D&D 5E (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[Mistwell]

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.

The issue with stacking almost everything on sneak attack is you're able to get it most rounds, but not all rounds. And the higher the level, the more unusual circumstances which disallow sneak attack in a particular round, often due to sight issues and disadvantage.

Just giving them a different kind of extra damage would help with this. Poison seems to be the new focus of this version of the rogue, and it makes sense.

 

[mellored]

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.

If it's once per turn, it won't matter much who gets it.

If it affects damage dice (reroll all 1s), or crits (once per long rest, if you roll a 16 or higher, you can make it a 20), or grants an off-turn attack, then the rogue will be most effective with it.

While still being useful in games that don't have rogues.

 

[Pauln6]

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.

An item that inflicts poison damage once per round would work. I have house-ruled that extra damage from items is not doubled on a crit and I stand by that as a sensible thing, however, an item that doubles poison damage inflicted by a cunning strike or an item that adds extra sneak damage. I'm not sure that would be worth an attunement slot.

 

[Mistwell]

An item that inflicts poison damage once per round would work. I have house-ruled that extra damage from items is not doubled on a crit and I stand by that as a sensible thing, however, an item that doubles poison damage inflicted by a cunning strike or an item that adds extra sneak damage. I'm not sure that would be worth an attunement slot.

An item which enhances poison damage you otherwise inflict, or adds poison damage to the application of the poisoned condition, would work. So would an item that eliminates resistance to poison.

 

[CreamCloud0]

An item which enhances poison damage you otherwise inflict, or adds poison damage to the application of the poisoned condition, would work. So would an item that eliminates resistance to poison.

rather than a magic item i feel like these effects would be good to add to having poisoners kit proficiency, doing that sort of thing for tool proficiencies would add more value to taking them.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Sneak attack is once per turn, extra attack does not change that and is an important detail that shouldn't be ignored to make a convenient point. You are also assuming that a PC with that "more effective" class doesn't already have a weapon granting them something on every attack or a build that strongly needs a incompatible weapon like a great sword or other heavy weapon.

With a +sneak dice weapon even if the rogue has a +elemental dice weapon they can use all of the reasons in your second paragraph to push for it as a replacement or offhand weapon even if the other PC has only a standard +1 weapon or something

 

[Vikingkingq]

Yes.

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

I agree that magic unarmed items with be introduced, but I don't think they're going to be intended for Fighters - I think they'll be for Monks, primarily, and after that Punchadins and maybe Tavern Brawler Barbs.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Precisely.

That said, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have an item or feature that gives out sneak dice just in general, to anyone. That means an explanation is in order.

Of course, I can envision a feature that actually grants the sneak attack ability. Most straightforwardly, a subclass. But this could be an item too.

But in general, I would try to keep the two connected; that is, you can't use sneak dice without having the Sneak Attack feature.

A related topic here is that you might want to actually not award "sneak attack damage dice". You could phrase differently if that makes things more clear.

For instance, if an item says you count as having four more levels in Rogue, that's functionally equivalent to +2d6 sneak dice if you see what I mean.

 

[CapnZapp]

With a +sneak dice weapon even if the rogue has a +elemental dice weapon they can use all of the reasons in your second paragraph to push for it as a replacement or offhand weapon even if the other PC has only a standard +1 weapon or something

You appear to think of it as a problem that the rogue player will try extra hard to persuade her group to give her the item if that is a sneak attack related item?

I don't understand.

The only reason to hand out an item that effectively targets a particular class... is for that class to get the item?

What you somehow make out to be a problem is intended to be a solution.

A solution to the problem that otherwise the group's fighter will take it.

It's really really hard to discuss with someone that appears to read the rules entirely backwards.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

We agree on this at least.

Or rather, to be more specific: An item does not need a "rogue attune only" tag if the item only works for a PC with a specific class feature that you normally only get from taking rogue levels.

I make this distinction to keep open the door for a bard subclass, say, that also grants Sneak Attack as a class feature. (Not sure if there are any such subclasses, but I see no reason there couldn't be)

There is no reason to design the item (or spell or feature) in such a way that you need a specific class so a subclass of a non-rogue class that still awards the Sneak Attack class feature can't use the item.