D&D (2024) D&D One Changes to the Rogue...

[Yaarel]

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?

 

[FrogReaver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Blue]

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]

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]

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.