D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[Rune]

Have you been tracking the damage numbers of every character in your campaigns so you find and compare their average damage output over time? Because if not then course you haven’t experienced it because that’s the level on which the effect manifests. It probably feels like rogues are doing fine in your games, but human brains are really bad at intuiting those things. Unless you’re actually crunching the numbers, you’re not going to notice the difference. But it’s there, and it’s significant.

Out of curiosity, if it feels like rogues are doing fine because human brains are bad at intuiting otherwise, what’s the problem?

Maybe rogues are balanced more around how they feel than how they actually perform. And, if so, I ask again: what’s the problem?

 

[ECMO3]

With two attacks or one attack with advantage, they about keep up with the fighter. With one attack without advantage, they fall behind.

Yeah and this even assumes they get SA. When they don't get SA (which happens occasionally) they are way behind.

I love playing Rogues, they are hands down my favorite class and I like all the subclasses I have played (every one except phantom and soulknife). They are not even close to being the best damage dealers though. ATs with BB and hex through a feat are close, but even they can be outdone by a martial.

 

[Nefermandias]

So, 5e classes generally fall into one of two broad archetypes: high at-will damage with only a small boost from expending limited resources (“nova”) or low at-will damage with a big boost from expending limited resources. The rogue is an unusual case as the only class with no ability to nova. They have no limited resources to spend, they’re all at-will damage, all the time. And with the way the game balances at-will damage vs. nova damage, that ought to mean that rogues should be the best at-will damage dealers to compensate for their lack of nova potential. But that isn’t really the case. Rogues perform about on par with fighters for at-will damage. And that’s contingent on them getting Sneak Attack every single turn.

Now, it can seem like rogues do fine not sneak attacking every turn. Part of this is because they deal very high damage per hit, and our brains focus on that, even though other characters are doing more total damage split up between multiple less damaging attacks. Part of it is because even if they miss a few sneak attacks here and there, their at-will damage output is still higher than the at-will damage output of the classes that rely on their nova abilities. But regardless of what our flawed ape brains may think, the fact of the matter is that rogues’ overall damage output is only passable if they get Sneak Attack every turn, and it’s actually quite low if they don’t.

It becomes even worse if you consider that fighter's at-will damage will actually outpace the rogue's once the fighter gets his third attack. Especially if you throw feats in the mix, since rogues doesn't benefit that much from feats.

 

[ECMO3]

IF they don't have disadvantage, it's pretty easy to get sneak attack as long as you've got a buddy up close and personal with the opponent. But I've found that disadvantage comes up more often than I'd like with my rogue - enough that I've lost plenty of sneak attacks as a result - unless I have the option of gaining advantage to counteract it.

True that! Also Rogues have high initiative and often go before their allies (especially that heavy armor Paladin that dumped dex) which means they won't always have that buddy there on their first turn. Unless they are a swashbuckler or an assasin that can make sneak attack hard to get on the first turn.

 

[Umbran]

The DM in question is claiming that hiding in combat is not possible AT ALL!
How come we have people here defending that as a reasonable ruling?

It sounds like, at the spur of the moment, while trying to adjudicate a combat, someone started arguing with her over it. That's not the way to get good rulings from a GM.

I mean, if you've never made a bad call when under pressure... bully for you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Out of curiosity, if it feels like rogues are doing fine because human brains are bad at intuiting otherwise, what’s the problem?

Maybe rogues are balanced more around how they feel than how they actually perform. And, if so, I ask again: what’s the problem?

Rogues (and other classes) are balanced around how they feel. That’s why rogues perform about on par with fighters in terms of at-will damage despite the fact that they “should” do better at-will damage to compensate for their total lack of ability to nova. That’s the level damage output that was found to feel right for the majority of players during playtesting.

If the rogue feels fine to you and your play group with only one attack per turn, nothing is wrong with that. But it is below the point that playtesting found most players felt was right, which means most players would probably think they felt too weak in your games. Of course, most players don’t play in your games, only the players who play in your games do. And if those players think rogues feel fine, there’s no problem. However, it does seem to be a problem for a lot of groups that the DM rules on stealth in a way that at least some of the players find makes rogues feel too weak (especially if those players are mathematically inclined and are familiar with the mathematical assumptions underlying the rogue’s design.) If that’s not your group, great! No problem. But it is many groups, including seemingly @jayoungr ’s.

 

[jayoungr]

Out of curiosity, if it feels like rogues are doing fine because human brains are bad at intuiting otherwise, what’s the problem?

Maybe rogues are balanced more around how they feel than how they actually perform. And, if so, I ask again: what’s the problem?

It isn't, exactly. But it could lead to disallowing a situation that is still perfectly fair, and better for the rogue.

It sounds like, at the spur of the moment, while trying to adjudicate a combat, someone started arguing with her over it. That's not the way to get good rulings from a GM.

I dropped it rather than hold up the session too much. I then went back to her over Discord yesterday, armed with page numbers. I acknowledged (twice) that the game was hers to run and the calls were hers to make, but I said I wanted to point out some things in the PHB for her to consider. And I don't feel like she was at all open to what I had to say.

 

[Nefermandias]

Out of curiosity, if it feels like rogues are doing fine because human brains are bad at intuiting otherwise, what’s the problem?

Maybe rogues are balanced more around how they feel than how they actually perform. And, if so, I ask again: what’s the problem?

The problem arises when you have a DM like myself who's always actively trying to murder the PCs and you absolutely need to be performing at your very best if you want to contribute with your party's survival.

 

[Charlaquin]

True that! Also Rogues have high initiative and often go before their allies (especially that heavy armor Paladin that dumped dex) which means they won't always have that buddy there on their first turn. Unless they are a swashbuckler or an assasin that can make sneak attack hard to get on the first turn.

Yeah, who’s average damage output is the highest varies from level to level. I’m just talking in broad strokes here - there are levels when the rogue outperforms the fighter (if the baseline assumptions are met) and levels where the fighter outperforms the rogue. But overall their average at-will damage is comparable (again, if the baseline assumptions are met), and the Fighter’s overall damage is a bit higher thanks to their nova capabilities.

 

[Oofta]

Have you been tracking the damage numbers of every character in your campaigns so you can find and compare their average damage output over time? Because if not then course you haven’t experienced it because that’s the level on which the effect manifests. It probably feels like rogues are doing fine in your games, but human brains are really bad at intuiting those things. Unless you’re actually crunching the numbers, you’re not going to notice the difference. But it’s there, and it’s significant.

No, I don't track every round, but I still get a general feel. Then again, most "huge differences" that I've seen amounted to a point or two of average damage per round.

End of the day, when I played a rogue, the people I've played with that played rogues, players in real life were happy with the damage output. Of course it will vary by level, DM, fights between rests, how much you value out of combat skills, on and on.

In any case I stand by what I've experienced: rogues should get sneak attack practically every round but they don't need advantage every round. I'm not going to argue about it any more, we'll just have to agree to disagree.