# Rogue Playtest Discussion



## Neonchameleon (Sep 29, 2022)

The main obvious changes are that you get subclass features at levels 3, 6, 10, and 14 rather than 3, 9, 13, and 17 (which has required shuffling around your second expertise and evasion). Blindsense has gone (it's now a subability of a feat) and instead at level 13 you get Subtle Strikes giving you advantage when targeting a foe near an ally.

Thieves have been tweaked - but you get the abilities earlier. You no longer get "use an object" as a bonus action, instead getting search. And you now get a climb speed and jump based on Dex at L3. Supreme Sneak came down from 9th to 6th level and straight up gives you advantage on stealth checks. All of them no matter how fast you move. UMD changed - no more using Holy Avengers, but you get more atunement slots and more charges on charged items. And thief's reflexes is more bonus actions.

In general solid changes all round, with nothing earthshattering that I see. The "more regular subclass abilities" is just nice - as is knowing they are rewriting them (assassins need this - and this version of the thief is just better polished)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 29, 2022)

Not having use an option severely makes the subclass a lot more unfun. Especially with the new twf rules, use an object just to draw one more dagger would be incredibly useful.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 29, 2022)

With them floating playtest1's critical changes as a possibility, it just looks like Rogue can only lose things. Sneak attack criticals, sneak attacks with Booming Blade, Thief's whole selling point of using objects as a bonus action...


----------



## rooneg (Sep 29, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> With them floating playtest1's critical changes as a possibility, it just looks like Rogue can only lose things. Sneak attack criticals, sneak attacks with Booming Blade, Thief's whole selling point of using objects as a bonus action...



Note that the criticals work with sneak attack in this version of the playtest, and to be perfectly frank I think this version of the thief is way more appealing than the "use objects as a bonus action" version.

Agreed though, it's unfortunate that stuff like Booming Blade doesn't currently work with Sneak Attack as written. I'd like to see a tweak to those spells to make them work with things that trigger off the Attack action.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 29, 2022)

I'm not necessarily saying that every Rogue should get sneaks off of Booming Blade, because that forms a situation where Rogues that _don't_ go the magical way get penalized... But just losing features and not getting anything new for it, definitely doesn't feel good.


----------



## rooneg (Sep 29, 2022)

Honestly, it feels like the stuff that's going away in this version are mostly things that weren't intended to be there in the first place. Take the whole "Sneak Attack once per Turn" thing. Yes, this means that to really maximize your Sneak Attack damage you want to be attacking on your opponents turns as much as possible, which leads you to stuff like three level dips into Fighter for Riposte or using Haste and only attacking with your Haste action so you can use your other one to Delay until someone else's turn. Everyone who's played with a player who's trying to optimize a Rogue has seen this stuff, but they've almost certainly also seen a new player who's completely mystified by the hoops someone is jumping through to make this happen. Maybe instead of leaving this loophole that many players will never find, they could set the power level of the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage at a point where it does the expected amount of damage without requiring these sort of hoops to be jumped through?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 29, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I'm not necessarily saying that every Rogue should get sneaks off of Booming Blade, because that forms a situation where Rogues that _don't_ go the magical way get penalized... But just losing features and not getting anything new for it, definitely doesn't feel good.




I think, in the end, it is better that way, although now not going twf is somehow dumb. But we don't know how everything works together, even if the picture is getting a bit clearer.
We will probanly get asked about that. Lets take part in the survey and tell them about our concerns.


----------



## Krachek (Sep 30, 2022)

rooneg said:


> Honestly, it feels like the stuff that's going away in this version are mostly things that weren't intended to be there in the first place. Take the whole "Sneak Attack once per Turn" thing. Yes, this means that to really maximize your Sneak Attack damage you want to be attacking on your opponents turns as much as possible, which leads you to stuff like three level dips into Fighter for Riposte or using Haste and only attacking with your Haste action so you can use your other one to Delay until someone else's turn. Everyone who's played with a player who's trying to optimize a Rogue has seen this stuff, but they've almost certainly also seen a new player who's completely mystified by the hoops someone is jumping through to make this happen. Maybe instead of leaving this loophole that many players will never find, they could set the power level of the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage at a point where it does the expected amount of damage without requiring these sort of hoops to be jumped through?



Optimizer will have hard time to find new combo.
Sneak attack is now restrained.
no more -5/+10
Even polearm master and sentinel dont work no more. 
They are flattening the power level.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 30, 2022)

Okay, wording in Fast Hands...
_Sleight of Hand. Make a Dexterity Check (Sleight 
of Hand) to pick a lock or disarm a trap with 
Thieves’ Tools or to pick a pocket._

Regular lockpicking is just Dexterity + Thieves' Tools. This however lets you do a Sleight of Hand check with Thieves' Tools, and skill + tool = advantage. As Expertise now only lets you apply it to skills, you cannot expertise Thieves' Tools anymore, so Thief looks like the best burglar!

(yes, they might be changing lockpicking to be Sleight of Hand for everyone, but we work with what we are given)


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 30, 2022)

The thief really feels like a thief, now.  I know players for years...decades...that wanted to make characters like this but found it strangely hard to do. 

And you can always have the 1 blade drawn.


----------



## DeviousQuail (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Not having use an option severely makes the subclass a lot more unfun. Especially with the new twf rules, use an object just to draw one more dagger would be incredibly useful.



I'll copy and paste what I said in another thread below in the spoiler. TLDR; as written everyone can draw two Light weapons in the same turn and make two attacks without needing the Dual Wielder feat or the 5e Thief ability anymore.



Spoiler: Drawing two light weapons



From reading the Light [Weapon Property] and Equipping Weapons under the Attack [Action] section it looks like the Quick Draw bullet for the Dual Wielder feat does very little. It lets you draw or stow two weapons when you could normally only draw one. But with the new equipping rules you can equip or stow a weapon before or after any attack made with the Attack Action. The Light weapon property says

"When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage."

Nothing in there says you need to already have a different Light weapon in your other hand to make use of this extra attack. So you could take an Attack action, draw a weapon with the Light property, attack with it, tell the DM your going to make an extra attack, draw another Light weapon in your off hand, and attack with it. Unless I missed something it seems like anyone can draw two weapons in a round as long as they are both Light.

I guess you could still find a use for Quick Draw if you switch between weapons, items, and foci regularly. But that seems like something separate from what dual wielding should be about, which is using two weapons simultaneously in combat. I mostly welcome the changes to two-weapon fighting in the packet but this feat seems pretty bad. Upping one weapon from a d4 or d6 to a d8 and a second feature that doesn't do much isn't worth passing on other feats.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 30, 2022)

I just realized that I misread Subtle Strikes and thought it only applied to targets within 5' of _you_, not just your ally.  So I thought it was a huge boost to melee only.  Drat.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

Thief subclass:
you should really get Expertise in Thieves tools and Sleight of Hand at 3rd level


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 30, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Thief subclass:
> you should really get Expertise in Thieves tools and Sleight of Hand at 3rd level



Expertise only works with skills in this playtest packet. But yeah, looks like Sleight of Hand is now the new "Thievery" Skill and you use it to pick locks. In fact, a Thief with SoH expertise would be rolling 2d20(high)+dex bonus+2x prof bonus to pick locks. (Advantage for using both a tool and a skill). Lock DCs are gonna have to be pretty high if you want to keep a thief out.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Expertise only works with skills in this playtest packet. But yeah, looks like Sleight of Hand is now the new "Thievery" Skill and you use it to pick locks. In fact, a Thief with SoH expertise would be rolling 2d20(high)+dex bonus+2x prof bonus to pick locks. (Advantage for using both a tool and a skill). Lock DCs are gonna have to be pretty high if you want to keep a thief out.



advantage only comes in effect into combat when you MUST succeed on 1st try.
Otherwise, it's almost no effect as you always take your time picking locks.
and locks start with DC 20, so it's high from the start.
even with 18 dex at 5th level and expertise: +10 bonus,it's only 55% chance to succeed on 1st try.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 30, 2022)

Horwath said:


> advantage only comes in effect into combat when you MUST succeed on 1st try.
> Otherwise, it's almost no effect as you always take your time picking locks.



I don't understand this statement. Maybe I'm just tired. I don't know where any of that is coming from. Heck, the thief can pick locks as a bonus action. How is that "taking your time"?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't understand this statement. Maybe I'm just tired. I don't know where any of that is coming from. Heck, the thief can pick locks as a bonus action. How is that "taking your time"?



taking your time means that you are not in a hurry and you can afford time lost for failing the check several times.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 30, 2022)

Horwath said:


> taking your time means that you are not in a hurry and you can afford time lost for failing the check several times.



Sure. But what about that means that you don't roll with advantage if you're rolling an ability check with a skill and using tools (a rule since Xanathar's).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Sure. But what about that means that you don't roll with advantage if you're rolling an ability check with a skill and using tools (a rule since Xanathar's).




He just means: if you can retry as often as you like, you have super advantage...


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 30, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> He just means: if you can retry as often as you like, you have super advantage...



Oh! I _thought_ I was being a bit thick in my understanding. That makes sense. I thought he meant you didn't get advantage in situations where you can try again, which seemed like a really weird idea to me. Of course, I'm not sure I'd ever make anyone roll a check if they could just keep going and going. I'd just say "it takes you twenty minutes, but you get it done..." or something.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Oh! I _thought_ I was being a bit thick in my understanding. That makes sense. I thought he meant you didn't get advantage in situations where you can try again, which seemed like a really weird idea to me. Of course, I'm not sure I'd ever make anyone roll a check if they could just keep going and going. I'd just say "it takes you twenty minutes, but you get it done..." or something.




As a lock picking "expert" myself, I can assure you, a youtube video and two paperclips will let you open a standard padlock in 20 minutes. Faster if you are lucky.
With a sport lockpick set you get it done in a few minutes or with some luck in 6 seconds. 

It has taken me a while to understand 3e in that regard: if there is no time pressure, just allow the rogue to always take 20 and suddenly DCs work right out of the book without magic items and the rogue feels good and useful.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Sneak attack criticals,



Still possible. They changed back the Critical Hit rules on this playtest. 


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> sneak attacks with Booming Blade,



Still possible, but only for rogues that multiclass 6 levels into Bladesinger Wizard (because you can then cast a cantrip as part of the Attack Action). 


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Thief's whole selling point of using objects as a bonus action...



That feature was too confusing for the majority of people, "Using objects" isn't really a thing Thieves in the real world are known for, and the subclass got buffs in other places.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 1, 2022)

One change I am sorry for, though the writing had been on the wall, was that rogues can no longer take expertise in Thieves' tools. It was one of the very few edges rogues could have over Bards as a skill monkey.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 1, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> One change I am sorry for, though the writing had been on the wall, was that rogues can no longer take expertise in Thieves' tools. It was one of the very few edges rogues could have over Bards as a skill monkey.



Just take the expertise in Sleight-of-hand. That's now Thievery and all tools just give you advantage to checks using skills (or prof. bonus if no skill applies but the tool does).

Which means "musical instrument" is pretty much always A performance check with advantage. (Though this has been true since Xanathar's). Now Thieves' Tools are the same, but with SoH.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> One change I am sorry for, though the writing had been on the wall, was that rogues can no longer take expertise in Thieves' tools. It was one of the very few edges rogues could have over Bards as a skill monkey.



It looks like Thieves' Tools Checks are just Sleight of Hand Checks now. So you get expertise in both if/when you take expertise in Sleight of Hand.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 1, 2022)

I get what the change is, I am just sorry that they took away one of the very few Rogue-only abilities. Anyone can take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Oct 1, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Expertise only works with skills in this playtest packet. But yeah, looks like Sleight of Hand is now the new "Thievery" Skill and you use it to pick locks. In fact, a Thief with SoH expertise would be rolling 2d20(high)+dex bonus+2x prof bonus to pick locks. (Advantage for using both a tool and a skill). Lock DCs are gonna have to be pretty high if you want to keep a thief out.



so we have evolved into skyrim which is good to know.

it might need a combat buff from the looks of it but otherwise, it seems fine.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 1, 2022)

Horwath said:


> taking your time means that you are not in a hurry and you can afford time lost for failing the check several times.



If the rogue has the luxury of enough time to do this, the dungeon isn’t dangerous enough. IMO.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That feature was too confusing for the majority of people, "Using objects" isn't really a thing Thieves in the real world are known for, and the subclass got buffs in other places.




It was dropping caltrops and ball bearings as your bonus action. Drinking a potion too.
Drawing an extra dagger also was... 

Maybe this is what a bonus action can do soon by default. .. so maybe it will become redundand...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 1, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> It was dropping caltrops and ball bearings as your bonus action. Drinking a potion too.
> Drawing an extra dagger also was...



And apparently, a lot of people found it confusing. So changing it is probably a good thing.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 1, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> If the rogue has the luxury of enough time to do this, the dungeon isn’t dangerous enough. IMO.



sometimes a rogue just wants to be a thief and crack a safe for jewelry in peace and quiet.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 1, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> It was dropping caltrops and ball bearings as your bonus action. Drinking a potion too.
> Drawing an extra dagger also was...
> 
> Maybe this is what a bonus action can do soon by default. .. so maybe it will become redundand...



…and giving a potion to an unconscious friend.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 1, 2022)

Horwath said:


> sometimes a rogue just wants to be a thief and crack a safe for jewelry in peace and quiet.



Sometimes, sure. But it should be the exception not the rule.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2022)

Rogues have been nerfed, and I don't know why. I don't know anyone who was saying Rogues were overpowered.

1) You can no longer sneak attack on a reaction. Which makes no sense to me. If someone withdraws from engagement with you without taking the disengage action, why wouldn't your opportunity attack be a sneak attack as well? *You can no now longer sneak attack with a readied action*.

2) You no longer add sneak attack damage on a critical hit.

3) You no longer have Steady Aim as an option here, though it was obviously a patch option from Tasha's to grant advantage more often because Rogues were intended to sneak attack most of the time. They basically moved it to 13th level with Subtle Strikes (Pack Tactics by a different name) as the means of reliably getting advantage, which is too late to be used for most rogues in play.

4) Evasion now comes two levels later, for no apparent reason?

5) Can no longer get sneak attack with the Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade cantrip as both don't grant the Attack action, just an attack.

6) Reliable Talent now no longer helps with things like initiative If you had proficiency added to it), grapple escapes, or counterspell checks or similar checks as it's now specific to a skill or tool check and not an ability check, and they already had made sure it wouldn't help with grapple checks with grapple rules changes.

7) Longsword is no longer part of their proficiencies.

I have not reviewed the Thief enough yet, other than to note Fast Hands no longer works with a Healer's Kit, which is a nerf.

They do get some buffs:

A) Two weapon fighting rules help them, sometimes quite a bit as I believe they can now get two attacks and still cunning action, which is important.
B) I think they get subclass features earlier than they used to (though I have not focused much on the subclass yet)
C) I think they got Whip proficiency added though it being a finesse weapon (I am not sure)?
D) I do like that they get Pack Tactics at 13th level - it just doesn't make up for sort of having that with Steady Hands before at a much lower level.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 2, 2022)

Readied action gets weird, when you cannot sneak attack out of hiding when they pass your hiding place...

Good point about whip. You could whip with reach, then TWF with a thrown dagger. Huh.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 2, 2022)

I think "Readied" should allow the full action.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 2, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Rogues have been nerfed, and I don't know why. I don't know anyone who was saying Rogues were overpowered.
> 
> 1) You can no longer sneak attack on a reaction. Which makes no sense to me. If someone withdraws from engagement with you without taking the disengage action, why wouldn't your opportunity attack be a sneak attack as well? *You can no now longer sneak attack with a readied action*.
> 
> 4) Evasion now comes two levels later, for no apparent reason?




These two are the big nerfs I think are worth commenting on in the feedback. The others worry me less. 
I am wondering where you see your #2? I missed it



> 2) You no longer add sneak attack damage on a critical hit.


----------



## DeviousQuail (Oct 2, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Rogues have been nerfed, and I don't know why. I don't know anyone who was saying Rogues were overpowered.
> 
> 1) You can no longer sneak attack on a reaction. Which makes no sense to me. If someone withdraws from engagement with you without taking the disengage action, why wouldn't your opportunity attack be a sneak attack as well? *You can no now longer sneak attack with a readied action*.
> 
> ...



Point 4 and B are related. Evasion coming later seems to be the tradeoff for moving their subclass features to lower levels. They had to backfill some of those vacated levels. I prefer the change because it was so weird having to wait until level 9 for a second subclass feature.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2022)

DeviousQuail said:


> Point 4 and B are related. Evasion coming later seems to be the tradeoff for moving their subclass features to lower levels. They had to backfill some of those vacated levels. I prefer the change because it was so weird having to wait until level 9 for a second subclass feature.




Most obvious thing: nerf 1 is mostly for 5% of people. Those who have system mastery AND are willing to optimize their characters.

Sneak attack impossible on an opportunity attack or reaction is the only thing that hurts a bit, but If think the Idea of cutting off specific builds is good.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 2, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Rogues have been nerfed, and I don't know why. I don't know anyone who was saying Rogues were overpowered.
> 
> 1) You can no longer sneak attack on a reaction. Which makes no sense to me. If someone withdraws from engagement with you without taking the disengage action, why wouldn't your opportunity attack be a sneak attack as well? *You can no now longer sneak attack with a readied action*.



We'll have to wait and see the changes to Readied Action. It probably won't have changed substantially enough to allow Sneak Attack with Readied Actions, but it might (i.e. if they change Readied Action to a "delay your entire turn" feature). 


Mistwell said:


> 2) You no longer add sneak attack damage on a critical hit.



Yes, you can. Not only can you add sneak attack damage on a critical hit, but the sneak attack damage is doubled just like it was in the 2014 PHB.


Mistwell said:


> 3) You no longer have Steady Aim as an option here, though it was obviously a patch option from Tasha's to grant advantage more often because Rogues were intended to sneak attack most of the time. They basically moved it to 13th level with Subtle Strikes, which is too late to be used for most rogues in play.



Steadied Aim might be an option still, just not printed in this book. It's a bit unclear, but I see no reason to say that it's not an option anymore. 

Also, Subtle Strikes is not like Steady Aim in the slightest. It gives you advantage on the attack roll if you already have an ally within 5 feet of the enemy (which means you can still Sneak Attack if you would have had disadvantage on the Attack Roll). That's more like Flanking than Steady Aim. 


Mistwell said:


> 4) Evasion now comes two levels later, for no apparent reason?



Because you get a subclass feature at level 6, which moves your additional Expertise from level 6 to level 7, which moves Evasion to level 9 (they couldn't have moved it to level 8, because that's when you get a feat). This certainly nerfs some of the Rogue, but I think it's an overall buff due to the subclass feature coming earlier (we'll have to see all of the subclasses in order to say for sure). 


Mistwell said:


> 5) Reliable Talent now no longer helps with things like initiative, grapple escapes, or counterspell checks or similar checks as it's now specific to a skill or tool check and not an ability check, and they already had made sure it wouldn't help with grapple checks with grapple rules changes.



2014's Reliable Talent would have only worked for Initiative if you were a Harengon. 


Mistwell said:


> 6) Longsword is no longer part of their proficiencies.



That's not really a nerf. Longswords are practically useless for Rogues. They're not finesse or ranged weapons, so Rogues can't Sneak Attack with them. The only Longsword that Rogues can use effectively (the Sunblade) gives you proficiency in it if you have proficiency in Shortswords, which Rogues do have. 


Mistwell said:


> A) Two weapon fighting rules help them, sometimes quite a bit as I believe they can now get two attacks and still cunning action, which is important.
> B) I think they get subclass features earlier than they used to (though I have not focused much on the subclass yet)
> C) I think they got Whip proficiency added though it being a finesse weapon (I am not sure)?
> D) I do like that they get Pact Tactics at 13th level - it just doesn't make up for sort of having that with Steady Hands before at a much lower level.



A) Yep. Huge buff for melee rogues. 
B) Also a good buff. That was one of the few parts of the 2014 Rogue that I disliked. Waiting to get another subclass feature for 6 levels is painful. 
C) Whips in the 2014 PHB are finesse, so this is a good buff if it stays that way. I always thought that Rogues should be the class that fills the Indiana Jones role. 

Note: Thieves' Tools checks are now Sleight of Hand Checks. And, if you have proficiency in both Sleight of Hands and Thieves' Tools (which most Rogues will), then you have advantage and proficiency in all Thieves' Tools-based Sleight of Hand checks. That's another pretty significant buff.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 3, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> at level 13 you get Subtle Strikes giving you advantage when targeting a foe near an ally.



Which is nice, as it means you always have a chance to sneak attack an enemy if one of your allies is adjacent to them, since this negates disadvantage if you would have had it.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> These two are the big nerfs I think are worth commenting on in the feedback. The others worry me less.
> I am wondering where you see your #2? I missed it



It's not in the rogue but in the general package where critical hit damage is now only weapon damage. No spell damage, no sneak attack damage, no smite damage, no adders.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 3, 2022)

I suspect that AoO will allow for an Attack action as a reaction instead of a single (low-key) attack. 
For a while I've let martials use their full attack allotment on AoO and it made Disengaging and anti-AoO features much better. Rogues could already SA on AoO, Paladins could smite, caster could throw a spell with a feat etc, so having a high level fighter doing 4 attacks as an AoO once in a blue moon wasnt too bad.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Most obvious thing: nerf 1 is mostly for 5% of people. Those who have system mastery AND are willing to optimize their characters.



It's really not. It happened a lot more if you optimized, but it happened for all rogues with readied actions. There are some combats where readied actions are the only way to get an attack off, and if Rogues can't get their sneak attacks on those battles it will be a meaningful drop in their sense of effectiveness.

Rogues will now face the disconcerting set of circumstances where a foe is popping out from cover, shooting them with some special power, and popping back behind cover...while the Rogue cannot shoot back with their special power. Even if they have advantage. Even if they could have done that very thing if it were an attack taken on their initiative count instead of delaying their action to a different initiative count. How is a DM even supposed to explain how that's working?



UngeheuerLich said:


> Sneak attack impossible on an opportunity attack or reaction is the only thing that hurts a bit, but If think the Idea of cutting off specific builds is good.



But they didn't need to go this far. They could have allowed for it on readied actions, but not for other reactions. It would have been easy to do and the kind of exception-based rules they scatter throughout the rules already.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 3, 2022)

rooneg said:


> Honestly, it feels like the stuff that's going away in this version are mostly things that weren't intended to be there in the first place. Take the whole "Sneak Attack once per Turn" thing. Yes, this means that to really maximize your Sneak Attack damage you want to be attacking on your opponents turns as much as possible, which leads you to stuff like three level dips into Fighter for Riposte or using Haste and only attacking with your Haste action so you can use your other one to Delay until someone else's turn. Everyone who's played with a player who's trying to optimize a Rogue has seen this stuff, but they've almost certainly also seen a new player who's completely mystified by the hoops someone is jumping through to make this happen. Maybe instead of leaving this loophole that many players will never find, they could set the power level of the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage at a point where it does the expected amount of damage without requiring these sort of hoops to be jumped through?



I never saw this particular cheese. What I did see, however, was _dissonant whispers_ being cast on a target adjacent to both the rogue and another melee combatant, leading to the target running off, and the rogue getting Sneak Attack on the opportunity attack. This felt *awesome* for everyone involved, and I'm sad to see it go.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> We'll have to wait and see the changes to Readied Action. It probably won't have changed substantially enough to allow Sneak Attack with Readied Actions, but it might (i.e. if they change Readied Action to a "delay your entire turn" feature).
> 
> Yes, you can. Not only can you add sneak attack damage on a critical hit, but the sneak attack damage is doubled just like it was in the 2014 PHB.



Nope. Crawford already explained this in the videos. Crits will no longer include sneak attack damage, spell damage, smite damage, or any dice other then actual weapon dice. This is definitely a change coming with this edition. I don't even think they're going to playtest it - they've said this is a thing they are doing. But maybe I am wrong and they will playtest it and open it up to a survey.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Steadied Aim might be an option still, just not printed in this book. It's a bit unclear, but I see no reason to say that it's not an option anymore.
> 
> Also, Subtle Strikes is not like Steady Aim in the slightest. It gives you advantage on the attack roll if you already have an ally within 5 feet of the enemy (which means you can still Sneak Attack if you would have had disadvantage on the Attack Roll). That's more like Flanking than Steady Aim.



It's pack tactics. The effect is the same, is all I was saying. It's a way to get advantage most of the time.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Because you get a subclass feature at level 6, which moves your additional Expertise from level 6 to level 7, which moves Evasion to level 9 (they couldn't have moved it to level 8, because that's when you get a feat). This certainly nerfs some of the Rogue, but I think it's an overall buff due to the subclass feature coming earlier (we'll have to see all of the subclasses in order to say for sure).



I am guessing rogue players would have been very happy to move the next set of expertise to a higher level instead.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 2014's Reliable Talent would have only worked for Initiative if you were a Harengon.



That's right, sorry forgot about the proficiency bonus part. I have never gotten to 11th level with a rogue 



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's not really a nerf. Longswords are practically useless for Rogues. They're not finesse or ranged weapons, so Rogues can't Sneak Attack with them. The only Longsword that Rogues can use effectively (the Sunblade) gives you proficiency in it if you have proficiency in Shortswords, which Rogues do have.



It's pretty minor. It's noteworthy just because of the high number of magical longswords found in published adventures. But I agree not very noteworthy, and whip makes a lot more sense of a rogue.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> A) Yep. Huge buff for melee rogues.
> B) Also a good buff. That was one of the few parts of the 2014 Rogue that I disliked. Waiting to get another subclass feature for 6 levels is painful.
> C) Whips in the 2014 PHB are finesse, so this is a good buff if it stays that way. I always thought that Rogues should be the class that fills the Indiana Jones role.
> 
> Note: Thieves' Tools checks are now Sleight of Hand Checks. And, if you have proficiency in both Sleight of Hands and Thieves' Tools (which most Rogues will), then you have advantage and proficiency in all Thieves' Tools-based Sleight of Hand checks. That's another pretty significant buff.



Good one, thanks! I like that change.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I suspect that AoO will allow for an Attack action as a reaction instead of a single (low-key) attack.
> For a while I've let martials use their full attack allotment on AoO and it made Disengaging and anti-AoO features much better. Rogues could already SA on AoO, Paladins could smite, caster could throw a spell with a feat etc, so having a high level fighter doing 4 attacks as an AoO once in a blue moon wasnt too bad.



That would help a lot but I have seen no hint of that upcoming. If so, it would do a lot to make me feel better about this change.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> As a lock picking "expert" myself, I can assure you, a youtube video and two paperclips will let you open a standard padlock in 20 minutes. Faster if you are lucky.
> With a sport lockpick set you get it done in a few minutes or with some luck in 6 seconds.
> 
> It has taken me a while to understand 3e in that regard: if there is no time pressure, just allow the rogue to always take 20 and suddenly DCs work right out of the book without magic items and the rogue feels good and useful.



IRL, very few locks are absolute against someone who knows what they're doing. The point of a lock is not to provide an absolute barrier to opening a door, it is to provide a speed bump that will slow down a thief by a couple of minutes, thereby drastically increasing the chance that they're discovered. That, and to keep honest people honest.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's not in the rogue but in the general package where critical hit damage is now only weapon damage. No spell damage, no sneak attack damage, no smite damage, no adders.



That was only in the first playtest package. In the current one they've reverted to the standard critical hit rules.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

MarkB said:


> That was only in the first playtest package. In the current one they've reverted to the standard critical hit rules.



Only because they wanted to try a different variant on the inspiration rule, not because they're returning to that critical hit portion about it being only weapon damage. Seems pretty clear they plan to stick with that change.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I am guessing rogue players would have been very happy to move the next set of expertise to a higher level instead.




This.  I would _much_ rather get Evasion earlier and 2 more expertise later.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's not in the rogue but in the general package where critical hit damage is now only weapon damage. No spell damage, no sneak attack damage, no smite damage, no adders.



Ah, in the first package. Right. Thanks.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Another nerf as things stand right now: Rogues cannot get sneak attack with the Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade cantrip as both don't grant the Attack action, just an attack. 

This would by the way disable my entire current rogue, which I've played since level 1 to level 8 now.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Another nerf as things stand right now: Rogues cannot get sneak attack with the Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade cantrip as both don't grant the Attack action, just an attack.
> 
> This would by the way disable my entire current rogue, which I've played since level 1 to level 8 now.



No one's mentioned that yet?

And it's entirely unsurprising. WotC seem to have nerfed everything martial that's way over their benchmark, buffed everything that's under and 

The difference between a L8 rogue with Booming Blade and one without in melee is 1d8 damage on your primary attack and 2d8potential damage if they move. Which is a _lot_. It's almost as much as your sneak attack damage. (3d8 vs 4d6)

WotC don't mind there being some difference for skill - but they don't want it to be 50% damage increases or near doubling with offturn sneak attacks. They also don't want Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter or various other massive combos. But want to open up lots of other stuff.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 3, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> No one's mentioned that yet?



3rd post in this thread, I bring it up, because I only recently realized how good the blade spells are for Rogue... while it's good that there isn't this pressure for _every_ Rogue to pick up the melee cantrips because it's free damage, it's bad because Rogue just keeps losing things and not getting anything in return.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 3, 2022)

Also, if Experts are the group that borrows stuff from other classes... Rangers copy Warriors and Druids, Bards copy healers and wizards... why is Rogue the one who isn't stealing anything?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 3, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> 3rd post in this thread, I bring it up, because I only recently realized how good the blade spells are for Rogue... while it's good that there isn't this pressure for _every_ Rogue to pick up the melee cantrips because it's free damage, it's bad because Rogue just keeps losing things and not getting anything.



I wouldn't say rogue got nothing. Off the top of my head:

Dual wielding melee rogues are now impressive; if the left don't get you then the right one will _and you still Cunning Action_
They now have a subclass slot at level 6 while not losing any abilities for it (just a slight shuffle)
Rogues benefit a _lot_ from the feat upgrades. Skulker now giving both +1 Dex and Blindsight for rogues is huge. And Charger has some really good synergy with rogues. Sharpshooter was a much iffier prospect for rogues than other classes because you risked the Sneak Attack. And of course there's the fact you get them at all and rogues get an extra at L10 (which means with current Background/Standard Array rules you only spend 2 levels at Dex 19 with a standard build).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Nope. Crawford already explained this in the videos. Crits will no longer include sneak attack damage, spell damage, smite damage, or any dice other then actual weapon dice. This is definitely a change coming with this edition. I don't even think they're going to playtest it - they've said this is a thing they are doing. But maybe I am wrong and they will playtest it and open it up to a survey.



Crawford also explained in the videos that the rules glossary of later UA supersedes the rules glossaries of earlier UA. The latest UA says to use the 2014 Crit rules, not the ones from the previous UA. You're wrong and you missed a substantial change in this UA. Rogues can still double Critical Sneak Attack damage. This is from the most recent UA's rules glossary (you can double check for yourself, just "CTRL + F" it):


> Attack Roll
> The Attack Roll is one of three types of d20 Tests. *This Unearthed Arcana article uses the rules for attack rolls and critical hits found in the 2014 Player’s Handbook*.



I hope this clears things up.


Mistwell said:


> It's pack tactics. The effect is the same, is all I was saying. It's a way to get advantage most of the time.



It's actually more substantial than that. It means that so long as they have an ally within 5 feet of their target, they always get to sneak attack, because the advantage cancels out any potential disadvantages they might get. This helps a lot for ranged rogues that might have disadvantage from long range, from being within 5 feet of the enemy, being prone, restrained, or inflicted with some other debilitating condition. 

This is a great buff. 


Mistwell said:


> I am guessing rogue players would have been very happy to move the next set of expertise to a higher level instead.



We'll have to wait until after the survey to find out! I personally think level 7 is a bit early to get "completely ignore Fireball most of the time", especially when you get an extra Subclass ability to make up for delaying the feature 2 levels, but I'd be fine with either. 


Mistwell said:


> That's right, sorry forgot about the proficiency bonus part. I have never gotten to 11th level with a rogue



Yep! So it's a smaller nerf than you thought! (Doesn't work on Initiative unless you're a bunnyman, doesn't work on Counterspell/Dispel Magic unless you're a level 10 Aburation Wizard multiclassed 11 levels into Rogue somehow, et cetera.) And, since tool checks are now based off of specific skills, that means that more tools are available with Reliable Talent. That's an overall buff, IMO. 


Mistwell said:


> It's pretty minor. It's noteworthy just because of the high number of magical longswords found in published adventures. But I agree not very noteworthy, and whip makes a lot more sense of a rogue.



So they gain the whip, which they can sneak attack with at reach, and lose the longsword, which is mostly useless to them because they can't sneak attack with it. I don't consider that a nerf.


Mistwell said:


> Good one, thanks! I like that change.



Yep! I thought it was neat! Rogues basically get an extra Expertise because of this (they don't have to choose Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand to have proficiency with both, they get both just from choosing Thieves' Tools).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Another nerf as things stand right now: Rogues cannot get sneak attack with the Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade cantrip as both don't grant the Attack action, just an attack.
> 
> This would by the way disable my entire current rogue, which I've played since level 1 to level 8 now.



It's actually still possible to sneak attack on Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade, but you have to multiclass 6 levels into Bladesinger to do so (so then you can cast a cantrip as part of the Attack Action).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Rogue just keeps losing things *and not getting anything in return*.



Demonstrably untrue. 

Here's what Rogues lost:

Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place). 
Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade for any rogue of the right race/feat ability (also absolutely unintended). You can still Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade if you have 6 levels in Bladesinger, though.
Longsword proficiency (largely useless anyway)
Hand-Crossbow proficiency
The option to gain Performance proficiency from their class skills (barely a nerf, you can always take it from your background skills)
The ability to use Evasion when incapacitated (which was ridiculous anyway)
Blindsense
They also had a couple features delayed by a level or two (the second Expertise feature was moved from level 6 to level 7, Evasion was moved from level 7 to level 9).

Here's what Rogues got in return:

Automatic advantage when using Thieves' Tools at level 1 if you choose Sleight of Hand as one of your proficient skills from the class or a background (boosted up to advantage and Expertise if you choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand)
An extra language at level 1 granted in addition to Thieves' Cant
An extra feat at level 1 from your background (which other classes also get, but rogues from the 2014 PHB didn't, so it still counts as a buff to rogue characters transitioning from 5e to OneD&D)
Whip Proficiency (which can be dual-wielded)
An extra attack as part of the Attack Action if you dual wield (no longer taking your bonus action, which can be used for Cunning Action, which dual-wielding rogues previously couldn't do)
An extra Subclass feature at level 6 (which is why Expertise and Evasion are delayed a bit)
Earlier subclass features (Their level 13 feature is moved to level 10, their level 17 feature is moved to level 14)
Expertise in more tools, because Tool Checks are now based on skills (this depends on what skills you have proficiency in)
Reliable Talent on more tools, because Tool Checks are now based on skills (this also depends on what skills you have proficiency in)
An extra feature at level 13, which makes it so if an ally is within 5 feet of the creature you're attacking, you will always sneak attack (and be more likely to crit sneak attack because you'll normally have advantage on the attack roll). 
Proficiency with Charisma Saving throws from Slippery Mind (meaning that you'll have 4 saving throw proficiencies automatically, which you can boost to up 5 if you have the Resilient Feat)
Elusive at level 17 instead of level 18
Stroke of Luck at level 18 instead of level 20
An automatic Epic Boon at level 20 (which other classes also get, but rogues from the 2014 PHB didn't, so it still counts as a buff to rogue characters transitioning from 5e to OneD&D)
So, that's 7 nerfs, quite a few of which are fairly minor or situational and 14 buffs, quite a few of which are really big (Dual Wielding, an extra feat, buffs to tools, more and earlier subclass features, another saving throw proficiency, so on). 

By my count, the Rogue class gets twice as many buffs as it gets nerfs. So "Rogues just keep losing things and not getting anything in return" is either a complete and utter _lie _or you somehow didn't notice any of the many buffs that they got.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Might want to go easy on the accusations of lying.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Crawford also explained in the videos that the rules glossary of later UA supersedes the rules glossaries of earlier UA. The latest UA says to use the 2014 Crit rules, not the ones from the previous UA. You're wrong and you missed a substantial change in this UA. Rogues can still double Critical Sneak Attack damage. This is from the most recent UA's rules glossary (you can double check for yourself, just "CTRL + F" it)



I didn't miss it and I don't think I am wrong. He switched the inspiration issue around to test a different method for inspiration and just used the old crit because otherwise he'd have to re-write that again when he just wants to test the inspiration mechanic issue. But I think he's pretty settled on that other aspect of crits. We shall see, but I didn't miss anything. I genuinely believe the other aspect of the change (weapon damage only) is confirmed for 2024 based on his videos.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> :
> 
> I hope this clears things up.
> 
> It's actually more substantial than that



It's literally identical to Pack Tactics. It's the identical words, with literally only the name changed. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> . It means that so long as they have an ally within 5 feet of their target, they always get to sneak attack, because the advantage cancels out any potential disadvantages they might get. This helps a lot for ranged rogues that might have disadvantage from long range, from being within 5 feet of the enemy, being prone, restrained, or inflicted with some other debilitating condition.



Yes, I know. That's Pack Tactics. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This is a great buff.



No, it's meaningless for most campaigns. According to WOTC, most campaigns have ended before 13th level. The number of games this will impact is small. They had advantage guaranteed with Steady Aim at THIRD LEVEL before, and now it takes TEN more levels to get advantage when you need it? That's definitely not a "great buff." I'll likely never run a rogue to those levels. None of our campaigns in all these years of 5e, starting with the early beta test, have ever gotten to 13th level.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> We'll have to wait until after the survey to find out! I personally think level 7 is a bit early to get "completely ignore Fireball most of the time", especially when you get an extra Subclass ability to make up for delaying the feature 2 levels, but I'd be fine with either.
> 
> Yep! So it's a smaller nerf than you thought! (Doesn't work on Initiative unless you're a bunnyman, doesn't work on Counterspell/Dispel Magic unless you're a level 10 Aburation Wizard multiclassed 11 levels into Rogue somehow, et cetera.) And, since tool checks are now based off of specific skills, that means that more tools are available with Reliable Talent. That's an overall buff, IMO.



You no longer can get expertise in tools though, for what that is worth.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So they gain the whip, which they can sneak attack with at reach, and lose the longsword, which is mostly useless to them because they can't sneak attack with it. I don't consider that a nerf.
> 
> Yep! I thought it was neat! Rogues basically get an extra Expertise because of this (they don't have to choose Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand to have proficiency with both, they get both just from choosing Thieves' Tools).



Rogues definitely have seen a nerf overall so far. And the overwhelming majority of reviews of this rogue agree they're seeing an overall reduction in power.

And that makes zero sense. According to prior surveys it was a class with some of the most universal agreement that it was good as it was. There was no reason to reduce their power. Nobody was saying they were overpowered. Everyone seemed to like them as they were.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Demonstrably untrue.
> 
> Here's what Rogues lost:
> 
> Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place).




How do you figure it was "not intended to work in the first place"?  If so, they would have worded it differently, or said something in Sage Advice.  Also, it's a loss in two ways: no Sneak Attack on opportunity attacks, and no Sneak Attack when holding an Action.  They were both a big deal.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade for any rogue of the right race/feat ability (also absolutely unintended). You can still Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade if you have 6 levels in Bladesinger, though.
> Longsword proficiency (largely useless anyway)
> Hand-Crossbow proficiency
> The option to gain Performance proficiency from their class skills (barely a nerf, you can always take it from your background skills)
> ...




You forgot Use an Object not being part of Cunning Action, which means no healer kits, and no healing potions.  That was a big part of rogue play for a lot of us.

If you merely count nerfs and buffs (and include the buffs that all classes get) then you might conclude that buffs > nerfs.  But D&D is largely a game of killing monsters, and a significant hit to damage will, for a lot of people, vastly outweigh being better at picking locks and jumping.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I didn't miss it and I don't think I am wrong. He switched the inspiration issue around to test a different method for inspiration and just used the old crit because otherwise he'd have to re-write that again when he just wants to test the inspiration mechanic issue. But I think he's pretty settled on that other aspect of crits. We shall see, but I didn't miss anything. I genuinely believe the other aspect of the change (weapon damage only) is confirmed for 2024 based on his videos.



He literally says in the video that they're returning back to the 2014 Crit rules. He mentions that they're changing the Inspiration Generation mechanic from natural 20s to natural 1s, but he also separately mentions a return to normal Critical Hits. The document even says that they're doing that. He says both in the video and the document that if a new rule contradicts an old rule, the newer one takes priority. You are 100% wrong here. Rogues can absolutely double their sneak attack damage on critical hits. This isn't a debate or matter of interpretation. There is nothing in the document or videos to suggest that you're right. 


Mistwell said:


> It's literally identical to Pack Tactics. It's the identical words, with literally only the name changed.
> 
> Yes, I know. That's Pack Tactics.



You're right. I thought Pack Tactics only worked in melee. 


Mistwell said:


> No, it's meaningless for most campaigns. According to WOTC, most campaigns have ended before 13th level. The number of games this will impact is small. They had advantage guaranteed with Steady Aim at THIRD LEVEL before, and now it takes TEN more levels to get advantage when you need it? That's definitely not a "great buff." I'll likely never run a rogue to those levels. None of our campaigns in all these years of 5e, starting with the early beta test, have ever gotten to 13th level.



Steady Aim requires your bonus action and takes all of your movement (and doesn't work if you had moved this turn). This would benefit rogues that have Steady Aim. We don't have any indication that Steady Aim isn't allowed anymore. And, it being a later-level feature doesn't make this not a great buff for the rogues that get it. Sure, a lot of people don't play at higher levels. I do. I have 2 players that will benefit a lot from this feature. 

If you've been playing since the early tests, you've been playing 5e longer than I have. But I've gotten to those levels in multiple different campaigns. 

It's a good buff, even if it's at higher levels. 


Mistwell said:


> You no longer can get expertise in tools though, for what that is worth.



I think you're misremembering a rule. In the 2014 PHB, you could only choose one tool to get expertise in: Thieves' Tools. Now, you automatically get Expertise in Thieves' Tools if you have proficiency in Sleight of Hand. That's a buff. If you have expertise in any other skill that's used for another type of tools, it applies to those tools too (Disguise Kits might use Performance/Deception, or Smith's Tools could use Athletics, for example). You don't choose specific tools to get Expertise in, and Rogues couldn't do that in the first place. 


Mistwell said:


> Rogues definitely have seen a nerf overall so far. And the overwhelming majority of reviews of this rogue agree they're seeing an overall reduction in power.
> 
> And that makes zero sense. According to prior surveys it was a class with some of the most universal agreement that it was good as it was. There was no reason to reduce their power. Nobody was saying they were overpowered. Everyone seemed to like them as they were.



As I showed in this post, Rogues probably have gotten buffed overall (compared to the 2014 version, I'm not saying if they got more nerfs/buffs than the other classes). Most of their nerfs were situational and they got a lot of little buffs that add up (an extra feat at level 1, earlier subclass features, major dual wielding buffs, being way better with Thieves' Tools if they take proficiency/expertise in Sleight of Hand, etc). And most rogues probably didn't get Reaction Sneak Attacks that much (and Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade Rogues were definitely niche, too).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> How do you figure it was "not intended to work in the first place"? If so, they would have worded it differently, or said something in Sage Advice. Also, it's a loss in two ways: no Sneak Attack on opportunity attacks, and no Sneak Attack when holding an Action. They were both a big deal.



I always assumed that "once a turn" was meant to limit sneak attack to once a round, but the game designers didn't realize that it would apply to Opportunity Attacks and multiclass combos. 

How often do opportunity attacks where you get to Sneak Attack happen? How often do Held Action Sneak Attacks happen? Both of those scenarios are pretty uncommon in my experience. I don't think that this is a big deal, except for niche builds (multiclassed into Battlemaster) or strange campaigns where rogues are making opportunity sneak attacks all of the time. 


Bill Zebub said:


> You forgot Use an Object not being part of Cunning Action, which means no healer kits, and no healing potions. That was a big part of rogue play for a lot of us.



That's just Thief Rogues. I didn't include it into the class buff/nerf breakdown. 


Bill Zebub said:


> If you merely count nerfs and buffs (and include the buffs that all classes get) then you might conclude that buffs > nerfs. But D&D is largely a game of killing monsters, and a significant hit to damage will, for a lot of people, vastly outweigh being better at picking locks and jumping.



The "significant hit to damage" only applies to rogues regularly getting Reaction Sneak Attacks (which are really uncommon, in my experience) or abusing the Blade Cantrips to increase their DPR. And, like I showed in that post, the buffs aren't just "better at picking locks and jumping". They get extra feats, huge buffs to Dual Wielding, more/earlier subclass features, and much more. The hits to damage are neglibible, and the buff to Dual Wielding will be way more useful to most rogues than situational reaction attacks will be.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> but the game designers didn't realize that it would apply to Opportunity Attacks and multiclass combos.




That's....a rather shocking indictment of the intelligence of the designers.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Both of those scenarios are pretty uncommon in my experience.





Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> (which are really uncommon, in my experience)




Maybe that's the difference.  Some of us see the reaction attacks happening a _lot_:

Hold Action until the enemy pops out of hiding
Hold Action (especially in first round of combat) until an enemy is within 5' of an ally
Regular opportunity attacks (which happens a lot in my group; YMMV)
Opportunity attacks triggered by _dissonant whispers_
Opportunity attacks triggered by feats (e.g. Mage Slayer, and I've even seen a rogue take Sentinel and get a TON of sneak attacks with it.)

If you're not seeing these things happen then that's a difference in tables and play style.  But in my experience these things happen a lot.  Eliminating the held action option is particularly egregious, as those are sneak attacks _instead_ of the SA on their turn, rather than in addition to.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> huge buffs to Dual Wielding




Oh, and I disagree with that.  The change to dual wielding is a huge buff to Cunning Action.  Under the old rules, if I hit with my first short sword (and thus got my SA) I might disengage or do something else with my bonus action.  But if I missed with my first attack I would almost always still use the offhand attack (except for some edge cases) and sacrifice my cunning action.  So the new dual wielding rules mostly mean I get more cunning actions, not more damage.

P.S. And steady aim is/was great because it lets you, at level 3, get SA on targets that aren't engaged with your allies.  Like enemy archers, or that annoying caster.  Subtle Strikes, at level 13, does not replicate that.  And, yes, you sacrifice your movement, but if there was someplace to move to hide you would have moved there and used cunning action Hide in order to get advantage.  So if you're using it you're probably stuck out in the open anyway.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 3, 2022)

There's some dodgy counting here, so let's look at this.
1.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Automatic advantage when using Thieves' Tools at level 1 if you choose Sleight of Hand as one of your proficient skills from the class or a background (boosted up to advantage and Expertise if you choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand)



I see this as a nerf. They used to be the only class who could get expertise in thieves tools. Now any expert class can get this advantage. In fact, none of the tool points are rogue-specific, which also excludes


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Expertise in more tools, because Tool Checks are now based on skills (this depends on what skills you have proficiency in)
> Reliable Talent on more tools, because Tool Checks are now based on skills (this also depends on what skills you have proficiency in)



2. You list a number of benefits all classes get:


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> An extra feat at level 1 from your background (which other classes also get, but rogues from the 2014 PHB didn't, so it still counts as a buff to rogue characters transitioning from 5e to OneD&D)
> An extra Subclass feature at level 6 (which is why Expertise and Evasion are delayed a bit)
> An automatic Epic Boon at level 20 (which other classes also get, but rogues from the 2014 PHB didn't, so it still counts as a buff to rogue characters transitioning from 5e to OneD&D)



So that's not about the rogue either (as you recognize)

3.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Whip Proficiency (which can be dual-wielded)



Has to be seen in terms of the overall change of weapon proficiencies. So of all the rogues you've seen, how many used hand crossbow as their main weapon? I've seen many, and think this is overall a nerf.

4. You are selective about presenting changes in specific abilities, too.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Proficiency with Charisma Saving throws from Slippery Mind (meaning that you'll have 4 saving throw proficiencies automatically, which you can boost to up 5 if you have the Resilient Feat)



counts as a boon for you, but no mention is made of losing Bonus action for Use and Object at level 3. Which one affects play more over the course of a campaign? Overall, a nerf. [EDIT: _I see you've answered this in the previous post, written while I was typing_]

5. You list three benefits with getting abilities early....


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Elusive at level 17 instead of level 18
> Stroke of Luck at level 18 instead of level 20
> Earlier subclass features (Their level 13 feature is moved to level 10, their level 17 feature is moved to level 14)



...but exclude the ones delayed from your count


> They also had a couple features delayed by a level or two (the second Expertise feature was moved from level 6 to level 7, Evasion was moved from level 7 to level 9).



I'll note that early game abilities are delayed, late game abilities put earlier. Overall, it's a nerf.

6. There is a change in abilities -- Blindsense at 14 has become Pack tactics at 13; obth are valuable. I'll call that a wash.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> An extra feature at level 13, which makes it so if an ally is within 5 feet of the creature you're attacking, you will always sneak attack (and be more likely to crit sneak attack because you'll normally have advantage on the attack roll).




7. Changes to Sneak Attack.
As has been discussed in this thread, there are several changes to the iconic Rogue ability. You list two cases


> Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place).
> Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade for any rogue of the right race/feat ability (also absolutely unintended). You can still Sneak Attack with Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade if you have 6 levels in Bladesinger, though.




without acknowledging how much the first one excludes: Ready an Action, opportunity attacks, or a Battlemaster's Commander's Strike. That is not inconsequential.
In addition, if the rules for Critical Strike from the first playtest pack are kept, then Sneak attack dice do not double on a crit. So that's another substantial nerf. (Many would count that as two nerfs, but let's be conservative).

8. I am not concerned about two of the abilities lost that you list


> The option to gain Performance proficiency from their class skills (barely a nerf, you can always take it from your background skills)
> The ability to use Evasion when incapacitated (which was ridiculous anyway)



so let's discount them. As you note, there is an extra language.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> An extra language at level 1 granted in addition to Thieves' Cant



So there's a boon. That'll be a game changer.

9. And there is a genuine boon for two-weapon fighters:


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> An extra attack as part of the Attack Action if you dual wield (no longer taking your bonus action, which can be used for Cunning Action, which dual-wielding rogues previously couldn't do)




So let's summarize:

Of the 9 categories of changes, some are a wash and I'll exclude (2, 6).

For boons:
You get a language (8) and have a better chance of getting your sneak attack damage if you are a dual wielder (9).

For losses:

Thieves tool specialties are no longer a rogue ability (1)
Changes in weapon proficiencies are overall a loss (3)
Changes in specific abilities helps late-game abilities but hurts early-game ones (4)
Abilities that are delayed are in levels 1-10, ones that come earlier are in 11-20, and so keep most players from them (5)
Sneak attack has been weakened in multiple ways (7).
(There is no doubt more that could be added, too).

In my mind, it is clear that the Rogue has lost significantly with this package.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So, that's 7 nerfs, quite a few of which are fairly minor or situational and 14 buffs, quite a few of which are really big (Dual Wielding, an extra feat, buffs to tools, more and earlier subclass features, another saving throw proficiency, so on).





Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> By my count, the Rogue class gets twice as many buffs as it gets nerfs.



I am sure you are very sincere in your counting here, and believe that your numbers are balanced and accurate. I hope you can at least see why someone might disagree with the way you have reckoned these things.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> That's....a rather shocking indictment of the intelligence of the designers.



I never said they were stupid. I just said that they designed a feature in a way they didn't intend it to work. Which happens all the time, regardless of how intelligent the designers are. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe that's the difference.  Some of us see the reaction attacks happening a _lot_:
> 
> Hold Action until the enemy pops out of hiding
> Hold Action (especially in first round of combat) until an enemy is within 5' of an ally
> ...



1. I guess I just don't run monsters that do that very often? 
2. It's really hard to predict where a monster is going to move a lot of the time, and if they don't do what you want them do, then you lose a whole action.
3. I almost never have opportunity attacks trigger. They don't move away from a target unless they are running from the battle, in which case they typically Disengage first. Are you just having the monsters run from one PC to another letting opportunity attacks happen all the time? 
4. How common are Bards/GOOlocks in your games?
5. I have played 3 campaigns with Rogues, but never seen any of them take Mage Slayer or Sentinel. 

And, I'll note again, I wouldn't be surprised if Ready Action is changed a lot. It's currently pretty confusing and restricting. They could change it to a "Held Turn" feature where you just delay your entire turn, in which case you could still Sneak Attack on Readied Actions. We don't know yet, but we'll have to see Ready Action's changes to fully confirm if this is changed. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Oh, and I disagree with that.  The change to dual wielding is a huge buff to Cunning Action.  Under the old rules, if I hit with my first short sword (and thus got my SA) I might disengage or do something else with my bonus action.  But if I missed with my first attack I would almost always still use the offhand attack (except for some edge cases) and sacrifice my cunning action.  So the new dual wielding rules mostly mean I get more cunning actions, not more damage.



Wait, how is this not a damage buff? In that circumstance, you still had to choose between using your bonus action to be cool (Cunning Action) or deal damage (Dual Wield). This change doesn't force you to choose, which would buff your damage by a dice roll every turn in combat. And even if this doesn't buff your damage, Cunning Action makes you less likely to take damage (Disengage/Dash to get out of an enemy's reach), which will boost your damage in the long run. 


Bill Zebub said:


> P.S. And steady aim is/was great because it lets you, at level 3, get SA on targets that aren't engaged with your allies.  Like enemy archers, or that annoying caster.  Subtle Strikes, at level 13, does not replicate that.  And, yes, you sacrifice your movement, but if there was someplace to move to hide you would have moved there and used cunning action Hide in order to get advantage.  So if you're using it you're probably stuck out in the open anyway.



So Steady Aim is now good for both ranged and melee rogues! You can Dual Wield and use your bonus action to make sure you Sneak Attack this turn. That's a damage buff!


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> He literally says in the video that they're returning back to the 2014 Crit rules. He mentions that they're changing the Inspiration Generation mechanic from natural 20s to natural 1s, but he also separately mentions a return to normal Critical Hits. The document even says that they're doing that. He says both in the video and the document that if a new rule contradicts an old rule, the newer one takes priority. You are 100% wrong here. Rogues can absolutely double their sneak attack damage on critical hits. This isn't a debate or matter of interpretation. There is nothing in the document or videos to suggest that you're right.




Of course it's a debate. I agree for this version of the playtest doc only they're using the old crit rule. That does not however in any way say that's the rule they're going with even next playtest doc, much less in two years. It's my opinion, which is not a statement of fact, that they're going with the "crits only include weapon damage" version in the final version for 2024 based on what Crawford has said in videos. You are free to disagree but you're not free to tell me there is only one opinion allowed in this topic. 



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You're right. I thought Pack Tactics only worked in melee.
> 
> Steady Aim requires your bonus action and takes all of your movement (and doesn't work if you had moved this turn). This would benefit rogues that have Steady Aim. We don't have any indication that Steady Aim isn't allowed anymore. And, it being a later-level feature doesn't make this not a great buff for the rogues that get it. Sure, a lot of people don't play at higher levels. I do. I have 2 players that will benefit a lot from this feature.



Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot. And I am assuming Steady Aim, along with all of Tasha's, is going away in terms of the optional rules because I believe they were intended as patches to the old rules in the first place. I think part of the point of One D&D is to adopt the patches which they thought worked as the main rules. But again, I could be wrong. Let's see what they say about Tasha's and how it could work with the new rules.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If you've been playing since the early tests, you've been playing 5e longer than I have. But I've gotten to those levels in multiple different campaigns.
> 
> It's a good buff, even if it's at higher levels.




D&D Beyond data showed that *NINTEY PERCENT* of players don't get beyond 10th level. Which means even if you think that stat is off by a lot, it's still an overwhelming majority who don't play at 13th level.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think you're misremembering a rule. In the 2014 PHB, you could only choose one tool to get expertise in: Thieves' Tools. Now, you automatically get Expertise in Thieves' Tools if you have proficiency in Sleight of Hand.



No now you get expertise in Sleight of Hand if you had proficiency in Sleight of Hand, not Thieves Tools. You no longer can get expertise in Thieves Tools.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's a buff. If you have expertise in any other skill that's used for another type of tools, it applies to those tools too (Disguise Kits might use Performance/Deception, or Smith's Tools could use Athletics, for example). You don't choose specific tools to get Expertise in, and Rogues couldn't do that in the first place.



Rogues got "At 1st level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies *and your proficiency with thieves’ tools." *



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> As I showed in this post, Rogues probably have gotten buffed overall (compared to the 2014 version, I'm not saying if they got more nerfs/buffs than the other classes).



I didn't think you showed it in that post. What you showed is similar to the original 3e reaction to Monks - counting individual abilities as opposed to overall impact. I think their overall effectiveness goes down. And that is so far the general consensus of reviewers of this document - which doesn't make that position correct but it does suggest I am not alone in thinking they're taking a loss on this one.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Most of their nerfs were situational and they got a lot of little buffs that add up (an extra feat at level 1, earlier subclass features, major dual wielding buffs, being way better with Thieves' Tools if they take proficiency/expertise in Sleight of Hand, etc). And most rogues probably didn't get Reaction Sneak Attacks that much (and Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade Rogues were definitely niche, too).



I am in no way going to count anything which all classes get as a buff for this class. The measurement is relative to those other classes. If all classes get a level 1 feat, then no class is being buffed by getting a level 1 feat. That's a net neutral gain - they got what everyone got by default, not an increase. 

If you never knew a Rogue to ready an action to get an attack which resulted in a sneak attack, I don't know what to tell yah. It's not that uncommon.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 1. I guess I just don't run monsters that do that very often?



You _don't_ have goblin archers duck behind cover after they shoot?  Really?



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 2. It's really hard to predict where a monster is going to move a lot of the time, and if they don't do what you want them do, then you lose a whole action.



It doesn't have to be the monster moving.  If I beat the fighter on initiative, I hold action until the fighter runs up to the monster, then shoot.  Practically every fight, it feels like.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 3. I almost never have opportunity attacks trigger.



Ummm...weird.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 4. How common are Bards/GOOlocks in your games?



Bards?   Almost always.  And dissonant whispers is a favorite spell.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 5. I have played 3 campaigns with Rogues, but never seen any of them take Mage Slayer or Sentinel.



Of course, mage slayer loses the OA benefit, so that one is nerfed anyway.




Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Wait, how is this not a damage buff? In that circumstance, you still had to choose between using your bonus action to be cool (Cunning Action) or deal damage (Dual Wield).




Yes, and as I explained I almost always go for the damage.  So, I'll say it again: the new rule is awesome and I'm excited about it, but it's a cunning action buff, not a damage buff.




Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So Steady Aim is now good for both ranged and melee rogues!



Steady Aim is not in the UA.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot.




Yeah, I agree with this.  I play a lot of rogues, and I've never gotten to 13.



Mistwell said:


> If you never knew a Rogue to ready an action to get an attack which resulted in a sneak attack, I don't know what to tell yah. It's not that uncommon.




I know, RIGHT!?!?!  Just...bizarre.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

P.S.  I'm also not panicking about rogue nerfs; I still have faith the final version will be awesome.  But my feedback on this particular packet will be that I don't like the damage nerfs, or evasion being pushed back to make room for expertise.  

I suspect, unfortunately, that even if they compensate the damage nerf it will be in a boring, passive way, because they don't want beginners to have to know how to use reactions.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 3, 2022)

I have two things to add to this conversation:

1) AFAI remember, Crawford said that they were returning to 2014 crit rules for this packet, and went on to talk about how they had internally moved on (ie backtracked) from the first packet awhile ago. I can't say for sure what the final rule will be (no one can at this point I suspect) but I definitely got the impression that it was scrapped. At any rate, I don't think that anyone should feel that any part of any packet is set in stone yet.

2) You can't discount any buffs to the playtest Rogue just because "all classes get it" and then compare it to the 5e PHB Rogue. You must compare like to like. This Rogue has some nerfs, sure (in some cases it depends on what the other rules wind up being, like object interactions for example) but there's some decent buffs too. Also remember that another balance pass will happen. (One that they often tend to screw up, to be fair).

At any rate, this Rogue looks good to me. It ABSOLUTELY needs some feedback about readying an action and still getting sneak attack, though. I doubt they intend to knock that out on purpose. Easily fixed. On OAs too, if we can help it.

I wouldn't worry about those things yet. At least not overly.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I see this as a nerf. They used to be the only class who could get expertise in thieves tools. Now any expert class can get this advantage. In fact, none of the tool points are rogue-specific, which also excludes



What in the world? How is a buff to other classes a nerf for the rogue?!?! That's not nerfing the rogue, that's making everyone better. Especially the rogue, because they get more skills than basically anyone else. 


Kobold Stew said:


> 2. You list a number of benefits all classes get:



Um, no. Not all classes get Expertise. Just the Rogue, Bard, and Ranger. And no other class gets Reliable Talent.

OneD&D Rogues that take Proficiency and Expertise in Sleight of Hand get the following benefits to their Thieves' Tools:

Proficiency in Thieves' Tools (which everyone that takes proficiency in Thieves' Tools can get)
Expertise in Thieves' Tools (which only Bards, Rangers, and Rogues that choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand can get)
Advantage in Thieves Tools checks (which anyone with proficiency in both Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand can get)
Reliable Talent in Thieves' Tools (which only Rogues get)
So, rogues are buffed compared to the 2014 version. They just have to choose Proficiency and Expertise in Sleight of Hand, and then they get all of that. No one else can get Reliable Talent and Bards/Rangers that want to get Expertise-Advantage in Thieves' Tools have to use their Background Tool's Proficiency. Rogues are still better at Lockpicking/Trap-Disarming than anyone else and are better than they were in the 2014 PHB at it. 


Kobold Stew said:


> So that's not about the rogue either (as you recognize)



Does that matter? That's a buff compared to the 2014 Ranger. A buff is a buff. 


Kobold Stew said:


> Has to be seen in terms of the overall change of weapon proficiencies.



We have to assume that they're keeping Whips as Finesse based on our current information. 


Kobold Stew said:


> So of all the rogues you've seen, how many used hand crossbow as their main weapon? I've seen many, and think this is overall a nerf.



None, actually. One used a longbow, the other dual wielded, and the other was a Soul Knife. 


Kobold Stew said:


> 4. You are selective about presenting changes in specific abilities, too.
> 
> counts as a boon for you, but no mention is made of losing Bonus action for Use and Object at level 3. Which one affects play more over the course of a campaign? Overall, a nerf. [EDIT: _I see you've answered this in the previous post, written while I was typing_]



I see your edit, but subclasses were not taken into account in the Class nerf/buff breakdown. We have to wait and see the other subclasses to see if they were nerfed/buffed overall. 


Kobold Stew said:


> 5. You list three benefits with getting abilities early....
> 
> ...but exclude the ones delayed from your count
> 
> I'll note that early game abilities are delayed, late game abilities put earlier. Overall, it's a nerf.



You know what? You're right here. I should have included that and was thinking of editing my post. 


Kobold Stew said:


> 6. There is a change in abilities -- Blindsense at 14 has become Pack tactics at 13; obth are valuable. I'll call that a wash.



Noted. 


Kobold Stew said:


> 7. Changes to Sneak Attack.
> As has been discussed in this thread, there are several changes to the iconic Rogue ability. You list two cases
> 
> 
> without acknowledging how much the first one excludes: Ready an Action, opportunity attacks, or a Battlemaster's Commander's Strike. That is not inconsequential.



I don't take multiclassing into account when breaking down if a Class got Nerfed/Buffed. That would be ridiculous. 

And Readying an Action and Opportunity Attacks are situational nerfs. And I noted those were nerfs. I don't know what your problem is here.


Kobold Stew said:


> In addition, *if the rules for Critical Strike from the first playtest pack are kept*, then Sneak attack dice do not double on a crit. So that's another substantial nerf. (Many would count that as two nerfs, but let's be conservative).



They are not. I proved that in an earlier post. There is no nerf here. 


Kobold Stew said:


> 8. I am not concerned about two of the abilities lost that you list
> 
> so let's discount them. As you note, there is an extra language.
> 
> So there's a boon. That'll be a game changer.



I noted the minor nerfs (Performance, no Evasion on Expertise), and also noted the minor buffs (extra language). What's your problem with this?


Kobold Stew said:


> For losses:
> 
> Thieves tool specialties are no longer a rogue ability (1)



Again, it's ridiculous that you're considering this a "nerf" to rogues. Strictly comparing how good 2014 Rogues and OneD&D Rogues are at Thieves' Tools, it's 100% objectively true that Rogues got buffed here. They get the benefits of two expertise and Reliable Talent for the price of one and always-on advantage on Thieves' Tools. Who cares if Bards/Rangers can mimic what you're good at? They're not as good at it as you are from their base class features and you're better than you were previously at it! 


Kobold Stew said:


> Changes in weapon proficiencies are overall a loss (3)



"Overall a loss"? Bro, the Longsword is useless to rogues. Sure, losing the Hand Crossbow hurts a bit, but Whips make up for it, IMO. Dual Wielding rogues can sneak attack in melee from 10 feet away now. That's a huge boost. That frees up your bonus action even more than the already mentioned boost to Dual Wielding, because most monsters have a reach of 5 feet and so you get to avoid even more attacks than non-whip dual-wielding Rogues. 


Kobold Stew said:


> Changes in specific abilities helps late-game abilities but hurts early-game ones (4)
> Abilities that are delayed are in levels 1-10, ones that come earlier are in 11-20, and so keep most players from them (5)



So they're making the classes less front-loaded and are showing signs of supporting high-level play better. While not a buff, it's definitely a positive in my book. 


Kobold Stew said:


> Sneak attack has been weakened in multiple ways (7).



By "multiple" you mean "two". And one of them is highly situational (Opportunity Attacks and other reaction attacks) and the other is 100% unintentional (Green-Flame/Booming Blade).  


Kobold Stew said:


> In my mind, it is clear that the Rogue has lost significantly with this package.



They lost a bit of damage in cheesy exploits and highly situational reaction attacks. 


Kobold Stew said:


> I am sure you are very sincere in your counting here, and believe that your numbers are balanced and accurate. I hope you can at least see why someone might disagree with the way you have reckoned these things.



And I think that you also believe the same.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Of course it's a debate. I agree for this version of the playtest doc only they're using the old crit rule. That does not however in any way say that's the rule they're going with even next playtest doc, much less in two years. It's my opinion, which is not a statement of fact, that they're going with the "crits only include weapon damage" version in the final version for 2024 based on what Crawford has said in videos. You are free to disagree but you're not free to tell me there is only one opinion allowed in this topic.



Okay. But I'm not interested in debating a hypothetical scenario where they change the crit rules again. I never said that they were going to keep the crit rules the same as they are in this document, I just said that in this document, Rogues still get critical hits and we should discuss the current version of the class with those rules in mind. Unless you can see the future, assuming that the rules are going to change again back the the previous UA's version is bad form in this discussion.


Mistwell said:


> Yes Pack Tactics is better than Steady Aim and if the Rogue got Pact Tactics at level 3, or even level 6, I'd be thrilled. But getting it at level 13 I really don't care a lot. And I am assuming Steady Aim, along with all of Tasha's, is going away in terms of the optional rules because I believe they were intended as patches to the old rules in the first place. I think part of the point of One D&D is to adopt the patches which they thought worked as the main rules. But again, I could be wrong. Let's see what they say about Tasha's and how it could work with the new rules.



They've mentioned other content from Tasha's in the UA (the Artificer), so I really don't see any reason to assume that Steady Aim won't be allowed. That might change, but we don't know, so I don't think that it's worth assuming in this discussion. You know what happens when you "assume". 


Mistwell said:


> D&D Beyond data showed that *NINTEY PERCENT* of players don't get beyond 10th level. Which means even if you think that stat is off by a lot, it's still an overwhelming majority who don't play at 13th level.



90% of character made on the site. The amount of characters made on the site and the amount of characters that actually participate in campaigns are vastly different issues, and we don't have stats for the second issue (WotC might from their surveys, but we don't). 

And are you suggesting that a buff shouldn't be considered a buff because it's granted past level 10? Because, in that case, we can give all level 17 Wizards _Power Word Kill_ as a cantrip. That's not a significant buff! No one gets that high level anyway! That absolutely would not be worth considering in a discussion of if the OneD&D Wizard is buffed compared to the 2014 Wizard because 90+% of characters made on D&D Beyond are not anywhere near that level!

See the absurdity of your claim? A buff is a buff. Pack Tactics is good, especially for Rogues. I don't care if you don't get to that level, some people do, and it's buffing those Rogues quite a bit. 


Mistwell said:


> No now you get expertise in Sleight of Hand if you had proficiency in Sleight of Hand, not Thieves Tools. You no longer can get expertise in Thieves Tools.



Again, incorrect. Sleight of Hands is the skill used in Thieves' Tools ability checks now. If you have expertise in Sleight of Hands, that applies to ability checks you make with Thieves' Tools. This is made clear in the "Sleight of Hand" feature for the Thief subclass (where it connects the Sleight of Hand skill with using Thieves' Tools) and the Tool Proficiency section of the Rules Glossary (where it mentions how all tool checks are now based off of certain skills and how if you have proficiency in both the skill and tool, you get advantage on the check). 

Again, this is a misreading of the document. I suggest reading through it another time a bit closer. It's pretty easy to miss, but Tools are based off of Skills now, and if you have expertise in that skill, you have expertise in checks made for that tool. 


Mistwell said:


> Rogues got "At 1st level, choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies *and your proficiency with thieves’ tools." *



That's the PHB version of the feature. Go read the Unearthed Arcana version. It's different. 


Mistwell said:


> I didn't think you showed it in that post. What you showed is similar to the original 3e reaction to Monks - counting individual abilities as opposed to overall impact. I think their overall effectiveness goes down.



I didn't just compare the amount of nerfs to the amount of buffs. I noted the quality of them. Most of the nerfs were minor and most of the buffs were minor. But there were more major buffs than major nerfs. 


Mistwell said:


> And that is so far the general consensus of reviewers of this document - which doesn't make that position correct but it does suggest I am not alone in thinking they're taking a loss on this one.



So, you just made an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, but also admitted your fallacy. A group of a lot of people can be wrong. A group of a lot of people can miss minor details. I doubt that most people that read the document noticed the major Tool change. You obviously missed it. Most people probably missed the Whip proficiency, too. I noticed quite a few people on Reddit that didn't notice the change to Dual Wielding because it was hidden in the Light Property in the glossary. Most people probably failed to take into consideration the level 1 feat when comparing the old rogue to the new rogue. This is a complicated issue. There's a lot of small moving parts that add up. I think that it is easily possible for the majority/popular opinion here to be egregiously incorrect. 


Mistwell said:


> I am in no way going to count anything which all classes get as a buff for this class. The measurement is relative to those other classes. If all classes get a level 1 feat, then no class is being buffed by getting a level 1 feat. That's a net neutral gain - they got what everyone got by default, not an increase.



No, what this discussion should be about is if the Rogue got stronger or weaker compared to the old Rogue. Not what the other classes are doing. That's not important here. Did the Rogue get an extra feat? Yes, they did. So that's worth counting. Did they get skill/tool buffs? Yes, they did, so that's worth counting. Did they get Dual Wielding buffs? Yes, they did, so that's worth counting. 

This discussion is about if the Rogue is better or worse than the 2014 version. Not about if a Ranger that takes Thieves' Tools and Sleight of Hand from their background and chooses Expertise for Sleight of Hand can also be really good at picking locks. The fact that they can do that doesn't make the Rogue weaker and it doesn't somehow make the buff not a buff anymore. 


Mistwell said:


> If you never knew a Rogue to ready an action to get an attack which resulted in a sneak attack, I don't know what to tell yah. It's not that uncommon.



My parties' Rogues have never really had to do that. Or, if they did, something went wrong (the monster died from another factor or did something unexpected).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> You _don't_ have goblin archers duck behind cover after they shoot?  Really?



I did that in one campaign, but it wasn't one with a Rogue in it (Artificer, Monk, and Wizard, who almost TPKed from it). 


Bill Zebub said:


> It doesn't have to be the monster moving.  If I beat the fighter on initiative, I hold action until the fighter runs up to the monster, then shoot.  Practically every fight, it feels like.



Then you have to plan with the fighter to know exactly where they move and then wait to see if the monster moves at all. You're also assuming the Rogue is ranged. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Ummm...weird.



My monsters aren't bumbling idiots. They know that if they run away from an enemy, they get to attack them. They only do it if they're really desperate. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Bards?   Almost always.  And dissonant whispers is a favorite spell.



I have only ever had 1 bard in a main campaign. And they were one of the three bard subclasses that encourages you to be in melee attacking with a rapier (I forget which). 

It seems to me that you're assuming there'll be a Bard/GOOlock and Melee Rogue. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Yes, and as I explained I almost always go for the damage.  So, I'll say it again: the new rule is awesome and I'm excited about it, but it's a cunning action buff, not a damage buff.



But . . . it makes you not choose between damage and cunning action. It lets you do both. You don't have to choose the optimal option. This is a damage buff and cunning action buff. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Steady Aim is not in the UA.



And neither is the Artificer, but it's mentioned (and stated to not be in the PHB) and is present in the same book as Steady Aim. And this update is backwards compatible with previous 5e books. I see no reason to assume that Rogues won't be able to have the Steady Aim option in the future. 


Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, I agree with this. I play a lot of rogues, and I've never gotten to 13.



(I have. Twice.)

Yeah, but this discussion is not about how high-level rogues get. It's about the buffs and nerfs the class gets compared to the 2014 version. And getting Pack Tactics at level 13 is a fairly substantial buff worth considering in this discussion.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I did that in one campaign, but it wasn't one with a Rogue in it (Artificer, Monk, and Wizard, who almost TPKed from it).
> 
> Then you have to plan with the fighter to know exactly where they move and then wait to see if the monster moves at all. You're also assuming the Rogue is ranged.
> 
> ...



So lemme get this straight…you’ve only seen 3 rogues, 1 bard, your monsters have only once used cover to hide and shoot, and you didn’t know rogues holding action was a thing?

Ummm…ok. Noted.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Okay. But I'm not interested in debating...



Then don't.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 90% of character made on the site. The amount of characters made on the site and the amount of characters that actually participate in campaigns are vastly different issues, and we don't have stats for the second issue (WotC might from their surveys, but we don't).
> 
> And are you suggesting that a buff shouldn't be considered a buff because it's granted past level 10?



I am saying it should be discounted quite a bit because it impacts so few players. If it's amazing but comes at a level so high few will ever see it, it's not a meaningful retort to the loss of a power than came at 3rd level. Even if it were much better than the power that came at 3rd level.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Again, incorrect. Sleight of Hands is the skill used in Thieves' Tools ability checks now. If you have expertise in Sleight of Hands, that applies to ability checks you make with Thieves' Tools.



Yes, I fully understand how it works and what you just repeated is exactly what I said that you are responding to. I said also you cannot any longer get expertise in the tool itself where you could before, which is also correct. Nothing I said is incorrect. Maybe you misunderstood?



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This is made clear in the "Sleight of Hand" feature for the Thief subclass (where it connects the Sleight of Hand skill with using Thieves' Tools) and the Tool Proficiency section of the Rules Glossary (where it mentions how all tool checks are now based off of certain skills and how if you have proficiency in both the skill and tool, you get advantage on the check).
> 
> Again, this is a misreading of the document. I suggest reading through it another time a bit closer. It's pretty easy to miss, but Tools are based off of Skills now, and if you have expertise in that skill, you have expertise in checks made for that tool.



Yes I understood that fully Do you understand you cannot get expertise in tools now, where you could before? Do you understand before you could get expertise in investigation used on a trap and expertise on thieves tools used to disarm that same trap, but now you can only get expertise in a skill but not the tool? 



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's the PHB version of the feature. Go read the Unearthed Arcana version. It's different.
> 
> I didn't just compare the amount of nerfs to the amount of buffs. I noted the quality of them. Most of the nerfs were minor and most of the buffs were minor. But there were more major buffs than major nerfs.



What you think is "major" I think is mostly inconsequential. I saw someone else reply in a similar manner with great detail. So you must see by now your view on that topic isn't universal even when thoughtfully considered.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So, you just made an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, but also admitted your fallacy.



No, I didn't. I was very clear in my intent in why I mentioned it. 

I'll also note your continual spin of things like this, where it's clear my intent by you twist it to be a negative anyway, looks to be bad faith to me. If you understood why I was bringing it up, and then decide to claim it's a fallacy anyway, it tells me you're not here to discuss this matter fairly, but you're here to "win" an argument. I am not interested in that game. Go play it with someone else.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> A group of a lot of people can be wrong. A group of a lot of people can miss minor details. I doubt that most people that read the document noticed the major Tool change. You obviously missed it.



I didn't. I even repeated it back to you and you missed I had done that. Have you considered we're all as capable of assessing these rules as you are, and you could in fact sometimes be wrong as well?



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, what this discussion should be about is if the Rogue got stronger or weaker compared to the old Rogue. Not what the other classes are doing.



I truly don't care what you think we should be discussing, I, and many others, will assess it in terms of the whole game, including relative to other classes. If you want to analyze it differently, go right ahead. But don't tell us we're wrong for taking other things into consideration like relative balance compared to other classes. For me, and I think for very many others, if something like a first level feat benefits all classes at once, then it's not a boost for Rogues. 




Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's not important here.




You've made that clear. It is however very important to me and many others. You can deal with that or not, but it's a reality for many people you're having this conversation with.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Yes I understood that fully Do you understand you cannot get expertise in tools now, where you could before? Do you understand before you could get expertise in investigation used on a trap and expertise on thieves tools used to disarm that same trap, but now you can only get expertise in a skill but not the tool?




You do not need expertise in thieves' tools, because you roll dex(sleight of hands), and advantage for the proficiency in the tool.

You could roll dex(thieves' tools) and add advantage for the relevant skill... but why should you?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> What in the world? How is a buff to other classes a nerf for the rogue?!?!



Niche erosion.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Um, no. Not all classes get Expertise. Just the Rogue, Bard, and Ranger.



Exactly.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> We have to assume that they're keeping Whips as Finesse based on our current information.



Agreed. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> None, actually. One used a longbow, the other dual wielded, and the other was a Soul Knife.



A sample size of three is pretty small to make judgements. Maybe you're right and handcrossbow for whip is a wash; I doubt it.  


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I don't take multiclassing into account when breaking down if a Class got Nerfed/Buffed. That would be ridiculous.



Of course it would. I wasn't doing that, though.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And Readying an Action and Opportunity Attacks are situational nerfs. And I noted those were nerfs. I don't know what your problem is here.
> 
> They are not. I proved that in an earlier post. There is no nerf here.



I explicitly didn't take these as separate points.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I noted the minor nerfs (Performance, no Evasion on Expertise), and also noted the minor buffs (extra language). What's your problem with this?



None -- you are right. You're up a language. 



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Again, it's ridiculous that you're considering this a "nerf" to rogues. Strictly comparing how good 2014 Rogues and OneD&D Rogues are at Thieves' Tools, it's 100% objectively true that Rogues got buffed here. They get the benefits of two expertise and Reliable Talent for the price of one and always-on advantage on Thieves' Tools. Who cares if Bards/Rangers can mimic what you're good at? They're not as good at it as you are from their base class features and you're better than you were previously at it!



I undersand your point, and we disagree. There's nothing 100% about it.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> "Overall a loss"? Bro, the Longsword is useless to rogues. Sure, losing the Hand Crossbow hurts a bit, but Whips make up for it, IMO.



So call it a wash: this does not meaningfully affect the ratio. 


> So they're making the classes less front-loaded and are showing signs of supporting high-level play better. While not a buff, it's definitely a positive in my book.



"Front-loaded" is carrying a lot of weight when it includes abilities gained at level 9.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> By "multiple" you mean "two". And one of them is highly situational (Opportunity Attacks and other reaction attacks) and the other is 100% unintentional (Green-Flame/Booming Blade).



I did not mention the cantrips.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They lost a bit of damage in cheesy exploits and highly situational reaction attacks.



And here we come to a real nub. It's not highly situational reaction attacks -- that's a mischaracterization. As for "cheesy exploits": while I recognize the hand crossbow is really just a fantasy version of the pistol, I thnk it's well-enogh established in the fiction of the game and beyond to avoid that claim. Dual-wielding whips, though? If we are throwing out labels like "cheesy" in a build, then I suggest you consider your own preferences.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And I think that you also believe the same.



.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

I think overall the rogue received a buff, because they can now dual wield and use cunning action. They can now dual wield hand (repeating) crossbows.
Losing out on a sneak attack in the first round can become a problem. But a rogue who is hidden at the start of combat should have not problem attacking with advantage and get the sneak attack anyway.
Skulker or alert (to just swap ini with tge fighter) can help you, if you think it is too difficult to get sneak attack otherwise.
Or hell, just get lucky and use it in your first turn of combat.

Edit: you can't judge a single rule in a vacuum. We already are able to produce a more powerful rogue as the normal rogue who does not ready their hasted action.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> But a rogue who is hidden at the start of combat should have not problem attacking with advantage and get the sneak attack anyway.




My experience is that this is hard.  As an archer I can sometimes (or even often) find cover and Hide/Shoot.  But I really prefer to play melee rogues, which means I need an ally adjacent to my target.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You do not need expertise in thieves' tools, because you roll dex(sleight of hands), and advantage for the proficiency in the tool.
> 
> You could roll dex(thieves' tools) and add advantage for the relevant skill... but why should you?



Because for a variety of reasons you might have a PC that you want to have expertise in thieves tools but not slight of hand? Your role playing concept is that they're good with tools, but not with the other aspects of slight of hand?

I am OK with the change, but it IS a change that some people may not like because it does remove one type of expertise while changing how another type of expertise can work if you were to get expertise in that skill. It's not that meaningful a change, but in the grand scheme of the changes to the rogue it does add up. 

I think to better understand where some people are coming from on the issue of the Rogue, I'd suggest this video from two well known YouTubers on the topic. I think they cover it pretty well, though they miss some things here and there too as it's just a first read and first impression.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> it's 100% objectively true that Rogues got buffed here.



It's definitely not. You're substituting your opinion for fact, and not considering why people disagree with you.

I'd suggest you check out this video by two prominent YouTubers on the topic who cover, with a first read, why many people disagree with you on whether the Rogue was buffed or nerfed. They're not perfect, they will miss some things particularly as they're reading it live for the first time, but they make a lot of points which resonate with me and a fair number of others.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Because for a variety of reasons you might have a PC that you want to have expertise in thieves tools but not slight of hand? Your role playing concept is that they're good with tools, but not with the other aspects of slight of hand?
> 
> I am OK with the change, but it IS a change that some people may not like because it does remove one type of expertise while changing how another type of expertise can work if you were to get expertise in that skill. It's not that meaningful a change, but in the grand scheme of the changes to the rogue it does add up.
> 
> I think to better understand where some people are coming from on the issue of the Rogue, I'd suggest this video from two well known YouTubers on the topic. I think they cover it pretty well, though they miss some things here and there too as it's just a first read and first impression.




Treantmonk has its place, but he in no way represents normal playing. And taking away optimization needs is a big plus in my book.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Treantmonk has its place, but he in no way represents normal playing. And taking away optimization needs is a big plus in my book.



It's not just Treantmonk in this video?


----------



## Kinematics (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Sneak Attack on a Reaction (which was probably not intended to work in the first place).





Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I always assumed that "once a turn" was meant to limit sneak attack to once a round, but the game designers didn't realize that it would apply to Opportunity Attacks and multiclass combos.



This is not correct. The ability to use sneak attack multiple times per round (as long as they were on different turns) has always been explicitly known and allowed. 

Here's some Sage Advice comments on it, the oldest of which is from 2015: Can the rogue Sneak Attack twice during the same round, if on two different turns?


----------



## Staffan (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 90% of character made on the site. The amount of characters made on the site and the amount of characters that actually participate in campaigns are vastly different issues, and we don't have stats for the second issue (WotC might from their surveys, but we don't).



I'm pretty sure I've seen the D&DB folks mention that the stats they present are filtered for "active characters", and that they have certain criteria for that. Things like hit points going up and down, and other resources being used.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Kinematics said:


> This is not correct. The ability to use sneak attack multiple times per round (as long as they were on different turns) has always been explicitly known and allowed.
> 
> Here's some Sage Advice comments on it, the oldest of which is from 2015: Can the rogue Sneak Attack twice during the same round, if on two different turns?



That's just saying that is Rules as Written. Not that they intended that combo.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> So lemme get this straight…you’ve only seen 3 rogues, 1 bard,



I've been playing for about 5-6 years. My campaigns typically last 1-2 years with characters largely staying the same throughout them. 


Bill Zebub said:


> your monsters have only once used cover to hide and shoot,



Most monsters don't get Hide as a bonus action. I used Hide-and-Shoot Goblins successfully one time, in my Eberron campaign. Other monsters try to do the same, but waste their whole turn or are seen by whoever has the highest passive Perception in the party. 


Bill Zebub said:


> and you didn’t know rogues holding action was a thing?



It was just was never optimal for my party's rogues. Or that common.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's just saying that is Rules as Written. Not that they intended that combo.




And they also aren't saying they intended something else.  You have zero evidence.  It's just your conjecture.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> And they also aren't saying they intended something else.  You have zero evidence.  It's just your conjecture.



I'm saying that it's possible if they change a rule to get rid of Sneak Attack Reactions that they never intended for them to be allowed in the first place. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm saying it could be an explanation for why they removed them.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Most monsters don't get Hide as a bonus action. I used Hide-and-Shoot Goblins successfully one time, in my Eberron campaign. Other monsters try to do the same, but waste their whole turn or are seen by whoever has the highest passive Perception in the party.




They don't need to Hide.  They can get full cover by stepping 5' sideways.  They just don't get Advantage on their next attack.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm saying that it's possible if they change a rule to get rid of Sneak Attack Reactions that they never intended for them to be allowed in the first place. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm saying it could be an explanation for why they removed them.




My guess here...and it's pure conjecture...is that the tricks experienced players use to keep up with the Joneses (Paladins, Warlocks, etc.) are more complicated than WotC wants beginners to feel they have to understand.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's not just Treantmonk in this video?




No. But if he is in the video, I know it is about optimizing.
I am sure he will find good synergies when the rules are layid out in full.
To be fair, he even finds good synergies in classes and subclasses that are widely seen as underpowered.
He still does in no way represent the majotity of players. I think most of his assessments fair, but far away from the reality at my tables.

Treantmonk even admits, that the old ability had a loophole to get sneak attack twice.
I am also pretty sure, they have not yet seen the change to two weapon fighting. At least they don't mention it as a buff for the rogue.

I share their assessment with the thief.
I also share Treantmonks opinion, that sneak attack could be buffed a little to compensate for the loss of a second potential sneak attack.

Most funninly: In 4e it went from 1/round in O4E to 1/turn in essential.
So I am still totally divided. I still believe, sneak attack should work on your attack action, and not on a Magic action. But it could be spelled out, that it specifically works on opportunity attacks.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Then don't.



I wasn't. I truly don't have an opinion on whether or not they're going to change it back to the older playtest version. But I think it's bad form for you to assume they are in this discussion. 


Mistwell said:


> I am saying it should be discounted quite a bit because it impacts so few players. If it's amazing but comes at a level so high few will ever see it, it's not a meaningful retort to the loss of a power than came at 3rd level. Even if it were much better than the power that came at 3rd level.



And I'm saying that when you're discussing the overall power of the full class that it's just as valid to count the buffs/nerfs that come at higher levels than it is to count the ones at lower levels and to discount the ones from higher levels just because they're higher levels is dumb. 


Mistwell said:


> Yes, I fully understand how it works and what you just repeated is exactly what I said that you are responding to. I said also you cannot any longer get expertise in the tool itself where you could before, which is also correct. Nothing I said is incorrect. Maybe you misunderstood?
> 
> Yes I understood that fully Do you understand you cannot get expertise in tools now, where you could before? Do you understand before you could get expertise in investigation used on a trap and expertise on thieves tools used to disarm that same trap, but now you can only get expertise in a skill but not the tool?



Okay then, why were you stating that then? I thought you were saying it was a nerf/bad thing. It clearly is not. It's 100% a buff. 


Mistwell said:


> What you think is "major" I think is mostly inconsequential. I saw someone else reply in a similar manner with great detail. So you must see by now your view on that topic isn't universal even when thoughtfully considered.



. . . There are objectively "major" changes. Losing longswords is a very, very minor nerf. There's basically no situation where losing proficiency in longswords is even slightly a bad thing, unless the rogue somehow has a magical longsword that deals more magical damage than they would sneak attack damage. Losing longswords is a minor nerf. Losing the bonus action tax of Dual Wielding is a major buff for a lot of Rogues. 

Some other things are more campaign-dependent, but there are major and minor buffs. 


Mistwell said:


> No, I didn't. I was very clear in my intent in why I mentioned it.
> 
> I'll also note your continual spin of things like this, where it's clear my intent by you twist it to be a negative anyway, looks to be bad faith to me. If you understood why I was bringing it up, and then decide to claim it's a fallacy anyway, it tells me you're not here to discuss this matter fairly, but you're here to "win" an argument. I am not interested in that game. Go play it with someone else.
> 
> I didn't. I even repeated it back to you and you missed I had done that. Have you considered we're all as capable of assessing these rules as you are, and you could in fact sometimes be wrong as well?



Then why were you remarking that other people shared your opinion. You're right that it doesn't make you any more correct than me. And I'm aware that it is a common viewpoint. So if you don't think that it made your opinion more valid, why was it important to mention? At least to me, you didn't make it clear of your intention. 


Mistwell said:


> I truly don't care what you think we should be discussing, I, and many others, will assess it in terms of the whole game, including relative to other classes. If you want to analyze it differently, go right ahead. But don't tell us we're wrong for taking other things into consideration like relative balance compared to other classes. For me, and I think for very many others, if something like a first level feat benefits all classes at once, then it's not a boost for Rogues.
> 
> You've made that clear. It is however very important to me and many others. You can deal with that or not, but it's a reality for many people you're having this conversation with.



And I'm comparing the pure numbers of how current rogues compare to PHB rogues. I don't think that we're able of discussing how they compare to other classes until we get all of the other classes for comparison. We have to make do with what information we have. Which are the current Bard and Ranger and the Rogue. I think it's important to show all of the ways that the class was buffed and nerfed compared to the 2014 PHB version, and I would do that in a breakdown of how the Bards and Rangers got nerfed/buffed in other discussions. Sure, they cancel out if other classes get the buffs, but they're still buffs compared to the 2014 version, so it's worth mentioning.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> Niche erosion.



Not a mechanical nerf. And, as I showed earlier, they are still way better than anyone else at Thieves' Tools.


Kobold Stew said:


> A sample size of three is pretty small to make judgements. Maybe you're right and handcrossbow for whip is a wash; I doubt it.



Whips are definitely very useful for Dual-Wielding Rogues. Hand-Crossbows were really good too, but whips might make up for it. 


Kobold Stew said:


> Of course it would. I wasn't doing that, though.



You mentioned a multiclass combo (Battlemasters). Or maybe you were meaning team-support synergies? 


Kobold Stew said:


> I undersand your point, and we disagree. There's nothing 100% about it.



Okay then. 


Kobold Stew said:


> I did not mention the cantrips.



So you're counting different types of reaction attacks as different nerfs? I wouldn't do that. I didn't count the buff to Dual Wielding (freeing up 3/4 different possible bonus actions) as multiple different points. 


Kobold Stew said:


> And here we come to a real nub. It's not highly situational reaction attacks -- that's a mischaracterization. As for "cheesy exploits": while I recognize the hand crossbow is really just a fantasy version of the pistol, I thnk it's well-enogh established in the fiction of the game and beyond to avoid that claim. Dual-wielding whips, though? If we are throwing out labels like "cheesy" in a build, then I suggest you consider your own preferences.



I wasn't counting hand-crossbows as cheesy exploits. I meant Booming/Green-Flame Blade that every rogue can get to significantly boost their DPR. Hand Crossbows and Dual-Wielding Whips are equally ridiculous from a realism standpoint, I agree with you. But I don't think I was intending those to be considered in the "cheesy exploits".


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No. But if he is in the video, I know it is about optimizing.
> I am sure he will find good synergies when the rules are layid out in full.
> To be fair, he even finds good synergies in classes and subclasses that are widely seen as underpowered.
> He still does in no way represent the majotity of players. I think most of his assessments fair, but far away from the reality at my tables.
> ...



I didn't say he represents the majority of players in general, I said this video (which is not just him) outlines a lot of the issues others are highlighting right now with this class. I think it's worth watching, even if you disagree, just to see what some think are the issues here in a way which is well articulated.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 3, 2022)

I never play a rogue, but what I notice about my friend that does?

One attack per round isn't as cool as the many attacks a fighter gets. I get sneak attack does more damage, but something feels off there in combat. They obviously matter for locks and traps and stuff.....but they seem lesser in combat to me (unlike spellcasters).


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> . You're right that it doesn't make you any more correct than me. And I'm aware that it is a common viewpoint. So if you don't think that it made your opinion more valid, why was it important to mention? At least to me, you didn't make it clear of your intention.



Because you were suggesting I (and others) didn't understand and that you were objectively correct and there could be no debate about it.  You even called someone a liar for not agreeing with you, after you arbitrarily listed quantities (but not qualities) of plusses and minuses and came out with a positive number for your arbitrary count of buffs and nerfs. If I am not alone in my opinion that your perspective is not well shared that doesn't in itself make my opinion correct but it does suggest you're also not objectively correct with no debate around the topic, right?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Because you were suggesting I (and others) didn't understand and that you were objectively correct and there could be no debate about it.



Note the "probably" in my "Rogues have probably gotten buffed overall" statement. I didn't say it was 100% objectively true that my current view of the rogue is correct. It's uncertain how the Rogue will turn out in the long run. But the class got a bunch of buffs. That's objectively true. Their power has been significantly increased in a lot of ways. Whether or not the buffs increase their power to make up for the reaction/booming blade Sneak Attack and Hand Crossbows is undetermined and dependent on a lot of factors. A lot of the buffs weren't as situational. 


Mistwell said:


> You even called someone a liar for not agreeing with you



They were not saying that rogues got buffed/nerfed overall. They said that Rogues got nerfed with no buffs at all. Which is flat-out untrue. And I didn't accuse them of lying, I said that their post was either a lie or they somehow missed a lot in the Rogue document. 


Mistwell said:


> , after you arbitrarily listed quantities (but not qualities) of plusses and minuses and came out with a positive number for your arbitrary count of buffs and nerfs. If I am not alone in my opinion that your perspective is not well shared that doesn't in itself make my opinion correct but it does suggest you're also not objectively correct with no debate around the topic, right?



I was trying to give a complete and objective account of all of the changes to the Rogue and measuring out how significant all of them were. I was trying to objectively measure the quantity and quality of all of the buffs. That's why I mentioned the number of buffs were higher than the number of nerfs and commented on most of the nerfs/buffs to explain how useful/detrimental the change is. 

And, no, other people agreeing with you does not somehow suggest that my view is any less likely to be correct. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are a lot of topics that have quite a few people agreeing with the objectively incorrect view. The only thing you not being alone in your opinion suggests is that other people agree with you. Not the likelihood you are of being correct.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And, no, other people agreeing with you *does not somehow suggest that my view is any less likely to be correct*. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are a lot of topics that have quite a few people agreeing with the objectively incorrect view. The only thing you not being alone in your opinion suggests is that other people agree with you. Not the likelihood you are of being correct.



That part I highlighted? When I say you're not having this discussion in good faith, this is what I mean. I didn't say or imply what you just claimed. I made it super clear that wasn't what I was claiming. You knew I had made that clear, repeated it back to me, and then once again lied about my position. 

We're done. But don't complain I was somehow unfair to you. I was very fair for quite some time and gave you lots of opportunities to stop behaving that way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I didn't say he represents the majority of players in general, I said this video (which is not just him) outlines a lot of the issues others are highlighting right now with this class. I think it's worth watching, even if you disagree, just to see what some think are the issues here in a way which is well articulated.




I have seen it and they said nothing I did not see myself. I stand by my assessment.
It is good to shutdown "loopholes" (as Chris called it) and instead buff the class, so it does not need such things.

Improving two weapon fighting is a start (although I now can't see why any rogue would not want to dual wield... I rather liked the balance). Lets see how one handed amd two handed weapon fighting gets buffed.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 3, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> You knew I had made that clear



It was not clear to me. I am honestly still confused by what you were saying. But if you want to be done and think I'm engaging in bad faith, feel free to do so. I apologize if there was any miscommunication or misunderstanding on my part.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 3, 2022)

Zaukrie said:


> I never play a rogue, but what I notice about my friend that does?
> 
> One attack per round isn't as cool as the many attacks a fighter gets. I get sneak attack does more damage, but something feels off there in combat. They obviously matter for locks and traps and stuff.....but they seem lesser in combat to me (unlike spellcasters).



A thought about how to make rogues more fun in combat: give them some debuffs along the lines of maneuvers, but flavored as dirty tricks. Possibly with some additional options by subclass (e.g. arcane trickster does something magic-based, thief does something sneaky, and assassin uses poisons)


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 4, 2022)

Nothing like watching people go back and forth accusing others of doing the things that they themselves are also doing. _Why can't we all just get along?_

But more seriously: I agree that the new rogue is _slightly_ buffed from the 2014 rogue, assuming that they will fix being able to sneak attack on a readied action (I'm less concerned with opportunity attacks, but I'd be okay if they fixed that too).

I heartily _disagree_ that it's at all fair to claim that they are nerfed, and then discount all the buffs that are 1) at higher levels; or 2) also apply to other classes. You can say you don't like it, but you can't claim it's nerfed. You have to compare the 2014 Rogue to the UA Rogue directly. 

I mean, you can _claim_ nerf if you like, I guess, but you're not making a fair or logical argument. You're making one based on how you _feel_ about the changes, not about what they are. It seems to me that a lot of complaining has its start (don't get me wrong - it's fine to complain - it's fine to not _like_ the UA!) in incomplete understanding of the changes.

Like the idea that not being able to take expertise in Thieves' Tools. You are absolutely fair to not like it! But it's NOT a nerf! For example: Let's say you have a Level 3 DEX 16 rogue with TT expertise picking a lock. The "old" way would have you rolling 1d20+7 to pick the lock. The "new" way, you'd take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand instead (not because you're somehow differently skilled, but because that IS the new way the game models the ability to pick locks!) and you'd roll 2d20(High)+7. That's a buff.

You can prefer the old way all you like, of course! But it's still a buff.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I heartily _disagree_ that it's at all fair to claim that they are nerfed, and then discount all the buffs that are 1) at higher levels;




If you mean discount in the ignore sense, then sure, you can't leave Subtle Strikes off the list of buffs.

But I do think you can discount it in the sense of not weighting it heavily when the vast overwhelming majority of rogues are losing a level 3 ability, and the vast overwhelming majority will never get a level 13 ability.  If Steady Aim ends up removed, and Subtle Strikes stays where it is, then that is a net nerf _to the rogue population._


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> If you mean discount in the ignore sense, then sure, you can't leave Subtle Strikes off the list of buffs.
> 
> But I do think you can discount it in the sense of not weighting it heavily when the vast overwhelming majority of rogues are losing a level 3 ability, and the vast overwhelming majority will never get a level 13 ability.  If Steady Aim ends up removed, and Subtle Strikes stays where it is, then that is a net nerf _to the rogue population._




Well, you weigh it where you do - when comparing the 2014 Rogue's higher levels to the UA Rogue's higher levels.

_Steady Aim_ is an optional rule from Tasha's. I don't think it will be "removed", nor yet do I think it will be "added". It will remain what it is: An optional rule from Tasha's. Use it if you like. It has nothing to do with whether a 2014 Rogue is more or less buffnerfed than a UA one.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Well, you weigh it where you do - when comparing the 2014 Rogue's higher levels to the UA Rogue's higher levels.
> 
> _Steady Aim_ is an optional rule from Tasha's. I don't think it will be "removed", nor yet do I think it will be "added". It will remain what it is: An optional rule from Tasha's. Use it if you like. It has nothing to do with whether a 2014 Rogue is more or less buffnerfed than a UA one.




I don't think I agree with that.  It won't be 2024 PHB + Tasha's/Zanathar's/Etc.  I think the assumption is that One D&D will supercede all previous sources, and as of this latest iteration, there's no Steady Aim.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't think I agree with that.  It won't be 2024 PHB + Tasha's/Zanathar's/Etc.  I think the assumption is that One D&D will supercede all previous sources, and as of this latest iteration, there's no Steady Aim.



That's not how they've ever said that the 50th Anniversary books will work, far or less the playtest (which explicitly states that all 5e rules are a go if not otherwise mentioned.)

So as of right now, there absolutely IS Steady Aim, if your group plays with it. Of course we have no idea what 2024 will bring. But NO IDEA does not mean we can make whatever we fear up and then state it as fact, just because we think it will be so.

You may wind up right, but it's far too early to tell, in particular when the only info we have tells us the opposite. Extant rules are on ATM, unless they've been revised. Steady Aim has not.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> That's not how they've ever said that the 50th Anniversary books will work, far or less the playtest (which explicitly states that all 5e rules are a go if not otherwise mentioned.)
> 
> So as of right now, there absolutely IS Steady Aim, if your group plays with it. Of course we have no idea what 2024 will bring. Bun NO IDEA does not mean we can make whatever we fear up and then state it as fact, just because we think it will be so.
> 
> You may wind up right, but it's far too early to tell, in particular when the only info we have tells us the opposite. Extant rules are on ATM, unless they've been revised. Steady Aim has not.




Did I state something as fact that isn't?

In any event, we'll see.  Obviously some of the new content is incompatible with Tasha's (and Xanathar's), and it's hard for me to imagine they'll say, "Use all the stuff from those books that's not contradicted by the new books" or something like that.  But, again, we'll see.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Did I state something as fact that isn't?




I don't know. I could easily be confusing parts of the discussion involving you for someone else if we're talking about my overall feelings on the subject after reading this entire thread. I do think it was you that said that Steady Aim was out (which it's not ATM - at least not any more than it's out of anyone's game who's not using it as an option) which is, I think, what I was talking about at that moment.

Still, I don't mean for you to take it too severely. I just see a lot of fearmongering when it comes to playtesting. I mean, even the designers don't know what the final books will look like yet - that's the _whole point_ of playtesting. So it's always strange to me when people read a thing in a playtest packet and assume that something is "_this way_ _now_". It's NOT. It's "let's try it _this way_ and see how it goes".

I mean look at the Crit rules. As far as we can tell, they scrapped the first packet's Crit idea before even getting feedback on it. The whole thing's in flux. There's only so much we should conclude from anything yet. Fear? Fine. It's reasonable to _worry_ that any rule you don't like will continue forward. Conclude that it will for sure? Waste of time. IMO.

Note that I'm not saying YOU SPECIFICALLY are doing this. It's just all over the place, so I felt like talking about it. Right this second, I happen to be talking to you, but I assume others are reading it too. Much of what I'm saying are just my general thoughts on the subject.



Bill Zebub said:


> In any event, we'll see.



Agreed.



Bill Zebub said:


> Obviously some of the new content is incompatible with Tasha's (and Xanathar's), and it's hard for me to imagine they'll say, "Use all the stuff from those books that's not contradicted by the new books" or something like that.  But, again, we'll see.



Yeah, who knows how it will work? But so far, all we have to go on is the playtest specifically tells us to use any rules that aren't mentioned, and that the 50th Anniversary Books will be "backwards compatible" (whatever THAT means). Unless we're going to assume that they're either lying to us, or at least spinning it, and are wrong about those things, we ought not to go too far down the rabbit hole (I agree that a bit of skepticism is reasonable).

At least we shouldn't judge what we have with things we _assume_ will happen. Again, IMO (and all that). Do what you like. That's my two bits.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Snip




And I want to add, that tge change for the class should not be regarded in isolation. Instead you need to factor in other (planned) changes, some of which we know about, some of which we don't.

Every scream: "OMG, wizards killed tge rogue" is very premature, as we have only seen 1/4th of the classes and probably even less of the other rules.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 4, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Like the idea that not being able to take expertise in Thieves' Tools. You are absolutely fair to not like it! But it's NOT a nerf! For example: Let's say you have a Level 3 DEX 16 rogue with TT expertise picking a lock. The "old" way would have you rolling 1d20+7 to pick the lock. The "new" way, you'd take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand instead (not because you're somehow differently skilled, but because that IS the new way the game models the ability to pick locks!) and you'd roll 2d20(High)+7. That's a buff.
> 
> You can prefer the old way all you like, of course! But it's still a buff.



I take your point here, and in some ways it's the limited applicability of the terms being used. My concern is niche erosion, which maybe falls outside of the nerf/buff scale. 

Each class should be distinct, should have a niche, and be able to hold their own in a party. For me, that's axiomatic. When one class is weakened in that respect, and it's a class that already had a reduced niche identity in this edition, I get worried. When it's also one of the very few non-magical options to players, I get grumpy.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Every scream: "OMG, wizards killed tge rogue" is very premature, as we have only seen 1/4th of the classes and probably even less of the other rules.




Totally agree with this. My feedback will be that although I like the utility buffs, both reducing and simplifying combat damage would not be worth the trade-off, to me. 

But anybody who thinks the sky is falling over any of this (“WHAT!?!?!?? Guidance cantrip on limited use!!! That’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!!”) is losing sight of what these playtests are meant to be.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 4, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I take your point here, and in some ways it's the limited applicability of the terms being used. My concern is niche erosion, which maybe falls outside of the nerf/buff scale.
> 
> Each class should be distinct, should have a niche, and be able to hold their own in a party. For me, that's axiomatic. When one class is weakened in that respect, and it's a class that already had a reduced niche identity in this edition, I get worried. When it's also one of the very few non-magical options to players, I get grumpy.




Yes, niche protection is a fair concern, but has nothing to do with buff/nerf. Though I would argue that they're simply trying to broaden the potential party make-up with niche overlap. Parties used to essentially "need" two classes - a Cleric (to heal) and a Rogue (to deal with traps and locks). Just like they made it possible to skip the cleric (if you have a Bard, Druid, Paladin, or Ranger) but the cleric is still the best healer, we have a situation developing where you can skip the Rogue, if you have a Bard or Ranger (or Artificer). 

Is the rogue still the best trap/lock expert? Maybe not, but healing (because it involves magic) has soooo many more points where you can get one thing but not the other to make one the "best" while trap/locks are two or three skill proficiencies. I think it could be argued that the rogue still has the potential to have the most of those.

OH! And the Thief can do it as a bonus action as part of Cunning Action, so the Thief, at least, is still the best at the niche.


----------



## Ptmackim (Oct 15, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Not having use an option severely makes the subclass a lot more unfun. Especially with the new twf rules, use an object just to draw one more dagger would be incredibly useful.



Totally agree. Use an object with Fast Hands makes the Thief an extremely creative choice, and it is really the only character I ever played who  uses any of the adventuring equipment in the PHB. Taking that away makes it much less fun, esp compared to other subclasses


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 15, 2022)

Ptmackim said:


> Totally agree. Use an object with Fast Hands makes the Thief an extremely creative choice, and it is really the only character I ever played who  uses any of the adventuring equipment in the PHB. Taking that away makes it much less fun, esp compared to other subclasses




This would make a case for changing those ineractions with objects generally a bonus action. This way we actually might see them used on a regular basis and this would explain the sleight of hand change.


----------

