D&D (2024) Rogue Playtest Discussion

[Bill Zebub]

1. I guess I just don't run monsters that do that very often?

You don't have goblin archers duck behind cover after they shoot? Really?

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.

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.

3. I almost never have opportunity attacks trigger.

Ummm...weird.

4. How common are Bards/GOOlocks in your games?

Bards? Almost always. And dissonant whispers is a favorite spell.

5. I have played 3 campaigns with Rogues, but never seen any of them take Mage Slayer or Sentinel.

Of course, mage slayer loses the OA benefit, so that one is nerfed anyway.

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).

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.

So Steady Aim is now good for both ranged and melee rogues!

Steady Aim is not in the UA.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yeah, I agree with this. I play a lot of rogues, and I've never gotten to 13.

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 know, RIGHT!?!?! Just...bizarre.

 

[Bill Zebub]

P.S. I'm also not panicking about rogue nerfs; I still have faith the final version will be awesome. But my feedback on this particular packet will be that I don't like the damage nerfs, or evasion being pushed back to make room for expertise.

I suspect, unfortunately, that even if they compensate the damage nerf it will be in a boring, passive way, because they don't want beginners to have to know how to use reactions.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have two things to add to this conversation:

1) AFAI remember, Crawford said that they were returning to 2014 crit rules for this packet, and went on to talk about how they had internally moved on (ie backtracked) from the first packet awhile ago. I can't say for sure what the final rule will be (no one can at this point I suspect) but I definitely got the impression that it was scrapped. At any rate, I don't think that anyone should feel that any part of any packet is set in stone yet.

2) You can't discount any buffs to the playtest Rogue just because "all classes get it" and then compare it to the 5e PHB Rogue. You must compare like to like. This Rogue has some nerfs, sure (in some cases it depends on what the other rules wind up being, like object interactions for example) but there's some decent buffs too. Also remember that another balance pass will happen. (One that they often tend to screw up, to be fair).

At any rate, this Rogue looks good to me. It ABSOLUTELY needs some feedback about readying an action and still getting sneak attack, though. I doubt they intend to knock that out on purpose. Easily fixed. On OAs too, if we can help it.

I wouldn't worry about those things yet. At least not overly.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

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.

2. You list a number of benefits all classes get:

Um, no. Not all classes get Expertise. Just the Rogue, Bard, and Ranger. And no other class gets Reliable Talent.

OneD&D Rogues that take Proficiency and Expertise in Sleight of Hand get the following benefits to their Thieves' Tools:

• Proficiency in Thieves' Tools (which everyone that takes proficiency in Thieves' Tools can get)
• Expertise in Thieves' Tools (which only Bards, Rangers, and Rogues that choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand can get)
• Advantage in Thieves Tools checks (which anyone with proficiency in both Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand can get)
• Reliable Talent in Thieves' Tools (which only Rogues get)

So, rogues are buffed compared to the 2014 version. They just have to choose Proficiency and Expertise in Sleight of Hand, and then they get all of that. No one else can get Reliable Talent and Bards/Rangers that want to get Expertise-Advantage in Thieves' Tools have to use their Background Tool's Proficiency. Rogues are still better at Lockpicking/Trap-Disarming than anyone else and are better than they were in the 2014 PHB at it.

So that's not about the rogue either (as you recognize)

Does that matter? That's a buff compared to the 2014 Ranger. A buff is a buff.

Has to be seen in terms of the overall change of weapon proficiencies.

We have to assume that they're keeping Whips as Finesse based on our current information.

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.

None, actually. One used a longbow, the other dual wielded, and the other was a Soul Knife.

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]

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.

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.

You know what? You're right here. I should have included that and was thinking of editing my post.

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.

Noted.

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.

I don't take multiclassing into account when breaking down if a Class got Nerfed/Buffed. That would be ridiculous.

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.

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).

They are not. I proved that in an earlier post. There is no nerf here.

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.

I noted the minor nerfs (Performance, no Evasion on Expertise), and also noted the minor buffs (extra language). What's your problem with this?

For losses:

• Thieves tool specialties are no longer a rogue ability (1)

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!

• Changes in weapon proficiencies are overall a loss (3)

"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 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)

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.

• Sneak attack has been weakened in multiple ways (7).

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).

In my mind, it is clear that the Rogue has lost significantly with this package.

They lost a bit of damage in cheesy exploits and highly situational reaction attacks.

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.

And I think that you also believe the same.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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? Because, in that case, we can give all level 17 Wizards Power Word Kill as a cantrip. That's not a significant buff! No one gets that high level anyway! That absolutely would not be worth considering in a discussion of if the OneD&D Wizard is buffed compared to the 2014 Wizard because 90+% of characters made on D&D Beyond are not anywhere near that level!

See the absurdity of your claim? A buff is a buff. Pack Tactics is good, especially for Rogues. I don't care if you don't get to that level, some people do, and it's buffing those Rogues quite a bit.

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.

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).

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.

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 the PHB version of the feature. Go read the Unearthed Arcana version. It's different.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This discussion is about if the Rogue is better or worse than the 2014 version. Not about if a Ranger that takes Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand from their background and chooses Expertise for Sleight of Hand can also be really good at picking locks. The fact that they can do that doesn't make the Rogue weaker and it doesn't somehow make the buff not a buff anymore.

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.

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).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You don't have goblin archers duck behind cover after they shoot? Really?

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).

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.

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.

Ummm...weird.

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.

Bards? Almost always. And dissonant whispers is a favorite spell.

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.

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.

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.

Steady Aim is not in the UA.

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.

Yeah, I agree with this. I play a lot of rogues, and I've never gotten to 13.

(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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

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?

Ummm…ok. Noted.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay. But I'm not interested in debating...

Then don't.

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

So, you just made an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, but also admitted your fallacy.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

That's not important here.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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?

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?