D&D (2024) Rogue Playtest Discussion

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's just saying that is Rules as Written. Not that they intended that combo.

And they also aren't saying they intended something else. You have zero evidence. It's just your conjecture.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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]

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]

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]

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).