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

[Charlaquin]

No, I don't track every round, but I still get a general feel. Then again, most "huge differences" that I've seen amounted to a point or two of average damage per round.

Significant =/= huge. It just means meaningful in a statistical sense.

End of the day, when I played a rogue, the people I've played with that played rogues, players in real life were happy with the damage output. Of course it will vary by level, DM, fights between rests, how much you value out of combat skills, on and on.

And that’s great! If you and your players are happy with that, there’s no problem. Keep on keeping on. Your experience is not universal, however.

In any case I stand by what I've experienced: rogues should get sneak attack practically every round but they don't need advantage every round.

They need two Sneak Attack-eligible d20 rolls per round (be it from two attacks without advantage or one attack with advantage) to keep up with the fighter in terms of average at-will damage per round. That’s just a mathematical fact. Whether or not they need to keep up with the fighter in terms of average at-will damage per round to produce a satisfying play experience is entirely subjective, and it sounds like for you and your players, it isn’t. Which is great! Mazl tov! Other groups will have different experiences and preferences.

I'm not going to argue about it any more, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don’t agree to disagree about facts. Facts are not mutable, and it is a fact that the rogue’s average at-will damage per round falls behind the fighter’s if they don’t get two d20 rolls per turn. The numbers don’t lie. Whether or not it’s important for the rogue to do comparable at-will damage to the fighter on average is an opinion, and I don’t begrudge you yours. Do whatever’s fun for you and your players.

 

[Rune]

Rogues (and other classes) are balanced around how they feel. That’s why rogues perform about on par with fighters in terms of at-will damage despite the fact that they “should” do better at-will damage to compensate for their total lack of ability to nova. That’s the level damage output that was found to feel right for the majority of players during playtesting.

If the rogue feels fine to you and your play group with only one attack per turn, nothing is wrong with that. But it is below the point that playtesting found most players felt was right, which means most players would probably think they felt too weak in your games. Of course, most players don’t play in your games, only the players who play in your games do. And if those players think rogues feel fine, there’s no problem. However, it does seem to be a problem for a lot of groups that the DM rules on stealth in a way that at least some of the players find makes rogues feel too weak (especially if those players are mathematically inclined and are familiar with the mathematical assumptions underlying the rogue’s design.) If that’s not your group, great! No problem. But it is many groups, including seemingly @jayoungr ’s.

Oh, I personally have no issues with giving the rogue (or anyone else) easy access to advantage. And part of that for me lies in recognizing that a lot of stealth during combat is based at least somewhat on distraction rather than purely on location.

But on a more general, non-personal note, your point raised a question I had to ask. Because, as I said before: curiosity.

So, I ask again: without assuming that the DM has any preference of play-style (regarding stealth and/or advantage) one way or another, if the rogue feels fine at the table, what’s the problem?

 

[guachi]

If I were playing a Rogue and the DM ruled I could never Hide in combat I'd leave the game.

Way back at the beginning of 5e I had a DM who said my Rogue/Arcane Trickster couldn't use Mage Hand to unlock a cage even though the ability specifically calls out picking locks and disarming traps at range as a thing that can be done. AND this was AL where such houseruling isn't allowed. So I left the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I personally have no issues with giving the rogue (or anyone else) easy access to advantage. And part of that for me lies in recognizing that a lot of stealth during combat is based at least somewhat on distraction rather than purely on location.

But on a more general, non-personal note, your point raised a question I had to ask. Because, as I said before: curiosity.

So, I ask again: without assuming that the DM has any preference of play-style (regarding stealth and/or advantage) one way or another, if the rogue feels fine at the table, what’s the problem?

I answered that question in the post you’re quoting. If the rogue feels fine at the table, there isn’t a problem. The problem is that the way some DMs rule on stealth makes the rogue not feel fine at the table for some players. Especially players who are mathematically inclined. If that’s not a problem that occurs at your table, great! Have fun!

 

[Rune]

The problem arises when you have a DM like myself who's always actively trying to murder the PCs and you absolutely need to be performing at your very best if you want to contribute with your party's survival.

Now that is a sensible answer! Although, I do suspect that an under-performing rogue would not actually “feel fine” in play under such conditions.

 

[Oofta]

Significant =/= huge. It just means meaningful in a statistical sense.

And that’s great! If you and your players are happy with that, there’s no problem. Keep on keeping on. Your experience is not universal, however.

They need two Sneak Attack-eligible d20 rolls per round (be it from two attacks without advantage or one attack with advantage) to keep up with the fighter in terms of average at-will damage per round. That’s just a mathematical fact. Whether or not they need to keep up with the fighter in terms of average at-will damage per round to produce a satisfying play experience is entirely subjective, and it sounds like for you and your players, it isn’t. Which is great! Mazl tov! Other groups will have different experiences and preferences.

I don’t agree to disagree about facts. Facts are not mutable, and it is a fact that the rogue’s average at-will damage per round falls behind the fighter’s if they don’t get two d20 rolls per turn. The numbers don’t lie. Whether or not it’s important for the rogue to do comparable at-will damage to the fighter on average is an opinion, and I don’t begrudge you yours. Do whatever’s fun for you and your players.

I disagree with what makes rogues enjoyable to play then. DPR isn't the end-all-be-all for a lot of people. That, and I probably just don't play with optimizers.


EDIT: to be clear, optimizers in the sense of PCs other than the rogue doing enough more damage to be noticed. Most of the time the rogue is doing as much or more damage than anyone else.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree with what makes rogues enjoyable to play then. DPR isn't the end-all-be-all for a lot of people. That, and I probably just don't play with optimizers.


EDIT: to be clear, optimizers in the sense of PCs other than the rogue doing enough more damage to be noticed. Most of the time the rogue is doing as much or more damage than anyone else.

Just to be clear, you're saying that in your game rogues already do more damage than the other PCs, and not that rogues do more than other PCs in general (absent "optimization" of the other PCs)? Because I find the first statement interesting in a "really? huh" way, but I find the second to be demonstrably incorrect.

 

[Oofta]

Just to be clear, you're saying that in your game rogues already do more damage than the other PCs, and not that rogues do more than other PCs in general (absent "optimization" of the other PCs)? Because I find the first statement interesting in a "really? huh" way, but I find the second to be demonstrably incorrect.

In general? Yes. Rogues do as much or more damage than other PCs as far in my experience as far as I can tell. I know my rogue seemed to keep up with the Jones's. I mean, nothing can keep up with a wizard that can cast meteor storm if the situation calls for it, but that's pretty rare.

It's going to depend on a lot of factors including, but not limited to, whether people care about DPR.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

Personally, i generally roll with the idea that if someone can clearly see you or where you are, you can't hide regardless of anything else. Exactly when these situations occur depends on the environment and other factors, so is situational. I'm pretty put off by Skyrim style stealth tactics, so i adjudicate very leniently if someone wants to Hide to escape or evade somehow, and pretty strictly if someone wants to hide-attack-hide-attack many times in a single combat.

Between Steady Aim and the multiple opponents rule, i find Rogues generally don't need to use the "Hide Action in Combat" to get Sneak Attack though so in practice it's rarely an issue that comes up.

 

[Zardnaar]

Forget about lightfoot halflings and the need for total cover or heavily obscurement for anyone else who's not a halfling for a second... The DM in question is claiming that hiding in combat is not possible AT ALL!
How come we have people here defending that as a reasonable ruling?

If you're being observed you can't hide. In a lot of combats that makes hiding hard.

If you have total cover eg running around a corner they can't see you anyway.

It's easy enough to miss the rule on advantage getting via hiding.