D&D One Changes to the Rogue...

[Sabathius42]

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.

Choice 3: MOVE behind something. BONUS action hide. SHOOT with SA damage.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I still have trouble calling that optimization because there's no min to min/max, it's just thoughtless max all things.

Edit: that's part of the problem with 5e, there are never any tradeoffs to power

 

[Sir Brennen]

What if the Sneak Attack rule was changed to restricted to once a round, rather than once a turn (2014) or once on your turn (1DnD current playtest doc)?

Then the situation of a rogue readying an action for an ally to get next to an enemy, and using their reaction to attack, would allow SA in that situation.

I think that plus the new TWF rules might be a fair compromise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What if the Sneak Attack rule was changed to restricted to once a round, rather than once a turn (2014) or once on your turn (1DnD current playtest doc)?

Then the situation of a rogue readying an action for an ally to get next to an enemy, and using their reaction to attack, would allow SA in that situation.

I think that plus the new TWF rules might be a fair compromise.

I like, that it is tied to the attack action.
I think, readying actions should allow for readying an attack action instead of just an attack.
Ok... you actually ready an attack action... So I now have to look up, if you can now use twf as a reaction...

So for the rogue, they just need to drop "on your turn".

 

[Stalker0]

I believe it's safe to say that the vast majority of players do not know that rogues can get an off turn sneak attack. It's a niche playstyle for optimizers.

I have to agree here. In all of my parties that have had rogues, I haven't had any that would reliably get double sneak attacks through OAs or other means. It just didn't happen.

So the optimized rogue is nerfed, the "standard" rogue probably won't notice much.

As to the hide rules, if passive perception is truly gone for use in finding enemies, this is A HUGE HUGE buff to stealth. Getting a 15 stealth for a stealth focused character is trivial. the only thing that stopped stealth before was the one person with the crazy high passive perception, so if that's gone....nothing stops stealth.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually after one campaign, my players just pushed on their own account and timed their big guns more carefully. So yes. It was all psychology.

Re the psychology of it.

When long-resting for an 8-hour night, there is kinda a sense that the monsters are resting too, moreorless.

But when long-resting for a 24-hour full rest, there is a sense that alot of things might change by the time they get back to monsters.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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?

No you are needlessly constraining the requirements. There are a bunch of scenarios where it works. When the rogue has high initiative (which happens frequently) there are a variety of ways to Ready (!) Action to get SA. No empowerment necessary.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Choice 3: MOVE behind something. BONUS action hide. SHOOT with SA damage.

Sure, when there’s something to hide behind and they’re already within range.

 

[Blue]

No you are needlessly constraining the requirements. There are a bunch of scenarios where it works. When the rogue has high initiative (which happens frequently) there are a variety of ways to Ready (!) Action to get SA. No empowerment necessary.

So are there a bunch of scenarios it works, or is it "all the time"? The first is believable. The second was your original claim that I felt required the DM empowering you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So are there a bunch of scenarios it works, or is it "all the time"? The first is believable. The second was your original claim that I felt required the DM empowering you.

It was colloquial “all the time.” Maybe English is not your first language but it is idiomatic and does not mean “every single time.”

 

[Sabathius42]

Sure, when there’s something to hide behind and they’re already within range.

Of the 3 scenarios that's the one that is by far the most common at my table for the rogue getting SA.

 

[rules.mechanic]

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.

It's a good point and a dilemma that does currently come up, but currently only for the two-weapon rogues. Would be great if all rogues get something else to do with their bonus action that competes with cunning action, or if cunning action included more options - perhaps something that comes from their subclass at 3rd level (like the Thief's Fast Hands, the 5e Mastermind's Master of Tactics Help action, or the 5e Arcane Trickster's bonus-action spells).

So at 3 level, could the Assassin use Cunning Action to reroll a missed attack ? The Scout could use it to make another (single) attack at a cost (disadvantage/exhaustion?) - i.e. a weaker form of the 5e Scout's capstone Sudden Strike? The Swashbuckler might not need Fancy Footwork any more so Elegant Maneuver could come earlier?

 

[clearstream]

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).

"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)."

It may be the intent is active. As written it would include passive.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's a good point and a dilemma that does currently come up, but currently only for the two-weapon rogues. Would be great if all rogues get something else to do with their bonus action that competes with cunning action, or if cunning action included more options - perhaps something that comes from their subclass at 3rd level (like the Thief's Fast Hands, the 5e Mastermind's Master of Tactics Help action, or the 5e Arcane Trickster's bonus-action spells).

So at 3 level, could the Assassin use Cunning Action to reroll a missed attack ? The Scout could use it to make another (single) attack at a cost (disadvantage/exhaustion?) - i.e. a weaker form of the 5e Scout's capstone Sudden Strike? The Swashbuckler might not need Fancy Footwork any more so Elegant Maneuver could come earlier?

Oh, good point about rapier rogues.

But they should burn in hell so we can add that to the “pros” column of the new rules.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't know why this change, I don't remember plenty of complaints in the last 8 years about sneak attack on OA being a real problem.

It's interesting also what they haven't changed: Reliable Talent, despite the way it becomes useless if you follow Crawford's sage advice about passive checks setting a base result of 10 for everyone attempting everything... can we take it as WotC realized Crawford was plain out wrong about its own sage advice?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know why this change, I don't remember plenty of complaints in the last 8 years about sneak attack on OA being a real problem.

It's interesting also what they haven't changed: Reliable Talent, despite the way it becomes useless if you follow Crawford's sage advice about passive checks setting a base result of 10 for everyone attempting everything... can we take it as WotC realized Crawford was plain out wrong about its own sage advice?

I guess passive checks just disappear.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Of the 3 scenarios that's the one that is by far the most common at my table for the rogue getting SA.

Huh. We have combats all the time frequently where there is nothing to hide behind, and/or out of bow range. We also enforce weapon drawing/stowing rules, so a rogue who wants to shoot once then engage has some choices to make.

If your rogues are using this too frequently you might get accused of “DM enablement.” /wink

 

[Li Shenron]

I guess passive checks just disappear.

That would be an interesting and even welcome change from me, but I don't believe it will happen. Although the fixed DC for hiding might be a hint.

 

[CM]

What if the Sneak Attack rule was changed to restricted to once a round, rather than once a turn (2014) or once on your turn (1DnD current playtest doc)?

This is how I've been houseruling SA since 5e launch and it's been fine. Will continue that way if 5.5e restricts it to the attack action on your turn.

 

[Sabathius42]

Huh. We have combats all the time frequently where there is nothing to hide behind, and/or out of bow range. We also enforce weapon drawing/stowing rules, so a rogue who wants to shoot once then engage has some choices to make.

If your rogues are using this too frequently you might get accused of “DM enablement.” /wink

I dunno what to tell you. Most dungeons have doorways, forests have trees, towns and ruins have buildings....maybe featureless large open spaces is something your table likes?

Ranged rogues (2 of the 3 rogues that have been played at my table) pretty much never engage in melee. The one melee rogue we have had (my swashbuckler) sticks and moves so once again avoids actually being in melee unless it's his turn.