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

[cbwjm]

I too am curious about this aspect

I believe it is, at least I hope it is instead of a further penalty for shooting into melee. Our rogue generally chooses enemies that are in melee that she has a clear line if sight to so that the +2AC from partial cover doesn't apply.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So yeah, I'm not sure what it is with people playing Rogues and being afraid to get their hands dirty.

There was a massive, overwhelming change in D&D that took place around 4E, where you started getting back all of your HP every day and even had resources with which to heal yourself during combat without using any other party resources. Ever since that happened, it was considered reasonable - even encouraged - to spread the incoming damage around a little. You were supposed to get hit.

In earlier versions of the game, HP recovered slowly, and the cleric's spells were a resource which needed to sustain the whole party (if you even had a cleric in the party). You absolutely did not want to take any damage if you could possibly avoid it.

It's a tough habit to break, because the idea that it's okay for someone to hit you with an axe - when you're not even wearing much armor - is amazingly counterintuitive. Instead of calling those people bad players, you could say that they're good role-players... who simply haven't gotten the note that they're playing demi-gods capable of shrugging off multiple axe blows.

 

[TwoSix]

Can I just be the first to say "congrats" on the "Good X should not do Y" construction for post topics? It's working well so far!

 

[Caliban]

It's a tough habit to break, because the idea that it's okay for someone to hit you with an axe - when you're not even wearing much armor - is amazingly counterintuitive. Instead of calling those people bad players, you could say that they're good role-players... who simply haven't gotten the note that they're playing demi-gods capable of shrugging off multiple axe blows.

I play a melee rogue, but he's a swashbuckler. He's in melee just long enough to stab you, then he's back behind cover. He's not above hiding behind the party mage during a big fight.

 

[mellored]

Did you read his post? I'm taking him at his word, not assuming tactics and strategies he doesn't mention using.

"It may take you a while, but if you are cautious you can clear a half a dungeon while your party is taking a short rest."

That sounds like video game play to me.

It's a real world tactic and it's effective. It's how the US won the revolutionary war, and how the might of the US military cannot destroy terrorist.

Being slippery and not getting caught is pretty much the foundation of the rogue archetype. In D&D or any other game.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I play a melee rogue, but he's a swashbuckler. He's in melee just long enough to stab you, then he's back behind cover. He's not above hiding behind the party mage during a big fight.

Swashbucklers are the best viable Melee Rogue. Love them.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I understand the arguments even though i midly agree with some points i just think the difference it gives between using a bow vs other weapons is not as bad as actually bringing it up to the guy that wants to use one. If he is into optimizing, chances he already know better. If he is not, well then

If he like bows and want to use one but
The DM is telling him that he should not use a bow....DM should mind his own business
The Player is telling him that he should not use a bow....Player should mind his own business

Fun > All

 

[Caliban]

It's a real world tactic and it's effective. It's how the US won the revolutionary war, and how the might of the US military cannot destroy terrorist.

Being slippery and not getting caught is pretty much the foundation of the rogue archetype. In D&D or any other game.

*sigh* Whatever dude. I'm sure it can work if you assume a whole bunch of factors that were not mentioned or implied in his post.

I will say I've never seen it be a viable tactic in tabletop D&D for more than a round or two, because you simply run out of room - either because the area you area in physically doesn't allow it, or because the DM doesn't feel like extending the borders of the map when you are in an outside area, or because you will trigger another encounter and be sandwiched between them and be unable to run from both sides.

I have used it a lot when playing D&D Online, and even back in Everquest. So to me, based on my experiences, it's primarily a video game tactic. Especially if it is something you are doing by yourself, without the help of your party.

You may have different experiences, but I wasn't talking to you, or about your experiences.

 

[Sunseeker]

I've made melee rogues. They tend to die unless you have a Holy Trinity party and the DM is willing to play along and focus the monsters on the tank and not the healer or light DPS. If your DM wants to play the monsters "smart" or "tactical" then the best option for a rogue is to run, run RUN AWAY!

Aside from that, I typically make rogues because I want to be a skill monkey, not because I care about damage. Although 5E has made it easier to deal sneak attack damage, 3.5 taught me that if you're ever fighting anything interesting, you won't be able to use sneak attack. I disarm traps, I scout, I create traps, I bluff, steal and lie my way to the party's goals, which of course always mean lots of money for me. I'm a rogue, I'm not in it for the guts and glory like a paladin or a barbarian. I'm in it for the cold hard cash.

Also, doesn't sneak attack still count from 30 feet or less if your enemy is engaged with an ally?

 

[cbwjm]

It does, I'm not actually sure on the maximum range but ranged attacks can benefit from sneak attack if the target is within 5' of a hostile.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app