D&D 5E Moving out of concealment to attack - when is stealth broken?

[Flamestrike]

And that means we should make it even easier? No.

Mate, Rouges dont become 'broken' when they get sneak attack damage. They're just useless in combat without it, and their combat effectiveness is based around the assumption that they get it on nearly every single attack.

Baseline Fighter 11, greatsword - 3 attacks, 6d6+15 damage (re-roll 1's amd 2's) so around 45 damage - and likely considerably more via GWM, Sup dice, Expanded critical or whatever from archetype and Action surge or magica weapon effects triggering 3 times.

Baseline Rogue 11, shortsword - 1 attack, 7d6+5 damage, so around 40 damage. Unable to increase much higher with feats and archetypes.

Without SA, the 11th level Rogue deals around 9 damage with his single attack, which is clearly trash.

 

[auburn2]

If your Rogue is not getting SA damage in 95 percent of the times they're rolling damage, you're not Rogueing correctly.

I disagree with that. They have disadvantage more than 5 percent of the time they are rolling damage and that stops SA regardless of the other conditions. After disadvantage, you do not get SA damage unless you are using a ranged or finesse weapon, meaning if you are throwing oil, casting a spell, pushing someone off a cliff or anything other than attacking with a ranged or finesse weapon you are not getting it either.

Those combined are going to account for well over 5% of the times you are rolling damage even if you could get it every other time (which you cant). I think in general it is more like you will get a sneak attack opportunity 60-70% of your turns as a Rogue. If you only consider the turns you make a weapon attack and forget turns where you do another action it is probably about 80% in my campaigns, both as a player and as a DM more for a swashbuckler.

If you were actually expected to get it 100% of the time there would be no conditions at all. It would be like the gloom stalker's extra damage. The rules would say the Rogue "gets sneak attack damage on 1 attack a turn" and leave it at that.

The last battle I had with my 2nd level Rogue we started 300 ft from the enemy. With my heavy crossbow I made 9 attacks and got exactly 1 SA. The first and only time I got SA in the entire battle was when I shot a bolt from 95ft away against an enemy that was finally in melee with the Paladin on the 2nd to last round of battle and you would be hard pressed to explain how your Rogue would have got SA. Of note I did manage a crit with disadvantage on a long range shot. That is the first I can remember doing that myself .... no SA dice on it though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is different than getting advantage from hiding every round.

No one claimed the design intent is to hide every round.

 

[Maxperson]

If you focus on one guy while many are trying to kill you, then are going to be dead a lot quicker. Sorry I don't buy this and I think you contradict yourself here.

You can only be so aware of what goes on around you until you get to the point where you are fatally distracted. This is why 2 on 1 and 3 on 1 usually end up with the 1 dead. The 1 can't focus on 2 or 3 enemies at the same time and those are the ones he knows about. If he's going to split his attention further and look for enemies that might be lurking, waiting to jump out at him, he's got a death wish and will soon have it granted.

The whole premise of your argument is the guy is not paying attention to the main threat - i.e. the Rogue that is trying to sneak attack him.

Um. No. The premise of my argument is literally the opposite. The main threat is the one in front of him trying to bash his head in with a mace. Splitting your attention in all directions to spot a rogue that might or might not even exist is stupid.

 

[Flamestrike]

The last battle I had with my 2nd level Rogue we started 300 ft from the enemy. With my heavy crossbow I made 9 attacks and got exactly 1 SA.

1. 300' battles are outliers.
2. How were you proficient in the Heavy Crossbow?
3. Presuming a 30' movement speed, and your enemy remaining where he was, instead of plinking away with disadvantage on the attack rolls and no sneak attack to the damage, you could have instead closed to inside of 100' within 3 rounds (Dash and bonus action Dash each of rounds 1 and 2 covering 90' each round, then moved 30' on round 3, bonus action Hide, and then Attack with advantage for your action), making your attacks with advantage AND getting your sneak attack in each of rounds 3-9 instead of just on round 9.

If you choose to play a rogue your way, of course you wont get sneak attack. If you had have instead played your rogue to his strengths (kiting and sniping) you would have been 3 times more effective gaining advantage on 7/9 attack rolls and added sneak attack damage on all the attacks that hit.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I do try and throw in the occasional long range fight for the sake of variety.

 

[Reynard]

If Rogues were supposed to Sneak Attack every round, then Sneak Attack would have been written without any advantage requirement.

They don't require advantage to get Sneak Attack. They require teamwork.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, most people can't react fast enough to strike in that fraction of a second it takes you to half turn your head and use your eyes to check behind you. By the time they think to strike you can already be looking at your attacker again.

As to the advantage of numbers, this is very much a big deal IME doing martial arts and self-defense.

Even without flanking rules, granting attackers advantage when ganging up on a common defender is a good idea IMO. Of course, it can be a BIG advantage, so I've suggested instead granting the attackers a cumulative +1 bonus instead: so three attackers on one defender would gain a +3 bonus. To deny this bonus, you can have the defender accept disadvantage on his own attacks. It works as a nice house-rule for our tables.

 

[Asisreo]

Mate, Rouges dont become 'broken' when they get sneak attack damage. They're just useless in combat without it, and their combat effectiveness is based around the assumption that they get it on nearly every single attack.

Baseline Fighter 11, greatsword - 3 attacks, 6d6+15 damage (re-roll 1's amd 2's) so around 45 damage - and likely considerably more via GWM, Sup dice, Expanded critical or whatever from archetype and Action surge or magica weapon effects triggering 3 times.

Baseline Rogue 11, shortsword - 1 attack, 7d6+5 damage, so around 40 damage. Unable to increase much higher with feats and archetypes.

Without SA, the 11th level Rogue deals around 9 damage with his single attack, which is clearly trash.

DnD has a range to the damage they expect someone or something to do.

There's no reason why rogues can be assumed to have such equal damage to other classes at all times since they clearly have other powerful features in their belt like expertise, uncanny dodge, and high dex usage.

I think the designers meant that nothing breaks if they have sneak attack every round and the DM shouldn't try to prevent it. Not that if they don't get it, they'll fall behind the way saying they're "supposed to" does.

 

[nogray]

Further even if an enemy successfully hides, the enemy can flat prevent advantage simply by taking the dodge action. If the enemy takes a dodge action or does anythign else to cause disadvantage then it is impossible for a Rogue to get advantage. He can be melee attacking while invisible and hidden using a Barbarian Reckless attack ability against an enemy illuminated by faerie fire who is prone, poisoned, and restrained and he will still not have advantage if the enemy takes dodge action or there is any other condition that applies disadvantage. A single thing that causes disadvantage will cancel all advantages.

I don't know if this was addressed in the pages or time between then and now, but this isn't entirely true. The "a single thing that causes disadvantage ..." part at the end is correct, but the "preventing advantage from hidden enemies attacking by taking the dodge action" part is not correct. Against a hidden (or otherwise unseen) attacher, the dodge action does nothing. The dodge action only imposes disadvantage if you can see the attacker. If you successfully hide (or are outside the target's darkvision range, etc.) then the Dodge action doesn't help them at all.