D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[James Gasik]

Neither would be good.

Sure.
In the original D&D with 4 classes and a party of 4, then each class specific item had an extremely good chance of being useful.

There are now 13 classes. Assuming a party of 4. Then a class specific item is useless for 2/3 of the games.

I don't have any issues with granting class features.

A Talisman of Wild Shape is going to be useful in any party.

I don't see any benefit having Staff of the Woodlands be a Druid only thing.

Why not allow a Barbarian or Ranger to use it?

The basic Barbarian has no real understanding of magic, so it would be strange to give them access to a spellcasting item. Now Ranger? A case could be made, though the Staff does have magic that Ranger's don't normally get access to, so maybe that's a concern, I'm not sure. Or a Nature Domain Cleric, for that matter.

A lot of this goes back very far in D&D's history, where you had class-specific items that were seen as a reward for playing a given class. And there used to be a bunch of these, now there's very few in 5e, but it's still a thing.

Maybe it's a sacred cow that should be slain, maybe it's just one of those D&D-ism's that makes the game "feel" like D&D (whatever that means). YMMV.

Maybe magic items would be better if anyone could use them. I touched on this in my prior posts- it lets you adjust for not having access to a particular class, and there might be some good in letting someone experience another class fantasy. But at the moment, there are magic items that only some characters can use, and it's up to the DM to figure out how to handle that.

And we may get even more of these in the future*, and if so, whether you think the design is faulty or not, it may likely be here to stay.

*Like the possible Monk support items that have been mentioned.

 

[James Gasik]

Going beyond that is the Rod of the Pactkeeper that keeps coming up in strawgrasping.

It's a precedent. Good or bad. It's not "strawgrasping" to note that it exists, and is a precedent for other things like it existing.

You seem to have some pretty strong feelings about class-specific items. Saying that "oh if one shows up, that means the DM is possibly playing favorites" is a ludicrous claim. That's like saying "oh wow, Pipes of the Sewers. Funny how only one person in the party can use a wind instrument!". Come on, anyone with that level of paranoia is problematic for the game without the existence of specific attunement requirements.

Now if you don't like specific attunement requirements (or a particular subset of them), hey that's great. But that's just like, your opinion, man.

If you want to get back to "do Rogues need special items", we circle around to the question if any class does- and what do you know, we have examples of items that you need to be not only a spellcaster to use, but specific classes of arcane spellcaster. There are Wands and Staves that say "Bard, Warlock, or Wizard" can only attune to them. Do Bards, Warlocks, or Wizards need them? Or a Robe of the Archmagi?

Well someone seems to think so, or they wouldn't exist as options. And if you're a DM and don't think so, hey, they don't appear. But when someone says, "hey, can my Rogue have a cool Rogue-only item?", why shouldn't they be allowed to have one, if other classes can?

The Rogue wouldn't be broken if a magic item that boosted them existed. Because appearing in a book doesn't mean it's going to appear in a game. Certainly not every Paladin is toting a Holy Avenger!

On the other hand, no, I don't think the Rogue needs a Sneak Attack bonus item in general. If I was given the job to improve the Rogue experience, assuming I felt that the Rogue experience needed improvement (which I don't really, I mean, I think they might be ok with a little boost, but I don't think the Rogue has any problems until perhaps the higher levels), Sneak Attack isn't how I'd do it.

And making Sneak Attack magic items is definitely not how I'd do it, because I have no expectation they'd ever see play. I just don't see the harm in putting one into a game compared to any other item that already exists.

 

[mellored]

The basic Barbarian has no real understanding of magic, so it would be strange to give them access to a spellcasting item.

Barbarian can be trained in nature or arcana. They are not always raging. And most of those spells are utility.

*Like the possible Monk support items that have been mentioned.

Those are unarmored and unarmed items.

Sure, monk is the most obvious user of them, but nothing stops a robe wizard from wearing bracers of defense. Or a brawler fighter from using them (assuming it eventually arrives).

Designing an item for a class is not the same as excluding everyone else from it.

Again. A class specific item is useless in 2/3 of the games.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's a precedent. Good or bad. It's not "strawgrasping" to note that it exists, and is a precedent for other things like it existing.

You seem to have some pretty strong feelings about class-specific items. Saying that "oh if one shows up, that means the DM is possibly playing favorites" is a ludicrous claim. That's like saying "oh wow, Pipes of the Sewers. Funny how only one person in the party can use a wind instrument!". Come on, anyone with that level of paranoia is problematic for the game without the existence of specific attunement requirements.

Now if you don't like specific attunement requirements (or a particular subset of them), hey that's great. But that's just like, your opinion, man.

If you want to get back to "do Rogues need special items", we circle around to the question if any class does- and what do you know, we have examples of items that you need to be not only a spellcaster to use, but specific classes of arcane spellcaster. There are Wands and Staves that say "Bard, Warlock, or Wizard" can only attune to them. Do Bards, Warlocks, or Wizards need them? Or a Robe of the Archmagi?

Well someone seems to think so, or they wouldn't exist as options. And if you're a DM and don't think so, hey, they don't appear. But when someone says, "hey, can my Rogue have a cool Rogue-only item?", why shouldn't they be allowed to have one, if other classes can?

The Rogue wouldn't be broken if a magic item that boosted them existed. Because appearing in a book doesn't mean it's going to appear in a game. Certainly not every Paladin is toting a Holy Avenger!

On the other hand, no, I don't think the Rogue needs a Sneak Attack bonus item in general. If I was given the job to improve the Rogue experience, assuming I felt that the Rogue experience needed improvement (which I don't really, I mean, I think they might be ok with a little boost, but I don't think the Rogue has any problems until perhaps the higher levels), Sneak Attack isn't how I'd do it.

And making Sneak Attack magic items is definitely not how I'd do it, because I have no expectation they'd ever see play. I just don't see the harm in putting one into a game compared to any other item that already exists.

Noting that a very poorly designed gestalt item exists is hardly a good point of support for "precedent." I think you are still ignoring & trying to obscure the fact that the original request I pushed back against was back here in 138 for items that "modify sneak attack and sneak damage" -NOT- the new hypothetical item that grants some amount of sneak attack damage to anyone using it. I've pointed that out previously, that alone combined with avoidance of explaining why this new item is needed without going back to talk of magic items for rogues & rogue experience specifically feels like a return to the 3.5 days of listening to a player trying to construct a roundabout GM ruling to allow something they know is over the top by getting rulings on unrelated things that could combine in silly OP ways.

It's also possible to say that something is a downside of [legacy class specific items] without having "strong opinions" about them & a hypothetical new item makes those downsides worth noting if the shapeshifting new hypothetical item seems to be designed in a way that keeps the downsides for one side of the dmscreen but not the other.

Also don't forget wotc has made no indications that 2024 will be changing

Spoiler: this

Wotc themselves have set & seem intent on maintaining a rather high bar for why these items are needed. As someone said earlier... a magic ite, that replicates sneak attack is different from a magic item that requires sneak attack... You seem to be switching between the two as convenient & it doesn't look good.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Sure, monk is the most obvious user of them, but nothing stops a robe wizard from wearing bracers of defense. Or a brawler fighter from using them (assuming it eventually arrives).

Wasn't the Brawler cut?

 

[CapnZapp]

No I was explicit about those less than healthy reasons in the post where I explained the question in detail. Here it is after trimming out the explanation you objected to. Coincidentally it also shows two examples of problems it would cause.

Spoiler: quote friendly c&p from that post

After all of that it looks very much like the only benefit of items that add sneak dice specifically seems to be that they would stack with elemental weapons & guarantee the party rogue is always the most deserving PC for such an item no matter what. That's probably not a good or even reasonable need to justify such a magic item... Can you give a good reason why such an item is needed mechanically or should even exist?

Note the bolded bit. I'm literally asking you to sell us on the hypothetical unstated merits of such an item for a third time. If there are good reasons for items like you are pushing for that are not met entirely by a broad class of items & spells that already exist... tell us instead of this runaround.

You can cut that right out.

You don't get to gatekeep what's "needed" and what's merely cool or useful.

I don't believe there is a single good reason why a core class' foremost class ability should be completely devoid of boosts.

I don't have to justify "the need" to you. You're supposed to see it instantly.

Why would you otherwise "need" anything specific when you can just use something generic?

---

Obviously sneak dice should stack with elemental dice. It does that already and it should keep doing that. Why are you even asking such an obvious question, and why are you making it out to be a problem, as if the rogue's sneak damage was already so overwhelming any further increase would break the game. Just stop. We both know the rogue is a middling damage dealer, and that not even the super optimisers that regularly achieve two (or more) sneak attack damage helpings in a round break the game or the class.

One item can add fire damage and be equally useful to the rogue and to a dex fighter. That does not mean ALL items should be equally useful to other classes, or that we should single out the Rogue's class feature for "absolutely no upgrades". So you can find that fire knife, and then later find a sneak attack knife.

There's zero problem or issue here. Except in your mind.

---

Yes the Rogue is the "most deserving" character for any sneak damage related item or effect. Doh.


I'm not sure I would call the druid "most deserving" of a druid-only item, but a) they get it anyway and b) that's not a problem, it's a solution. Same with any other class-only item.

Just that there's no reason to make sneak attack related items "rogue only", just like a hypothetical item that adds bonus rages or smites is for the Barbarian and Paladin even if we don't actually class-restrict the items.

 

[CapnZapp]

the original request I pushed back against was back here in 138 for items that "modify sneak attack and sneak damage" -NOT- the new hypothetical item that grants some amount of sneak attack damage to anyone using it.

You can only make use of bonus sneak dice if you have the Sneak Attack feature.

Obviously.

A knife that gives +2d6 sneak damage to anyone who uses it is much better implemented as a knife that gives +2d6 piercing damage. Way less confused rules discussions. Nobody thinks an item that gives extra damage dice of the "sneak" type is a good idea. That's a terrible idea.

The idea has always been to provide bonuses to the class feature, just like how nearly every other dimension in the game can be boosted somehow.

 

[mellored]

Wasn't the Brawler cut?

Yes.

But it, or some other unarmed subclass, might come out. And there will he magic unarmed items available.

 

[tetrasodium]

You can cut that right out.

You don't get to gatekeep what's "needed" and what's merely cool or useful.

I don't believe there is a single good reason why a core class' foremost class ability should be completely devoid of boosts.

I don't have to justify "the need" to you. You're supposed to see it instantly.

Why would you otherwise "need" anything specific when you can just use something generic?

---

Obviously sneak dice should stack with elemental dice. It does that already and it should keep doing that. Why are you even asking such an obvious question, and why are you making it out to be a problem, as if the rogue's sneak damage was already so overwhelming any further increase would break the game. Just stop. We both know the rogue is a middling damage dealer, and that not even the super optimisers that regularly achieve two (or more) sneak attack damage helpings in a round break the game or the class.

One item can add fire damage and be equally useful to the rogue and to a dex fighter. That does not mean ALL items should be equally useful to other classes, or that we should single out the Rogue's class feature for "absolutely no upgrades". So you can find that fire knife, and then later find a sneak attack knife.

There's zero problem or issue here. Except in your mind.

---

Yes the Rogue is the "most deserving" character for any sneak damage related item or effect. Doh.


I'm not sure I would call the druid "most deserving" of a druid-only item, but a) they get it anyway and b) that's not a problem, it's a solution. Same with any other class-only item.

Just that there's no reason to make sneak attack related items "rogue only", just like a hypothetical item that adds bonus rages or smites is for the Barbarian and Paladin even if we don't actually class-restrict the items.

It's not gatekeeping to ask what is the mechanical need not met by similar items and if there is no mechanical need then why this new type of item is needed given how 5e removed the design space that existed for magic items to extend and improve in order to make it into the core. It is the finger pointing and evasion returned from those questions that makes these items a thing that is probably better off not existing when they already seemed to carry some possible negative baggage.

Also that bold bit in your post conflicts with the first sentence of the very next post you made

You can only make use of bonus sneak dice if you have the Sneak Attack feature.

Obviously.

A knife that gives +2d6 sneak damage to anyone who uses it is much better implemented as a knife that gives +2d6 piercing damage. Way less confused rules discussions. Nobody thinks an item that gives extra damage dice of the "sneak" type is a good idea. That's a terrible idea.

The idea has always been to provide bonuses to the class feature, just like how nearly every other dimension in the game can be boosted somehow.

An item doesn't need to require a rogue attune only tag to be rogue only if the item only works for a PC who has an ability that comes from taking rogue levels

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Doesn't the shore up weaknesses but kinda clash with all of the ones that 5e removed from sneak attack? What niche does s dagger that deals an extra 2d6 sneak attack damage fill that is not filled by a dagger that deals an extra 2d6 poison fire or whatever?

You can only make use of bonus sneak dice if you have the Sneak Attack feature.

Obviously.

A knife that gives +2d6 sneak damage to anyone who uses it is much better implemented as a knife that gives +2d6 piercing damage. Way less confused rules discussions. Nobody thinks an item that gives extra damage dice of the "sneak" type is a good idea. That's a terrible idea.

The idea has always been to provide bonuses to the class feature, just like how nearly every other dimension in the game can be boosted somehow.

If you want to improve your Rogue's damage, an item that grants Sneak Attack damage does make more sense.

For one, the Rogue is already the party member who will be seeking the situations that allow sneak attack, and will often have subclass abilities that enable it in more situations. Making the items Rogue only is probably unnecessary.

For two, the suggested items that deal extra 2d6 of poison or piercing damage are probably going to be given to a class for which they are more effective: one with Extra Attack, like a Martial or Bladesinger. Unless you are going to add Sneak-Attack-like restrictions to those items, dealing +2d6 twice (or more) each round is better than only dealing it once.