D&D 5E Can an elf rogue be a decent archer in (Basic) D&D 5th edition?

[Dausuul]

Problem is, even those guys like things like Intimidate and door-kicking, in my long and extensive experience of them, which Fighters have no particular proficiency for, so that doesn't quite work.

True. However, if you're going to give a class special abilities to support intimidation and door-kicking, it seems like those fall more in the barbarian sphere. I have a hard time seeing those as distinctively "fighter" things with the barbarian around.

If I were creating noncombat abilities for the fighter class, they would be more in the "professional infantry" line. You can carry heavier loads, know to set up a defensible camp, can stretch rations farther and live on less*, don't suffer Perception penalties while asleep, can repair or sabotage siege weapons and fortifications, et cetera. The original 2E Dark Sun setting had a bunch of good ideas here.

One could also build on the 4E warlord concept, which I gather has been merged into fighter for 5E. The warlord concept would justify an array of abilities around social skills and inspiring others.

[SIZE=-2]*Key distinction here with the ranger; the fighter can make existing rations last longer, the ranger can supplement them by foraging. Put them together and you can march a long, long way. The ranger feeds you when you're in hospitable terrain, the fighter ekes out your supplies in more desolate regions.[/SIZE]

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Mistwell, I'm not going to respond to some of that unless you take back your complaints about me being "insulting" and "aggressive" and so on, earlier, because that is one insulting, aggressive, demanding post, and I say that with love!

EDIT - Though I see you edited much of this out! Thus I will reconsider if you answer my question re: 4E.

I will respond to one part, which I found genuinely interesting/enlightening:

In my experience, 5e is a game much 'looser' than 3e or 4e (for lack of a better term). Combat isn't as regimented. Actions are much more fluid, more open ended, with a much wider range of things to do because of a lack of specific rules covering such things. I know the natural tendency is to think rules assist such things, but I'd argue they constrain people to naturally only try to do things specified as being a rule, or appearing on a lengthy character sheet.

There tends to be a lot more swinging on chandeliers, knocking over book cases, tossing slippery objects or liquids on the ground, pulling ropes taunt to trip, running up to high ground, hiding behind statues, and that sort of more-unusual stuff. Stuff people did as a routine in 1e and 2e, but tended to get away from in 3e and 4e unless there was a rule about it, usually on their character sheet. It was tendency only of course, as some people did them still, nonetheless it was a trend to focus more on your character sheet and what was written there, in 3e and 4e - because there was so much there on that sheet to absorb, and so many specific rules to consider. That trend seems to have ended with 5e, at least during the playtest.

In my experience no class gained as much from moving away from a character-sheet-focus than the rogue. They have great speed, they have abilities to move, take an action, and move again in a way nobody else can (and it was done in a way that they don't need to look at the sheet or the rule, because it's a unified simple type ability). They can do such things next to a creature or away from them. They can hide in ways others cannot. And they have significantly greater skills to make the kinds of checks usually involved with unusual 'tricks' like I described above.

See, I have long experience with 2E, 3E and 4E. My 2E, 3E experience is exactly as you describe. 2E was full of tricks/swashbuckling, 3E gradually beat that out of my players, because every single fancy trick you could try was covered by the rules and required about 14 checks, each of which had a chance to fail. Or you got a -4 or -8 penalty unless you had a specific Feat which was otherwise worthless and competing against amazing Feats. 100% agree with "rules often constrain", too.

But then I started running 4E, and we had Page 42 (do you know what that is?) and the general "Feel free to make it up!" attitude (rather than 3E's "We've got a rule for THAT!" attitude), and before the end of the first adventure I had players trying "Fastball Specials" and the like! Ever since we've had tons and tons 2E-style antics, only all the PCs are involved in it in 4E, whereas only the non-casters were in 2E!

So my experience is starkly contradictory, like, opposite-land, to yours, when it comes to 4E. And I've played it regularly since release, which I'm guessing you've not (am I wrong?).

So when you say this has "changed", with 5E, that seems really weird. 5E seems to similar to 4E, except for the fact that it doesn't actively encourage making rules up (as per the playtest anyway, DMG may well!). How do you account for this, given you're talking about how important actual experience is?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

True. However, if you're going to give a class special abilities to support intimidation and door-kicking, it seems like those fall more in the barbarian sphere. I have a hard time seeing those as distinctively "fighter" things with the barbarian around.

If I were creating noncombat abilities for the fighter class, they would be more in the "professional infantry" line. You can carry heavier loads, know to set up a defensible camp, can stretch rations farther and live on less*, don't suffer Perception penalties while asleep, can repair or sabotage siege weapons and fortifications, et cetera. The original 2E Dark Sun setting had a bunch of good ideas here.

One could also build on the 4E warlord concept, which I gather has been merged into fighter for 5E. The warlord concept would justify an array of abilities around social skills and inspiring others.

[size=-2]*Key distinction here with the ranger; the fighter can make existing rations last longer, the ranger can obtain more rations by foraging. Put them together and you can march a long, long way.[/size]

Your vision of Fighter is apparently far narrower than mine or D&D generally. Fighter != Professional Army Soldier, imo. Also, dude, let's be real, there was a reason most people chose Gladiator in 2E DS, not Fighter! The only Fs I saw were because it was part of an MC combo in DS.

Seriously though, rolling back through the dozens of single-class Fighters I've seen over the years, I can think of precisely two who were "Professional Army Soldier"-type, both played by the same player. The vast majority are things like "self-trained brawler" or "thug" or "gladiator" or "master of the blade" or "knight errant" or "samurai" (none of which Barbarian fits well, with it's more primal theme retained into 5E).

 

[Dausuul]

Your vision of Fighter is apparently far narrower than mine or D&D generally. Fighter != Professional Army Soldier, imo.

It's not a question of what a fighter can be, but what abilities a fighter can get that nobody else can. D&D classes are built around archetypes.

Any class can pick up feats and skills to survive in the wilderness. Only the ranger gets Natural Explorer and Land's Stride, because "wilderness expert" is the ranger archetype.

Any class can be an angry tough guy. Only the barbarian gets Rage, because "berserker" is part of the barbarian archetype.

So what's the fighter archetype? It's a tough question. Traditionally, fighter has been the catch-all: If you're a warrior, and you don't fit the archetype of any of the other warrior classes, we dump you in the fighter bucket and call it a day. To the extent the class has an archetype, it's "supreme weapons expert," which is fine and all, but useless when it comes to designing fighter non-combat abilities. What special talent can a supreme weapons expert bring to bear on anything outside combat? Social bonuses from impressing people with flashy sword tricks?

Wizards's solution is to accept that there is no fighter archetype beyond weapons expert, give fighters a bunch of extra feats, and let them do what they like. Make your own archetype. That means fighters can pick up plenty of noncombat feats if they're so inclined. But it also means they can focus exclusively on combat, becoming single-minded killing machines.

The alternative is to extend the fighter archetype to incorporate some noncombat elements. But that necessarily requires making it more specific. To me, "professional soldier" (or "professional warrior" if you prefer--the fighter need not have ever been part of an actual army) is the most natural extension of "supreme weapons expert."

Also, dude, let's be real, there was a reason most people chose Gladiator in 2E DS, not Fighter!

And what was that reason? It was because the gladiator was better at killing stuff. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of non-combat options for fighters.

 

[Cybit]

Dumb question: Do Crit Hits also double sneak attack damage?

 

[Uller]

Page 20 of how to play: the attack does max damage plus one damage die. Some have said SA is not included. I think this says it is. If you are using a d4 weapon and get 3d6 SA damage then your damage is 22+d4+you dex mod

 

[Dausuul]

Page 20 of how to play: the attack does max damage plus one damage die. Some have said SA is not included. I think this says it is. If you are using a d4 weapon and get 3d6 SA damage then your damage is 22+d4+you dex mod

As written, one would logically conclude that sneak attack does max out on a crit. The only reason to think otherwise is that Assassinate goes out of its way to say that on this critical, you max out your sneak attack; which would imply that there are other criticals where you don't.

However, I'm guessing Cybit was asking one of his fellow private playtesters about the current rules, not the old public playtest you and I are looking at. "Double damage on a crit" seems to be how things work in the private playtest these days.

 

[DDNFan]

As written, one would logically conclude that sneak attack does max out on a crit. The only reason to think otherwise is that Assassinate goes out of its way to say that on this critical, you max out your sneak attack; which would imply that there are other criticals where you don't.

However, I'm guessing Cybit was asking one of his fellow private playtesters about the current rules, not the old public playtest you and I are looking at. "Double damage on a crit" seems to be how things work in the private playtest these days.

The latest public playtest, Rodney Thompson confirmed in a Q&A that all dice rolls are maxed out except for the bonus one due to your weapon. This is doubly confirmed by the rules FAQ on the official website.

I'm very curious about this rule change, because it has all kinds of implications. A crit on a lot of dice ends up averaging to roughly the same thing as just maxxing all variables, but on a single attack it can go from barely any difference at all, to a whole lot. Not sure which I prefer now. I can live with either I think.

 

[Cybit]

As written, one would logically conclude that sneak attack does max out on a crit. The only reason to think otherwise is that Assassinate goes out of its way to say that on this critical, you max out your sneak attack; which would imply that there are other criticals where you don't.

However, I'm guessing Cybit was asking one of his fellow private playtesters about the current rules, not the old public playtest you and I are looking at. "Double damage on a crit" seems to be how things work in the private playtest these days.

It was a question aimed at everyone; I am somewhere that I am unable to access documents, and I know it's been changed a whole bunch, so I'm curious as to what the heck it currently is (I have a nasty habit of combining different editions of D&D's rules all into the same system..) in the public playtest.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wizards's solution is to accept that there is no fighter archetype beyond weapons expert, give fighters a bunch of extra feats, and let them do what they like. Make your own archetype. That means fighters can pick up plenty of noncombat feats if they're so inclined. But it also means they can focus exclusively on combat, becoming single-minded killing machines.

The alternative is to extend the fighter archetype to incorporate some noncombat elements. But that necessarily requires making it more specific. To me, "professional soldier" (or "professional warrior" if you prefer--the fighter need not have ever been part of an actual army) is the most natural extension of "supreme weapons expert."

I understand this, but I think it's a poor solution. If you insist that they can't kick doors and intimidate people, despite these being traditional Fighter roles, because the Barbarian might be offended or whatevs, they could have an ability to innately understand weapons/armour, or know how best to damage objects, because they know how to break things (which is not a Barbarian deal, to be sure, because it's think-y).

And what was that reason? It was because the gladiator was better at killing stuff. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of non-combat options for fighters.

I dunno about your groups, but for mine, no, that wasn't it - that's revisionism of the first water, because that's what the reason would be now - but twenty years ago, it was because Gladiators were awesome, on a ton of levels, and Fighters were boring war-nerd dudes who loved boring siege equipment and boring armies and stuff like that. Stuff your dad might like if he was playing. Ugh. I guess I still kind of feel that way