OneDnD D&D One Changes to the Rogue...

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sir Brennen

Legend
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.
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I suspect people discounting reaction attacks are forgetting about, or not appreciating, the importance to rogues of Hold Action.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
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

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
 


@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.
 

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.
 

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

Hero
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
 

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
That is what I'm hoping to happen. All classes brought to the same general level rather than the experts and martials only having a couple of hyperoptimised builds able to compete with a generic full caster.
 

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

Yes to point 1.
Somewhat yes to point 2. There are a few spells which need heavy nerfing. All those that divide the enemies without a saving throw. Wall of force for example.
Most spells that do damage are barely worth the spell slot, if you are not able to long rest after each fight.
What they need to do is making a better adventuring day.
In my opinion the rogues was not good because they could exploit loopholes. They were good because they just did not rely in any way on rests (besides hp recovery). All their abilities were always on. So a better adventuring day pacing means (at very high levels), yes the wizard can lay down hurt woth meteor swarm... Once per day. But the rogue with reliable talent is always invisibly sneaking around and always attacking twice with advantage and can even invoke a crit to do 20d6 + 2d6+5 damage as a baseline...
That adds up...
They are also hard to catch with dex saves or mental saves or single attacks, so chances that he does his damage for a while before going down is great.

He is just not the class anymore to stand still in combat doing nothing but dealing 10d6 damage twice per round... which is a big plus in my books.
If you want to stand around dealing massive damage to whoever gets near you, be a fighter.
 

That is what I'm hoping to happen. All classes brought to the same general level rather than the experts and martials only having a couple of hyperoptimised builds able to compete with a generic full caster.

The pacing of the adventuring day is key here. As soon as I changed my game from one night long rest to one day long rest, classes that did not only rely on spells per day were suddenly easily competitive.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
Booming Blade sneak attack is a lot of fun, and is the best thing Arcane Tricksters have going for them before level 7+ when the subclass starts to actually get enough spells to justify itself. The "cheese" factor is severely limited by the fact that you can't make an offhand attack with a Booming Blade attack. Also by the fact that, at any table that isn't RAW to the point of zero flavor or immersion, a silent, stealthy Rogue often takes a major risk doing THUNDER damage.

If there is a problem it is less the combination of Booming Blade and Sneak Attack per se and more that Booming Blade and anything simply gets too good at very high levels, with that much rider damage on top of any melee attack which may well be made with a magical weapon and all sorts of other buffs and riders.
My swashbuckler/tome warlock uses green flame blade and sneak attack combo and the damage she deals is respectable but in no way excessive or comparable to a single classed rogue or fighter (this is possibly due to being a low level rogue). Plus the danger of entering into melee (especially with multiple opponents for the secondary fire damage, since that negates swashbuckler unless one of your allies is also present) makes this an occasional, somewhat effective tactic. Similarly, while Booming Blade is more effective where you can retreat out of reach, the major drawback is the amount of noise it generates.

I think this is a fix that was probably only needed on paper in most cases and could have been better resolved by placing limits on cantrips obtained by feats used by high level rogues.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Having posted about this subject previously, I was disheartened at how many 5e players think they understand their game without really understanding how the rules of this game actually work. As such, it bears discussing just what the One playtest has changed. I’m going to open that discussion specifically in regards to the rogue. I am not discussing what should be changed here. I jumped the gun by trying to talk about that before discussing what HAS changed. The following discussion is illustrative, not exhaustive.

First, the old rules for Sneak Attack stated:

“Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.”

The new rules for Sneak Attack state:

“You know how to turn a subtle attack into a deadly one. Once on each of your turns when you take the Attack Action, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an Attack Roll if you’re attacking with a Finesse Weapon or a Ranged Weapon and if at least one of the following requirements is met:

“Advantage. You have Advantage on the Attack Roll.

“Ally Adjacent to Target. At least one of your allies is within 5 feet of the target, the ally isn’t Incapacitated, and you don’t have Disadvantage on the Attack Roll.

“To determine the extra damage, roll a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (round up), and add the dice together (the Rogue table shows the number of Sneak Attack dice you get at each Rogue level). The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s Damage Type.”

There are two big nerfs here:

First, they are proposing that the rogue can ONLY sneak attack on ITS turn, not once per ANY turn. That means rogues will no longer be able to sneak attack once per round using any attack that can be made as a reaction. That will drop the potential number of times that a rogue can sneak attack per round from 2 down to 1. That almost halves a rogue’s peak damage per round in D&D One.

Note: a turn and a round are not the same thing. A turn describes the action economy of a specific creature’s turn. A round describes the combined action economy of one turn performed by every creature in the encounter. A rogue in 5e could sneak attack once per turn. Every creature has one reaction per round. A number of events can be used to turn that reaction into an attack on another creature’s turn.

The game also makes one other major change to sneak attack: it can only be applied when you take the attack action, not make an attack. Any ability or feature that let you make an attack using something other than an attack action is no longer capable of benefiting from sneak attack whether it is made on your turn or not. That means that spells like booming blade cannot be used to make sneak attacks anymore.

Originally, 5e provided the following rules for hiding.

“The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

“You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.

“An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

“In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.”

The new rules for hiding are as follows:

“With the Hide Action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must make a DC 15 Dexterity

Check (Stealth) while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you are Hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception).”

Under “Hidden,” the game also informs you of the following:

“Ending the Condition. The Condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an Attack Roll, you cast a Spell with a verbal component, or you aren’t Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover.”

This is what changes: beyond the fact that a DM can always do whatever they want, the game doesn’t bother to highlight this specifically in regards to hiding. Instead, it just says that when you are not Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover, you always lose hidden. The game makes no effort to inform its players that, even in combat, a DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted. All it says is that you lose the hidden condition the moment you lose Heavy Obscurement or some Cover. Any DM who runs the game by the rules as written will thus never allow a character to run from cover to cover or to sneak up on a foe who is focused on one of your allies. Whether this change affects your specific table will depend on your DM. It won’t affect mine. The probability of a DM using their narrative license to allow logical corner cases, however, will dimmish due to the lack of the textual focus on such corner cases existing and being a justified request on the part of the player. Any players who exist in communities with multiple DMs (which some of mine do) will likely form opinions about the viability of such efforts on the basis of the behavior of multiple DMs.

Additionally, where 5e explicitly brings attention to the fact that being invisible does not mean you are hidden, and creatures can notice signs of your passage (visually) or hear you, thus granting you only one benefit when you are invisible—the mechanical bonuses of the condition described elsewhere in the text—One does no such thing. In fact, the mechanical benefits it ascribes to both the Invisible and Hidden condition are identical, except that the Hidden condition has the caveat of the listed loss conditions, and is thus much easier to lose. 5e thus presents being “hidden” as something beyond being invisible. While some DMs may continue to treat “hidden” as such given the One rules, its actual text presents invisibility as being a superior version to being hidden, though one which logically—by nothing more than inference rather than explicit text—doesn’t prevent a creature from hearing you unless you make an effort to be hidden.

Finally, regardless of DM interpretation, the hidden rules also feature another major change (which is neither a nerf nor a buff, but jut a change). All stealth checks are essentially made against a "passive perception" of 15, or, more accurately, it looks like passive perception is disappearing in favor of a fixed DC 15 to successfully become hidden regardless of a creature's perception score. It should be noted, however, that this is a nerf against any character build with a high passive perception. To find any successfully hidden creature, you must now make active checks.
That being said, melee rogues will receive one minor contextual buff. Melee rogues will now be able to dual wield without using their bonus action. That means they will be able to make an offhand attack (for +one die of damage and two chances to lay down a sneak attack) in addition to using their cunning action.

Like this or not, these are the major changes between the 5e rogue and the One rogue. Whether you like these changes or not is what you should be providing feedback about on October 20th, but these are the changes they are proposing regardless of your feedback about these changes.
For sure, and I agree it's a pretty hard nerf to attach Sneak Attack to your Attack action!

A couple of notes on hide.
  • The DC15 is just to enter hiding, right? Becausee it also reads "Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception)."
  • if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. Which clarifies that a character attempting to hide can tell if they are hidden from a given observer (that they can see.)
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I agree with the posters saying it’s not good design (for 5e) if you need to know optimization tricks to play a class well.

I would expect (hope?) that WotC will find other ways to compensate for rogue damage. But until then it’s a damage nerf.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I agree with the posters saying it’s not good design (for 5e) if you need to know optimization tricks to play a class well.

I would expect (hope?) that WotC will find other ways to compensate for rogue damage. But until then it’s a damage nerf.
I think there's a few different ways to talk about class damage
  • It's a nerf to the potential damage someone could build a rogue to be capable of doing
  • It's a buff to the potential damage of a more typical rogue build
There is also at least one non-damage part
  • It's a buff to the mobility and 'defensive mobility' of a rogue as damage vs mobility is no longer a decision point
We might even talk about it depending on level
  • It's a huge buff to tier 1 and tier 2 rogues regardless of build
  • It's only a nerf to the potential damage someone could build a rogue to be capable of doing in tier 3 and tier 4.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
The pacing of the adventuring day is key here. As soon as I changed my game from one night long rest to one day long rest, classes that did not only rely on spells per day were suddenly easily competitive.
Switching long rest from 8 hours to 24 hours?

Why did it matter for non-long-rest classes?
 

Switching long rest from 8 hours to 24 hours?

Why did it matter for non-long-rest classes?

Because the wizard could not cast fireball in every combat round and the eldritch knight could not always use shield in every round.
Suddenly our monk could keep up easily with those characters, as short rests happened a lot more.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Yes to point 1.
Somewhat yes to point 2. There are a few spells which need heavy nerfing. All those that divide the enemies without a saving throw. Wall of force for example.
Most spells that do damage are barely worth the spell slot, if you are not able to long rest after each fight.
What they need to do is making a better adventuring day.
In my opinion the rogues was not good because they could exploit loopholes. They were good because they just did not rely in any way on rests (besides hp recovery). All their abilities were always on. So a better adventuring day pacing means (at very high levels), yes the wizard can lay down hurt woth meteor swarm... Once per day. But the rogue with reliable talent is always invisibly sneaking around and always attacking twice with advantage and can even invoke a crit to do 20d6 + 2d6+5 damage as a baseline...
That adds up...
They are also hard to catch with dex saves or mental saves or single attacks, so chances that he does his damage for a while before going down is great.

He is just not the class anymore to stand still in combat doing nothing but dealing 10d6 damage twice per round... which is a big plus in my books.
If you want to stand around dealing massive damage to whoever gets near you, be a fighter.
My other concern is just how it affects play style. I’ve always dislike archer rogues because hide/shoot is…boring. The thing about reaction SA is that it gives you something to think about. Even if I get through a combat without getting a single bonus SA, I’ve been looking for an opportunity to get one, and that’s fun. Heck, even deciding, on a main hand miss, whether to go for the offhand or use cunning action was a decision.

It feels like playing a rogue is becoming more…mindless.

I’m not a fan of complex rules. I like simple rules with complex implications.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top