D&D (2024) D&D One Changes to the Rogue...

[Benjamin Olson]

There are few builds more broken than an elven swashbuckler rogue with booming blade and trivantage at a table that uses the optional flanking rule.

Any rogue is broken once you use the optional flanking rule. It's an optional rule for a reason: it was undercooked and doesn't play well, but the designers knew that flanking should provide some sort of benefit and so they had to at least include the system they never quite figured out in the DMG.

At my table you get an extra d4 on the attack roll if you flank someone, because unlike the 5e designers I don't have strong compunctions about using something other than advantage. Works pretty good.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Having two attempts with every attack action is going to score a sneak attack more reliably than one attack on your turn and maybe a second attack on some one else’s turn.

The opportunity to make a reaction melee attack doesn’t happen that often. IME, many encounters may not see any for all combatants involved. Then it has to qualify for a sneak attack. And the rogue has to actually hit.

Sure, it’s cool to get that extra damage when it does happen, but in the long run I’d take the 2 chances for 1 SA every round (plus a little extra normal damge should the second attack hit, and some for any reaction attacks) over the once normal chance for one every round plus hoping that maybe the right circumstances will present themselves for a second one.

But wait, you say. What if the 2014 rogue is dual wielding as well? Then sure, he’ll have a slight edge in damage output over the 1DnD rogue in the long run, but not every fight, and only if he uses his bonus action every round to attack off-hand. In that case, the 2014 rogue is going to go down quicker in a fight, as they can no longer Disengage after attacking.

I understand the math just fine.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suspect people discounting reaction attacks are forgetting about, or not appreciating, the importance to rogues of Hold Action.

 

[FrogReaver]

The opportunity to make a reaction melee attack doesn’t happen that often. IME, many encounters may not see any for all combatants involved. Then it has to qualify for a sneak attack. And the rogue has to actually hit.

There are a few specific ways to increase the chance of an off turn sneak attack.

1. Cast haste on yourself and use it's action to attack on your turn and yours to ready an attack on whatever trigger seems appropriate.
2. Multiclass to battlemaster for riposte/brace/etc.

Then there are a few ways allies can provoke as well

1. Caste Haste on you
2. Use commander's strike on you
3. Be an order cleric and target you
4. Use dissonant whispers
*. Probably a few more I'm forgetting

Often these techniques don't stop you from TWF or using Steady Aim on your turn.

It's not necessarily a given that your allies will have and use those abilities. If you try to do it yourself it takes a fairly high level rogue with a specific subclass or multilcass for it to start really paying off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Having two attempts with every attack action is going to score a sneak attack more reliably than one attack on your turn and maybe a second attack on some one else’s turn.

The opportunity to make a reaction melee attack doesn’t happen that often. IME, many encounters may not see any for all combatants involved. Then it has to qualify for a sneak attack. And the rogue has to actually hit.

Sure, it’s cool to get that extra damage when it does happen, but in the long run I’d take the 2 chances for 1 SA every round (plus a little extra normal damge should the second attack hit, and some for any reaction attacks) over the once normal chance for one every round plus hoping that maybe the right circumstances will present themselves for a second one.

But wait, you say. What if the 2014 rogue is dual wielding as well? Then sure, he’ll have a slight edge in damage output over the 1DnD rogue in the long run, but not every fight, and only if he uses his bonus action every round to attack off-hand. In that case, the 2014 rogue is going to go down quicker in a fight, as they can no longer Disengage after attacking.

I understand the math just fine.

Not to mention, you’re going to take more damage by always using your reaction for offense, which gets ignored too often. Uncanny Dodge is a great reaction, and for Arcane Trickster so are Shield and Absorb Elements.

Like, I love taking down Spellcasting enemies with a Shadowblade+Booming Blade Rogue with Mage Slayer and Warcaster, getting either a reaction normal attack via mage slayer or a reaction booming blade via warcaster depending on what they do, or using Sentinel and flanking to get a SA reaction regularly, but even doing those things doesn’t make it an every round occurrence, and doesn’t stop me from needing my reaction for defense semi-regularly.

Especially when I am unable to use my BA to get out of the front line after an attack.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I believe it's safe to say that the vast majority of players do not know that rogues can get an off turn sneak attack. It's a niche playstyle for optimizers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@Cyber-Dave

I think the same about this thread as the other. You focus on the obvious nerfs and disregard the buffs.
You also see a buff to something else as a nerf to a thing... which is not.

We also have not seen the full changes and it is still a playtest to give feedback to the changes. If you feel that this results in rogues get too low damage, tell them that.

I personally love to see passive perception go. I am still not convinced about a static DC. I think an extra defense would be the best.

I also see the "nerf" to sneak attack as a prevention against "optimization" that results in doubling the damage of a character, which they otherwise prevented in 5e. So it is closing a loophole, not a nerf. Same goes for hiding during combat.

But again, if you felt that these loopholes were necessary to keep the rogue competitive, it needs more buffs elsewhere.
Two weapon fighting is now rogue taktic 101... which i personally don't fully like. I think a rogue should have the option to go one handed and still be competitive.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, the only thing you are proving is that you don’t understand the rules or the math of the game you are playing. My argument doesn’t rely on a 19th or 20th level rogue. My phrasing was a shorthand designed to bring attention to the relational growth of what rogues have lost. At any level relative to their threat, they have lost the equivalent of an endgame rogue’s 10d6 potential damage bonus. (I shouldn’t have said ability modifier earlier. That isn’t actually altered. It was a Freudian slip.) The fact that at 1st level the actual number is smaller, as are the HP totals of the foes you face, is immaterial.

Bill Zebub has the right of this. What the rogue gains in One is virtually nothing. Everything they can do in One, they could do in 5e. One just makes one specific trick a little easier to pull off. The net effect will be negligible. The two weapon fighting change is nice, but it in no way comes close to mitigating the rogue’s loss of peak performance. What One takes away cannot be replicated by any means. It is gone. Anyone who claims that the two are a wash has zero understanding of the math running this game’s engine.

Put another way, if you assume that the rogue will always use its bonus action for cunning action and only two weapon fight if it doesn’t cost a bonus action, you are literally claiming that gaining one extra attack per round with a damage of 1d4 to 1d6 is equal to being able to apply an extra 1d6 to 10d6 damage to an existing attack. You are saying that 1d4-1d6=1d6-10d6. The level of mathematic blindness required to make that claim is stunning, and one shouldn’t need to be called a “power gamer” to realize that.

Snip

I think it is funny how you call yourself a math guru and claiming other people don't understand it while writing that tge offhand attack only does 1d6 more damage neglecting the fact, that it gives a chance to deal sneak attack without using your bonus attack.

Later you explain this, by saying you can use the bonus action steady aim anyway for the same chance, neglecting that a rogue standing around, even giving ul his reaction for a bit of damage usually results in a dead rogue very fast. Who then deal 0 damage consistently...
At least in our games.

So maybe your assessment is different than other people's, because you play different. Maybe your way of playing does not represent the majority.
So you can be disheartended that your playstyle is in the minority... but claiming that we don't understand the game math is a strange assumption.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.

Again, the only thing you are proving is that you don’t understand the rules or the math of the game you are playing.
Anyone who claims that the two are a wash has zero understanding of the math running this game’s engine.

The level of mathematic blindness required to make that claim is stunning, and one shouldn’t need to be called a “power gamer” to realize that.

They aren't arguing the math, they are pointing out the reality of how most people play. Using Sentinel, or Haste and then holding your action and similar strategies are known by a lot of Rogue players, but actually utilising them is a thing mostly done by fairly heavy optimisers.
Yes, the proposed changes reduce the maximum theoretical DPS of the Rogue for that niche playstyle, but for the majority of players, the change to two-weapon fighting will be more impactful and fun.

In the same way, the changes to the Sharpshooter and GWM feats have reduced the max DPS of optimised Fighter builds. Overall, I see these as potentially good changes since reducing the discrepancy between edge-case outliers and general performance means that the overall class can be improved without the worry that the niche builds by the max-DPS optimisation community will break things.

 

[Olrox17]

They aren't arguing the math, they are pointing out the reality of how most people play. Using Sentinel, or Haste and then holding your action and similar strategies are known by a lot of Rogue players, but actually utilising them is a thing mostly done by fairly heavy optimisers.
Yes, the proposed changes reduce the maximum theoretical DPS of the Rogue for that niche playstyle, but for the majority of players, the change to two-weapon fighting will be more impactful and fun.

In the same way, the changes to the Sharpshooter and GWM feats have reduced the max DPS of optimised Fighter builds. Overall, I see these as potentially good changes since reducing the discrepancy between edge-case outliers and general performance means that the overall class can be improved without the worry that the niche builds by the max-DPS optimisation community will break things.

Reducing the performance of the top optimized rogues and martial characters in general would be fine if they do one or both of these:

• find some other way to buff the baseline performance of those classes (no, addressing the bonus action troubles of TWF isn’t nearly enough, even though it’s nice)
• severely nerf the game’s top spells