D&D 5E Rogues and Sneak Attack

[Walker N. Waistz]

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.

So what does a rogue do in combat that is as interesting and useful as the fighter, wizard, or cleric? Or should the rogue's player just wait for combat to be over to do something fun again?

If Sneak Attack is going to be replaced as the rogue's signature combat ability (despite having been so in every edition since 1977), what is going to replace it?

 

[mlund]

So what does a rogue do in combat that is as interesting and useful as the fighter, wizard, or cleric? Or should the rogue's player just wait for combat to be over to do something fun again?

Well, that is what he did in OD&D and AD&D. He didn't have Sneak Attack. He had "Backstab." There wasn't any flanking. Facing was vague at best. Hiding in combat was not in the rules set. You had one shot at a back stab in a combat and that was it, unless your DM felt like bending a heap of rules to make the game more fun. Heaven help you if you missed.

"Sneak Attack" was a fabrication of 3rd Edition, along with Flanking to make it easier and then a slew of monsters that had anatomical immunity to Sneak Attack or Uncanny Dodge to balance it out. It was also so bland that they later flooded 3.5 with a slew of feats to trade out those random d6s for negative status effects against enemies.

As I already pointed out in the post [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION] was quoting when you quoted him - the Rogue's most unique niche on offense in combat is putting negative effects on enemies. He's also got a fine option to push extra damage if that is what is required in a particular instance.

I think it would be interesting if having real Advantage when attacking let you roll the Expertise Dice for Opportunist Damage without spending them (but not double-stack them on the same attack). Either way, though, the Rogue needs the functionality those 3.5 feats and some 4E powers gave him - hamstring, blind, bleeding wound, poison attack, etc.

If Sneak Attack is going to be replaced as the rogue's signature combat ability (despite having been so in every edition since 1977), what is going to replace it?

As noted, Sneak Attack didn't exist until after Y2K. Back-stab was definitely not the signature Rogue function for the 22 years from 1977 to 1999. It was one of the most marginal abilities in the game.

- Marty Lund

 

[pemerton]

But "nerfing" the rogue's signature ability across 4 previous editions does not elevate the fighter. It just diminishes the rogue.

Sneak Attack didn't exist until after Y2K. Back-stab was definitely not the signature Rogue function for the 22 years from 1977 to 1999. It was one of the most marginal abilities in the game.

I tend to agree with Marty.

In the AD&D Unearthed Arcana environment, a first level fighter with 16 STR who hits with a longsword does 1d8 + 1(STR) + 2(specialistaion) = 7.5 on average. A thief who backstabs with a longsword does 1d8*2 = 9 on average. The +4 to hit with backstab brings the thief's chance to hit up to parity with the fighter's rear attacks (+2 for non-thief rear attack, +1 for better to-hit table, +1 for specialisation).

Once the rogue is 9th level and the fighter 7th, the rogue does quadruple damage on a backstab - 18 points. The fighter is double-specialised and has 3/2 attacks, each of which does an average of 8.5 and has a better chance to hit even if the fighter is out in front than the thief has with a backstab.

Backstab is not really a "signature" ability - it brings the thief's to-hit and damage up to some sort of parity with the fighter. The distinctive feature of the thief is the ability to move into the back ranks and strike from hiding.

Whether that's a class that anyone wants to play is another matter, of course.

 

[Li Shenron]

"Sneak Attack" was a fabrication of 3rd Edition, along with Flanking to make it easier and then a slew of monsters that had anatomical immunity to Sneak Attack or Uncanny Dodge to balance it out. It was also so bland that they later flooded 3.5 with a slew of feats to trade out those random d6s for negative status effects against enemies.

I think you are right to be wishing for negative effects other that just sneak attack damage, but I would still like to see an option (not necessarily to all Rogues) for dealing massive damage in very few circumstances that BOTH depend on the player and the scenario: IF there are favorable conditions AND IF the player exploits them, THEN there can be the benefit of massive damage like in 3e or in 5e previous packet.

But I totally disagree with you on 3e being bland. 3.0 Sneak Attack totally rocked because it was exactly that: with the exception of the first round of combat (which I think was there to allow for even a beginner or not-so-good player to get to use Sneak Attack at least once in combat, when he won initiative), you always had to look out for flat-footed targets during the battle or ways to make them turn flat-footed, OR alternatively you had to take some risk and get to a flanking position. To me this was a lot of fun when playing a Rogue... 3.5 might have introduced alternatives to damage (and I think 3.0 was definitely lacking regarding to this) but it also made Sneak Attack less situationals by making it apply to all monsters, and IMHO this was a mistake.

 

[Blackbrrd]

AD&D called Sneak Attack "Backstab", and you needed a back to stab, but otherwise it was the same thing. Massive damage when successful, +4 to hit and 2x damage. So, if not the same thing (sneak attack dice), it did increase your damage output by a lot.

I don't think he could backstab without a dagger or similar small weapon, while in 3.5 you could sneak attack with a Greatsword (more d6's to roll, so very fun!).

 

[Walker N. Waistz]

.As noted, Sneak Attack didn't exist until after Y2K. Back-stab was definitely not the signature Rogue function for the 22 years from 1977 to 1999.

A rose by any other name. Same difference.

It was one of the most marginal abilities in the game.

Your experience sounds absolutely counter to my own. In 1E, and 2E, I and everyone else I ever saw play a Thief or Rogue spent every combat trying to get a Back-stab in. If there were never opportunities, the DM got an earful.

It was also so bland that they later flooded 3.5 with a slew of feats to trade out those random d6s for negative status effects against enemies.

Again, not like my experience at all. I never saw many folks use those feats. As in previous editions, in 3.x/4e most rogue-types I saw (especially the Essentials Thief) were pretty focused on bringing the big damage.

To me, that capacity to deal extra damage by being clever in combat is elemental to the Rogue. I would not trade it to be a skill-monkey, especially when there may be lots of games that don't focus much on the Exploration pillar. I like Exploration, a lot, but not everyone is going to be into it. Any more than every D&D game has socializing on a significant level. But every D&D game will have combat.

 

[Uller]

So in the example given above a thief in AD&D could put out 20% more damge on a hit with backstab than a fighter. The 3e innovations with sneak attack were in respnse to a specific problem...the vagueness of what was required for a backstab left enough room for interpretation that different games had a very different results for theif PCs.

Attempting a backstab was very much "mother may I?" D&D. Prior to specialization rules the thief's backstab was pretty spectacular compared to a fighter. Now that the fighter has DS to consistantly increase damage as he gains levels it seems the rogue needs something similar to keep his damage just a bit below the fighter but to allow him to occasionallly exceed what the fighter can do.

To me it would be cool if the rogue had a manuever to allow the use of ED to increase his chances to score a crit and then other manuevers to increase damage or inflict conditions (blind, dazed, stunned, unconcious, etc). The save DC for eac should be determined by number of dice used and the severity of the condition

 

[kerleth]

I have to disagree with the "3 pillars equal" stance. As part of game design it is definitely a good way to go. But as a part of character mechanics supporting narrative it is a huge failure. If you look at fiction (and at real life, for that matter) there are people who are good at many things, and people who are really good at a few things. To allow the breadth of character customization that I (and many others I have played with) you must be allowed to focus in an area. Any attempts I've seen to allow everyone to "function equally in all pillars" have not allowed me to make a living and breathing character without having to twist his concept. Don't make everyone "equal" in all pillars, just "useful". Balancing both of these concerns for a variety of playstyles is exceedingly difficult.

I think that there are 3 main class archetypes: Warrior, Spellcaster, Skillmonkey. Within those there is a huge amount of distinction and hybridization possible.

To me an ideal fighter isn't necessarily identified by being the "best" at combat. His schtick is that combat is his thing. He knows it inside and out.
There is almost no possible combat situation where the fighter can't kick butt. In fact, he's so good that where a rogue or wizard may have one strategy to follow in a given situation, a fighter has his choice of two or three. The others might have to jump through hoops or burn daily resources when put in a tight spot. The fighter just defaults to plan b.

To me this would be the dividing line between rogue and fighter. Apply the same concept to exploration and/or interaction for a rogue. The fighter might have one way to get through a given noncombat "encounter". If that way doesn't work, he'll have to jump through a couple hoops and scramble, but won't immediately become useless. The rogue, though, simply defaults to plan b. He might even be good enough to counter the fighter's "tight spot moment", using his huge breadth of skills to remove the impediment the fighter doing his part in the "encounter". I think that another thread (the one about fleshing out exploration so it plays more in-depth and not so on off) is very related to this one. A better exploration pillar makes it easier to balance character concepts that don't want to be "the combat guy and the exploration guy and the social guy" all equally.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t think, the total damage is too low (for the team fight aspect, at least), but it is problematic, that it is just a worse "deadly strike" It should have something special over deadly strike.

For the extra damage:
attacks with advantage, could by default give a damage bonus like the crit damage bonus. So everyone who strikes from hiding gets extra damage. The rogue not only has a maneuver to be on par with a fighter then, but has, due to his skills and equippment, a better chance at hiding.

Or maybe you should do extra damage, if both attack rolls hit (or would hit AC 10)

Maybe a simple +1 to hit per expertise dice spent (retroactively applied like 4e thief´s backstab power) would bring sneak attack to an acceptable level. It would increase the rogue´s attack bonus to about fighter level!