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

[Li Shenron]

The designers of the game have said the intention is for the rogue to have SA in basically every round of combat.

Then they failed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then they failed.

No, they didn't.

 

[auburn2]

I think 95% is still pretty close to accurate. Running, shooting fights are pretty rare. Far more often are fights in dungeons or other places where you can get on the enemy round 1 and the rogue gets sneak attack for 100% of his attacks. The rare running fights where the rogue gets sneak attack on 0% of his attacks are just part of the 5% of attacks where he doesn't get it.

I would say long range shooting fights are not rare but are uncommon, and fights where you can get to the enemy in 1 round are common but still a minority or at best a plurality of total fights. There are going to be lots of times when it is the Rogues turn and there is not an ally adjacent to an enemy he can attack. Heck a fair amount of times the Rogue will win initiative and go before the rest of his party gets into position.

 

[auburn2]

I disagree. Your mileage may vary. My encounters tend to be dungeons and similar areas (the scale of a standard battle map with minis) in groups of 5 PCs, and with ample terrain to allow Hiding.

Your Rogues never disadvantaged from being poisioned or frightenend? Your enemies never take dodge when they can see you? You never fight displacer beasts or any other creature like that? Are you never pron?. Are your enemies never prone when you are using a missile weapon? Are your enemies never invisible or in darkness when they can see you or have blindsight?

Hiding only gives SA if you succeed, and you fail more than 5% of the time, further if you hide and fail, you can't take steady aim and attack that turn.

Are you telling me all the cases above, plus others I did not mention cumulatively account for less than 5% of the attacks your Rogues make?

 

[auburn2]

No, they didn't.

Yes they did fail if that was the intent. If they really intended for the Rogue to have SA every single turn then the PHB is poorly worded. What it should say is:
"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack"

If they said that and left off the rest of the paragraph the Rogue would actually get SA every single turn.

Saying they intended for it to be every turn when they wrote it, is like saying they intended for him to get SA with greatswords. If it was true they would not have put wording specifically disallowing it in the PHB.

If the author put wording in there that prevents him from getting SA or puts conditions on it, then clearly the author who wrote that, when he wrote it, intended to prevent the Rogue from getting SA every turn. It is possible he/they changed his/thier mind. I will add that material that has come out since the PHB, including inquisitive, swashbuckler and now steady aim all may support the idea that they did change their mind.

I will add, why bother with insightful fighting or the second part of Rakish audacity if they already get SA every turn.

 

[Flamestrike]

Are you telling me all the cases above, plus others I did not mention cumulatively account for less than 5% of the attacks your Rogues make?

Yes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes they did fail if that was the intent. If they really intended for the Rogue to have SA every single turn then the PHB is poorly worded. What it should say is:
"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an Attack"

If they said that and left off the rest of the paragraph the Rogue would actually get SA every single turn.

Saying they intended for it to be every turn when they wrote it, is like saying they intended for him to get SA with greatswords. If it was true they would not have put wording specifically disallowing it in the PHB.

If the author put wording in there that prevents him from getting SA or puts conditions on it, then clearly the author who wrote that, when he wrote it, intended to prevent the Rogue from getting SA every turn. It is possible he/they changed his/thier mind. I will add that material that has come out since the PHB, including inquisitive, swashbuckler and now steady aim all may support the idea that they did change their mind.

I will add, why bother with insightful fighting or the second part of Rakish audacity if they already get SA every turn.

I think you misunderstand. The rogue is balanced so that they aren’t overpowered if they get SA on literally every attack they ever make.

The rogue is also built so that getting SA is easy, as long as the rogue engages in certain rogueish tactics.

Subclasses sometimes change the rogues fighting style by allowing it to bypass those rogueish tactics in favor of different ones.

The rogue is built to feel a certain way in a fight, but doing comparable damage to other combatants using noticeably different tactics.

 

[auburn2]

I think you misunderstand. The rogue is balanced so that they aren’t overpowered if they get SA on literally every attack they ever make.

The rogue is also built so that getting SA is easy, as long as the rogue engages in certain rogueish tactics.

Subclasses sometimes change the rogues fighting style by allowing it to bypass those rogueish tactics in favor of different ones.

The rogue is built to feel a certain way in a fight, but doing comparable damage to other combatants using noticeably different tactics.On

In combat they are not overpowered if they get SA every single turn. You are right about that.

If we just give Rogue's SA every single turn and even if we allowed it when they were in disadvantage or wielding a greatsword or whatever, it still would not be OP in combat.

On that much we can agree .... BUT

A Rogue has more base skill proficiencies than any other characters, all else equal - 2 more than most and 1 more than Ranger or Bard. In addition he gets expertise on two of them and another two at 6th level.

This means a Rogue will be a master out of combat and better than any other class overall (assuming the players are equal).

A Rogue doing just as much damage as your best ass-whipper in combat is more OP overall because of how effective he is when out of combat.*

* Note I am ignoring hp and AC in this discussion. My reasoning is that disengage BA, evasion and uncanny dodge combined are roughly equivalent to the higher AC and higher hps a fighter or other D10 character gets.

 

[Rabulias]

There are going to be lots of times when it is the Rogues turn and there is not an ally adjacent to an enemy he can attack. Heck a fair amount of times the Rogue will win initiative and go before the rest of his party gets into position.

If an ally will be engaging someone later this round, readying an action to attack the first engaged enemy (with Sneak Attack) is a good strategy. If the distance is too great for them to be engaged this round, go ahead and take the shot without Sneak Attack. You are still adding another potential round of damage above the melee folks' average.

 

[auburn2]

If an ally will be engaging someone later this round, readying an action to attack the first engaged enemy (with Sneak Attack) is a good strategy. If the distance is too great for them to be engaged this round, go ahead and take the shot without Sneak Attack. You are still adding another potential round of damage above the melee folks' average.

Agree that is an option, one of several he could use and depending on the situation he could even daisy chain it - try BA hide first and then if he fails then ready action.