Rogues and sneak attacks... Must all rogues have it?

[payn]

The 5E skill system is so woefully underdeveloped that this seems like a really bad trade off. PF1 did this with archetypes and it worked very well giving not just the rouge, but many classes, options to explore the boundaries of their abilities.

 

[TwoSix]

Sneak attack is baked into rogue class for ages now and do all rogues want it?

There is a lack of a class that is a pure skill monkey without this backstabing knee capping fighting style.

It would be a hassle to make a completely new class and rogue does the skill monkey base really good.

It just needs more of it.


Variant:
every time you would get +1d6 increase for sneak attack(even at 1st level) you can pick instead;

1. bonus skill proficiency and one choice of one tool, language or weapon.
or
2. gain expertise in one skill or tool that you are proficient.


this variant would seriously lack combat potential so maybe it would not be a good idea in 2-4 party size, but this would be ideal 5th character in a party, especially if there is lots of "gain 2 skills at 1st level classes" in the rest of the party.

ofc, you can pick only half of your sneak attack dice for this to keep some combat presence or mix it however you want.

Totally fine, I've done that exact change before. I wanted one level of rogue for expertise/extra skills, and the DM was fine with me giving up the 1d6 sneak attack for a 3rd expertise.

 

[Quartz]

Why do you feel the game needs a "pure skill monkey"...?

Very useful for an urban / social campaign

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sneak attack is baked into rogue class for ages now and do all rogues want it?

There is a lack of a class that is a pure skill monkey without this backstabing knee capping fighting style.

the problem is that 5e (and 4e and 3e before them) is a combat focused game... you can't make a class that isn't good at combat

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Delete the Rogue, give all their stuff to the Fighter, who sorely needs it.

I think this could be okaish but that would give us LESS nonmagical classes

 

[Shardstone]

Sneak attack is baked into rogue class for ages now and do all rogues want it?

There is a lack of a class that is a pure skill monkey without this backstabing knee capping fighting style.

It would be a hassle to make a completely new class and rogue does the skill monkey base really good.

It just needs more of it.


Variant:
every time you would get +1d6 increase for sneak attack(even at 1st level) you can pick instead;

1. bonus skill proficiency and one choice of one tool, language or weapon.
or
2. gain expertise in one skill or tool that you are proficient.


this variant would seriously lack combat potential so maybe it would not be a good idea in 2-4 party size, but this would be ideal 5th character in a party, especially if there is lots of "gain 2 skills at 1st level classes" in the rest of the party.

ofc, you can pick only half of your sneak attack dice for this to keep some combat presence or mix it however you want.

This works best if you add "Skill Actions" like PF2E has, so that way the skills can be used in combat. Otherwise, you've made a rogue that is only fun outside of combat. It'd be good for an all sidekick game, or a low level investigative game, but any and all combats would be basically wasted time for your Rogue without an expansion of how to use skills.

Ultimately, skills aren't fun in D&D. Skill checks are usually binary, and they don't open a lot of doors for the party.

 

[wedgeski]

Very useful for an urban / social campaign

Sure, but you have a whole party. Between the 4/5/6 whatever of you, you should have most or everything covered.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I feel like it could work, but the alternate options are... just bad.

Like it's the problem a lot of the 'options' subclasses have where eventually you get to a point where your new class feature is the class feature you actively chose not to get for the last five or six levels.

You should get access to skill tricks or something rather than just proficiency/expertise.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I feel like it could work, but the alternate options are... just bad.

Like it's the problem a lot of the 'options' subclasses have where eventually you get to a point where your new class feature is the class feature you actively chose not to get for the last five or six levels.

You should get access to skill tricks or something rather than just proficiency/expertise.

yeah like... I already have persuasion prof and exp so no I can grab a charm person like effect and later maybe a dominate like effect.

 

[bedir than]

This works best if you add "Skill Actions" like PF2E has, so that way the skills can be used in combat.

How is this different than the 5e rule that you can use any skill as an Action?

 

[Horwath]

From looking at PF1 feat that gives +1d6 sneak attack and feats in 5E are worth aproxx3× of 3.5E/PF1 feats, a full feat should be worth +3d6 sneak attack.
Looking at skill expert, skill proficiency and expertise both are worth 1/4 of a feat, give or take.

that means for every 3 SA dice traded, you should get 4 instances of suggested trade off.

it's nice that 3d6 SA is at 5th level, 6d6 at 11th and 9d6 at 17th level.
just when you get a new game tier.
so with 3rd, 6th and 9th SA dice traded, you get both options from original suggestion, while on the rest you choose one or the other.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You'd be good at using skills, but I personally don't think that's nearly as good as skills + magic. You'd simply be a worse problem solver than a bard or other support type. I don't consider being essentially useless in a fight worth the trade.

Dividing up social/exploration skills amongst the party also helps keep people engaged, rather than them tuning out when Horwath is on the job with his skills that eclipse theirs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sneak attack is baked into rogue class for ages now and do all rogues want it?

There is a lack of a class that is a pure skill monkey without this backstabing knee capping fighting style.

It would be a hassle to make a completely new class and rogue does the skill monkey base really good.

It just needs more of it.


Variant:
every time you would get +1d6 increase for sneak attack(even at 1st level) you can pick instead;

1. bonus skill proficiency and one choice of one tool, language or weapon.
or
2. gain expertise in one skill or tool that you are proficient.


this variant would seriously lack combat potential so maybe it would not be a good idea in 2-4 party size, but this would be ideal 5th character in a party, especially if there is lots of "gain 2 skills at 1st level classes" in the rest of the party.

ofc, you can pick only half of your sneak attack dice for this to keep some combat presence or mix it however you want.

I think what you're proposing is a pretty bad idea for two simple reasons:

1) It would make the Rogue truly useless in the Combat pillar of the game. Combat is the most well-developed pillar of the game, and most well-balanced, where all classes genuinely do get to participate. What you're proposing would prevent the Rogue from genuinely participating. They'd be barely more than a bystander or a "Help action" robot (so like a familiar with a lot of HP...).

2) It still wouldn't make the Rogue a "skill monkey", because the Rogue wouldn't have the stats to support the skills, all they'd be doing would be treading on the toes of other classes. I mean, a skill-monkey Rogue maybe has high INT and CHA, so that gives them a lot of skills, but once they've got those skills, what else? They'll just be mediocre at everything else. Other PCs will likely be better - the Rogue will just be good enough to be kind of annoying.

"More proficiencies" is not the fix. Proficiency in a skill just isn't that great. Gaining Expertise is a bit better, but then all that happens is you completely stamp on the Feat of other PCs with those skills. So you took Arcana Expertise, and now the Wizard can eat it. You took Nature Expertise, and now the Druid and Ranger can get stuffed, and so on.

Yet you'd still get outclassed completely whenever magic entered the picture. So you wouldn't even be that great. Just really annoying.

This is basically taking a wrecking ball to 5E class design and hoping the rubble makes a building.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Remove Sneak Attack and replace it with the improved Helps features of the Sidekick Expert.
Give Sneak Attack to Assassins, some kind of extra-attack to the Swashbuckler, cantrip sneak attack to arcane trickster, insightful strike for Inquisitive, exploit weakness for Mastermind and some kind of aerialist damage move to the Thief.

The scholar could have the Jack-of-all-Trades features from the bard, and the old Favored Foe/Terrain features of the Ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sneak attack is baked into rogue class for ages now and do all rogues want it?

There is a lack of a class that is a pure skill monkey without this backstabing knee capping fighting style.

It would be a hassle to make a completely new class and rogue does the skill monkey base really good.

It just needs more of it.

There is the Expert sidekick class. Obviously it’s weaker than a normal PC class, but if nothing else I think the Expert could be a good source of inspiration for mechanics to replace sneak attack. One thing I really like about the expert is it can Help with its Cunning Action, and if they Help an ally on an attack, the ally adds extra d6s of damage on a hit. So, similar to Sneak Attack, but reframed as helping your ally find an opening instead of taking advantage of one your ally creates.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem isn't that all rogues must have sneak attack.
It's that all skill monkeys are rogues.

I dunno, bards are pretty skill monkeyish.

 

[CleverNickName]

Once, I allowed a player to trade their rogue's Sneak Attack ability for ASIs at 6th, 10th, and 14th level (as a Fighter). It was sort of a callback to the 3.5E Unearthed Arcana rogue variant.

It was...fine, I guess? The characters never made it to 14th level, so I didn't get to fully test it out. But we didn't notice any balance issues (but we aren't hyper-optimizers either, so YMMV.)

 

[Stormonu]

I would not take away Sneak Attack from the Rogue. If you don't want to use the feature, don't use it. But I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. The various subclasses let you move your focus about, and that is what the (supposedly) Thief subclass is. If it is deficient in skill usage, fix it there - not gimp the class overall on Sneak Attack. Though, it would be nice if you could trade some of the d6 damage for inflicting conditions or doing other things.

If anything, I think it should be possible to add, specialize or otherwise muck about with skills, tools and languages as one advances to have more control over that sort of thing. The training rules to expand on that stuff as they exist are absurd and dumb from a game design point of view, and you shouldn't have to burn an ASI/Feat for that part of the game.

Similarly, I think Eldritch blast (or Hexblade option) should be baked into Warlock, rather than be a "optional" cantrip. Got a player right now who has handicapped the party because they didn't take EB, and is worthless after blowing his two spells trivially in the first couple of rounds of combat for the day.

 

[Horwath]

I would not take away Sneak Attack from the Rogue. If you don't want to use the feature, don't use it. But I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. The various subclasses let you move your focus about, and that is what the (supposedly) Thief subclass is. If it is deficient in skill usage, fix it there - not gimp the class overall on Sneak Attack. Though, it would be nice if you could trade some of the d6 damage for inflicting conditions or doing other things.

If anything, I think it should be possible to add, specialize or otherwise muck about with skills, tools and languages as one advances to have more control over that sort of thing. The training rules to expand on that stuff as they exist are absurd and dumb from a game design point of view, and you shouldn't have to burn an ASI/Feat for that part of the game.

Similarly, I think Eldritch blast (or Hexblade option) should be baked into Warlock, rather than be a "optional" cantrip. Got a player right now who has handicapped the party because they didn't take EB, and is worthless after blowing his two spells trivially in the first couple of rounds of combat for the day.

If you have something in the class and actively not using it, then you are working against yourself and rest of the party.

That is why I suggested what you could get to compensate for lack of SA dice.

and yes, I know that this kind of character would have minimal impact in direct damage in combat, but if you are in a party with a barbarian and a paladin on the front line... you have that covered.

with more/better skills/tools you can help your party before combat with scouting/negotiating and simple knowledge checks to find out what to hit the enemy with and what not to use.

 

[Shardstone]

How is this different than the 5e rule that you can use any skill as an Action?

Skill actions would do things normal skill uses can't get. C'mon man, have some imagination.