D&D 5E Rogues are Awesome. Is it the Tasha's Effect?

[Sword of Spirit]

Because it has a higher chance to land a crit that results in 2Y. This approach assumes you add sneak attack to the first hit if TWF. If you aren't doing this, then your overall damage output drops pretty severely. You have a new case where your damage for the round is just X and it's replacing X+Y.

The more d20's you roll, the more chances to crit you get. That's going to increase the sneak attack damage over the long run.

Yeah, what I'm not understanding (and I think I am missing something) is how making 2 rolls when only one of them can possibly hit is superior to making 2 rolls when both can hit. It's still 2d20. It's the general rule of Advantage that making two identical attacks is superior to making one attack with Advantage. In this case, they aren't identical, but it's 2d6+mod compared to 1d8+mod. So Sneak Attack chances should be unchanged.

The only thing I can think of that might be making this counter-intuitive thing that's being claimed might be something like:

Two Attacks: First attack hits, you add Sneak Attack. Second attack crits, you can't add crit Sneak Attack because you've already used it.
One Attack with Advantage: One chance to hit, one chance to crit, but Sneak Attack is always paired with crits.

Is that what's going on?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, what I'm not understanding (and I think I am missing something) is how making 2 rolls when only one of them can possibly hit is superior to making 2 rolls when both can hit. It's still 2d20. It's the general rule of Advantage that making two identical attacks is superior to making one attack with Advantage. In this case, they aren't identical, but it's 2d6+mod compared to 1d8+mod. So Sneak Attack chances should be unchanged.

The only thing I can think of that might be making this counter-intuitive thing that's being claimed might be something like:

Two Attacks: First attack hits, you add Sneak Attack. Second attack crits, you can't add crit Sneak Attack because you've already used it.
One Attack with Advantage: One chance to hit, one chance to crit, but Sneak Attack is always paired with crits.

Is that what's going on?

Yes, the 2nd hit/crit not carrying SA is what keeps the two things pretty close. They get closer as SA increases.

TWF for rogues suffers, though, because it fights for their already overloaded bonus action. There are a number of times rogues can't use it because they use their bonus action for something else, like repositioning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We'll see.

Core mechanics don't support Crawford's PoV. It's not core in the PHB.

He may have changed his mind or thinks they should but its not in the PHB.

Very few players irl are overly familiar with his Twitter stuff or even the errata.

The reason I don't use things outside the PHB is because of that. If you are you need to be specific not "I'm using the errata and JCs personal opinion".

If the Halfling ability works as JC intended they really screwed up as it's a quasi greater invisibility effect. Combined with the rest of the halfling package that's pretty damn good relative to the other PHB races espicially Dragonborn.

Either way they done screwed up good.

You mean they screwed up with the design goal that rogues can reliably hide in combat because a) you ruled they cannot because b) then rogues can reliably hide in combat? There's something circular in there.

 

[FrogReaver]

We'll see.

Core mechanics don't support Crawford's PoV. It's not core in the PHB.

He may have changed his mind or thinks they should but its not in the PHB.

Very few players irl are overly familiar with his Twitter stuff or even the errata.

The reason I don't use things outside the PHB is because of that. If you are you need to be specific not "I'm using the errata and JCs personal opinion".

If the Halfling ability works as JC intended they really screwed up as it's a quasi greater invisibility effect. Combined with the rest of the halfling package that's pretty damn good relative to the other PHB races espicially Dragonborn.

Either way they done screwed up good.

Personally I’ve came to appreciate Crawford’s vague and seemingly making it up as he goes along strategy. It’s had the perfect effect of helping people remember it’s their game and they can play it how they want instead of worrying about the official take.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personally I’ve came to appreciate Crawford’s vague and seemingly making it up as he goes along strategy. It’s had the perfect effect of helping people remember it’s their game and they can play it how they want instead of worrying about the official take.

Everyone needs to be on the same page.

I have seen arguements because some players using PHB, others errata, others Crawford's Twitter, and some people using a strange mixture and still being wrong.

I'm LN RAW and I'll let you know in advance if I'm using optional rules, house rules or errata.

Everyone on the same page is more important than who's right. Seen a few groups blow up over dumb crap.

I don't care if DMs change the rules I do if they do it on the spit and my Rogue player has a horror story about his previous DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, what I'm not understanding (and I think I am missing something) is how making 2 rolls when only one of them can possibly hit is superior to making 2 rolls when both can hit. It's still 2d20. It's the general rule of Advantage that making two identical attacks is superior to making one attack with Advantage. In this case, they aren't identical, but it's 2d6+mod compared to 1d8+mod. So Sneak Attack chances should be unchanged.

The only thing I can think of that might be making this counter-intuitive thing that's being claimed might be something like:

Two Attacks: First attack hits, you add Sneak Attack. Second attack crits, you can't add crit Sneak Attack because you've already used it.
One Attack with Advantage: One chance to hit, one chance to crit, but Sneak Attack is always paired with crits.

Is that what's going on?

What I'm not understanding is how you aren't getting advantage for both of the attacks. Any attack that would give a single attack rogue advantage should also be giving the two-weapon rogue advantage on both attacks.

 

[FrogReaver]

Everyone needs to be on the same page.

I have seen arguements because some players using PHB, others errata, others Crawford's Twitter, and some people using a strange mixture and still being wrong.

I'm LN RAW and I'll let you know in advance if I'm using optional rules, house rules or errata.

Everyone on the same page is more important than who's right. Seen a few groups blow up over dumb crap.

I don't care if DMs change the rules I do if they do it on the spit and my Rogue player has a horror story about his previous DM.

You’ve been here long enough to know no one is ever on the same page with rules.

 

[Mistwell]

Jeremy Crawford said that RAI the rogue is supposed to get advantage even if hiding and attacking from the same place over and over.

That's not quite what he says. In fact he repeatedly says "The DM decides" based on the circumstances.

It is a core mechanic of the class. I think that's why they added the steady aim. Some DMs just can't wrap their heads around core mechanics, although it would help if WotC was more transparent about their design intents. Crawford is the worst at this with his incomplete twitter responses.

I agree it's a core mechanic, and I agree that's why they added Steady Aim. I simply disagree that a DM is going outside of the rules as written if they apply advantage or disadvantage because they deem the circumstances of hiding in a particular spot repeatedly warrant it.

 

[Zardnaar]

You’ve been here long enough to know no one is ever on the same page with rules.

They are in my games. LN DM style apparently. I use messenger and session 0 to communicate stuff and players get to vote on whatever theme I'm willing to run and let me sort out the details.

 

[FrogReaver]

They are in my games. LN DM style apparently.

Agreeing to play a certain way doesn’t mean you agree that way is RAW or RAI etc.