D&D 5E What Is Sneak Attack "Equal" To, Balance-wise?

[Zardnaar]

Either build can use a shield, and it is optimal for neither.

How's the rogue getting a shield?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How's the rogue getting a shield?

Proficiency swapping, race, training, whatever.

More importantly, when have you ever seen a ranger use one?

 

[Zardnaar]

Proficiency swapping, race, training, whatever.

More importantly, when have you ever seen a ranger use one?

The good rangers I have seen use bow.

Until tashas good rogues dual wielded.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It seems bizarre to me to suggest Rogues are significantly better at avoiding/surviving damage than Rangers. They seem pretty comparable at the table, Rangers having slightly more HP more than compensating for occasional-use Rogue stuff. If they're both Ranged which is arguably optimal for both post-Tasha's then it's even less of an issue.

Out of combat utility is also typically similar. Rogues can optimize a few skills, but Rangers have useful stuff they can do, and spells.

I think if you removed all access to damaging spells or any spell that could increase your chance to hit or the like, from Rangers, and removed the extra attack, and removed any archetype-specific abilities which added damage, you could probably give them Sneak Attack and not do anything horrible to the game. Plus removing all damage/hit related stuff from their spells would increase their overall utility as they'd have to use useful spells, CC or the like instead.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think you're ever going to get a good assessment of what a Ranger needs to give up to gain Sneak Attack without actually just having one of your players play it and see what happens. And what happens will probably depend greatly also on what the other PCs are at the table.

After all... if you end up having a party wherein you have your SA Ranger but no Rogue next to them... it's really not going to matter if the SA Ranger is "balanced" against the Rogue because you'll have no Rogue to balance against. It'll be the SA Ranger versus the other damage-dealers in the group you'll need to look at (and none of us can white-room ALL of those potential balance issues from here). So make your best guesstimation (Sneak Attack in -- Extra Attack & Fighting Style out) and see what happens when it plays.

 

[Xeviat]

Rogues have evasion and uncanny dodge to help mitigate damage loss.

Again, compare a variant Arcane Trickster to a Ranger with your favorite subclass. That will get you in the right ballpark I think.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So make your best guesstimation (Sneak Attack in -- Extra Attack & Fighting Style out) and see what happens when it plays.

If you don't also remove "bonus damage mechanism" which a lot of Ranger subclasses have, it's going to be between somewhat and drastically ahead of a Rogue. Dread Ambusher for example would be particularly nice, as you'd get two shots at landing SA from a single Attack action (as well as potentially the +1d8 damage, but that's a smaller factor).

 

[Stalker0]

Going back to one of the first posts in this thread, seems that that Sneak Attack is fairly comparable to hunter's mark + extra attack until about 9th level.

So to the OP, do you foresee your games going past that mark? If not, seems a straight swap is dirt simple and won't give you any problems. If you do expect higher levels, probably the easiest way is do that is just cap sneak attack to max 4d6. That will keep you in line into higher levels with no muss and no fuss.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you don't also remove "bonus damage mechanism" which a lot of Ranger subclasses have, it's going to be between somewhat and drastically ahead of a Rogue. Dread Ambusher for example would be particularly nice, as you'd get two shots at landing SA from a single Attack action (as well as potentially the +1d8 damage, but that's a smaller factor).

Yeah, but like I said, if there's no Rogue in the party, then it doesn't matter how the Ranger balances against one. It'll be more like how does the SA Ranger who might also cast Hunter's Mark (but not necessarily) measure up against the GWM barbarian and the smiting Vengeance Paladin in the party (for example).

 

[auburn2]

I was thinking about the Ranger, and about how I see it more as an expert class than a warrior class, and it occurred to me that I might be on the wrong track with giving Sneak Attack to an Assassin class, and instead might give it to the Ranger.

But that then begs the question, is it enough to give the Ranger Sneak Attack in exchange for Extra Attack? Must they also lose Fighting Style? Even more?

Has anyone tried anything like this in 5e?

I wonder if you could make a half caster into a full caster by dropping Extra Attack?

I mean, I know all these things interact with other features, so it would require playtesting to really know, but I'm curious what folks thoughts are.

I would get rid of extra attack and make their hit dice d8. If you want to keep d10 hit dice I would make it every 3 levels instead of every two.

Compared to a Rogue SA, the Ranger gets more weapon options, including heavy crossbow which is the best in the game as well as better armor and access to shields. So I think nerfing hps is a good equalizer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Rogues have evasion and uncanny dodge to help mitigate damage loss.

Again, compare a variant Arcane Trickster to a Ranger with your favorite subclass. That will get you in the right ballpark I think.

I don't think a variant is even needed. Arcane Trickster is hands down the best damage dealer of the rogue archetypes. BB/GFB + Shadowblade + easy access to advantage beats "slightly easier access to SA" easily, and beats out "situational access to a free crit in the first round" almost as easily. Especially if all rogues are using feats to get more reaction attacks.

I'd actually rather compare Swashbuckler, an archetype where I've never made a single attack without access to Sneak Attack in 10 levels of play, but have no other damage boosts, against a hunter ranger.

If you don't also remove "bonus damage mechanism" which a lot of Ranger subclasses have, it's going to be between somewhat and drastically ahead of a Rogue. Dread Ambusher for example would be particularly nice, as you'd get two shots at landing SA from a single Attack action (as well as potentially the +1d8 damage, but that's a smaller factor).

I disagree. The bonus damage mechanics are built to either take advantage of multiple attacks, or to take advantage of bonuses to attacks by providing an additional attack.

An extra chance to land SA isn't that big of a deal. We can balance around hitting every turn and having access to SA every time.

 

[auburn2]

Yeah, but like I said, if there's no Rogue in the party, then it doesn't matter how the Ranger balances against one. It'll be more like how does the SA Ranger who might also cast Hunter's Mark (but not necessarily) measure up against the GWM barbarian and the smiting Vengeance Paladin in the party (for example).

The Ranger has more out of combat abilities (more skills, more languages, expertise ....) than either of these, so they should not measure up in combat I don't think.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would get rid of extra attack and make their hit dice d8. I would trade 1 for 1 with SA and I certainly would not give them anything else. If you want to keep d10 hit dice I would make it every 3 levels instead of every two.

Compared to a Rogue SA, the Ranger gets more weapon options, including heavy crossbow which is the best in the game. So I don't think anything else should be given to him.

With respect, I think a lot of people are too focused on number crunching and comparing just white room numbers against numbers.

I've played with rogues that have a heavy crossbow, or are housertuled to be allowed to use a greatsword, and it does not significantly change their power level. Higher damage die on one die per turn does not significantly matter.

Certainly not enough to justify dropping a classes HD over.

Also, best in the game? The weapon that requires a feat in order to be effective at all in the hands of anyone that can make multiple attacks? Like, it's the best weapon for a ranged rogue, sure. I mean...kinda. Depends on how often you're more than 60 ft away from your enemies. If that is rare, then hand crossbow plus the same feat is just better. 2d6+10 is much better than 1d12+5, especially when it also comes with reduced chance to deal no damage, and increased chance to do SA.

But, again, none of that is actually a big deal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Ranger has more out of combat abilities (more skills, more languages, expertise ....) than either of these, so they should not measure up in combat I don't think.

The Paladin has one less skill, and more versatile casting.

That the Barbarian has so little out of combat is a design mistake, that Tasha's partly fixed.

The classes should be balanced in combat, and out of combat.

 

[auburn2]

I don't think a variant is even needed. Arcane Trickster is hands down the best damage dealer of the rogue archetypes. BB/GFB + Shadowblade + easy access to advantage beats "slightly easier access to SA" easily, and beats out "situational access to a free crit in the first round" almost as easily. Especially if all rogues are using feats to get more reaction attacks.

An AT can not use both BB/GFB and shadowblade. These are either-or. Booming blade has a material component cost, so you need to use an actual weapon worth 1sp for the BB/GFB attack. BB/GFB also uses the cast a spell action meaning you can't do TWF.

I realize a lot of tables houserule this (including some WOTC employees), but it is not an option RAW and I would venture the component cost was added to Tasha's specifically to stop this.

 

[auburn2]

The Paladin has one less skill, and more versatile casting.

That the Barbarian has so little out of combat is a design mistake, that Tasha's partly fixed.

The classes should be balanced in combat, and out of combat.

One less skill is halfway between the top skill classes and the bottom skill classes, further the Ranger also can have expertise and extra movement (through deft explorer) or extra languages (through natural exporer) to boot. Finally the Ranger subclasses generally bring far more out of combat uses than the Paladin's (or Barbarians) do.

The classes are not balanced out of combat. The Ranger gets substantially more, honestly he gets more than any other classes except Rogue or Bard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One less skill is halfway between the top skill classes and the bottom skill classes, further the Ranger also can have expertise and extra movement (through deft explorer) or extra languages (through natural exporer) to boot. Finally the Ranger subclasses generally bring far more out of combat uses than the Paladin's (or Barbarians) do.

The classes are not balanced out of combat. The Ranger gets substantially more, honestly he gets more than any other classes except Rogue or Bard.

okay

 

[auburn2]

With respect, I think a lot of people are too focused on number crunching and comparing just white room numbers against numbers.

I've played with rogues that have a heavy crossbow, or are housertuled to be allowed to use a greatsword, and it does not significantly change their power level. Higher damage die on one die per turn does not significantly matter.

Certainly not enough to justify dropping a classes HD over.

Also, best in the game? The weapon that requires a feat in order to be effective at all in the hands of anyone that can make multiple attacks? Like, it's the best weapon for a ranged rogue, sure. I mean...kinda. Depends on how often you're more than 60 ft away from your enemies. If that is rare, then hand crossbow plus the same feat is just better. 2d6+10 is much better than 1d12+5, especially when it also comes with reduced chance to deal no damage, and increased chance to do SA.

But, again, none of that is actually a big deal.

I have played a Rogue with a heavy crossbow and it absolutley does change the dynamic when you combine SA with a H. crossbow with things like piercer, sharpshooter (allowing SA at will at 400' range) and elven accuracy (getting more crits). I have never used it with XBE, because I never had extra attack, I could not SA more than once a turn and using the XBE BA would waste the cunning action.


It is also the Armor, which I failed to mention originally in what I posted earlier (and later edited).

Those two things would absolutely make a Ranger more effective in combat then a Rogue, especially considering the extra damage they get through other things (subclass features, favored foe, hunters mark ......)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

An AT can not use both BB/GFB and shadowblade. These are either-or. Booming blade has a material component cost, so you need to use an actual weapon worth 1sp for the BB/GFB attack. BB/GFB also uses the cast a spell action meaning you can't do TWF.

I realize a lot of tables houserule this (including some WOTC employees), but it is not an option RAW and I would venture the component cost was added to Tasha's specifically to stop this.

Crawford has said that the component cost is not there to stop using the cantrips with shadowblade. Per his tweet, here. He explicitly states that not only does he allow the combo, the combo was intended to work, and they just didn't realize they were messing with it.

Further, he suggests that it is allowable RAW, via interpretation of the rules for improvised weapons.

I also said nothing about TWF.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have played a Rogue with a heavy crossbow and it absolutley does change the dynamic when you combine SA with a H. crossbow with things like piercer, sharpshooter (allowing SA at will at 400' range) and elven accuracy (getting more crits). I have never used it with XBE, because I never had extra attack, I could not SA more than once a turn and using the XBE BA would waste the cunning action.

One die step more damage absolutely does not ever matter, and all the rest is possible with a longbow. Gaining access to a heavy crossbow is not a significant consideration, at all.

It is also the Armor, which I failed to mention originally in what I posted earlier (and later edited).

I have never seen a ranger using medium armor, but even if I did have such a character, so what? They're a couple AC higher, at best, slightly more HP at best (since rogues can afford higher Con scores), and fewer ways to mitigate incoming damage that does hit them, and fewer ways to negate the opportunity for enemies to even try to hit them.

Those two things would absolutely make a Ranger more effective in combat then a Rogue, especially considering the extra damage they get through other things (subclass features, favored foe, hunters mark ......)

I'm not sure if you read the rest of the thread before posting, but most of this has been discussed already.