or even "once per round" works.

And I'm covering intention. You don't need to understand the intention to read the rule: the plain language of "a turn", as in when a monster goes that is a different turn, is used throughout 5e. Your turn ends, your turn starts, and your turn does not extend over the entire round.

Context does inform intention. I don't imply that all DMs must understand the intention in order to understand what the rule says (that you can do it once per turn), I am arguing that this wasn't an accident of wording by the designers. The fact that a random DM might not be aware of the history is irrelevant to what the history tell us the actual intention of the designers was here.

Feel free to argue that it is reasonable for a DM to change that rule, thinking that was the intention of the designers for rogues not to be able to sneak attack on a reaction. That is a very different argument than "the designers never intended for a rogue to be able to use sneak attack on a reaction, that wording was accidental". It is very reasonable for the DM to misunderstand the wording and misread the intention of that rule, I will admit.

It is even reasonable for the DM to decide that off-turn sneak attack makes the Rogue too good at fighting, and simply ban it.

It is even reasonable for the DM to decide that "real reactions" doing off-turn sneak attack is ok, but "fake reactions" like that haste trick don't; that the readied action "transports part of your turn" there, while a normal reaction doesn't.

Of course, in a game with any other characters doing charop, this reaction-sneak-attack trick is one of the few ways for a rogue to "keep up" optimization wise (that, booming blade, and MC crit fishing efforts are the 3 ways I know of).