Homebrew Homebrew: Fixing the Rogue

[Silam]

Here’s a simple idea to fix the Rogue’s damage and restore them to the pantheon of strikers. It’s so simple I’m sure someone else must have thought of it before. Here it is:

Sneak Attack has no limit per turn, per round, etc. Any attack can be a SA as long as it qualifies. None of the per turn BS that leads to twisted exploits like readying an action simply to get back on par with everyone else. Eliminate all that complexity. If you have Greater Invisibility, Extra Attack (2) + TWF (1 more) + 1 opportunity attack, all 4 are eligible for SA, no fooling around.

So what’s the twist? You must hit on both rolls to get the extra SA damage.

So it’s a special kind of advantage. Turbo-charged advantage, if you will. Or maybe a more accurate way to say it is: the base damage is resolved with advantage, while the extra SA damage is resolved with disadvantage.

If you hit with just one of the two rolls, you deal normal damage, as a non-Rogue normally would on an attack with advantage. But if two rolls hit, then you add the extra SA damage.

If you qualify for SA without advantage, then you have to hit with your one roll first, as normal, and that determines if you deal your normal damage, and if you hit on that first roll, then you get to roll again to see if you also apply the SA damage. So, same idea as above, except you don’t have advantage. It’s a bit of a bummer to resolve this sequentially (reminds me of 3e crit threat) though you could still roll both dices in parallel if you stick to some color coding.

If you have Elven Accuracy and advantage, you need 1 out of 3 rolls to hit for normal damage (as usual), and 2 out of the 3 rolls to hit for the extra SA damage.

Thoughts?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That seems more complex.

 

[Silam]

That seems more complex.

Sure. That may well be true.

How about balance-wise? Do you think it would make Rogues more competitive without making them too strong? Or is busted (too weak or too strong)?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Significantly worse to my mind.
Rogues do not have easy access to multiple attacks other than dual-wielding. By making their attacks less likely to apply Sneak Attack, I think that this change would actually reduce their damage.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If i had been asked to identify what needed fixing with the rogue, not getting enough sneak attacks wouldn’t be what I’d of picked, inconsistency of getting sneak attack off without extra attack perhaps, but not not getting enough uses of it.

 

[tetrasodium]

If i had been asked to identify what needed fixing with the rogue, not getting enough sneak attacks wouldn’t be what I’d of picked, inconsistency of getting sneak attack off without extra attack perhaps, but not not getting enough uses of it.

I agree entirely and offer a theory based in math about why the OP might feel that way.

Back on 3.x the expectation of magic item churn & the iterative attack penalty allowed for monsters to have ac values that required d20 rolls better than the avg 8 with starter gear 5e math is built around. That allowed faster combat without being too swingy as a result of the attack rolls alone because the first attack was very likely to hit a 2nd 3rd 4th had good odds of being quickly blipped past with a miss.

If the OP's GM or op themselves is raising monster ac to bring back that acceleration they might be trying to fix the resulting problem of rogues no longer unlocking a second attack at 7)or whatever it was) and no longer having the benefit of a full BaB sneak attack against a monster built on something other than boatloads of hitponts. Of course there's an endless list of other related elements that would influence that possible problem like how rarely it is for a 2md3rd4th attack to go unused if a target is killed simply because there's no longer a move action difference between attack+5 foot step/move and full attack with PCs now able to move before and after every single attack.

Just a guess