Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Might want to go easy on the accusations of lying.
I didn't miss it and I don't think I am wrong. He switched the inspiration issue around to test a different method for inspiration and just used the old crit because otherwise he'd have to re-write that again when he just wants to test the inspiration mechanic issue. But I think he's pretty settled on that other aspect of crits. We shall see, but I didn't miss anything. I genuinely believe the other aspect of the change (weapon damage only) is confirmed for 2024 based on his videos.Crawford also explained in the videos that the rules glossary of later UA supersedes the rules glossaries of earlier UA. The latest UA says to use the 2014 Crit rules, not the ones from the previous UA. You're wrong and you missed a substantial change in this UA. Rogues can still double Critical Sneak Attack damage. This is from the most recent UA's rules glossary (you can double check for yourself, just "CTRL + F" it)
It's literally identical to Pack Tactics. It's the identical words, with literally only the name changed.:
I hope this clears things up.
It's actually more substantial than that
Yes, I know. That's Pack Tactics.. It means that so long as they have an ally within 5 feet of their target, they always get to sneak attack, because the advantage cancels out any potential disadvantages they might get. This helps a lot for ranged rogues that might have disadvantage from long range, from being within 5 feet of the enemy, being prone, restrained, or inflicted with some other debilitating condition.
No, it's meaningless for most campaigns. According to WOTC, most campaigns have ended before 13th level. The number of games this will impact is small. They had advantage guaranteed with Steady Aim at THIRD LEVEL before, and now it takes TEN more levels to get advantage when you need it? That's definitely not a "great buff." I'll likely never run a rogue to those levels. None of our campaigns in all these years of 5e, starting with the early beta test, have ever gotten to 13th level.This is a great buff.
You no longer can get expertise in tools though, for what that is worth.We'll have to wait until after the survey to find out! I personally think level 7 is a bit early to get "completely ignore Fireball most of the time", especially when you get an extra Subclass ability to make up for delaying the feature 2 levels, but I'd be fine with either.
Yep! So it's a smaller nerf than you thought! (Doesn't work on Initiative unless you're a bunnyman, doesn't work on Counterspell/Dispel Magic unless you're a level 10 Aburation Wizard multiclassed 11 levels into Rogue somehow, et cetera.) And, since tool checks are now based off of specific skills, that means that more tools are available with Reliable Talent. That's an overall buff, IMO.
Rogues definitely have seen a nerf overall so far. And the overwhelming majority of reviews of this rogue agree they're seeing an overall reduction in power.So they gain the whip, which they can sneak attack with at reach, and lose the longsword, which is mostly useless to them because they can't sneak attack with it. I don't consider that a nerf.
Yep! I thought it was neat! Rogues basically get an extra Expertise because of this (they don't have to choose Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand to have proficiency with both, they get both just from choosing Thieves' Tools).
Demonstrably untrue.
Here's what Rogues lost:
- Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place).
- Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade for any rogue of the right race/feat ability (also absolutely unintended). You can still Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade if you have 6 levels in Bladesinger, though.
- Longsword proficiency (largely useless anyway)
- Hand-Crossbow proficiency
- The option to gain Performance proficiency from their class skills (barely a nerf, you can always take it from your background skills)
- The ability to use Evasion when incapacitated (which was ridiculous anyway)
- Blindsense
He literally says in the video that they're returning back to the 2014 Crit rules. He mentions that they're changing the Inspiration Generation mechanic from natural 20s to natural 1s, but he also separately mentions a return to normal Critical Hits. The document even says that they're doing that. He says both in the video and the document that if a new rule contradicts an old rule, the newer one takes priority. You are 100% wrong here. Rogues can absolutely double their sneak attack damage on critical hits. This isn't a debate or matter of interpretation. There is nothing in the document or videos to suggest that you're right.I didn't miss it and I don't think I am wrong. He switched the inspiration issue around to test a different method for inspiration and just used the old crit because otherwise he'd have to re-write that again when he just wants to test the inspiration mechanic issue. But I think he's pretty settled on that other aspect of crits. We shall see, but I didn't miss anything. I genuinely believe the other aspect of the change (weapon damage only) is confirmed for 2024 based on his videos.
You're right. I thought Pack Tactics only worked in melee.It's literally identical to Pack Tactics. It's the identical words, with literally only the name changed.
Yes, I know. That's Pack Tactics.
Steady Aim requires your bonus action and takes all of your movement (and doesn't work if you had moved this turn). This would benefit rogues that have Steady Aim. We don't have any indication that Steady Aim isn't allowed anymore. And, it being a later-level feature doesn't make this not a great buff for the rogues that get it. Sure, a lot of people don't play at higher levels. I do. I have 2 players that will benefit a lot from this feature.No, it's meaningless for most campaigns. According to WOTC, most campaigns have ended before 13th level. The number of games this will impact is small. They had advantage guaranteed with Steady Aim at THIRD LEVEL before, and now it takes TEN more levels to get advantage when you need it? That's definitely not a "great buff." I'll likely never run a rogue to those levels. None of our campaigns in all these years of 5e, starting with the early beta test, have ever gotten to 13th level.
I think you're misremembering a rule. In the 2014 PHB, you could only choose one tool to get expertise in: Thieves' Tools. Now, you automatically get Expertise in Thieves' Tools if you have proficiency in Sleight of Hand. That's a buff. If you have expertise in any other skill that's used for another type of tools, it applies to those tools too (Disguise Kits might use Performance/Deception, or Smith's Tools could use Athletics, for example). You don't choose specific tools to get Expertise in, and Rogues couldn't do that in the first place.You no longer can get expertise in tools though, for what that is worth.
As I showed in this post, Rogues probably have gotten buffed overall (compared to the 2014 version, I'm not saying if they got more nerfs/buffs than the other classes). Most of their nerfs were situational and they got a lot of little buffs that add up (an extra feat at level 1, earlier subclass features, major dual wielding buffs, being way better with Thieves' Tools if they take proficiency/expertise in Sleight of Hand, etc). And most rogues probably didn't get Reaction Sneak Attacks that much (and Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade Rogues were definitely niche, too).Rogues definitely have seen a nerf overall so far. And the overwhelming majority of reviews of this rogue agree they're seeing an overall reduction in power.
And that makes zero sense. According to prior surveys it was a class with some of the most universal agreement that it was good as it was. There was no reason to reduce their power. Nobody was saying they were overpowered. Everyone seemed to like them as they were.
I always assumed that "once a turn" was meant to limit sneak attack to once a round, but the game designers didn't realize that it would apply to Opportunity Attacks and multiclass combos.How do you figure it was "not intended to work in the first place"? If so, they would have worded it differently, or said something in Sage Advice. Also, it's a loss in two ways: no Sneak Attack on opportunity attacks, and no Sneak Attack when holding an Action. They were both a big deal.
That's just Thief Rogues. I didn't include it into the class buff/nerf breakdown.You forgot Use an Object not being part of Cunning Action, which means no healer kits, and no healing potions. That was a big part of rogue play for a lot of us.
The "significant hit to damage" only applies to rogues regularly getting Reaction Sneak Attacks (which are really uncommon, in my experience) or abusing the Blade Cantrips to increase their DPR. And, like I showed in that post, the buffs aren't just "better at picking locks and jumping". They get extra feats, huge buffs to Dual Wielding, more/earlier subclass features, and much more. The hits to damage are neglibible, and the buff to Dual Wielding will be way more useful to most rogues than situational reaction attacks will be.If you merely count nerfs and buffs (and include the buffs that all classes get) then you might conclude that buffs > nerfs. But D&D is largely a game of killing monsters, and a significant hit to damage will, for a lot of people, vastly outweigh being better at picking locks and jumping.
but the game designers didn't realize that it would apply to Opportunity Attacks and multiclass combos.
Both of those scenarios are pretty uncommon in my experience.
(which are really uncommon, in my experience)
huge buffs to Dual Wielding
I see this as a nerf. They used to be the only class who could get expertise in thieves tools. Now any expert class can get this advantage. In fact, none of the tool points are rogue-specific, which also excludes
- Automatic advantage when using Thieves' Tools at level 1 if you choose Sleight of Hand as one of your proficient skills from the class or a background (boosted up to advantage and Expertise if you choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand)
2. You list a number of benefits all classes get:
- Expertise in more tools, because Tool Checks are now based on skills (this depends on what skills you have proficiency in)
- Reliable Talent on more tools, because Tool Checks are now based on skills (this also depends on what skills you have proficiency in)
So that's not about the rogue either (as you recognize)
- An extra feat at level 1 from your background (which other classes also get, but rogues from the 2014 PHB didn't, so it still counts as a buff to rogue characters transitioning from 5e to OneD&D)
- An extra Subclass feature at level 6 (which is why Expertise and Evasion are delayed a bit)
- An automatic Epic Boon at level 20 (which other classes also get, but rogues from the 2014 PHB didn't, so it still counts as a buff to rogue characters transitioning from 5e to OneD&D)
Has to be seen in terms of the overall change of weapon proficiencies. So of all the rogues you've seen, how many used hand crossbow as their main weapon? I've seen many, and think this is overall a nerf.
- Whip Proficiency (which can be dual-wielded)
counts as a boon for you, but no mention is made of losing Bonus action for Use and Object at level 3. Which one affects play more over the course of a campaign? Overall, a nerf. [EDIT: I see you've answered this in the previous post, written while I was typing]
- Proficiency with Charisma Saving throws from Slippery Mind (meaning that you'll have 4 saving throw proficiencies automatically, which you can boost to up 5 if you have the Resilient Feat)
...but exclude the ones delayed from your count
- Elusive at level 17 instead of level 18
- Stroke of Luck at level 18 instead of level 20
- Earlier subclass features (Their level 13 feature is moved to level 10, their level 17 feature is moved to level 14)
I'll note that early game abilities are delayed, late game abilities put earlier. Overall, it's a nerf.They also had a couple features delayed by a level or two (the second Expertise feature was moved from level 6 to level 7, Evasion was moved from level 7 to level 9).
- An extra feature at level 13, which makes it so if an ally is within 5 feet of the creature you're attacking, you will always sneak attack (and be more likely to crit sneak attack because you'll normally have advantage on the attack roll).
- Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place).
- Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade for any rogue of the right race/feat ability (also absolutely unintended). You can still Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade if you have 6 levels in Bladesinger, though.
so let's discount them. As you note, there is an extra language.
- The option to gain Performance proficiency from their class skills (barely a nerf, you can always take it from your background skills)
- The ability to use Evasion when incapacitated (which was ridiculous anyway)
So there's a boon. That'll be a game changer.
- An extra language at level 1 granted in addition to Thieves' Cant
- An extra attack as part of the Attack Action if you dual wield (no longer taking your bonus action, which can be used for Cunning Action, which dual-wielding rogues previously couldn't do)
So, that's 7 nerfs, quite a few of which are fairly minor or situational and 14 buffs, quite a few of which are really big (Dual Wielding, an extra feat, buffs to tools, more and earlier subclass features, another saving throw proficiency, so on).
I am sure you are very sincere in your counting here, and believe that your numbers are balanced and accurate. I hope you can at least see why someone might disagree with the way you have reckoned these things.By my count, the Rogue class gets twice as many buffs as it gets nerfs.
I never said they were stupid. I just said that they designed a feature in a way they didn't intend it to work. Which happens all the time, regardless of how intelligent the designers are.That's....a rather shocking indictment of the intelligence of the designers.
1. I guess I just don't run monsters that do that very often?Maybe that's the difference. Some of us see the reaction attacks happening a lot:
If you're not seeing these things happen then that's a difference in tables and play style. But in my experience these things happen a lot. Eliminating the held action option is particularly egregious, as those are sneak attacks instead of the SA on their turn, rather than in addition to.
- Hold Action until the enemy pops out of hiding
- Hold Action (especially in first round of combat) until an enemy is within 5' of an ally
- Regular opportunity attacks (which happens a lot in my group; YMMV)
- Opportunity attacks triggered by dissonant whispers
- Opportunity attacks triggered by feats (e.g. Mage Slayer, and I've even seen a rogue take Sentinel and get a TON of sneak attacks with it.)
Wait, how is this not a damage buff? In that circumstance, you still had to choose between using your bonus action to be cool (Cunning Action) or deal damage (Dual Wield). This change doesn't force you to choose, which would buff your damage by a dice roll every turn in combat. And even if this doesn't buff your damage, Cunning Action makes you less likely to take damage (Disengage/Dash to get out of an enemy's reach), which will boost your damage in the long run.Oh, and I disagree with that. The change to dual wielding is a huge buff to Cunning Action. Under the old rules, if I hit with my first short sword (and thus got my SA) I might disengage or do something else with my bonus action. But if I missed with my first attack I would almost always still use the offhand attack (except for some edge cases) and sacrifice my cunning action. So the new dual wielding rules mostly mean I get more cunning actions, not more damage.
So Steady Aim is now good for both ranged and melee rogues! You can Dual Wield and use your bonus action to make sure you Sneak Attack this turn. That's a damage buff!P.S. And steady aim is/was great because it lets you, at level 3, get SA on targets that aren't engaged with your allies. Like enemy archers, or that annoying caster. Subtle Strikes, at level 13, does not replicate that. And, yes, you sacrifice your movement, but if there was someplace to move to hide you would have moved there and used cunning action Hide in order to get advantage. So if you're using it you're probably stuck out in the open anyway.
He literally says in the video that they're returning back to the 2014 Crit rules. He mentions that they're changing the Inspiration Generation mechanic from natural 20s to natural 1s, but he also separately mentions a return to normal Critical Hits. The document even says that they're doing that. He says both in the video and the document that if a new rule contradicts an old rule, the newer one takes priority. You are 100% wrong here. Rogues can absolutely double their sneak attack damage on critical hits. This isn't a debate or matter of interpretation. There is nothing in the document or videos to suggest that you're right.
Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot. And I am assuming Steady Aim, along with all of Tasha's, is going away in terms of the optional rules because I believe they were intended as patches to the old rules in the first place. I think part of the point of One D&D is to adopt the patches which they thought worked as the main rules. But again, I could be wrong. Let's see what they say about Tasha's and how it could work with the new rules.You're right. I thought Pack Tactics only worked in melee.
Steady Aim requires your bonus action and takes all of your movement (and doesn't work if you had moved this turn). This would benefit rogues that have Steady Aim. We don't have any indication that Steady Aim isn't allowed anymore. And, it being a later-level feature doesn't make this not a great buff for the rogues that get it. Sure, a lot of people don't play at higher levels. I do. I have 2 players that will benefit a lot from this feature.
If you've been playing since the early tests, you've been playing 5e longer than I have. But I've gotten to those levels in multiple different campaigns.
It's a good buff, even if it's at higher levels.
No now you get expertise in Sleight of Hand if you had proficiency in Sleight of Hand, not Thieves Tools. You no longer can get expertise in Thieves Tools.I think you're misremembering a rule. In the 2014 PHB, you could only choose one tool to get expertise in: Thieves' Tools. Now, you automatically get Expertise in Thieves' Tools if you have proficiency in Sleight of Hand.
Rogues got "At 1st level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies and your proficiency with thieves’ tools."That's a buff. If you have expertise in any other skill that's used for another type of tools, it applies to those tools too (Disguise Kits might use Performance/Deception, or Smith's Tools could use Athletics, for example). You don't choose specific tools to get Expertise in, and Rogues couldn't do that in the first place.
I didn't think you showed it in that post. What you showed is similar to the original 3e reaction to Monks - counting individual abilities as opposed to overall impact. I think their overall effectiveness goes down. And that is so far the general consensus of reviewers of this document - which doesn't make that position correct but it does suggest I am not alone in thinking they're taking a loss on this one.As I showed in this post, Rogues probably have gotten buffed overall (compared to the 2014 version, I'm not saying if they got more nerfs/buffs than the other classes).
I am in no way going to count anything which all classes get as a buff for this class. The measurement is relative to those other classes. If all classes get a level 1 feat, then no class is being buffed by getting a level 1 feat. That's a net neutral gain - they got what everyone got by default, not an increase.Most of their nerfs were situational and they got a lot of little buffs that add up (an extra feat at level 1, earlier subclass features, major dual wielding buffs, being way better with Thieves' Tools if they take proficiency/expertise in Sleight of Hand, etc). And most rogues probably didn't get Reaction Sneak Attacks that much (and Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade Rogues were definitely niche, too).
You don't have goblin archers duck behind cover after they shoot? Really?1. I guess I just don't run monsters that do that very often?
It doesn't have to be the monster moving. If I beat the fighter on initiative, I hold action until the fighter runs up to the monster, then shoot. Practically every fight, it feels like.2. It's really hard to predict where a monster is going to move a lot of the time, and if they don't do what you want them do, then you lose a whole action.
Ummm...weird.3. I almost never have opportunity attacks trigger.
Bards? Almost always. And dissonant whispers is a favorite spell.4. How common are Bards/GOOlocks in your games?
Of course, mage slayer loses the OA benefit, so that one is nerfed anyway.5. I have played 3 campaigns with Rogues, but never seen any of them take Mage Slayer or Sentinel.
Wait, how is this not a damage buff? In that circumstance, you still had to choose between using your bonus action to be cool (Cunning Action) or deal damage (Dual Wield).
Steady Aim is not in the UA.So Steady Aim is now good for both ranged and melee rogues!
Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot.
If you never knew a Rogue to ready an action to get an attack which resulted in a sneak attack, I don't know what to tell yah. It's not that uncommon.
What in the world? How is a buff to other classes a nerf for the rogue?!?! That's not nerfing the rogue, that's making everyone better. Especially the rogue, because they get more skills than basically anyone else.I see this as a nerf. They used to be the only class who could get expertise in thieves tools. Now any expert class can get this advantage. In fact, none of the tool points are rogue-specific, which also excludes
Um, no. Not all classes get Expertise. Just the Rogue, Bard, and Ranger. And no other class gets Reliable Talent.2. You list a number of benefits all classes get:
Does that matter? That's a buff compared to the 2014 Ranger. A buff is a buff.So that's not about the rogue either (as you recognize)
We have to assume that they're keeping Whips as Finesse based on our current information.Has to be seen in terms of the overall change of weapon proficiencies.
None, actually. One used a longbow, the other dual wielded, and the other was a Soul Knife.So of all the rogues you've seen, how many used hand crossbow as their main weapon? I've seen many, and think this is overall a nerf.
I see your edit, but subclasses were not taken into account in the Class nerf/buff breakdown. We have to wait and see the other subclasses to see if they were nerfed/buffed overall.4. You are selective about presenting changes in specific abilities, too.
counts as a boon for you, but no mention is made of losing Bonus action for Use and Object at level 3. Which one affects play more over the course of a campaign? Overall, a nerf. [EDIT: I see you've answered this in the previous post, written while I was typing]
You know what? You're right here. I should have included that and was thinking of editing my post.5. You list three benefits with getting abilities early....
...but exclude the ones delayed from your count
I'll note that early game abilities are delayed, late game abilities put earlier. Overall, it's a nerf.
Noted.6. There is a change in abilities -- Blindsense at 14 has become Pack tactics at 13; obth are valuable. I'll call that a wash.
I don't take multiclassing into account when breaking down if a Class got Nerfed/Buffed. That would be ridiculous.7. Changes to Sneak Attack.
As has been discussed in this thread, there are several changes to the iconic Rogue ability. You list two cases
- without acknowledging how much the first one excludes: Ready an Action, opportunity attacks, or a Battlemaster's Commander's Strike. That is not inconsequential.
They are not. I proved that in an earlier post. There is no nerf here.In addition, if the rules for Critical Strike from the first playtest pack are kept, then Sneak attack dice do not double on a crit. So that's another substantial nerf. (Many would count that as two nerfs, but let's be conservative).
I noted the minor nerfs (Performance, no Evasion on Expertise), and also noted the minor buffs (extra language). What's your problem with this?8. I am not concerned about two of the abilities lost that you list
so let's discount them. As you note, there is an extra language.
So there's a boon. That'll be a game changer.
Again, it's ridiculous that you're considering this a "nerf" to rogues. Strictly comparing how good 2014 Rogues and OneD&D Rogues are at Thieves' Tools, it's 100% objectively true that Rogues got buffed here. They get the benefits of two expertise and Reliable Talent for the price of one and always-on advantage on Thieves' Tools. Who cares if Bards/Rangers can mimic what you're good at? They're not as good at it as you are from their base class features and you're better than you were previously at it!For losses:
- Thieves tool specialties are no longer a rogue ability (1)
"Overall a loss"? Bro, the Longsword is useless to rogues. Sure, losing the Hand Crossbow hurts a bit, but Whips make up for it, IMO. Dual Wielding rogues can sneak attack in melee from 10 feet away now. That's a huge boost. That frees up your bonus action even more than the already mentioned boost to Dual Wielding, because most monsters have a reach of 5 feet and so you get to avoid even more attacks than non-whip dual-wielding Rogues.
- Changes in weapon proficiencies are overall a loss (3)
So they're making the classes less front-loaded and are showing signs of supporting high-level play better. While not a buff, it's definitely a positive in my book.
- Changes in specific abilities helps late-game abilities but hurts early-game ones (4)
- Abilities that are delayed are in levels 1-10, ones that come earlier are in 11-20, and so keep most players from them (5)
By "multiple" you mean "two". And one of them is highly situational (Opportunity Attacks and other reaction attacks) and the other is 100% unintentional (Green-Flame/Booming Blade).
- Sneak attack has been weakened in multiple ways (7).
They lost a bit of damage in cheesy exploits and highly situational reaction attacks.In my mind, it is clear that the Rogue has lost significantly with this package.
And I think that you also believe the same.I am sure you are very sincere in your counting here, and believe that your numbers are balanced and accurate. I hope you can at least see why someone might disagree with the way you have reckoned these things.
Okay. But I'm not interested in debating a hypothetical scenario where they change the crit rules again. I never said that they were going to keep the crit rules the same as they are in this document, I just said that in this document, Rogues still get critical hits and we should discuss the current version of the class with those rules in mind. Unless you can see the future, assuming that the rules are going to change again back the the previous UA's version is bad form in this discussion.Of course it's a debate. I agree for this version of the playtest doc only they're using the old crit rule. That does not however in any way say that's the rule they're going with even next playtest doc, much less in two years. It's my opinion, which is not a statement of fact, that they're going with the "crits only include weapon damage" version in the final version for 2024 based on what Crawford has said in videos. You are free to disagree but you're not free to tell me there is only one opinion allowed in this topic.
They've mentioned other content from Tasha's in the UA (the Artificer), so I really don't see any reason to assume that Steady Aim won't be allowed. That might change, but we don't know, so I don't think that it's worth assuming in this discussion. You know what happens when you "assume".Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot. And I am assuming Steady Aim, along with all of Tasha's, is going away in terms of the optional rules because I believe they were intended as patches to the old rules in the first place. I think part of the point of One D&D is to adopt the patches which they thought worked as the main rules. But again, I could be wrong. Let's see what they say about Tasha's and how it could work with the new rules.
90% of character made on the site. The amount of characters made on the site and the amount of characters that actually participate in campaigns are vastly different issues, and we don't have stats for the second issue (WotC might from their surveys, but we don't).D&D Beyond data showed that NINTEY PERCENT of players don't get beyond 10th level. Which means even if you think that stat is off by a lot, it's still an overwhelming majority who don't play at 13th level.
Again, incorrect. Sleight of Hands is the skill used in Thieves' Tools ability checks now. If you have expertise in Sleight of Hands, that applies to ability checks you make with Thieves' Tools. This is made clear in the "Sleight of Hand" feature for the Thief subclass (where it connects the Sleight of Hand skill with using Thieves' Tools) and the Tool Proficiency section of the Rules Glossary (where it mentions how all tool checks are now based off of certain skills and how if you have proficiency in both the skill and tool, you get advantage on the check).No now you get expertise in Sleight of Hand if you had proficiency in Sleight of Hand, not Thieves Tools. You no longer can get expertise in Thieves Tools.
That's the PHB version of the feature. Go read the Unearthed Arcana version. It's different.Rogues got "At 1st level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies and your proficiency with thieves’ tools."
I didn't just compare the amount of nerfs to the amount of buffs. I noted the quality of them. Most of the nerfs were minor and most of the buffs were minor. But there were more major buffs than major nerfs.I didn't think you showed it in that post. What you showed is similar to the original 3e reaction to Monks - counting individual abilities as opposed to overall impact. I think their overall effectiveness goes down.
So, you just made an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, but also admitted your fallacy. A group of a lot of people can be wrong. A group of a lot of people can miss minor details. I doubt that most people that read the document noticed the major Tool change. You obviously missed it. Most people probably missed the Whip proficiency, too. I noticed quite a few people on Reddit that didn't notice the change to Dual Wielding because it was hidden in the Light Property in the glossary. Most people probably failed to take into consideration the level 1 feat when comparing the old rogue to the new rogue. This is a complicated issue. There's a lot of small moving parts that add up. I think that it is easily possible for the majority/popular opinion here to be egregiously incorrect.And that is so far the general consensus of reviewers of this document - which doesn't make that position correct but it does suggest I am not alone in thinking they're taking a loss on this one.
No, what this discussion should be about is if the Rogue got stronger or weaker compared to the old Rogue. Not what the other classes are doing. That's not important here. Did the Rogue get an extra feat? Yes, they did. So that's worth counting. Did they get skill/tool buffs? Yes, they did, so that's worth counting. Did they get Dual Wielding buffs? Yes, they did, so that's worth counting.I am in no way going to count anything which all classes get as a buff for this class. The measurement is relative to those other classes. If all classes get a level 1 feat, then no class is being buffed by getting a level 1 feat. That's a net neutral gain - they got what everyone got by default, not an increase.
My parties' Rogues have never really had to do that. Or, if they did, something went wrong (the monster died from another factor or did something unexpected).If you never knew a Rogue to ready an action to get an attack which resulted in a sneak attack, I don't know what to tell yah. It's not that uncommon.
I did that in one campaign, but it wasn't one with a Rogue in it (Artificer, Monk, and Wizard, who almost TPKed from it).You don't have goblin archers duck behind cover after they shoot? Really?
Then you have to plan with the fighter to know exactly where they move and then wait to see if the monster moves at all. You're also assuming the Rogue is ranged.It doesn't have to be the monster moving. If I beat the fighter on initiative, I hold action until the fighter runs up to the monster, then shoot. Practically every fight, it feels like.
My monsters aren't bumbling idiots. They know that if they run away from an enemy, they get to attack them. They only do it if they're really desperate.Ummm...weird.
I have only ever had 1 bard in a main campaign. And they were one of the three bard subclasses that encourages you to be in melee attacking with a rapier (I forget which).Bards? Almost always. And dissonant whispers is a favorite spell.
But . . . it makes you not choose between damage and cunning action. It lets you do both. You don't have to choose the optimal option. This is a damage buff and cunning action buff.Yes, and as I explained I almost always go for the damage. So, I'll say it again: the new rule is awesome and I'm excited about it, but it's a cunning action buff, not a damage buff.
And neither is the Artificer, but it's mentioned (and stated to not be in the PHB) and is present in the same book as Steady Aim. And this update is backwards compatible with previous 5e books. I see no reason to assume that Rogues won't be able to have the Steady Aim option in the future.Steady Aim is not in the UA.
(I have. Twice.)Yeah, I agree with this. I play a lot of rogues, and I've never gotten to 13.
So lemme get this straight…you’ve only seen 3 rogues, 1 bard, your monsters have only once used cover to hide and shoot, and you didn’t know rogues holding action was a thing?I did that in one campaign, but it wasn't one with a Rogue in it (Artificer, Monk, and Wizard, who almost TPKed from it).
Then you have to plan with the fighter to know exactly where they move and then wait to see if the monster moves at all. You're also assuming the Rogue is ranged.
My monsters aren't bumbling idiots. They know that if they run away from an enemy, they get to attack them. They only do it if they're really desperate.
I have only ever had 1 bard in a main campaign. And they were one of the three bard subclasses that encourages you to be in melee attacking with a rapier (I forget which).
It seems to me that you're assuming there'll be a Bard/GOOlock and Melee Rogue.
But . . . it makes you not choose between damage and cunning action. It lets you do both. You don't have to choose the optimal option. This is a damage buff and cunning action buff.
And neither is the Artificer, but it's mentioned (and stated to not be in the PHB) and is present in the same book as Steady Aim. And this update is backwards compatible with previous 5e books. I see no reason to assume that Rogues won't be able to have the Steady Aim option in the future.
(I have. Twice.)
Yeah, but this discussion is not about how high-level rogues get. It's about the buffs and nerfs the class gets compared to the 2014 version. And getting Pack Tactics at level 13 is a fairly substantial buff worth considering in this discussion.
Then don't.Okay. But I'm not interested in debating...
I am saying it should be discounted quite a bit because it impacts so few players. If it's amazing but comes at a level so high few will ever see it, it's not a meaningful retort to the loss of a power than came at 3rd level. Even if it were much better than the power that came at 3rd level.90% of character made on the site. The amount of characters made on the site and the amount of characters that actually participate in campaigns are vastly different issues, and we don't have stats for the second issue (WotC might from their surveys, but we don't).
And are you suggesting that a buff shouldn't be considered a buff because it's granted past level 10?
Yes, I fully understand how it works and what you just repeated is exactly what I said that you are responding to. I said also you cannot any longer get expertise in the tool itself where you could before, which is also correct. Nothing I said is incorrect. Maybe you misunderstood?Again, incorrect. Sleight of Hands is the skill used in Thieves' Tools ability checks now. If you have expertise in Sleight of Hands, that applies to ability checks you make with Thieves' Tools.
Yes I understood that fully Do you understand you cannot get expertise in tools now, where you could before? Do you understand before you could get expertise in investigation used on a trap and expertise on thieves tools used to disarm that same trap, but now you can only get expertise in a skill but not the tool?This is made clear in the "Sleight of Hand" feature for the Thief subclass (where it connects the Sleight of Hand skill with using Thieves' Tools) and the Tool Proficiency section of the Rules Glossary (where it mentions how all tool checks are now based off of certain skills and how if you have proficiency in both the skill and tool, you get advantage on the check).
Again, this is a misreading of the document. I suggest reading through it another time a bit closer. It's pretty easy to miss, but Tools are based off of Skills now, and if you have expertise in that skill, you have expertise in checks made for that tool.
What you think is "major" I think is mostly inconsequential. I saw someone else reply in a similar manner with great detail. So you must see by now your view on that topic isn't universal even when thoughtfully considered.That's the PHB version of the feature. Go read the Unearthed Arcana version. It's different.
I didn't just compare the amount of nerfs to the amount of buffs. I noted the quality of them. Most of the nerfs were minor and most of the buffs were minor. But there were more major buffs than major nerfs.
No, I didn't. I was very clear in my intent in why I mentioned it.So, you just made an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, but also admitted your fallacy.
I didn't. I even repeated it back to you and you missed I had done that. Have you considered we're all as capable of assessing these rules as you are, and you could in fact sometimes be wrong as well?A group of a lot of people can be wrong. A group of a lot of people can miss minor details. I doubt that most people that read the document noticed the major Tool change. You obviously missed it.
I truly don't care what you think we should be discussing, I, and many others, will assess it in terms of the whole game, including relative to other classes. If you want to analyze it differently, go right ahead. But don't tell us we're wrong for taking other things into consideration like relative balance compared to other classes. For me, and I think for very many others, if something like a first level feat benefits all classes at once, then it's not a boost for Rogues.No, what this discussion should be about is if the Rogue got stronger or weaker compared to the old Rogue. Not what the other classes are doing.
That's not important here.
Yes I understood that fully Do you understand you cannot get expertise in tools now, where you could before? Do you understand before you could get expertise in investigation used on a trap and expertise on thieves tools used to disarm that same trap, but now you can only get expertise in a skill but not the tool?