D&D 5E Rogue's Cunning Action to Hide: In Combat??

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree. And, that analysis has been done, and others who do a lot of this also disagree. Which doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, but it should at least establish this issue is open to debate. Rogues can and do outperform fighters in damage, though they do not outperform fighters in defense combined with damage.

Here is an arcana trickster expected damage versus the baseline damage of a properly set up warlock using their eldritch blast with appropriate invocations and such. I can pull the fighter comparison, but it lags this rogue at some levels and never meaningfully exceeds them.

View attachment 142409

Something's not right here. A warlock with eldritch blast, 5 CHA, and agonizing blast is doing, at 17th, (5.5+5)*4, not accounting for crits or anything else, for a baseline total of over 40. There's some other element here, but given the delta around 7 points low, it's not a vs AC one. This doesn't pass the first smell test, and I haven't even climbed into the assumptions for AT. Back of the envelope, level 20, 5 stat, 10d6 sneak, that looks like a baseline (no crit) of 35+5+4.5 with rapier, for 44.5. Adding in Booming Blade (even though the Warlock doesn't get Hex or anything, obviously) is another 3d8 or +13.5, for 57.5. Adding a naive 9.75% crit chance (crits also missing from warlock) gets to 62.1.

There's some assumption elevating AT and another depressing the warlock to get this graph.

 

[Oofta]

Being hidden on the enemy’s turn does literally nothing in the pillar-or-halfling’s-Medium-ally use case under discussion here though.

Huh? What I'm getting at is that they cannot be targeted. Most attacks and spells require being targeted.

 

[Nefermandias]

I disagree that overall across most levels a battle master will outdamage a rogue if both are optimized fairly well. Yes. I'd like to see your math though. I am open to being proven wrong but you made that claim so I assume you've run those numbers in some manner?

You are right, I didn't do any math to compare both, so I might very well be wrong about that. Maybe I can sit down and run the numbers once I'm back home.

 

[Mistwell]

Something's not right here. A warlock with eldritch blast, 5 CHA, and agonizing blast is doing, at 17th, (5.5+5)*4, not accounting for crits or anything else, for a baseline total of over 40. There's some other element here, but given the delta around 7 points low, it's not a vs AC one. This doesn't pass the first smell test, and I haven't even climbed into the assumptions for AT. Back of the envelope, level 20, 5 stat, 10d6 sneak, that looks like a baseline (no crit) of 35+5+4.5 with rapier, for 44.5. Adding in Booming Blade (even though the Warlock doesn't get Hex or anything, obviously) is another 3d8 or +13.5, for 57.5. Adding a naive 9.75% crit chance (crits also missing from warlock) gets to 62.1.

There's some assumption elevating AT and another depressing the warlock to get this graph.

Treantmonk goes into very high level detail on his baseline. It's been challenged and reviewed in high level detail by many people. It's correct. I think he breaks down his general damage calculations in this video?

 

[jayoungr]

I agree that if you assume a successful hide check means your opponents have absolutely no idea where you could possibly be, then it would be stupid for you to be able to hide in the same spot more than once.

I'm not following this. If your opponents have absolutely no idea where you are, then shouldn't that mean that all hiding places are equally viable?

Here is an arcana trickster expected damage versus the baseline damage of a properly set up warlock

Isn't it generally ackowledged that arcane trickster is the strongest rogue subclass, though?

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree that overall across most levels a battle master will outdamage a rogue if both are optimized fairly well. Yes. I'd like to see your math though. I am open to being proven wrong but you made that claim so I assume you've run those numbers in some manner?

I don’t think the DPR comparison line of discussion is really going to lead anywhere, which is why I’ve dropped it, but I was going by Blog of Holding’s DPR by class comparison here.

 

[Nefermandias]

Yeah that's what I have been running. And he get advantage almost every round. Sometimes through a familiar using the help action, sometimes from attacking from a hidden position, sometimes from an ally knocking the foe down, sometimes from Steady Aim. And of course sneak attack and cantrip damage both increase at a pretty fair rate over all the levels. And then at higher levels if you can arrange for an opportunity attack it gets devastating.

That seems legit. It's not unreasonable that Arcane Trickster might outdamage a Battle Master at some levels.

 

[Charlaquin]

Huh? What I'm getting at is that they cannot be targeted. Most attacks and spells require being targeted.

But if they’re only hidden behind a pillar or a medium sized ally, you can just walk around it to a position from which you can see them clearly, so they will no longer be hidden, so you can target them.

 

[Mistwell]

I don’t think the DPR comparison line of discussion is really going to lead anywhere, which is why I’ve dropped it, but I was going by Blog of Holding’s DPR by class comparison here.

He's using the least optimized version of a rogue. Why would he use a thief for that comparison?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Treantmonk goes into very high level detail on his baseline. It's been challenged and reviewed in high level detail by many people. It's correct.

The only way I see that works is the target AC starts at 8. That's the only way I can get the EB warlock close to the start of that graph, and I have to include Hex to do it. Like I said, there's some assumption there. Perhaps link your source? Just saying Treantmonk doesn't really do much for me.