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

[Sword of Spirit]

We also use flanking that makes sneak attack a given most rounds,

How is flanking making it easier for you to get sneak attack? The standard sneak attack rules (just have an ally adjacent to a foe to qualify for sneak attack with no need for Advantage) is easier than relying on the optional DMG flanking rule to get advantage (though of course if you use that rule the Advantage is still Advantage, even if it's not needed to qualify for a sneak attack).

 

[FrozenNorth]

I posted about it a while back. A few rogues I've seen run around sniping achieving not much vs more aggressive ones who dual wield.

Is that really a problem? Being up front and dual-wielding also makes it more likely that you will get attacked. High risk, high reward.

Plus, I’m not sure it’s even true, given that ranged rogues can benefit from XBE and Sharpshooter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is that really a problem? Being up front and dual-wielding also makes it more likely that you will get attacked. High risk, high reward.

Plus, I’m not sure it’s even true, given that ranged rogues can benefit from XBE and Sharpshooter.

Assassin benefits from CBE a lot, haven't seen someone roll it up though.

Sharpshooter not good on Rogues due to the -5/+10 part not working properly.

I see alit of people hang back to avoid damage despite it being more efficient to spread the damage around and rogues getting uncanny dodge.

Also see Monk players blowing ki points to avoid damage.

I lean more towards kill stuff faster take less damage anyway. Works in every edition and most rpgs video games.

Players think they're being clever most if the time they suck.

At least the new Tasha's rule encouraged then to do stuff instead of zipping around and dealing 4 damage with a short bow.

 

[FrozenNorth]

At least the new Tasha's rule encouraged then to do stuff instead of zipping around and dealing 4 damage with a short bow.

Why are they only doing 4 dmg with a shortbow? As long as they are firing at an enemy that is already engaged, they are getting their sneak attack damage.

 

[Oofta]

Why are they only doing 4 dmg with a shortbow? As long as they are firing at an enemy that is already engaged, they are getting their sneak attack damage.

Rogues in my experience almost always get sneak attack every round, whether I was DMing or playing. It does mean they have to focus fire a bit, but I don't that as an issue. If people really want advantage every round, there are several options, even more now with Tasha's but it's not necessary for sneak attack.

 

[collin]

Quick question: I'm very strongly considering a rogue as a replacement character in an existing campaign (currently 11th), but the DM usually does 1-3 encounters per day and often "for tension" does not allow short rests between them. That context has been really favoring casters. Do you think a rogue can keep up with a Paladin and a bunch of casters in a case like that?

(Just for more info, it's an Ancient-Greek themed game with most of the group aligned with Athena except for one with Persephone. I was thinking about a Phantom Rogue aligned with Hades, which would be a great RP fit and fill gaps in the party. We're generally a low coin, moderately low item group, but I would probably start with a rare and an uncommon item.)

I think with the right choices and character build, a Rogue can absolutely stand toe-to-toe with most any class in D&D 5e. I've not played or read much about the Phantom Rogue, so I don't know if that would be the best choice if you are looking at damage dealing, but Arcane Trickster and Swashbuckler are usually pretty good choices, if that is your goal.

 

[Mistwell]

Elven accuracy feat + Tasha's derp.

I know it's a popular feat. But, I've found I hit when I have advantage so often that triple advantage doesn't really help all that much. It's not a bad feat of course, I just think it's a tad overkill.

 

[billd91]

Maybe I am doing hide wrong? Here is my 2 cents:

A rogue needs to be fully obscured to hide in combat. Generally, the only way to attack from a hidden position in combat is being in darkness vs a creature without darkvision or being invisibile. That means a Rogue is generally not going to be able to attack while hidden. You can hide behind that tapestry, meaning the enemy does not know where you are, but as soon as you step out to shoot you are no longer hidden and no longer have advantage. I suppose you can shoot through the tapestry, but then you can't see the enemy and have disadvantage which cancels the being hidden advantage. If it is a wall or an overturned table you are hiding behind you can't shoot through it (and neither can the enemy).

<snip>

This is how we run my game and I think this is RAI.

I think your interpretation is mistaken. You may need to be heavily obscured (with certain exceptions like being a halfling behind someone or having the skulker feat) there's no reason to think that you can't peep out and whip a dagger at someone. If they've failed their perception check vs your hide, that's sufficient reason to believe they've lost track of you. The attack's going to reveal you, but by then it's too late - the dagger (or arrow, bolt, whatever) is on its way.
I acknowledge a DM can rule the way they want, but I think the question comes up - is that interpretation fair to the rogue or is it too harsh for them to semi-reliably us a major class feature?

 

[TwoSix]

Quick question: I'm very strongly considering a rogue as a replacement character in an existing campaign (currently 11th), but the DM usually does 1-3 encounters per day and often "for tension" does not allow short rests between them. That context has been really favoring casters. Do you think a rogue can keep up with a Paladin and a bunch of casters in a case like that?

(Just for more info, it's an Ancient-Greek themed game with most of the group aligned with Athena except for one with Persephone. I was thinking about a Phantom Rogue aligned with Hades, which would be a great RP fit and fill gaps in the party. We're generally a low coin, moderately low item group, but I would probably start with a rare and an uncommon item.)

Having run a Tier 3 game with a rogue and several other casters under similar conditions (usually 2-4 hard encounters per LR, with 0-1 short rests), I would say no. Even with some nice magic items, he was generally bringing up the rear in overall combat utility.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know it's a popular feat. But, I've found I hit when I have advantage so often that triple advantage doesn't really help all that much. It's not a bad feat of course, I just think it's a tad overkill.

It’s nice in combination with the -5/+10 feats.