D&D 5E Rogues and Sneak Attack

[Uller]

I saw in a couple other threads comments about Rogues and their expertise dice.

I think most people agree that sneak attack was a bit over the top prior to the OCt 29 packet...Especially the thug that could do it every round if he had 2 allies adjacent to the target (and thugs in smaller parties were a bit useless).

So I like the general direction but I agree with other posters that what should separate a rogue from a fighter in combat is that a) the fighter should generally be able to put out more damage and absorb more damage but b) the rogue should at times be able to score a more spectacular hits. These hits should have to be earned. They should require planning, timing, risk and likely sacrificing attacks...Not just have an ally adjacent.

So while I'm not opposed to the Sneak Attack mechanic...it works fine to get some extra damage. But there needs to be something that allows him with some planning and risk taking to boost his damage past what a fighter can typically do. This should be something that a rogue can typically pull of only once or twice per combat.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I agree. The current rules let the rogue do fighter-like damage when in an advantageous situation. This is a cool rule, but it isn't sneak attack.

Sneak Attack is what happens when a rogue's target is unaware of the attack, and it does tremendous damage. Something like:

Sneak Attack
You attack a target who is unaware of you, targeting a vital organ with a careful strike.
Benefit: When attacking a target who is unaware of you, you can spend expertise dice to increase the d20 result. Roll all the expertise dice you spend and add the highest to the d20 roll. If you have advantage, apply it to both rolls. If either total equals 20 or more, the attack is a critical hit.

Since critical hits do maximum damage plus 2d6 to 6d6 depending on level, the attack will always be significant.

 

[Jester David]

The current rules are pretty terrible. Yes, the "striker" role doesn't exist and rogues can be other things, but they should still have the option of DPR.
And I think WotC knows this.

This screams "first draft".
They wanted the manoeuvres for the rogue and to see how people liked the idea of making Expertise less of a unique fighter mechanic and more the Martial mechanic. So this is really a toe into the water of "will people like rogues w/ expertise". That's a big damn question.
As such they probably didn't want to spend a full work week balancing every option. That's a heck of a lot of work, especially if it was only to discover people hated rogues with expertise or disliked the dilution of the fighter shtick.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yeah, Sneak Attack in the current packet is just Deadly Strike for rogues.

I still wish Rogues had a thing where they could "charge up" dice by studying and stalking an unaware target, then deal it all in a massive sneak attack.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I suggested in another thread that rogues should get 1d6 per level expertise dice, sneak attack should only work with advantage, and rogues should lose parry. Then they could add "flanking strike" doing lesser damage (1 die max?) against enemies adjacent to another ally.

That way rogue expertise dice would look a lot different than fighters and SA would still kick butt.

 

[mlund]

The current implementation of the Rogue's maneuvers is excellent. I like that his bonus damage expression is a more situational version of Deadly Strike. The Fighter is the best at fighting. The Rogue is uniquely talented with Skill expertise.

I'd be more inclined to call the maneuver something other than Sneak Attack, and then give the Rogue a static trait for Sneak Attack that does something like maximizes damage dice when the Rogue hits an enemy that is surprised, unaware, or that the rogue has hidden from.

- Marty Lund

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think this version of the playtest is the best yet. There's still huge problems with magic (bring back 4e-style rituals, please!) and healing.

I saw in a couple other threads comments about Rogues and their expertise dice.

I think most people agree that sneak attack was a bit over the top prior to the OCt 29 packet...Especially the thug that could do it every round if he had 2 allies adjacent to the target (and thugs in smaller parties were a bit useless).

So I like the general direction but I agree with other posters that what should separate a rogue from a fighter in combat is that a) the fighter should generally be able to put out more damage and absorb more damage but b) the rogue should at times be able to score a more spectacular hits. These hits should have to be earned. They should require planning, timing, risk and likely sacrificing attacks...Not just have an ally adjacent.

I disagree. That's relying too much on chance, and chance favors the NPCs, not the PCs. I like the new rule; it's much like Tactical Trick, without the ability to avoid opportunity attacks. If you have an ally within melee reach, you can deal extra damage. That will come up a lot. The fighter doesn't need any special condition to do extra damage, just spend the dice. (This, frankly, puts the fighter in a stronger position.)

Unfortunately, roles have been removed, so we now have that situation where the fighter and the rogue are competing for damage (Also, the wizard and sorcerer.)

 

[Larrin]

Fix of least effort: At the very least I would think a "expertise dice spent +1d6 dmg" would be in line (probably removing the 'flanking' trigger). They've jumped through an extra hoop to use the maneuver, they get an extra die over a comparable maneuver (deadly strike).

Granted, you don't need to take sneak attack, but on some level that feels like "you don't need to be notable/relevent in battle. Ever."

I think the equation "need for advantage + smaller weapons (on average)+squishy-why-am-I-in-melee = not even keeping up with the fighter" isn't justified.

And that brings up an important design point. While wizards and clerics do similar basic damage, they have some "kaboom" up their sleeves, and at the right time they'll 'Searing Light' a wight or 'Fire Ball' a whole room, then they outshine the fighter for a round and people will talk about it. This rogue has no such hope. With his best damage maneuver he can say "Ta-Daa, this round I'm almost as good as the fighter" I'm fine with the rogue being less good than a fighter in combat most rounds (that was present previously), but he needs a time to shine. In my opinion that time should come up more often than for wizards or clerics.

For example: The fighter should be worse at skills and avoiding stuff (which rogue maneuvers handle nicely, i'd say) but there will be a time when a rock needs moving, or door needs kicking, or 20 pts of damage needs to go to someone. Then the fighter gets to pat the rogue on the back and say "Don't worry, I got this" and do some skillz better than the rogue.

Bottom line: Sneak attack (or something) should high-light that sometimes a rogue is what you need/benefit-most-from in a fight (just as sometimes you 'need' a cleric and sometimes you 'need' a wizard). Currently, you never 'need' a rogue in fight. I feel this is wrong.

 

[DogBackward]

Why do people keep acting like the Rogue should be as good at fighting as the Fighter? You can already get the same damage bonus as the Fighter by planning ahead, using Sneak Attack. Rogues aren't meant to be damage-dealers, they're the skill-masters. They shine most outside of combat, and then they can do a clever bit here and there when fights happen... but they never get to match the Fighter in combat, much less exceed him. That's why you play a Fighter, to be the best at fighting.

Even if you look at the "classic" media, the nimble little Rogue guys never outdamaged the warriors. They could spend the entire fight setting up for one heroic backstab that allowed them to take an enemy or two out in one hit... while the warrior hero continues to take out enemy after enemy with ease.

Sneak Attack, at the very most, should be able to let a Rogue match the damage of a Fighter... for one round, with planning. Because the Rogue is not a Fighter. The Fighter is best at killing things, and the Rogue is best at skills. As it should be.

 

[KidSnide]

I like the sneak attack maneuver. I think it's a really strong way of giving the rogue "near-fighter" damage, but with some requirements that should be achievable (although maybe not on the rogue's preferred target) almost every round. But I agree that it's not really a sneak attack, so I'd like to see another name applied.

I'd like to see some new maneuvers allowing rogues to add to their damage in different ways. We should see a Backstab maneuver (perhaps like [MENTION=61749]Jeff Carlsen[/MENTION] suggested up thread). And I would also like to see a variation of Sneak Attack that is better suited to "duelist" rogues, perhaps one that worked with Combat Advantage or an isolated opponent.

-KS