Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?

[Ancalagon]

If you mean* the post where you suggest to increase the sneak attack dice: thank you - noted.

You were suggesting making it 1d6 per level, which is the functional equivalent of having 2d6. I think that it would be better to leave it as an every other level ability, to increase it as you suggest, but not as much as 2d6.

I would add to that that if you really feel that it should be as much as 2d6, make it a 1d12 - it's a more "wild" and exciting dice to use.

We are in agreement the monk's flurry is unarmed - maybe you took my comment to mean I let it use the magic +2 dagger on all four attacks.

Well that's exactly what you *said*

The Monk gets excellent utility out of a plus weapon with his four or five attacks

I'm not sure what other reading there is there...

unfortunately post counts are personal, not universal (this is because EN World does not count hidden posts, so unless you and I are on exactly the same people's ignore lists, our post count is going to differ) - better is to quote the post since links do lead you to the correct post regardless. (You do not need to do this in this case assuming I got the posts you intended)

I was unaware of that. I don't think I have anyone on ignore (I could have 1 or two and forgot)

 

[TwoSix]

I was unaware of that. I don't think I have anyone on ignore (I could have 1 or two and forgot)

It also impacts the post count if anyone is ignoring you. It's fairly annoying.

 

[Kobold Stew]

*) unfortunately post counts are personal, not universal (this is because EN World does not count hidden posts, so unless you and I are on exactly the same people's ignore lists, our post count is going to differ) - better is to quote the post since links do lead you to the correct post regardless. (You do not need to do this in this case assuming I got the posts you intended)

In the fourteen years or so I've been hanging around these boards, I don't think I ever realized this. I've hit ignore on no one, but if someone else hitting ignore takes their post out of my stream...

Huh.

 

[CapnZapp]

It also impacts the post count if anyone is ignoring you. It's fairly annoying.

That's what I meant. I don't have anyone on ignore myself and I apologize if I came across as implying Ancalagon were ignoring people.

 

[TwoSix]

That's what I meant. I don't have anyone on ignore myself and I apologize if I came across as implying Ancalagon were ignoring people.

I didn't take it that way, just wanted to make sure it was clear to everyone.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Hmm, I will take a stab at one:

Vital Expertise

You are highly skilled in the anatomy of creatures, able to heal or harm a vulnerable organ or crucial portion of anatomy with a moments thought. You gain the following abilities:

1) You become trained in Wisdom (Medicine). If you are already trained in Wisdom (Medicine), you gain expertise in it.
2) If you are able to sneak attack, you may sneak attack as many times per turn as you are able to, rather than just once per turn.
3) You may use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check to revive an adjacent unconscious ally. The DC for this check is 10+1 for each round the ally has been unconscious. If you succeed, the ally is revived as if they had rolled a natural 20 on their death saving throw.

Is the idea to make this a 'Rogue-only' feat, that isn't going to help much if you don't have sneak attack?

I might have suggested: (Feel free to pick any of these ideas out to use yourselves.)
You no longer need to use a finesse or ranged weapon in order to use Sneak Attack.
(I just houseruled this, but it fits as a feat option if you don't.)

When you have advantage on the attack roll to attack an opponent, if both rolls would have resulted in a successful hit, you may apply your sneak attack to the damage of the attack. This is not considered a sneak attack for the purposes of the number of times that it can be used per turn.
(This is a little more random than flat-out removing the restriction. It also reduces the number of sneak attacks generally happening, but see below. )

When you successfully strike an opponent that is also adjacent to an ally of yours with a sneak attack, the next attack that they make deals your sneak attack dice in addition to its normal damage.

 

[Mistwell]

Is the idea to make this a 'Rogue-only' feat, that isn't going to help much if you don't have sneak attack?

I might have suggested: (Feel free to pick any of these ideas out to use yourselves.)
You no longer need to use a finesse or ranged weapon in order to use Sneak Attack.
(I just houseruled this, but it fits as a feat option if you don't.)

When you have advantage on the attack roll to attack an opponent, if both rolls would have resulted in a successful hit, you may apply your sneak attack to the damage of the attack. This is not considered a sneak attack for the purposes of the number of times that it can be used per turn.
(This is a little more random than flat-out removing the restriction. It also reduces the number of sneak attacks generally happening, but see below. )

When you successfully strike an opponent that is also adjacent to an ally of yours with a sneak attack, the next attack that they make deals your sneak attack dice in addition to its normal damage.

I like all three of these, but I think it would be too much if all stacked on one feat. Particularly the last two combined.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I don't know the math on it really, but would a simple answer be to allow for two sneak attacks in a round, x times per short rest? This seems comparable ( once the math is tuned ) to ki points and battle master dice. Some types of rogues would have to give up a bit of the skirmish style during the rounds they use a bonus action to make a second attack which seems like a fair trade to me. I would also also limit the use of it in conjunction with assassinate because even more critical hit sneak attacks is not the intent.

Sorry if someone already suggested this and I didn't see. There's quite a few posts in this thread and I did not read a majority of them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Has anybody done the math on Savage Attacker for Rogues compared to other classes? It seems intuitively to me that it's going to benefit somebody more who gets their damage from lots of dice in one attack, rather than spreading those dice out over multiple attacks. Because more dice mean a smaller standard deviation the greatest benefit would be to mitigate really bad luck, but it might give really good luck.

I'm gonna write some code. I'll be right back.

EDIT: Ok, nevermind.

 

[Helldritch]

To be technical, I would say "you need to deal that much damage in a single turn".

The number of attacks is immaterial in a game where characters' turns are atomic. In reality, you might only have time for a single sniper attack, and as soon as you have made your shot you need to retreat to avoid detection.

In D&D time effectively freezes when it's your turn. All that matters is if the guard is still alive when your turn is over (and to be precise, that the guard is alive when his own initiative count comes around).

.

Wrong. The turn isn't static. Time isn't frozen. That is why there is a "reaction" available so that you can answer someone else's action. Each multiple attack/spell is one attack. You can decide which one to parry/counter. So time isn't frozen and that is why you need to deal that much damage in one attack. Thus the "sneak" attack. Thus the fact that most rogues only have one attack. Thus the only one sneak per turn... (Note: I know, no action on the surpise round, but you can take a reaction at the end of your first turn. Meaning you might win the initiative but you won't be able to react until the surprising opponent acts).

Once the first attack is landed, nothing prevents the "guard" whatever it is to call in reinforcement. He might not be able to take a reaction, but after a hit, anyone will call in for help (and that is not forbidden by the rules, unless I missed something).

Consider that what the players can do to monsters, so can the "monsters" do to them.
So there is that stealthy wood elf 12th level fighter with enough rogue level to hide as a bonus action and the Kensai archetype. He gets to smash down a player. (Two handed sword +1, GWM, uses dex to hit and dmg because he's a Kensai and advantage because he's the first to act...) First attack 33, Second attack 23, Third attack 23. Action Surge fourth attack 23, fifth attack 23 and sixth attack 23. Total of 148 damage on average which is more than enough to kill a lot of players. Then he hides if the player is still alive otherwise, unnoticed, he goes on to the next player and the next and TPK...

As soon as the second attack lands, the player will want to yell for help. Would you deny him his call for help? Would you? If so, I urge you to reconsider your position. If you allow the player a call for help, then so should a "monster" be able to do the same.

On the other hand, if the player die on the first attack, the player won't be happy but he will abide by your ruling. things sometimes happen. But if you had deny him his call for help, be prepare for a storm of protest (even if he died on the second attack) and a potential full quit at your game table.