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

[Mistwell]

One thing I absolutely love about rogues is how SAD they are. This allows me to distribute my ability scores using point buy in a way that is best matched to my personal play style. I don't know about the rest of you, but there are certain attributes I have as a player that tend to manifest themselves in every character I play whether I like it or not. My knowledge of D&D lore is fairly compendious which is best reflected by playing a character with a reasonably high Intelligence score. I am also far from a shrinking violet when it comes to roleplaying exchanges, which is best reflected by having a reasonably high Charisma. To reflect these tendencies with minimal dissonance, my Forest Gnome Arcane Trickster Rogue has an Intelligence of 14 and a Charisma of 14 in addition to his Dexterity of 18. I can use this stat array as a rogue and still feel perfectly effective!

I agree. I was able to consider if I wanted Intelligence for investigation and knowledge skills, or Wisdom for perception and intuition skills, or Charisma for persuasion/deception/intimidation. That's a choice I don't often get with many other PCs. For instance, my wizard pretty much had to go Intelligence, Constitution, Dexterity, Wisdom. Charisma and Strength were going to be dump stats on that PC however I sliced it if I wanted to survive the lower levels.

 

[fearsomepirate]

It's not just Tasha's. Early on when playing 5e, rogues were total rock stars, and I concluded it's because we were being way too lenient with advantage. At my table. I don't let rogues hide more than once per hiding spot. There are a few reasons for this:

a) Otherwise, rogues basically always have advantage, and 5e becomes even easier
b) I don't like adjudicating line-of-sight. If I said there's a rock or a tree or whatever, you can hide behind it once. No ifs, ands, or buts. Have fun.
c) Once enemies know you've shot at them from behind that tree, they're gonna keep their eye on it.
d) It works both ways. Players don't like having goblins hiding every round.
e) Yes, the DM decides when conditions permit hiding, but I do like having clear, reliable guidance for my players.

 

[auburn2]

It's not just Tasha's. Early on when playing 5e, rogues were total rock stars, and I concluded it's because we were being way too lenient with advantage. At my table. I don't let rogues hide more than once per hiding spot. There are a few reasons for this:

a) Otherwise, rogues basically always have advantage, and 5e becomes even easier
b) I don't like adjudicating line-of-sight. If I said there's a rock or a tree or whatever, you can hide behind it once. No ifs, ands, or buts. Have fun.
c) Once enemies know you've shot at them from behind that tree, they're gonna keep their eye on it.
d) It works both ways. Players don't like having goblins hiding every round.
e) Yes, the DM decides when conditions permit hiding, but I do like having clear, reliable guidance for my players.

I think you are doing hiding wrong if Rogues are hiding and attacking with advantage from being hidden every turn.

They should be able to hide every turn, but usually they will not be able to attack from hiding on the next turn.

With the exception of Halflings, Rogues have to be completely obscured to be hidden and it is rare they can attack while fully obscured. Same for Goblins. After a battle starts hiding on one turn should not usually give you advantage the next turn.

If hide is successful, it makes it so the enemy doesn't know where the Rogue is and can not attack the Rogue effectively. When the Rogue peaks his head around to throw that knife or shoot his bow he is no longer obscured, therefore is no longer hidden and loses advantage.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you are doing hiding wrong if Rogues are hiding and attacking with advantage from being hidden every turn.

They should be able to hide every turn, but usually they will not be able to attack from hiding on the next turn.

With the exception of Halflings, Rogues have to be completely obscured to be hidden and it is rare they can attack while fully obscured. Same for Goblins. After a battle starts hiding on one turn should not usually give you advantage the next turn.

If hide is successful, it makes it so the enemy doesn't know where the Rogue is and can not attack the Rogue effectively. When the Rogue peaks his head around to throw that knife or shoot his bow he is no longer obscured, therefore is no longer hidden and loses advantage.

Basically how I run it. You can use it as an ambush technique not pseaudo invisibility.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think you are doing hiding wrong if Rogues are hiding and attacking with advantage from being hidden every turn.

They should be able to hide every turn, but usually they will not be able to attack from hiding on the next turn.

With the exception of Halflings, Rogues have to be completely obscured to be hidden and it is rare they can attack while fully obscured. Same for Goblins. After a battle starts hiding on one turn should not usually give you advantage the next turn.

If hide is successful, it makes it so the enemy doesn't know where the Rogue is and can not attack the Rogue effectively. When the Rogue peaks his head around to throw that knife or shoot his bow he is no longer obscured, therefore is no longer hidden and loses advantage.

The 5e rule is that the hidden status ends after resolving the attack, not before. There's no "peeking ends hiding" rule, only "being seen clearly ends hiding." That is largely up to DM discretion when emerging from hiding to stab a creature in melee, while the ranged attack is unambiguous: you resolve the attack first. I guess you can make it your ruling that peeking out = enemy can see you clearly = no ranged attacks while hidden, but that seems to go against the spirit of the rules.

 

[Oofta]

The 5e rule is that the hidden status ends after resolving the attack, not before.

From the PHB: "You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly"

That leaves a ton of leeway for the DM. For example, if the rogue is behind the lone tree on a barren plane, they are hidden while behind it. However, the moment they lean out to get line of sight to their target the rogue is clearly seen and no longer hidden. On the other hand, the DM may say that the target is not paying close enough attention and it works.

I know there are people that don't like that, personally I do because as a DM it gives me a lot of flexibility. In my game, if a rogue can go from cover to cover they may be able to attack from hidden multiple times. Attacking from behind that solo tree? Might happen if all the rest of the opponents are in the opposite direction, won't happen a second time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

[Mistwell]

Guys, if nothing else, Tasha's ended this debate. WOTC has clearly declared Rogues were supposed to be able to get advantage fairly often, with Steady Aim. If it wasn't already obvious, given the Lightfoot Halfling ability was about this concept.

 

[Zardnaar]

Guys, if nothing else, Tasha's ended this debate. WOTC has clearly declared Rogues were supposed to be able to get advantage fairly often, with Steady Aim. If it wasn't already obvious, given the Lightfoot Halfling ability was about this concept.

Optional rule.

Mostly for ranged rogues which I pointed out around 2015 iirc.

 

[tommybahama]

Out of combat he of course excels. We're playing Mad Mage, and he's excellent with traps, secret doors, and anything requiring investigation or scouting., That Mage Hand which can use thieves tools at range is great, and so is a familiar for scouting. He's pretty decent at negotiations as well, provided he uses deception and sometimes uses a Disguise Self spell.

How does your DM handle traps and such? Is it the Perception/Investigation/Thieves tools combo? I hate that because that's too much depending on dumb luck and I don't think rogues should have high wisdom scores or else they would have gone into a more sensible profession.

I think you are doing hiding wrong if Rogues are hiding and attacking with advantage from being hidden every turn.

If hide is successful, it makes it so the enemy doesn't know where the Rogue is and can not attack the Rogue effectively. When the Rogue peaks his head around to throw that knife or shoot his bow he is no longer obscured, therefore is no longer hidden and loses advantage.

I disagree based on RAW, RAI, and all fantasy literature, film, and televison. On DnDBeyond it says under sneak attack, "Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction." In a group combat, popping behind a rock, a bush, or wall for a brief moment causes the target to turn his attention from the rogue even if for a moment. That is enough distraction for a sneak attack. You've probably seen this a million times on TV and film. Why people fight against it in D&D is beyond me.

In The Hobbit film trilogy we see Bilbo hide in combat over and over again. At least twice he does it in plain sight. He hides from Smaug in combat repeatedly. Smaug! I'll never understand why Hollywood gets this but some DMs can't.

I would even argue that dim light which counts as light obscurement according to the rules would be enough to hide in during combat.

 

[Oofta]

Guys, if nothing else, Tasha's ended this debate. WOTC has clearly declared Rogues were supposed to be able to get advantage fairly often, with Steady Aim. If it wasn't already obvious, given the Lightfoot Halfling ability was about this concept.

I don't try to divine intent one way or another (or use it to justify my opinion for that matter). I just explained how I run it. I haven't decided if I'm going to allow for this particular ability, although standing still for more than a round or two isn't always a good idea in my campaign anyway.

D&D is a flexible game, there is no "wrong" or "right" way.