D&D 5E Why Good Rogues Should Not Use a Bow

[Zardnaar]

As a primary weapon. If you can't melee someone of course pull out a bow.

This thread is about a tendency of Rogues in 5E to default to a bow which to me is actually such a bad option you have in effect nerfed your PC.

In one case IRL one Rogue player asked me why his Rogue was sucking and I told him to get his ass into melee. The following week he was still hovering at the back plinking away for not much damage with a short bow. This is compounded by the Rogues mobility where some players use them as skirmishers that hang back as far as they can and often not achieve much. Even worse some of them do not ready an action and just fire a short bow for 1d6+3 (or 4 or 5) damage. This happens a bit due to dex based rogues winning initiative a lot. There are basically 3 types of Rogues in 5E.

Brave Rogues (Rogues that melee)
*snip vulgarity; please keep it clean -Darkness* Rogues ("Scouts" or "Skirmishers")
Brutal Rogues (keyed off strength or dex as secondary stat)

So why is using a bow so bad? Put simply because melee is so much better as the Rogue is built around sneak attack. A good Rogue wants to maximise that sneak attack potential and this means getting in melee and using 2 weapons. In effect you have doubled your chance of hitting and getting in sneak attack damage.

Also short bow 1d6+whatever.
Rapier 1d8+ whatever.

Elves and multiclass rogues get an upgrade to a long bow but the basic Rogue deals more damage with a rapier.

The other reason is firing into melee imposes a -2 penalty to hit. So not only have you halved your chance to get a sneak attack in you have sucked up a further -2 penalty a lot of the time to get that sneak attack in.

Around about now though someone may bring up the sharp shooter idea. This negates the -2 penalty for firing into melee. Ok kewl now you are back to where a normal rogue is not using a feat so its more or less a wash. You do get to use the -5/+10 part of sharpshooter but I would like to point out why it is a bad idea for rogues. With a Ranger or fighter using those feats you get multiple attacks and as long as around 50% of your attacks can be expected to hit the -5/+10 part of the sharp shooter feat is worth using. The -5 part causing a miss is hard on rogues as you have also missed out on dealing sneak attack damage. If you can get buffed and get your hit ratio above 50% the Rogue is also limited to a single attack and +10 damage on that is not that impressive compared to multi attacking PCs getting +10 damage per attack.

A melee Rogue can easily get +5-+10 damage without the -5 penalty. A single level of fighter gives you the two weapon style which lets you add dex to damage with your off hand. The sharpshooter feat also requires a feat to use as well (well duh) and fails to take into account the opportunity cost. A melee Rogue can take sentinel and try to get in extra sneak attacks probably dealing more damage overall than the sharpshooter Rogue using -5/+1-0 damage. Or the Rogue could take magic initiate pick up Green Flame Blade, mage armor (+1 AC) and another cantrip gaining an extra dice or more damage anyway without having to take a -5 penalty. A dual wielding Rogue can also use 2 rapiers for an extra 1d8 damage and +1 AC (via a feat) and gains the ability to switch between a bow and rapier in the same round (or draw another weapon for TWF). If that TWF Rogue has that fighter level they deal an extra 1d8+3 minimum extra damage and double their chance to sneak attack. How is that sharpshooter feat looking now?

But Zard you may ask this also over looks the other main appeal of a *snip vulgarity; please keep it clean -Darkness* Rogue, that being the Rogue gets to avoid taking damage. That is technically true but this should only matter for low level rogues and parties lacking healing. At 5th level you get uncanny dodge and the difference between a a Rogues AC and a warriors AC is often 1 or 2 points. Not only is having an extra body at on the front lines diverting NPC attacks it is also reducing NPC's damage potential via uncanny dodge. If you get hit hard then default to using a bow and hiding at the back. Rogues still have hit dice based healing to use, clerics exist along with the healing domain and healer feat.

The final point is a bit more metagame based. Magic short swords, rapiers, and daggers tend to me more common than magic bows in published adventures. Magic hand crossbows do not seem to exist in WotC APs. A bonus to hit is way better for a Rogue than most other class and there are a few finesse weapons in PotA for example.

Now I am not saying never use a bow but is is the weaker option. If you are low on hit points or lack the range by all means use one. Just do not default to using a bow. If you are using a bow and finding your Rogue to be underwhelming that is why.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The other reason is firing into melee imposes a -2 penalty to hit.

Is this a reference to partial cover (and an assumption that another PC will always be in your line of fire)? Or is this a house rule that you've introduced?

I thoroughly disagree with your reasoning and conclusions but not enough to argue about it. It seems as though you (or your DM) must be very strict about Cunning Action: Hide. Normally, attacking and then Hiding is approximately as good as TWFing--either way you've got two d20s which can apply your sneak attack damage, although TWFing gives you a small chance of doing d6 more total damage if both attacks hit.

Melee Rogues can do more damage than ranged rogues if they leverage Sentinel or Haste for extra attacks or Booming Blade for extra damage... but DPR optimization isn't all that important anyway. What matters is what monsters you can beat successfully and how many HP it costs you to beat them, not how many rounds those HP are spread over.

 

[jaelis]

Well, Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter solve most of those problems, no? Not a trivial feat investment, but in the long term they are pretty effective.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

While I've noticed that our group's rogue is usually more successful in dealing damage when he has two attacks to work with you have to use the right tool for the right job. Some monsters are more mobile than even the rogue (usually involving flight, especially when tricky terrain is involved to abuse with flight), and some monsters can do some horrible, nasty things to you in melee. The blanket statement "rogues shouldn't use bows" is plain wrong. Rogues should be flexible and use what is best for the current situation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can see why particularly Lawful knights might eschew the bow, but it seems a perfectly reasonable choice for rogues of any alignment...

 

[Jer]

So only Evil rogues should use bows? (I kid, but your post titles make me think we're talking alignment here not effectiveness). (ETA - Dang it - Tony Vargas got the joke in first...)

Anyway, this is a problem with players belief in what a rogue "should" be (the sneaky guy who is fragile and can't take hits so should stay at the back) not matching what the 5e rogue actually is (the deft swashbuckler who isn't as fragile as you think and mathematically shouldn't be getting hit very often anyway).

I've found this mostly to be a problem with players who have played D&D since the old days or who think the of rogue as "a thief, like Bilbo in the Hobbit". Not so much of a problem for players who came in post 3rd edition or who glom onto the class as more Han Solo or Jack Sparrow types than Bilbo types. Or from players who are actively looking to be an effective ranged combatant and assume that must be the rogue because it would have been a thief when they played back in the 2nd edition days (or whenever they last played).

To the first group, sitting down and giving them a good explanation of what the class mechanically really is helps. To the second group, pointing them to the ranger and saying "that's the guy you probably really want to play in this edition" helps.

 

[Satyrn]

So only Evil rogues should use bows? (I kid, but your post titles make me think we're talking alignment here not effectiveness). (ETA - Dang it - Tony Vargas got the joke in first...)

This is why you post the joke right away. Then if you have something of actual value to add, put it in a follow-up post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is why you post the joke right away. Then if you have something of actual value to add, put it in a follow-up post.

I have nothing of actual value to add...

 

[Jester David]

Damage for a rapier vs a short bow: 1.
Damage for a sneak attack vs no sneak attack as you can't reach an enemy engaged with an ally: 3.5 * 1/2 level.

 

[Greg Benage]

So why is using a bow so bad? Put simply because melee is so much better as the Rogue is built around sneak attack. A good Rogue wants to maximise that sneak attack potential and this means getting in melee and using 2 weapons. In effect you have doubled your chance of hitting and getting in sneak attack damage.

Why choose? That's what Crossbow Expert and hand crossbows are for.

Also short bow 1d6+whatever.
Rapier 1d8+ whatever.

Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons. Light crossbows are simple weapons. Light crossbows deal 1d8 + Dex mod damage.