D&D 5E Rogues and Sneak Attack

[Uller]

Just to clarify: I don't think any of us are saying the Rogue should consistently outshine the fighter in combat. However, the idea that a "roguish" sort of character can deal a decisive blow to a foe who is unaware of him or otherwise limited in his defense is certainly a well accepted concept in fantasy gaming and literature.

Two guards at the gate...the burly fighter steps out in front of the guards and the the guards move to defend their post from him but before they can do anything the rogue slips out of the shadows and offs at least one of them from behind.

Yes...a finesse fighter should be able to behave similarly. But so should a rogue...without multiclassing.

A wizard can occasionally out shine a rogue with spells like knock, invisibility, levitate and fly. But he can't do it all day long. So there is nothing wrong with a rogue occasionally (through careful planning and timing) out shining a fighter.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How about this for an idea? Might be overpowered, but not sure. It involves changing Sneak Attack to Waylay:

When a Rogue makes a melee attack with Advantage against an opponent that is not currently engaged in melee with any of the rogue's allies, he can attempt to Waylay the opponent by spending EDice. Roll all the expertise dice you spend, but add only the highest die result to the attack roll. On a successful hit, the enemy makes a CON saving throw or falls Unconscious.

Each opponent may only have one Waylay attempt made against them during combat.

*****

This gives you several things. First, rogues don't impinge upon the damage totals of the fighter-- they bypass hit point damage altogether. They basically get to cast the equivalent of a Sleep spell every couple rounds against various individual opponents. But what this accomplishes is that Rogues get to set up a three round "killing blow" pattern via Waylay and Coup de Grace: First round they Waylay and knock someone unconscious. Second round they Coup de Grace and knock that unconscious enemy's hit points to 0. Third round they Coup de Grace the 0 HP enemy and instantly kill him.

Now ordinarily this would be very overpowered, but there are several different rules in the ability that help alleviate that.

First, the enemy cannot be currently engaged in melee with the Rogue's allies. It infers that enemies who are currently fighting in melee are "prepared" for all manner of physical attack and thus cannot be snuck up on and "knocked out" via a Waylay. What this rule accomplishes is that it avoids the insta-kill scenario where a Rogue and two allies surround an enemy in melee-- the Rogue gets Advantage somehow, and then knocks an enemy out, while the two allies next to him do the two Coup de Graces-- all in a single round. That's way too overpowered. Thus, we force the Rogue to have to do this to currently unengaged enemies who are watching the battle from afar (your casters, your archers, your lurkers etc.) and who aren't expecting an attack.

Second, the Rogue has to accomplish the Waylay via a melee attack. He can't stay back in the shadows hidden and knock out the enemy using a bow and arrow or darts or something silly like that. It's required that he come out of stealth and Waylay the enemy in hand-to-hand-- thereby putting himself at risk should the Waylay attack fail. Now granted, that attack will be made with Advantage, plus he is adding the highest EDie to his attack roll so odds-are he won't fail the attack-- but the potential is still there, along with the potential of the enemy also succeeding his CON save and not getting knocked out. Clocking someone in the back of the head requires hand-to-hand and the risk of being out in the open should it fail.

Third, each opponent can only be Waylaid once per battle because after it is attempted once, the enemy now expects it. Which means you can't have a Rogue come out from hiding, miss his Waylay attack on the enemy caster, then go rushing back into hiding only to come back out the next round and try it again-- over and over throughout the fight until he succeeds. You only get one shot against any individual enemy to try and take him out.

>>

Now there is definitely still some overpowered risk here, in that the potential does exist that a Rogue could Waylay someone outside of battle, and then two other allies within the melee could disengage from their current enemies and rush over to perform the two Coup de Graces. That's where you'd need to playtest to see if that potential was great or kind of rare, or if something could be done to ameliorate that potential abuse.

But the thing I like about the idea is that it gives a Sneak Attack / Waylay a large potential result... while at the same time not impinging on the Fighter's ability to whittle down hit points via Deadly Strikes. It also helps emphasize the Rogue's potential for sneakiness and backstabbing by incentivizing him to go into hiding, sneak around the battle, and try and take the folks out who are on the outside looking in. Plus, the other gain of this Waylay attack is that it can be used by Rogues on their own to sneak up and take out guards and such-- outside of combat situations altogether . Go into hiding, sneak up on a guard, Waylay him to knock him unconscious, then two Coup de Graces to take him out (if rogue so chooses). It gives Rogues the ability to accomplish that trope of stealthy combat as well.

Now admittedly this doesn't do a whole lot for the Rogue who actually wishes to be a melee combatant, so perhaps a couple melee-focused Rogue Schemes give them Deadly Strike like the fighter gets (or a less powerful version of Deadly Strike where maybe you only add the highest EDie roll to damage rather than all the EDice.) But to emphasize sneaky combat... Waylay might accomplish it.

 

[Sir Brennen]

A Rogue doesn't have to be the same as a "finesse fighter". A finesse Fighter is a finesse Fighter! Give the poor Fighter class some breadth, and let it include the duelist and the swashbuckler concepts.

Then the Rogue doesn't fight finesse, but fights DIRTY, which is different, actually quite the opposite in fact. Tricks and improvisation, not competence and precision.

How about giving the poor Rogue class some breadth?

Seriously, while dirty tricks have been implied in the class (and made explicit with certain feats and powers in previous editions) Sneak Attack has always been portrayed as a precision attack delivered through stealth. The idea of finesse is also something long associated with the Rogue.

Really, you could also have a dirty tricks Fighter, and improvisation is part if any competent combatant's repertoire, so most of the terms here are somewhat. And personally, to me, a big part of the Rogue is also the slippery fellow who's able to skate through danger through luck and skill, so things like dodging, tumbling, evading as we'll as being sneaky are as equally important as SA.

I'd also like to point out in a recent L&L article in which Mearls mentioned the idea of making SA on option for Rogues, rather than a defining class feature. So the idea of how a Rogue differs from a Fighter is going to need more thought than DPR via Sneak Attack.

One complaint I do have about this version of SA is, if it requires an ally nearby, so much for the guy slipping through the Orc ranks to backstabbing the illusionist by himself.

 

[Shroomy]

One complaint I do have about this version of SA is, if it requires an ally nearby, so much for the guy slipping through the Orc ranks to backstabbing the illusionist by himself.

If you are hidden from your target, you have advantage on your attacks.

 

[hbarsquared]

I do need to preface this with the statement although I've glanced through the recent playtest document, it has not been a thorough analysis.

1) I believe in the "three pillars" philosophy, as [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION] explains. Every class should be balanced within each pillar rather than across pillars, that way all players con contribute despite the encounter type, and any given campaign could even remove an entire pillar and all players can still contribute!

2) I believe in the "balance across the day" philosophy. DPR output or round-by-round options don't bother me. A character should have something to do each round, each combat, but not necessarily their chance to "shine."

3) The fighter hits hard, hits often, hits consistently, doesn't get hit, and absorbs hits. High damage, high attack bonus, high defenses, high hit points. Fighter expertise dice should modify these things. Add damage, reduce damage, more attacks, multiple enemies, etc...

4) The rogue scratches, sometimes, and with preparation can hit incredibly hard or debilitate or hamper. Rogue expertise dice should give the rogue these options. With advantage/preparation/setup: add damage, a crazy-cool maneuver, inflict conditions, inflict penalties, etc...

This fighter and this rogue, conceptually, seem balanced to me and would be fun to play. Expertise dice options should barely overlap, if at all. And neither of these brief descriptions incorporate skills, a separate pillar. I think the use of expertise die for the rogue can allude to skills (expend a die to add to any ability check, expend die for "Mastery," expend a die for a cool maneuver, expend dice for searching for traps/secret doors, expend dice to disarm, etc...), but you don't need to incorporate "Skills" into the rogue class.

My thoughts.

 

[frankthedm]

Rogues aren't meant to be damage-dealers, they're the skill-masters.

While I agree with you, don't forget the game has been through over a decade of rogues being Leather Clad Cuisinarts. For some folks, that is what a Rogue is, because that is their frame of reference.

 

[mlund]

As I've noted in another thread: Rogues Ruin Everything

No, seriously, that's their role. They throw wrenches into everything. They disable traps, they bypass hazards, and they hobble opponents.

A Fighter smacks you around and beats you down. Maybe he even knocks you down, drives you back, or disarms you.

A rogue hamstrings you, blinds you, bleeds you, poisons you, disrupts your spell-casting, etc. The rogue's offensive application of Expertise Dice should usually come in the form of de-buffs on the enemy - perhaps even a series of ability that are OK nickle-and-dime type stuff round-to-round, but crippling with Advantage.

- Marty Lund

 

[Walker N. Waistz]

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...

I think everyone agrees with this. And I think most of us agree that Sneak Attack as currently conceived does not fit the bill.

Every post defending Sneak Attack so far (and there are a few) pretty much says that extra skills and adding Expertise to skills balances the rogue with the fighter, but...

as [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION] explains. Every class should be balanced within each pillar rather than across pillars, that way all players con contribute despite the encounter type, and any given campaign could even remove an entire pillar and all players can still contribute!

Rogues, Fighters, Clerics, and Wizards should all have a roughly equal amount of cool and interesting stuff to do during Exploration. They should all also have a roughly equal amount of cool and interesting stuff to do during Combat. Because they certainly will not occur in equal amounts in every campaign, and certainly not in a given session.

Everyone agrees: Fighters should be the best at hitting people with weapons. For sure. But "nerfing" the rogue's signature ability across 4 previous editions does not elevate the fighter. It just diminishes the rogue.

You should play a rogue if you want to do clever things, in and out of combat. Having your best contribution to combat be a watered down fighter maneuver is teh suck. Especially when you get it only as a reward for making specific choices while a fighter gets it just for hanging out.

 

[ferratus]

As I've noted in another thread: Rogues Ruin Everything

No, seriously, that's their role. They throw wrenches into everything. They disable traps, they bypass hazards, and they hobble opponents.

I can't XP you, but that's my feeling as well.

The guy who takes out an opponent with a lot of damage using sneak attack?

That's an assassin folks. You guys in this thread are designing the wrong class.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I was thinking that Sneak Attack would work only when the rogue had advantage and when used would do +2dX extra damage per expertise die spent, where X is the rogue's expertise die.

Basically, Sneak Attack would do double the damage of Deadly Strike, but it only can activate when the rogue has Advantage.