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

Yaarel

Mind Mage
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.
Why did it reduce the frequency of Fireball?

What is the difference between camping for 8 hours and camping for 24 hours? Isnt it just as easy to do one or the other? Why did this impact long-rest features?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
My other concern is just how it affects play style. I’ve always dislike archer rogues because hide/shoot is…boring.
One of my early characters in 5e was an 8 con woodelf rogue that played the hide/shoot/run away game. It was really fun.

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.
IMO, so does deciding what I'm going to do with cunning action each turn, and more precisely where am I going to move.

It feels like playing a rogue is becoming more…mindless.
More smooth and streamlined might be an alternative description - but it really depends on whether you view the changes as positive or negative.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Why did it reduce the frequency of Fireball?

What is the difference between camping for 8 hours and camping for 24 hours? Isnt it just as easy to do one or the other? Why did this impact long-rest features?
*Because it pushed his players into not camping as often.

Why is probably more a question of player psychology than hard rules interactions. We probably will never know that answer.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
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.
I'm not sure I'd even call "2h fighter took gwm" an "optimizer". That's almost dropping unoptimised builds to a point like "maxed int or thought actor was good"

Fixing all of these bonkers edge cases also creates room for actual optimization that takes more than one obvious step.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
IMO, so does deciding what I'm going to do with cunning action each turn, and more precisely where am I going to move.

Sure. But with the old rule the list of choices was longer because it included the 2nd attack.

I’m not saying I don’t like the new dw rule, just that I enjoy hard decisions.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Sure. But with the old rule the list of choices was longer because it included the 2nd attack.

I’m not saying I don’t like the new dw rule, just that I enjoy hard decisions.
I have a hard time seeing the decision process for making the bonus action attack as being a hard decision. The basics are: You missed with the first attack and qualify for sneak attack, then you bonus action attack unless you are low on hp.

I mean I respect the overall stance of 'hard decisions'. I just don't agree that this is one.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
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.
Average campaign length from both WotC surveys and DnDBeyond usage is 1-10/11, so average sneak attack over a campaign is around 3d6 for total damage with a short sword of 4d6+4 (16-20 DEX over the course of the campaign), average damage 18. So IF you manage to trigger an an Opportunity attack (say 50%), and IF fulfills the requirements for sneak attack (say 75%), and IF you hit (commonly used 65%), then we see (14.6*0.5*0.75*0.65) = ~4.4 expected damage per round.

Asserting that bonus action usage, especially considering the extra uses that Cunning Action and subclasses give, is "nowhere near a loss of" 4.4 damage is not a supportable statement.

Also, this assumes melee rogues. Ranged rogues were very unlikely to get an attack on someone else's turn so in practical terms it's not a change for them.
 
Last edited:

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Although, since it’s two rolls and not advantage it’s still not as attractive as ranged. Even at 13th level (yay?) subtle strikes doesn’t give you sneak attack against a solitary opponent.
One attack with advantage: Either d20 hits does WEAPON+SNEAK

Two attacks without advantage. Two d20s. Either one hits does WEAPON+SNEAK, but if both hit you get 2x WEAPON+SNEAK.

Two attack rolls without advantage is superior to a single roll. That is before considering that the ranged using Steady Aim also has the detriment of not being able to move which will come up sometimes.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
One attack with advantage: Either d20 hits does WEAPON+SNEAK

Two attacks without advantage. Two d20s. Either one hits does WEAPON+SNEAK, but if both hit you get 2x WEAPON+SNEAK.

Two attack rolls without advantage is superior to a single roll. That is before considering that the ranged using Steady Aim also has the detriment of not being able to move which will come up sometimes.
Once you factor in crit chance it’s possible for the advantage version to outperform the TWF with no mod damage on 2nd attack.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I have a hard time seeing the decision process for making the bonus action attack as being a hard decision. The basics are: You missed with the first attack and qualify for sneak attack, then you bonus action attack unless you are low on hp.

I mean I respect the overall stance of 'hard decisions'. I just don't agree that this is one.

I mean, you just said it: unless you are low on hit points. Or you otherwise really need to do something else.

Orrrr…and I love this one…you land the first attack but the monster isn’t quite dead. Do you gamble on 1d6 killing it, if you hit? (“Do you do six damage, or only five? Well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky, punk?”)

Again, I like the new version, but there’s incontrovertibly less decision-making: you always make the 2nd attack.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Average campaign length from both WotC surveys and DnDBeyond usage is 1-10/11, so average sneak attack over a campaign is around 3d6 for total damage with a short sword of 4d6+4 (16-20 DEX over the course of the campaign), average damage 18. So IF you manage to trigger an an Opportunity attack (say 50%), and IF fulfills the requirements for sneak attack (say 75%), and IF you hit (commonly used 65%), then we see (14.6*0.5*0.75*0.65) = ~4.4 expected damage per round.

Asserting that bonus action usage, especially considering the extra uses that Cunning Action and subclasses give, is "nowhere near a loss of" 4.4 damage is not a supportable statement.

Also, this assumes melee rogues. Ranged rogues were very unlikely to get an attack on someone else's turn so in practical terms it's not a change for them.
This analysis ignores using hold action to get a sneak attack in the first round when the rogue wins initiative. Maybe my experience is different but I use that all the time.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I mean, you just said it: unless you are low on hit points. Or you otherwise really need to do something else.

Orrrr…and I love this one…you land the first attack but the monster isn’t quite dead. Do you gamble on 1d6 killing it, if you hit? (“Do you do six damage, or only five? Well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky, punk?”)

Again, I like the new version, but there’s incontrovertibly less decision-making: you always make the 2nd attack.
Two thoughts.

1. We can hone into the little slice where these things can really matter but 90% of the time whether or not to TWF was a no brainer decision.
2. Due to the no-brainerness I think it's just different decision making, not really less or easier.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Can you clarify what you mean here?

Combat starts. Rogue is not hidden. Rogue wins initiative.

Choice 1: shoot an arrow, or run up and stab. No sneak attack.

Choice 2: “hold action until an enemy is next to an ally, then attack it” (note that this takes a bit more coordination if rogue is melee)

Edit: and even if you are hidden but out of range, waiting until an enemy is in range. And/or during combat, waiting for an enemy to poke their head out from behind cover.
 

Cyber-Dave

Explorer
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.)
You have to beat the DC 15 to enter stealth. The number you roll becomes the DC for active perception checks to find you (taken as an action).
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Once you factor in crit chance it’s possible for the advantage version to outperform the TWF with no mod damage on 2nd attack version.
An interesting possibility I hadn't considered. We're back to 2014PHB crits, so sneak attack would get increased. Let's look at the math.

Assuming a hit-but-not-crit chance of 60% and a crit chance of 5% on a single die (so 35% chance to fail).

W=Weapon damage
S=Sneak Attack damage
B=Bonus damage

Rolling once with advantage gives us:
No hits = .35*.35 = 12.25%
Crit = 1 - (.95*.95) = 9.75%
One hit = (1 - .1225 - .0975) = 78%
Expected damage = (W+S+B) * 0.78 + (2(W+S)+B)*.0975 =
0.975W+0.975S+0.8775B

TWF gives us:
On-hand attack:
Expected Damage (W+S+B) * 0.6 + (2(W+S)+B) * 0.05 =
0.7W+0.7S+0.65B

Off-hand attack:
Sneak attack can only be applied if not already done. 35% chance the on-hand attack was a miss and sneak attack can be applied here.
Expected damage = (W + 0.35S) * 0.6 + 2(W + 0.35S) * 0.05 =
0.7W+(0.21+0.0175)S =
0.7W + 0.2275S

Total expected TWF damage is
1.4W +0.9255S+0.65B

Advantage attack expects to do 5% more Sneak Attack and 22.75% more Bonus damage - DEX mod, magic, and other static numerical bonuses.

TWF attack expects to do 42.5% more weapon damage.

Best TWF without any feat expenditure is a short sword, so 3.5 damage on a hit (and the hit chances are already worked in). So that's 1.4875 expected damage.

First couple of levels this edges tows TWF. Late game this heads towards advantage. At it's biggest discrepancy, a 20th level rogue (10d6 sneak) with a +5 DEX and +3 weapon we get:

(35 * 0.05) + (8 * .2275) - 1.4875 = 1.75+1.82-1.4875 =
2.0825

So at it's most for a 20th level character it's around a 2.1 HP per round expected difference. You are right, but in practical terms they are pretty much the same.

Thanks, I hadn't considered that option.
 


Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
This analysis ignores using hold action to get a sneak attack in the first round when the rogue wins initiative. Maybe my experience is different but I use that all the time.
Yes, that's a corner case where you are not making any attacks on your own round. It's likely first round per combat at most, and assumes that (a) a foe will decide to close with you and (b) at the time that they will also have to intentionally moved adjacent to an ally of yours to allow sneak attack. What are the odds of that? Not just in your game, since if you use it "all the time" it sounds like you have a DM that is intentionally empowering you with that, but across all games?
 


I'm not sure I'd even call "2h fighter took gwm" an "optimizer". That's almost dropping unoptimised builds to a point like "maxed int or thought actor was good"

Fixing all of these bonkers edge cases also creates room for actual optimization that takes more than one obvious step.
I wouldn't either. 2h Fighter with GWM does not have massively increased damage over the baseline.
GWM + PAM + Precision attack human variant BM Fighter is a much more optimised character and their damage can be much higher.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top