*Deleted by user*
There are plenty of spells to trigger opportunity attacks, tbh. That's what makes spells like command or dissonant whispers good.Are there other options I'm forgetting?
This is the perfect example of my point - even a presumable knowledgeable player getting it wrong (no offense dnd4v).Haste won't give another SA. It grants another attack on your turn, so you have another chance of landing the SA if your first attack misses, but you won't actually get two SA's.
I think CapnZapp was more thinking of feats that allow use of reactions to make opportunity attacks and SA on other people's turns.
My own take is that classes is the life blood of D&D, and that any move towards genericized classes will destroy the game.Hot take: The thief hurt D&D by siloing combat and non-combat specialization into different classes. A unified "warrior" class merging combat and practical skills would have been better.
Current D&D is in a weird spot for me where I think it should have gone more generic or more specialized, but it ended up in a compromise position. I'd love to see a book of 50 specialized classes, all of which take up only 2 pages each. Or my own homebrew project, which is a lot of mini-classes that become accessible only as campaign rewards.My own take is that classes is the life blood of D&D, and that any move towards genericized classes will destroy the game.
In other words, I definitely want fighters and rogues to remain separate. I just need the devs to understand that "skill monkey" is far less valuable in a regular game of D&D than they seem to think.
Give Rogues skills AND awesome DPS, and people will still play fighters simply because they last longer on the battlefield and can actually protect their friends.
I find the exact opposite. Combat is maybe 20%, and the rest is social and exploration (exact division depends on what parts qualify as "exploration"). And in fact I am often envious of the skill selection and expertise available to rogues and bards. I do not think they are overrated at all, as they are vastly useful for large portions of our games.Now then. I am of the firm belief Rogues should be DPS machines. Skill use is vastly overrated by a dev team that perpetuates the fantasy that the three pillars are in any way equal. Just look at any published module to instantly see that the game is maybe 80% combat and 15% exploration. The times you make a social check that actually matters can be counted on one hand, for all books together! So putting even 5% on social is generous.
WHAT!? WELL, YEAH, YOU CAN, WELL, YOU KNOW...This is the perfect example of my point - even a presumable knowledgeable player getting it wrong (no offense dnd4v).
There is a logic behind it that you might not be aware of from other threads and the OP. Rogues are the only non-casting base class without Extra Attack. Other threads have focused on limiting rogues in other ways. Hence, a possible option that would "unnerf" them.You abhor min/maxing, yet you want Rogues to have Extra Attack? And the title is 'Unnerf' Rogues, which could also mean, 'Buff Roags plz?'
And there's a good reason for that. Rogues are fine as it is, they don't need buffs. They are not weak in combat by any means.Rogues are the only non-casting base class without Extra Attack.
What does that even mean, "not weak"?And there's a good reason for that. Rogues are fine as it is, they don't need buffs. They are not weak in combat by any means.
Maximizing damage output is good, that's exactly what the Rogue class needs.Giving them Extra Attack would be Maximizing their damage output. Is that clear enough for you?
For the umpteenth time:So you want the rules to just give them what they deserve (a 2nd sneak attack in the round). Aren't you bloody entitled or what?
Read every post in the thread. Then maybe you will be able to contribute in a meaningful way. If you are still under the delusion that the OP was about granting a second SA, you are woefully ignorant.And there's a good reason for that. Rogues are fine as it is, they don't need buffs. They are not weak in combat by any means.
Giving them Extra Attack would be Maximizing their damage output. Is that clear enough for you?
Hah, that's amazing. Now I know what spell I'm going to ask the bard in my group to take when we hit 17th level...I'm going to say you missed paying a high level spell caster into turning the rogue into a hydra with true polymorph. Each head gets a reaction. Then wish the INT score back up. Then intentionally cut off heads to regrow two in it's place for a while.
Not reliably though, and not without hefty opportunity cost. What's the highest proportion of the time a dedicated DPR optimizer can get a second sneak attack, do you think? Maybe half the time with a pretty substantial individual and partywide investment? I don't think it's true that it's just a matter of jumping through fiddly hoops to get the second sneak attack, and if you created a feat that could provide it more reliably than feats that already exist (e.g., Sentinel), it'd be a big power boost, not just streamlining.Rogues already get a second Sneak Attack each round as soon as they can grab a second (re)action.
Yeesh, why the tone? I basically even agree with the gist of what you're saying but being that hostile doesn't help your case any.Y'all clowns be crazy, trying to justify Rogue's weaknesses with your stupid logic. "Rogues should be DPS machines", "80% of the game is fighting", "Expertise is not important because DCs are low anyways".
I get that YMMV stuff, but seriously,Whaaaaat. I've not read that much bullshit in a long time.
So you want the rules to just give them what they deserve (a 2nd sneak attack in the round). Aren't you bloody entitled or what? Why not ask for wizard spells to be given to you for 2 gold per spell level, and take 1 min to learn? 'My class is meant to learn spells anyway, and Clerics/Druids get their entire spell list by default!'