OneDnD Rogue Playtest Discussion

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
What in the world? How is a buff to other classes a nerf for the rogue?!?!
Niche erosion.
Um, no. Not all classes get Expertise. Just the Rogue, Bard, and Ranger.
Exactly.
We have to assume that they're keeping Whips as Finesse based on our current information.
Agreed.
None, actually. One used a longbow, the other dual wielded, and the other was a Soul Knife.
A sample size of three is pretty small to make judgements. Maybe you're right and handcrossbow for whip is a wash; I doubt it.
I don't take multiclassing into account when breaking down if a Class got Nerfed/Buffed. That would be ridiculous.
Of course it would. I wasn't doing that, though.
And Readying an Action and Opportunity Attacks are situational nerfs. And I noted those were nerfs. I don't know what your problem is here.

They are not. I proved that in an earlier post. There is no nerf here.
I explicitly didn't take these as separate points.
I noted the minor nerfs (Performance, no Evasion on Expertise), and also noted the minor buffs (extra language). What's your problem with this?
None -- you are right. You're up a language.

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!
I undersand your point, and we disagree. There's nothing 100% about it.
"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.
So call it a wash: this does not meaningfully affect the ratio.
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.
"Front-loaded" is carrying a lot of weight when it includes abilities gained at level 9.
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).
I did not mention the cantrips.
They lost a bit of damage in cheesy exploits and highly situational reaction attacks.
And here we come to a real nub. It's not highly situational reaction attacks -- that's a mischaracterization. As for "cheesy exploits": while I recognize the hand crossbow is really just a fantasy version of the pistol, I thnk it's well-enogh established in the fiction of the game and beyond to avoid that claim. Dual-wielding whips, though? If we are throwing out labels like "cheesy" in a build, then I suggest you consider your own preferences.
And I think that you also believe the same.
.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think overall the rogue received a buff, because they can now dual wield and use cunning action. They can now dual wield hand (repeating) crossbows.
Losing out on a sneak attack in the first round can become a problem. But a rogue who is hidden at the start of combat should have not problem attacking with advantage and get the sneak attack anyway.
Skulker or alert (to just swap ini with tge fighter) can help you, if you think it is too difficult to get sneak attack otherwise.
Or hell, just get lucky and use it in your first turn of combat.

Edit: you can't judge a single rule in a vacuum. We already are able to produce a more powerful rogue as the normal rogue who does not ready their hasted action.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
But a rogue who is hidden at the start of combat should have not problem attacking with advantage and get the sneak attack anyway.

My experience is that this is hard. As an archer I can sometimes (or even often) find cover and Hide/Shoot. But I really prefer to play melee rogues, which means I need an ally adjacent to my target.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You do not need expertise in thieves' tools, because you roll dex(sleight of hands), and advantage for the proficiency in the tool.

You could roll dex(thieves' tools) and add advantage for the relevant skill... but why should you?
Because for a variety of reasons you might have a PC that you want to have expertise in thieves tools but not slight of hand? Your role playing concept is that they're good with tools, but not with the other aspects of slight of hand?

I am OK with the change, but it IS a change that some people may not like because it does remove one type of expertise while changing how another type of expertise can work if you were to get expertise in that skill. It's not that meaningful a change, but in the grand scheme of the changes to the rogue it does add up.

I think to better understand where some people are coming from on the issue of the Rogue, I'd suggest this video from two well known YouTubers on the topic. I think they cover it pretty well, though they miss some things here and there too as it's just a first read and first impression.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
it's 100% objectively true that Rogues got buffed here.
It's definitely not. You're substituting your opinion for fact, and not considering why people disagree with you.

I'd suggest you check out this video by two prominent YouTubers on the topic who cover, with a first read, why many people disagree with you on whether the Rogue was buffed or nerfed. They're not perfect, they will miss some things particularly as they're reading it live for the first time, but they make a lot of points which resonate with me and a fair number of others.

 

Because for a variety of reasons you might have a PC that you want to have expertise in thieves tools but not slight of hand? Your role playing concept is that they're good with tools, but not with the other aspects of slight of hand?

I am OK with the change, but it IS a change that some people may not like because it does remove one type of expertise while changing how another type of expertise can work if you were to get expertise in that skill. It's not that meaningful a change, but in the grand scheme of the changes to the rogue it does add up.

I think to better understand where some people are coming from on the issue of the Rogue, I'd suggest this video from two well known YouTubers on the topic. I think they cover it pretty well, though they miss some things here and there too as it's just a first read and first impression.

Treantmonk has its place, but he in no way represents normal playing. And taking away optimization needs is a big plus in my book.
 


Kinematics

Adventurer
Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place).
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.
This is not correct. The ability to use sneak attack multiple times per round (as long as they were on different turns) has always been explicitly known and allowed.

Here's some Sage Advice comments on it, the oldest of which is from 2015: Can the rogue Sneak Attack twice during the same round, if on two different turns?
 

Staffan

Legend
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).
I'm pretty sure I've seen the D&DB folks mention that the stats they present are filtered for "active characters", and that they have certain criteria for that. Things like hit points going up and down, and other resources being used.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
So lemme get this straight…you’ve only seen 3 rogues, 1 bard,
I've been playing for about 5-6 years. My campaigns typically last 1-2 years with characters largely staying the same throughout them.
your monsters have only once used cover to hide and shoot,
Most monsters don't get Hide as a bonus action. I used Hide-and-Shoot Goblins successfully one time, in my Eberron campaign. Other monsters try to do the same, but waste their whole turn or are seen by whoever has the highest passive Perception in the party.
and you didn’t know rogues holding action was a thing?
It was just was never optimal for my party's rogues. Or that common.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
And they also aren't saying they intended something else. You have zero evidence. It's just your conjecture.
I'm saying that it's possible if they change a rule to get rid of Sneak Attack Reactions that they never intended for them to be allowed in the first place. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm saying it could be an explanation for why they removed them.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Most monsters don't get Hide as a bonus action. I used Hide-and-Shoot Goblins successfully one time, in my Eberron campaign. Other monsters try to do the same, but waste their whole turn or are seen by whoever has the highest passive Perception in the party.

They don't need to Hide. They can get full cover by stepping 5' sideways. They just don't get Advantage on their next attack.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I'm saying that it's possible if they change a rule to get rid of Sneak Attack Reactions that they never intended for them to be allowed in the first place. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm saying it could be an explanation for why they removed them.

My guess here...and it's pure conjecture...is that the tricks experienced players use to keep up with the Joneses (Paladins, Warlocks, etc.) are more complicated than WotC wants beginners to feel they have to understand.
 

It's not just Treantmonk in this video?

No. But if he is in the video, I know it is about optimizing.
I am sure he will find good synergies when the rules are layid out in full.
To be fair, he even finds good synergies in classes and subclasses that are widely seen as underpowered.
He still does in no way represent the majotity of players. I think most of his assessments fair, but far away from the reality at my tables.

Treantmonk even admits, that the old ability had a loophole to get sneak attack twice.
I am also pretty sure, they have not yet seen the change to two weapon fighting. At least they don't mention it as a buff for the rogue.

I share their assessment with the thief.
I also share Treantmonks opinion, that sneak attack could be buffed a little to compensate for the loss of a second potential sneak attack.

Most funninly: In 4e it went from 1/round in O4E to 1/turn in essential.
So I am still totally divided. I still believe, sneak attack should work on your attack action, and not on a Magic action. But it could be spelled out, that it specifically works on opportunity attacks.
 
Last edited:

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Then don't.
I wasn't. I truly don't have an opinion on whether or not they're going to change it back to the older playtest version. But I think it's bad form for you to assume they are in this discussion.
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.
And I'm saying that when you're discussing the overall power of the full class that it's just as valid to count the buffs/nerfs that come at higher levels than it is to count the ones at lower levels and to discount the ones from higher levels just because they're higher levels is dumb.
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?

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?
Okay then, why were you stating that then? I thought you were saying it was a nerf/bad thing. It clearly is not. It's 100% a buff.
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.
. . . There are objectively "major" changes. Losing longswords is a very, very minor nerf. There's basically no situation where losing proficiency in longswords is even slightly a bad thing, unless the rogue somehow has a magical longsword that deals more magical damage than they would sneak attack damage. Losing longswords is a minor nerf. Losing the bonus action tax of Dual Wielding is a major buff for a lot of Rogues.

Some other things are more campaign-dependent, but there are major and minor buffs.
No, I didn't. I was very clear in my intent in why I mentioned it.

I'll also note your continual spin of things like this, where it's clear my intent by you twist it to be a negative anyway, looks to be bad faith to me. If you understood why I was bringing it up, and then decide to claim it's a fallacy anyway, it tells me you're not here to discuss this matter fairly, but you're here to "win" an argument. I am not interested in that game. Go play it with someone else.

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?
Then why were you remarking that other people shared your opinion. You're right that it doesn't make you any more correct than me. And I'm aware that it is a common viewpoint. So if you don't think that it made your opinion more valid, why was it important to mention? At least to me, you didn't make it clear of your intention.
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.

You've made that clear. It is however very important to me and many others. You can deal with that or not, but it's a reality for many people you're having this conversation with.
And I'm comparing the pure numbers of how current rogues compare to PHB rogues. I don't think that we're able of discussing how they compare to other classes until we get all of the other classes for comparison. We have to make do with what information we have. Which are the current Bard and Ranger and the Rogue. I think it's important to show all of the ways that the class was buffed and nerfed compared to the 2014 PHB version, and I would do that in a breakdown of how the Bards and Rangers got nerfed/buffed in other discussions. Sure, they cancel out if other classes get the buffs, but they're still buffs compared to the 2014 version, so it's worth mentioning.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Niche erosion.
Not a mechanical nerf. And, as I showed earlier, they are still way better than anyone else at Thieves' Tools.
A sample size of three is pretty small to make judgements. Maybe you're right and handcrossbow for whip is a wash; I doubt it.
Whips are definitely very useful for Dual-Wielding Rogues. Hand-Crossbows were really good too, but whips might make up for it.
Of course it would. I wasn't doing that, though.
You mentioned a multiclass combo (Battlemasters). Or maybe you were meaning team-support synergies?
I undersand your point, and we disagree. There's nothing 100% about it.
Okay then.
I did not mention the cantrips.
So you're counting different types of reaction attacks as different nerfs? I wouldn't do that. I didn't count the buff to Dual Wielding (freeing up 3/4 different possible bonus actions) as multiple different points.
And here we come to a real nub. It's not highly situational reaction attacks -- that's a mischaracterization. As for "cheesy exploits": while I recognize the hand crossbow is really just a fantasy version of the pistol, I thnk it's well-enogh established in the fiction of the game and beyond to avoid that claim. Dual-wielding whips, though? If we are throwing out labels like "cheesy" in a build, then I suggest you consider your own preferences.
I wasn't counting hand-crossbows as cheesy exploits. I meant Booming/Green-Flame Blade that every rogue can get to significantly boost their DPR. Hand Crossbows and Dual-Wielding Whips are equally ridiculous from a realism standpoint, I agree with you. But I don't think I was intending those to be considered in the "cheesy exploits".
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
No. But if he is in the video, I know it is about optimizing.
I am sure he will find good synergies when the rules are layid out in full.
To be fair, he even finds good synergies in classes and subclasses that are widely seen as underpowered.
He still does in no way represent the majotity of players. I think most of his assessments fair, but far away from the reality at my tables.

Treantmonk even admits, that the old ability had a loophole to get sneak attack twice.
I am also pretty sure, they have not yet seen the change to two weapon fighting. At least they don't mention it as a buff for the rogue.

I share their assessment with the thief.
I also share Treantmonks opinion, that sneak attack could be buffed a little to compensate for the loss of a second potential sneak attack.

Most funninly: In 4e it went from 1/round in O4E to 1/turn in essential.
So I am still totally divided. I still believe, sneak attack should work on your attack action, and not on a Magic action. But it could be spelled out, that it specifically works on opportunity attacks.
I didn't say he represents the majority of players in general, I said this video (which is not just him) outlines a lot of the issues others are highlighting right now with this class. I think it's worth watching, even if you disagree, just to see what some think are the issues here in a way which is well articulated.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
I never play a rogue, but what I notice about my friend that does?

One attack per round isn't as cool as the many attacks a fighter gets. I get sneak attack does more damage, but something feels off there in combat. They obviously matter for locks and traps and stuff.....but they seem lesser in combat to me (unlike spellcasters).
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top