D&D 5E TCoE - Rogue's Steady Aim

[Gammadoodler]

In theory, the same holds when a ranged character is in melee.

They either have to lose attacks, or attack at disadvantage.

This depends on the DM being aggressive about engaging ranged PCs, naturally.

Not really in most cases. Bonus action disengage would typically be enough to safely get them to non-disadvantaged attacking. Basic movement would be adequate for unsafe non-disadvantaged attacking. And, safe or unsafe, bonus action or not, there is no change to their number of attacks.

The reverse is not true for TWF. They get 2 attacks if they can reach the target with base movement, 1 if they can reach with a dash, and zero if they can't reach with a dash.

This is all not even considering the superiority of disadvantaged long range attacks vs. zero attacks.

It's still all DM encounter design dependent though, which is why I'm wondering what the break points are for how many attacks the TWF has to lose before their ranged counterpart pulls ahead.

 

[NotAYakk]

Not really in most cases. Bonus action disengage would typically be enough to safely get them to non-disadvantaged attacking. Basic movement would be adequate for unsafe non-disadvantaged attacking. And, safe or unsafe, bonus action or not, there is no change to their number of attacks.

Sure, but being in melee range makes the rogue lose their advantage-to-attack with this feature, or loses bonus action hide to get advantage.

A rogue who attacks without advantage or an ally next to the target is half a step up from a rogue who doesn't attack.

The reverse is not true for TWF. They get 2 attacks if they can reach the target with base movement, 1 if they can reach with a dash, and zero if they can't reach with a dash.

This is all not even considering the superiority of disadvantaged long range attacks vs. zero attacks.

You are often better off not bothering with disadvantaged attacks; the wiff factor is pretty large (especially with a rogue, who loses sneak attack in that case).

Spend the action on, well, anything.

It's still all DM encounter design dependent though, which is why I'm wondering what the break points are for how many attacks the TWF has to lose before their ranged counterpart pulls ahead.

Yep.

And this is generaly the case in 5e; range damage is so close to melee damage that melee is pretty meh usually.

SS+XBE does 2*Attacks-1 less damage than PAM+GWM. PAM+GWM gets the reaction attack.

Archery style is +2 to hit, vs Greatweapon's +1.5ish damage per attack. And to-hit beats to-damage.

The edge, in general for melee, is very tiny.

Even the rogue; an XBE rogue (1 feat, 1 bonus action/round) deals 2d6+2*stat+sneak just like a rogue who uses a feat to get the TWF fighting style for short swords.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure, but being in melee range makes the rogue lose their advantage-to-attack with this feature, or loses bonus action hide to get advantage.

A rogue who attacks without advantage or an ally next to the target is half a step up from a rogue who doesn't attack.


You are often better off not bothering with disadvantaged attacks; the wiff factor is pretty large (especially with a rogue, who loses sneak attack in that case).

Spend the action on, well, anything.

Yep.

And this is generaly the case in 5e; range damage is so close to melee damage that melee is pretty meh usually.

SS+XBE does 2*Attacks-1 less damage than PAM+GWM. PAM+GWM gets the reaction attack.

Archery style is +2 to hit, vs Greatweapon's +1.5ish damage per attack. And to-hit beats to-damage.

The edge, in general for melee, is very tiny.

Even the rogue; an XBE rogue (1 feat, 1 bonus action/round) deals 2d6+2*stat+sneak just like a rogue who uses a feat to get the TWF fighting style for short swords.

I think ultimately we're agreeing here.

So this is really only clarification at this point. What I was getting at with the comparison for TWF vs ranged is that the damage advantage folks are attributing to the TWF only exists because the TWF gets 2 chances to land sneak attack, but often enough that condition really isn't true. The thing is, this also assumes our TWF has a friendly ally to trigger SA every time they attack, since to get those 2 attacks, the TWF is not spending any resources to get advantage.

The point is, I think that the melee rogue only has a real damage edge on paper, and only under the most favorable assumptions for it (and this is before feats where the best ones for the rogue favor ranged attacks).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah since I posted I went and actually read the entry. Bummer.

Thinking more about this, I still like it. I've been wanting to play a single-rapier-wielding Swashbuckler with Elven Accuracy, and while this new class feature doesn't have much effect it will still have occasional utility.

Then there's the new Piercer feat. Yummy.