Rogue Idea: Trading Sneak Attack Damage for Opportunities

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There is a bit of a debate going on over how hard it is/should be for the rogue to get in a sneak attack. Here's an off the cuff idea for adding flexibility for rogues: what if, instead of getting +1d6 every level, at each odd-numbered level starting with level 3, they get to choose one of the following:

Added Damage: +2d6 damage to Sneak Attacks. (Can be taken multiple times.)

Opportunist: You gain advantage on attacks against any creature that has taken damage since your last turn.

Flanking Strike: You gain advantage on attacks against any creature adjacent to more than one opponent (including yourself).

Crippling Strike: On a successful sneak attack, your target must contest your dex with his con; if he loses, he's stunned for one round.

(EDIT: Added this because I think it's important
Quick Hiding: Hiding does not require an action, and can instead be done as part of a movement (taking up 10 feet of your move).

...and so on. So you can focus on being a "flanking rogue," with a bunch of ways to get advantage in melee, or you can just crank up your SA damage so when you really do get in a surprise attack it causes a lot of pain. Plus, you have some options to make your sneak attack have additional effects.

Anyone think this is worth considering? Or does it make more sense to have additional means of gaining advantage through themes? Or secret option C?

 

[Abstruse]

It's a good idea, but those numbers really need to be fiddled with to keep it from being game breaking. Frankly, I'd never take anything but the +2d6 Sneak Attack damage. +1d6 at 1st, +3d6 at 2nd, +4d6 at 3rd, +6d6 and 4th, etc.

Also, advantage should be something you have to work to get. I like that rogues don't just get sneak attack every single round just for shifting to the right square. They should have to do a feint or attack from the high ground or hide or do something else to get that extra damage. Especially since it's not just bonus damage, but being able to roll 2d20 and pick which one to use. That's very powerful and shouldn't be handed out for free since it pretty much guarantees auto-hit every round, includes a lot of bonus damage, and doubles the chances of a crit every round.

 

[Texicles]

very powerful and shouldn't be handed out for free since it pretty much guarantees auto-hit every round...

While I agree, as you said, that the idea is compelling, and the numbers need tweaking, be careful about placing too much faith in Advantage. IIRC, statistically, Advantage is roughly the same as a +3.something (can't remember exactly) modifier. I mean, I would never pass up +3.something on a roll, but I wouldn't count on it being an automatic success either.

I only bring this up because I think it's important information to get spread around, just so everyone knows the relative strength of Ad/Disad for these theoretical discussions.


Now, a question for the OP, do you think there need to be 9+/- options (to cover all odd levels from 1 to 20), or should it be more to make it impossible to get everything, or should it be less so it is possible to get everything and +dmg dice a few times making the choice when, not if?

 

[YRUSirius]

I like the features suggested (flanking strike, etc.). Fits the 5E style pretty well. Though I don't know yet if it's balanced to trade it for sneak attack. We might see something like flanking strike built into the higher level rogue, I kinda see it coming.

-YRUSirius

 

[Abstruse]

While I agree, as you said, that the idea is compelling, and the numbers need tweaking, be careful about placing too much faith in Advantage. IIRC, statistically, Advantage is roughly the same as a +3.something (can't remember exactly) modifier. I mean, I would never pass up +3.something on a roll, but I wouldn't count on it being an automatic success either.

It averages out to just under +5 depending on the bonus in question, with the bonus to success being I think somewhere between +30% to +80% depending on bonus and target number. I don't remember the entire chart, but one of the threads either on here, WotC's forums, or Giants in the Playground broke it down roll-by-roll, bonus-by-bonus, and DC-by-DC exactly what advantage does. Generally, though, it's about the same as getting +5 to the roll except for extremely low or extremely high bonuses/target numbers (especially on attacks where 20 always hits).

But yes I think we agree, very good idea that just needs work on the actual implementation.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Thanks for the comments; I should note that while I don't really expect that the numbers are balanced (they're certainly not playtested or anything), my goal was that the non-damage options are as compelling as the damage ones. So at level 3, you have to choose between doing 3d6 SA damage only whenever you can hide (which is at most every other round, it seems) and doing 1d6 SA damage virtually every round you're in melee alongside other PCs, as long as you're careful about positioning and so on. That said, I didn't even make a real attempt to assure the stun option is balanced; without having playtested it, it seems a bit weak right now.

To me, 1d6 SA per level (max) seems crazy high, but that's what the playtest rogue gets...

Now, a question for the OP, do you think there need to be 9+/- options (to cover all odd levels from 1 to 20), or should it be more to make it impossible to get everything, or should it be less so it is possible to get everything and +dmg dice a few times making the choice when, not if?

I'd say there should be a few other options that add non-damage effects to SA, just so that I can play a "crippling rogue" if I want, but overall I expect that the most powerful builds would include lots of +damage and just one or two added ways to get it.

 

[BobTheNob]

Hmmm, yea.

Positives : It is a unique take on the rogue. It bundles up a number of the 4e'isms without modelling them as powers.

When the players create character builds (as this idea firmly sits in the design space of), it means that there is a strong decision process at level up time, and that what they do during the game tends to reflect this. For a long time now I have thought this was the way to do things (Probably since late 2e, and coming into its own in 3e).

Im changing position of late. I want what the players do at game time to be determined by what the players can come up with, not the decision they made when they last leveled up. I think "builds" is good for CRPG's, but for tabletop mechanics, I want it more about playing the game and less about designing the character.

On reading your post, this doesnt strictly apply (as you post focus's strictly on the combat applications of the rogue), but still I find this moving in the wrong direction for what I am looking for, especially for martial archtypes.

That does not mean Im totally dismissive of the idea, it more means I would put it on the "maybe" shelf.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's a good idea, but those numbers really need to be fiddled with to keep it from being game breaking. Frankly, I'd never take anything but the +2d6 Sneak Attack damage. +1d6 at 1st, +3d6 at 2nd, +4d6 at 3rd, +6d6 and 4th, etc.

I believe his intention is that the Rogue gets nothing at even-numbered levels. +2d6 at 3rd is a replacement for the current system of +1d6 at 2nd and +1d6 at 3rd.

So the progression, for a Rogue who took the +2d6 option every time, would be:

1st: +1d6
2nd: +1d6
3rd: +3d6
4th: +3d6
5th: +5d6

It's actually less powerful than the playtest Rogue, because at every even-numbered level he's down 1d6. But in exchange, he has the option of taking a non-damaging special ability in place of +2d6.

-Hyp.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I believe his intention is that the Rogue gets nothing at even-numbered levels. +2d6 at 3rd is a replacement for the current system of +1d6 at 2nd and +1d6 at 3rd.

So the progression, for a Rogue who took the +2d6 option every time, would be:

1st: +1d6
2nd: +1d6
3rd: +3d6
4th: +3d6
5th: +5d6

It's actually less powerful than the playtest Rogue, because at every even-numbered level he's down 1d6. But in exchange, he has the option of taking a non-damaging special ability in place of +2d6.

Exactly.

I should note that I'm not sure how this balance holds up at higher levels. Choosing between a 3d6 sneak attack from hiding and a 1d6 sneak attack from flanking might be a tough choice at level 3, but I'd imagine that 17d6 sneak attack from hiding wouldn't look nearly as good as 15d6 sneak attack from flanking at level 17. (I added the "quick hiding" option in an edit to my original post so that at least there's a way for a rogue to get in a sneak attack from hiding every round.)

But then again, 17d6 sneak attack damage sounds ludicrous and unworkable anyway, so I'm guessing this system doesn't run all the way up to level 20.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Overall, I like the idea of the Rogue being about more than Sneak Attack damage; however, I'm more of a fan of the Rogue having a suite of different things they can do so that they are making choices every round as opposed to every level.

One of the things I liked about the Complete Thief's Handbook was that it added the option for Mugging as well as Backstabbing, so that you could try to knock someone out as well as do spike damage - I think building off that idea would be interesting.

For example, if a Rogue could use Blackjack (stuns until your next turn) or Garotte (ongoing grapple, 50% of spell failure) or Smoke Bomb (blinds enemy until your next turn), then you'd have real choices where Sneak Attack wouldn't be the best option, and the turn in-between Sneak Attacks would still be engaging.