# D&D One Changes to the Rogue...



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 7, 2022)

Having posted about this subject previously, I was disheartened at how many 5e players think they understand their game without really understanding how the rules of this game actually work. As such, it bears discussing just what the One playtest has changed. I’m going to open that discussion specifically in regards to the rogue. I am not discussing what should be changed here. I jumped the gun by trying to talk about that before discussing what HAS changed. The following discussion is illustrative, not exhaustive.

First, the old rules for Sneak Attack stated:

“Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table.”

The new rules for Sneak Attack state:

“You know how to turn a subtle attack into a deadly one. Once on each of your turns when you take the Attack Action, you can deal extra damage to one creature you hit with an Attack Roll if you’re attacking with a Finesse Weapon or a Ranged Weapon and if at least one of the following requirements is met:

“Advantage. You have Advantage on the Attack Roll.

“Ally Adjacent to Target. At least one of your allies is within 5 feet of the target, the ally isn’t Incapacitated, and you don’t have Disadvantage on the Attack Roll.

“To determine the extra damage, roll a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (round up), and add the dice together (the Rogue table shows the number of Sneak Attack dice you get at each Rogue level). The extra damage’s type is the same as the weapon’s Damage Type.”

There are two big nerfs here:

First, they are proposing that the rogue can ONLY sneak attack on ITS turn, not once per ANY turn. That means rogues will no longer be able to sneak attack once per round using any attack that can be made as a reaction. That will drop the potential number of times that a rogue can sneak attack per round from 2 down to 1. That almost halves a rogue’s peak damage per round in D&D One.

Note: a turn and a round are not the same thing. A turn describes the action economy of a specific creature’s turn. A round describes the combined action economy of one turn performed by every creature in the encounter. A rogue in 5e could sneak attack once per turn. Every creature has one reaction per round. A number of events can be used to turn that reaction into an attack on another creature’s turn.

The game also makes one other major change to sneak attack: it can only be applied when you take the attack action, not make an attack. Any ability or feature that let you make an attack using something other than an attack action is no longer capable of benefiting from sneak attack whether it is made on your turn or not. That means that spells like booming blade cannot be used to make sneak attacks anymore.

Originally, 5e provided the following rules for hiding.

“The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

“You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.

“An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

“In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.”

The new rules for hiding are as follows:

“With the Hide Action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must make a DC 15 Dexterity

Check (Stealth) while you’re Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any visible enemy’s line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you. On a successful check, you are Hidden. Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception).”

Under “Hidden,” the game also informs you of the following:

“Ending the Condition. The Condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurrences: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an Attack Roll, you cast a Spell with a verbal component, or you aren’t Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover.”

This is what changes: beyond the fact that a DM can always do whatever they want, the game doesn’t bother to highlight this specifically in regards to hiding. Instead, it just says that when you are not Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover, you always lose hidden. The game makes no effort to inform its players that, even in combat, a DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted. All it says is that you lose the hidden condition the moment you lose Heavy Obscurement or some Cover. Any DM who runs the game by the rules as written will thus never allow a character to run from cover to cover or to sneak up on a foe who is focused on one of your allies. Whether this change affects your specific table will depend on your DM. It won’t affect mine. The probability of a DM using their narrative license to allow logical corner cases, however, will dimmish due to the lack of the textual focus on such corner cases existing and being a justified request on the part of the player. Any players who exist in communities with multiple DMs (which some of mine do) will likely form opinions about the viability of such efforts on the basis of the behavior of multiple DMs.

Additionally, where 5e explicitly brings attention to the fact that being invisible does not mean you are hidden, and creatures can notice signs of your passage (visually) or hear you, thus granting you only one benefit when you are invisible—the mechanical bonuses of the condition described elsewhere in the text—One does no such thing. In fact, the mechanical benefits it ascribes to both the Invisible and Hidden condition are identical, except that the Hidden condition has the caveat of the listed loss conditions, and is thus much easier to lose. 5e thus presents being “hidden” as something beyond being invisible. While some DMs may continue to treat “hidden” as such given the One rules, its actual text presents invisibility as being a superior version to being hidden, though one which logically—by nothing more than inference rather than explicit text—doesn’t prevent a creature from hearing you unless you make an effort to be hidden.

Finally, regardless of DM interpretation, the hidden rules also feature another major change (which is neither a nerf nor a buff, but jut a change). All stealth checks are essentially made against a "passive perception" of 15, or, more accurately, it looks like passive perception is disappearing in favor of a fixed DC 15 to successfully become hidden regardless of a creature's perception score. It should be noted, however, that this is a nerf against any character build with a high passive perception. To find any successfully hidden creature, you must now make active checks.
That being said, melee rogues will receive one minor contextual buff. Melee rogues will now be able to dual wield without using their bonus action. That means they will be able to make an offhand attack (for +one die of damage and two chances to lay down a sneak attack) in addition to using their cunning action.

Like this or not, these are the major changes between the 5e rogue and the One rogue. Whether you like these changes or not is what you should be providing feedback about on October 20th, but these are the changes they are proposing regardless of your feedback about these changes.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 7, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> This is what changes: beyond the fact that a DM can always do whatever they want, the game doesn’t bother to highlight this specifically in regards to hiding. Instead, it just says that when you are not Heavily Obscured or behind any Cover, you always lose hidden. The game makes no effort to inform its players that, even in combat, a DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted.



That is not much of a change the old rules say :
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise
So if you got out your cover and a creature could see you you where no longer hidden.

There is the line :
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the GM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.

So it was totally DM fiat.
In most games I have seen or played this meant that another character had to use their action to create a distraction.
So this usually only came up in the  setup leading to the combat, I keep the guard talking while the rogue sneaks around behind him.


----------



## Gadget (Oct 7, 2022)

This may not apply to the Rogue specifically, but they are doubling down on Jeremy Crawford's interpretation of Invisibility: namely that even if you have something like Blidesight or See Invisibility, you still suffer Disadvantage to your attack rolls and they have advantage to attack rolls against you.  This benefit is a separate line item from the 'unseen' benefit of the Invisible condition.  

I always maintained that this was not the RAI, despite Crawford's insistence, and merely cover for their poor wording of the spell/condition.  Not so here.  Even if someone has Blindsight/See Invisibility up, you still gain the benefits of the Blur spell (more than that, as Blur does not grant advantage on Attack Rolls).  Given this, Blindsight/See Invisibility loose much of their swagger, particularly See Invisibility (Blindsight still has other uses, such Darkness).   It might also be appropriate to make Blur a first level spell.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 7, 2022)

Regarding the "loss" of Sneak Attacks - I think this is a wash because of the changes to dual weapon wielding. Now you get the off-hand attack as part of the Attack action. It no longer uses up your Bonus action. This is _huge_ for a Rogue, who can get in two attacks to increase the odds of Sneak Attack damage _every round_, and _still_ use their bonus action to do something like Disengage. Of course, it makes dual wielding pretty much the default option for Rogues.


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 7, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Regarding the "loss" of Sneak Attacks - I think this is a wash because of the changes to dual weapon wielding. Now you get the off-hand attack as part of the Attack action. It no longer uses up your Bonus action. This is _huge_ for a Rogue, who can get in two attacks to increase the odds of Sneak Attack damage _every round_, and _still_ use their bonus action to do something like Disengage. Of course, it makes dual wielding pretty much the default option for Rogues.




Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Regarding the "loss" of Sneak Attacks - I think this is a wash because of the changes to dual weapon wielding. Now you get the off-hand attack as part of the Attack action. It no longer uses up your Bonus action. This is _huge_ for a Rogue, who can get in two attacks to increase the odds of Sneak Attack damage _every round_, and _still_ use their bonus action to do something like Disengage. Of course, it makes dual wielding pretty much the default option for Rogues.



The main thing this does is make melee rogues more attractive; ranged rogues already got two chances with hide/shoot, and then again with Steady Aim in Tasha’s.

And even then melee rogues already had the option of rolling twice; this just makes that option more attractive.

Although, since it’s two rolls and not advantage it’s still not as attractive as ranged. Even at 13th level (yay?) subtle strikes doesn’t give you sneak attack against a solitary opponent.

Edit: don’t get me wrong I love the new dual wield rules. I just would much rather get sneak attacks on reactions. It in no way compensates.


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The main thing this does is make melee rogues more attractive; ranged rogues already got two chances with hide/shoot, and then again with Steady Aim in Tasha’s.
> 
> And even then melee rogues already had the option of rolling twice; this just makes that option more attractive.
> 
> ...



1000 times, this!


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.



When your argument relies on something being a nerf to a 19th+ level Rogue who somehow is getting a sneak attack qualifying reaction attack consistently, you probably need to rethink your argument a little. If that's what your D&D experiences mostly look like I think most people will vouch that it is an atypical gameplay experience.

Yeah, it's a bummer losing the reaction sneak, but making good and consistent use of that (or even knowing it was even a thing) seems like mostly the province of powergamers. I'll gladly trade it for being able to disengage or dash after every dual attack.


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> When your argument relies on something being a nerf to a 19th+ level Rogue who somehow is getting a sneak attack qualifying reaction attack consistently, you probably need to rethink your argument a little. If that's what your D&D experiences mostly look like I think most people will vouch that it is an atypical gameplay experience.
> 
> Yeah, it's a bummer losing the reaction sneak, but making good and consistent use of that (or even knowing it was even a thing) seems like mostly the province of powergamers. I'll gladly trade it for being able to disengage or dash after every dual attack.



Again, the only thing you are proving is that you don’t understand the rules or the math of the game you are playing. My argument doesn’t rely on a 19th or 20th level rogue. My phrasing was a shorthand designed to bring attention to the relational growth of what rogues have lost. At any level relative to their threat, they have lost the equivalent of an endgame rogue’s 10d6 potential damage bonus. (I shouldn’t have said ability modifier earlier. That isn’t actually altered. It was a Freudian slip.) The fact that at 1st level the actual number is smaller, as are the HP totals of the foes you face, is immaterial.

Bill Zebub has the right of this. What the rogue gains in One is virtually nothing. Everything they can do in One, they could do in 5e. One just makes one specific trick a little easier to pull off. The net effect will be negligible. The two weapon fighting change is nice, but it in no way comes close to mitigating the rogue’s loss of peak performance. What One takes away cannot be replicated by any means. It is gone. Anyone who claims that the two are a wash has zero understanding of the math running this game’s engine.

Put another way, if you assume that the rogue will always use its bonus action for cunning action and only two weapon fight if it doesn’t cost a bonus action, you are literally claiming that gaining one extra attack per round with a damage of 1d4 to 1d6 is equal to being able to apply an extra 1d6 to 10d6 damage to an existing attack. You are saying that 1d4-1d6=1d6-10d6. The level of mathematic blindness required to make that claim is stunning, and one shouldn’t need to be called a “power gamer” to realize that.

(To be clear, you also don’t gain an increased potential to deal sneak attack damage, for a rogue can use their bonus action to gain advantage every round on their turn and thus have the same probability of dealing sneak attack on their turn as is. In fact, in One, a rogue has a LOWER probability of dealing sneak attack, for assuming that they manage one attack with a reaction—which can be reliably achieved with group support—the rogue has gone from three attack rolls per round that between them can deal up to two sneak attacks to three attack rolls per round that between them can deal one sneak attack, all so that they can deal an extra 1d4 to 1d6 in the face of their loss of 1d6 to 10d6… if they are a melee rogue, as otherwise, it’s just a pure loss with no gain.

 In case you are not following, in 5e as is, if you miss with both attacks on your turn, you can still potentially manage a sneak attack with your reaction. In One, you can’t. That means that a rogue has a higher probability of landing a sneak attack in 5e than One. Before you try and claim that an attack is better than a melee attack roll gained from reliable advantage, yes, a melee rogue could potentially manage advantage and two attacks for up to four attack rolls, but situationally, it’s virtually impossible to do, and theoretically, a typical 5e rogue could still do it without using cunning action thus gaining 5 attacks with two applications of sneak attack to the One rogue’s 5 attacks with one application. They can only reliably, however, manage the same number of attack rolls as the original 5e rogue—two per turn.)


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> First, they are proposing that the rogue can ONLY sneak attack on ITS turn, not once per ANY turn. That means rogues will no longer be able to sneak attack once per round using any attack that can be made as a reaction. That will drop the potential number of times that a rogue can sneak attack per round from 2 down to 1. That almost halves a rogue’s peak damage per round in D&D One.
> 
> Note: a turn and a round are not the same thing. A turn describes the action economy of a specific creature’s turn. A round describes the combined action economy of one turn performed by every creature in the encounter. A rogue in 5e could sneak attack once per turn. Every creature has one reaction per round. A number of events can be used to turn that reaction into an attack on another creature’s turn.




A level 20 playtest rogue does a average of 38.17 Damage per round. ( not using any feats)
The 5e fighter using feats from the playtest can only beat that constantly By getting the Pole arm Master and great weapon fighter feats getting the fighter to a DPR of  40.83 at level 20.

So a question we can be asking is do we want a Rogue with no further investment do close to the same damage as a damage dealing focused fighter ?


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 8, 2022)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> A level 20 playtest rogue does a average of 38.17 Damage per round. ( not using any feats)
> The 5e fighter using feats from the playtest can only beat that constantly By getting the Pole arm Master and great weapon fighter feats getting the fighter to a DPR of  40.83 at level 20.
> 
> So a question we can be asking is do we want a Rogue with no further investment do close to the same damage as a damage dealing focused fighter ?



It’s a false-flag question (a term I’m admittedly using rather loosely), and one that will hurt the game. Not only are your mathematical calculations off, but in the end, what the two can do without feats doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is what completed builds will be able to do. In 5e, the rogue is already one of the weaker classes based on what you can make with it compared to what other classes can be used to make. Such heavy handed nerfs as those seen in One will render it worthless to anyone who cares about class balance. That is something nobody should want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.



*Mod Note:*

I understand what you’re _trying_ to say here (and subsequently), but your word choice comes off as a little brusque.

It may be more persuasive and less provocative to _show_ the underlying math and let others decide if they’re willing to sacrifice some big damage potential for better odds of doing other things, etc.  As the saying goes, “Showin’s better’n tellin’.”


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 8, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *Mod Note:*
> 
> I understand what you’re _trying_ to say here (and subsequently), but your word choice comes off as a little brusque.
> 
> It may be more persuasive and less provocative to _show_ the underlying math and let others decide if they’re willing to sacrifice some big damage potential for better odds of doing other things, etc.  As the saying goes, “Showin’s better’n tellin’.”



Fair.


----------



## aco175 (Oct 8, 2022)

These changes will not affect my table since we already do most of this.  Rogues only had one Sneak Attack per round and not on other peoples turn unless they had not used it , but that only came up once or twice in 7 years.  The Booming Blade combo was never used either and if so good then likely needed to be nerfed.  2 weapon fighting always allowed a second chance to get SA in 

The hiding rules were always some up to the DM and it was always a bit cheesy to have a rogue hide behind a corner and jump out each round or a halfling to hide behind the fighter and jump out.  The Steady Aim ability took care of most of it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> In 5e, the rogue is already one of the weaker classes based on what you can make with it compared to what other classes can be used to make. Such heavy handed nerfs as those seen in One will render it worthless to anyone who cares about class balance. That is something nobody should want.



I prefer the Rogue changes I've seen in D&D One to what is in current 5e.  I will miss using rogue levels to be able to add on high damage opportunity attacks for 'tank' characters, but ultimately lowering the net difference between 'normal' and 'highly optimized' rogues is more important to maintaining class balance.  

Note: I actually have played 5e with heavy variant human feat builds and in games without feats altogether.  I much prefer the balance of the game without having early powerful feats making the benefits of optimizing so large.

I've found rogues are routinely one of my favorite classes to play and the D&D One changes only serves to upgrade rogues as I normally play them.  Being able to TWF and cunning action is such a big bonus that it cannot be understated, especially in the most seen tier 1 and tier 2 play.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

aco175 said:


> The Booming Blade combo was never used either and if so good then likely needed to be nerfed.



Booming Blade sneak attack is a lot of fun, and is the best thing Arcane Tricksters have going for them before level 7+ when the subclass starts to actually get enough spells to justify itself. The "cheese" factor is severely limited by the fact that you can't make an offhand attack with a Booming Blade attack. Also by the fact that, at any table that isn't RAW to the point of zero flavor or immersion, a silent, stealthy Rogue often takes a major risk doing THUNDER damage.

If there is a problem it is less the combination of Booming Blade and Sneak Attack _per se_ and more that Booming Blade and anything simply gets too good at very high levels, with that much rider damage on top of any melee attack which may well be made with a magical weapon and all sorts of other buffs and riders.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Booming Blade sneak attack is a lot of fun, and is the best thing Arcane Tricksters have going for them before level 7+ when the subclass starts to actually get enough spells to justify itself. The "cheese" factor is severely limited by the fact that you can't make an offhand attack with a Booming Blade attack. Also by the fact that, at any table that isn't RAW to the point of zero flavor or immersion, a silent, stealthy Rogue often takes a major risk doing THUNDER damage.
> 
> If there is a problem it is less the combination of Booming Blade and Sneak Attack _per se_ and more that Booming Blade and anything simply gets too good at very high levels, with that much rider damage on top of any melee attack which may well be made with a magical weapon and all sorts of other buffs and riders.



There are few builds more broken than an elven swashbuckler rogue with booming blade and trivantage at a table that uses the optional flanking rule.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> There are few builds more broken than an elven rogue with booming blade and trivantage at a table that uses the optional flanking rule.



One could suggest the problem there lies more with the optional flanking rule?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> One could suggest the problem there lies more with the optional flanking rule?




I suppose it depends on whether one thinks broken is a problem.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I suppose it depends on whether one thinks broken is a problem.



Not sure how this really addresses my comment?


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> There are few builds more broken than an elven swashbuckler rogue with booming blade and trivantage at a table that uses the optional flanking rule.



Any rogue is broken once you use the optional flanking rule. It's an optional rule for a reason: it was undercooked and doesn't play well, but the designers knew that flanking should provide some sort of benefit and so they had to at least include the system they never quite figured out in the DMG.

At my table you get an extra d4 on the attack roll if you flank someone, because unlike the 5e designers I don't have strong compunctions about using something other than advantage. Works pretty good.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 8, 2022)

Having two attempts with _every_ attack action is going to score a sneak attack more reliably than one attack on your turn and _maybe_ a second attack on some one else’s turn.

The opportunity to make a reaction melee attack doesn’t happen that often. IME, many encounters may not see any for all combatants involved. Then it has to qualify for a sneak attack. And the rogue has to actually hit.

Sure, it’s cool to get that extra damage when it does happen, but in the long run I’d take the 2 chances for 1 SA every round (plus a little extra normal damge should the second attack hit, and some for any reaction attacks) over the once normal chance for one every round plus hoping that maybe the right circumstances will present themselves for a second one.

But wait, you say. What if the 2014 rogue is dual wielding as well? Then sure, he’ll have a slight edge in damage output over the 1DnD rogue in the long run, but not every fight, and only if he uses his bonus action every round to attack off-hand. In that case, the 2014 rogue is going to go down quicker in a fight, as they can no longer Disengage after attacking.

I understand the math just fine.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

I suspect people discounting reaction attacks are forgetting about, or not appreciating, the importance to rogues of Hold Action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> The opportunity to make a reaction melee attack doesn’t happen that often. IME, many encounters may not see any for all combatants involved. Then it has to qualify for a sneak attack. And the rogue has to actually hit.



There are a few specific ways to increase the chance of an off turn sneak attack.

1.  Cast haste on yourself and use it's action to attack on your turn and yours to ready an attack on whatever trigger seems appropriate.
2.  Multiclass to battlemaster for riposte/brace/etc.

Then there are a few ways allies can provoke as well

1.  Caste Haste on you
2.  Use commander's strike on you
3.  Be an order cleric and target you
4.  Use dissonant whispers
*.  Probably a few more I'm forgetting

Often these techniques don't stop you from TWF or using Steady Aim on your turn.

It's not necessarily a given that your allies will have and use those abilities.  If you try to do it yourself it takes a fairly high level rogue with a specific subclass or multilcass for it to start really paying off.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 8, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Having two attempts with _every_ attack action is going to score a sneak attack more reliably than one attack on your turn and _maybe_ a second attack on some one else’s turn.
> 
> The opportunity to make a reaction melee attack doesn’t happen that often. IME, many encounters may not see any for all combatants involved. Then it has to qualify for a sneak attack. And the rogue has to actually hit.
> 
> ...



Not to mention, you’re going to take more damage by always using your reaction for offense, which gets ignored too often. Uncanny Dodge is a great reaction, and for Arcane Trickster so are Shield and Absorb Elements. 

Like, I love taking down Spellcasting enemies with a Shadowblade+Booming Blade Rogue with Mage Slayer and Warcaster, getting either a reaction normal attack via mage slayer or a reaction booming blade via warcaster depending on what they do, or using Sentinel and flanking to get a SA reaction regularly, but even doing those things doesn’t make it an every round occurrence, and doesn’t stop me from needing my reaction for defense semi-regularly. 

Especially when I am unable to use my BA to get out of the front line after an attack.


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Oct 8, 2022)

I believe it's safe to say that the vast majority of players do not know that rogues can get an off turn sneak attack. It's a niche playstyle for optimizers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

@Cyber-Dave 

I think the same about this thread as the other. You focus on the obvious nerfs and disregard the buffs.
You also see a buff to something else as a nerf to a thing... which is not.

We also have not seen the full changes and it is still a playtest to give feedback to the changes. If you feel that this results in rogues get too low damage, tell them that.

I personally love to see passive perception go. I am still not convinced about a static DC. I think an extra defense would be the best.

I also see the "nerf" to sneak attack as a prevention against "optimization" that results in doubling the damage of a character, which they otherwise prevented in 5e. So it is closing a loophole, not a nerf. Same goes for hiding during combat. 

But again, if you felt that these loopholes were necessary to keep the rogue competitive, it needs more buffs elsewhere.
Two weapon fighting is now rogue taktic 101... which i personally don't fully like. I think a rogue should have the option to go one handed and still be competitive.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Again, the only thing you are proving is that you don’t understand the rules or the math of the game you are playing. My argument doesn’t rely on a 19th or 20th level rogue. My phrasing was a shorthand designed to bring attention to the relational growth of what rogues have lost. At any level relative to their threat, they have lost the equivalent of an endgame rogue’s 10d6 potential damage bonus. (I shouldn’t have said ability modifier earlier. That isn’t actually altered. It was a Freudian slip.) The fact that at 1st level the actual number is smaller, as are the HP totals of the foes you face, is immaterial.
> 
> Bill Zebub has the right of this. What the rogue gains in One is virtually nothing. Everything they can do in One, they could do in 5e. One just makes one specific trick a little easier to pull off. The net effect will be negligible. The two weapon fighting change is nice, but it in no way comes close to mitigating the rogue’s loss of peak performance. What One takes away cannot be replicated by any means. It is gone. Anyone who claims that the two are a wash has zero understanding of the math running this game’s engine.
> 
> ...




I think it is funny how you call yourself a math guru and claiming other people don't understand it while writing that tge offhand attack only does 1d6 more damage neglecting the fact, that it gives a chance to deal sneak attack without using your bonus attack.

Later you explain this, by saying you can use the bonus action steady aim anyway for the same chance, neglecting that a rogue standing around, even giving ul his reaction for a bit of damage usually results in a dead rogue very fast. Who then deal 0 damage consistently... 
At least in our games.

So maybe your assessment is different than other people's, because you play different. Maybe your way of playing does not represent the majority.
So you can be disheartended that your playstyle is in the minority... but claiming that we don't understand the game math is a strange assumption.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.






Cyber-Dave said:


> Again, the only thing you are proving is that you don’t understand the rules or the math of the game you are playing.
> Anyone who claims that the two are a wash has zero understanding of the math running this game’s engine.
> 
> The level of mathematic blindness required to make that claim is stunning, and one shouldn’t need to be called a “power gamer” to realize that.



They aren't arguing the math, they are pointing out the reality of how most people play. Using Sentinel, or Haste and then holding your action and similar strategies are known by a lot of Rogue players, but actually utilising them is a thing mostly done by fairly heavy optimisers.
Yes, the proposed changes reduce the maximum theoretical DPS of the Rogue for that niche playstyle, but for the majority of players, the change to two-weapon fighting will be more impactful and _fun_.

In the same way, the changes to the Sharpshooter and GWM feats have reduced the max DPS of optimised Fighter builds. Overall, I see these as potentially good changes since reducing the discrepancy between edge-case outliers and general performance means that the overall class can be improved without the worry that the niche builds by the max-DPS optimisation community will break things.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 8, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> They aren't arguing the math, they are pointing out the reality of how most people play. Using Sentinel, or Haste and then holding your action and similar strategies are known by a lot of Rogue players, but actually utilising them is a thing mostly done by fairly heavy optimisers.
> Yes, the proposed changes reduce the maximum theoretical DPS of the Rogue for that niche playstyle, but for the majority of players, the change to two-weapon fighting will be more impactful and _fun_.
> 
> In the same way, the changes to the Sharpshooter and GWM feats have reduced the max DPS of optimised Fighter builds. Overall, I see these as potentially good changes since reducing the discrepancy between edge-case outliers and general performance means that the overall class can be improved without the worry that the niche builds by the max-DPS optimisation community will break things.



Reducing the performance of the top optimized rogues and martial characters in general would be fine if they do one or both of these:

find some other way to buff the baseline performance of those classes (no, addressing the bonus action troubles of TWF isn’t nearly enough, even though it’s nice)
severely nerf the game’s top spells


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 8, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Reducing the performance of the top optimized rogues and martial characters in general would be fine if they do one or both of these:
> 
> find some other way to buff the baseline performance of those classes (no, addressing the bonus action troubles of TWF isn’t nearly enough, even though it’s nice)
> severely nerf the game’s top spells



That is what I'm hoping to happen. All classes brought to the same general level rather than the experts and martials only having a couple of hyperoptimised builds able to compete with a generic full caster.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Reducing the performance of the top optimized rogues and martial characters in general would be fine if they do one or both of these:
> 
> find some other way to buff the baseline performance of those classes (no, addressing the bonus action troubles of TWF isn’t nearly enough, even though it’s nice)
> severely nerf the game’s top spells




Yes to point 1.
Somewhat yes to point 2. There are a few spells which need heavy nerfing. All those that divide the enemies without a saving throw. Wall of force for example.
Most spells that do damage are barely worth the spell slot, if you are not able to long rest after each fight.
What they need to do is making a better adventuring day.
In my opinion the rogues was not good because they could exploit loopholes. They were good because they just did not rely in any way on rests (besides hp recovery). All their abilities were always on. So a better adventuring day pacing means (at very high levels), yes the wizard can lay down hurt woth meteor swarm... Once per day. But the rogue with reliable talent is always invisibly sneaking around and always attacking twice with advantage and can even invoke a crit to do 20d6 + 2d6+5 damage as a baseline...
That adds up...
They are also hard to catch with dex saves or mental saves or single attacks, so chances that he does his damage for a while before going down is great.

He is just not the class anymore to stand still in combat doing nothing but dealing 10d6 damage twice per round... which is a big plus in my books.
If you want to stand around dealing massive damage to whoever gets near you, be a fighter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That is what I'm hoping to happen. All classes brought to the same general level rather than the experts and martials only having a couple of hyperoptimised builds able to compete with a generic full caster.




The pacing of the adventuring day is key here. As soon as I changed my game from one night long rest to one day long rest, classes that did not only rely on spells per day were suddenly easily competitive.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Booming Blade sneak attack is a lot of fun, and is the best thing Arcane Tricksters have going for them before level 7+ when the subclass starts to actually get enough spells to justify itself. The "cheese" factor is severely limited by the fact that you can't make an offhand attack with a Booming Blade attack. Also by the fact that, at any table that isn't RAW to the point of zero flavor or immersion, a silent, stealthy Rogue often takes a major risk doing THUNDER damage.
> 
> If there is a problem it is less the combination of Booming Blade and Sneak Attack _per se_ and more that Booming Blade and anything simply gets too good at very high levels, with that much rider damage on top of any melee attack which may well be made with a magical weapon and all sorts of other buffs and riders.



My swashbuckler/tome warlock uses green flame blade and sneak attack combo and the damage she deals is respectable but in no way excessive or comparable to a single classed rogue or fighter (this is possibly due to being a low level rogue).  Plus the danger of entering into melee (especially with multiple opponents for the secondary fire damage, since that negates swashbuckler unless one of your allies is also present) makes this an occasional, somewhat effective tactic.  Similarly, while Booming Blade is more effective where you can retreat out of reach, the major drawback is the amount of noise it generates.  

I think this is a fix that was probably only needed on paper in most cases and could have been better resolved by placing limits on cantrips obtained by feats used by high level rogues.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Having posted about this subject previously, I was disheartened at how many 5e players think they understand their game without really understanding how the rules of this game actually work. As such, it bears discussing just what the One playtest has changed. I’m going to open that discussion specifically in regards to the rogue. I am not discussing what should be changed here. I jumped the gun by trying to talk about that before discussing what HAS changed. The following discussion is illustrative, not exhaustive.
> 
> First, the old rules for Sneak Attack stated:
> 
> ...



For sure, and I agree it's a pretty hard nerf to attach Sneak Attack to your Attack action!

A couple of notes on hide. 

The DC15 is just to enter hiding, right? Becausee it also reads "Make note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception)."
if you can see a creature, *you can discern whether it can see you*. Which clarifies that a character attempting to hide can tell if they are hidden from a given observer (that they can see.)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

I agree with the posters saying it’s not good design (for 5e) if you need to know optimization tricks to play a class well. 

I would expect (hope?) that WotC will find other ways to compensate for rogue damage. But until then it’s a damage nerf.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I agree with the posters saying it’s not good design (for 5e) if you need to know optimization tricks to play a class well.
> 
> I would expect (hope?) that WotC will find other ways to compensate for rogue damage. But until then it’s a damage nerf.



I think there's a few different ways to talk about class damage

It's a nerf to the potential damage someone could build a rogue to be capable of doing
It's a buff to the potential damage of a more typical rogue build
There is also at least one non-damage part

It's a buff to the mobility and 'defensive mobility' of a rogue as damage vs mobility is no longer a decision point
We might even talk about it depending on level

It's a huge buff to tier 1 and tier 2 rogues regardless of build
It's only a nerf to the potential damage someone could build a rogue to be capable of doing in tier 3 and tier 4.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The pacing of the adventuring day is key here. As soon as I changed my game from one night long rest to one day long rest, classes that did not only rely on spells per day were suddenly easily competitive.



Switching long rest from 8 hours to 24 hours?

Why did it matter for non-long-rest classes?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Switching long rest from 8 hours to 24 hours?
> 
> Why did it matter for non-long-rest classes?




Because the wizard could not cast fireball in every combat round and the eldritch knight could not always use shield in every round.
Suddenly our monk could keep up easily with those characters, as short rests happened a lot more.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes to point 1.
> Somewhat yes to point 2. There are a few spells which need heavy nerfing. All those that divide the enemies without a saving throw. Wall of force for example.
> Most spells that do damage are barely worth the spell slot, if you are not able to long rest after each fight.
> What they need to do is making a better adventuring day.
> ...



My other concern is just how it affects play style. I’ve always dislike archer rogues because hide/shoot is…boring. The thing about reaction SA is that it gives you something to think about. Even if I get through a combat without getting a single bonus SA, I’ve been _looking_ for an opportunity to get one, and that’s fun. Heck, even deciding, on a main hand miss, whether to go for the offhand or use cunning action was a decision. 

It feels like playing a rogue is becoming more…mindless.  

I’m not a fan of complex rules. I like simple rules with complex implications.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because the wizard could not cast fireball in every combat round and the eldritch knight could not always use shield in every round.
> Suddenly our monk could keep up easily with those characters, as short rests happened a lot more.



Why did it reduce the frequency of Fireball?

What is the difference between camping for 8 hours and camping for 24 hours? Isnt it just as easy to do one or the other? Why did this impact long-rest features?


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> My other concern is just how it affects play style. I’ve always dislike archer rogues because hide/shoot is…boring.



One of my early characters in 5e was an 8 con woodelf rogue that played the hide/shoot/run away game.  It was really fun.



Bill Zebub said:


> The thing about reaction SA is that it gives you something to think about. Even if I get through a combat without getting a single bonus SA, I’ve been _looking_ for an opportunity to get one, and that’s fun. Heck, even deciding, on a main hand miss, whether to go for the offhand or use cunning action was a decision.



IMO, so does deciding what I'm going to do with cunning action each turn, and more precisely where am I going to move.



Bill Zebub said:


> It feels like playing a rogue is becoming more…mindless.



More smooth and streamlined might be an alternative description - but it really depends on whether you view the changes as positive or negative.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Why did it reduce the frequency of Fireball?
> 
> What is the difference between camping for 8 hours and camping for 24 hours? Isnt it just as easy to do one or the other? Why did this impact long-rest features?



*Because it pushed his players into not camping as often.

Why is probably more a question of player psychology than hard rules interactions.  We probably will never know that answer.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 8, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> They aren't arguing the math, they are pointing out the reality of how most people play. Using Sentinel, or Haste and then holding your action and similar strategies are known by a lot of Rogue players, but actually utilising them is a thing mostly done by fairly heavy optimisers.
> Yes, the proposed changes reduce the maximum theoretical DPS of the Rogue for that niche playstyle, but for the majority of players, the change to two-weapon fighting will be more impactful and _fun_.
> 
> In the same way, the changes to the Sharpshooter and GWM feats have reduced the max DPS of optimised Fighter builds. Overall, I see these as potentially good changes since reducing the discrepancy between edge-case outliers and general performance means that the overall class can be improved without the worry that the niche builds by the max-DPS optimisation community will break things.



I'm not sure I'd even call "2h fighter took gwm" an "optimizer". That's almost dropping unoptimised builds to a point like "maxed int or thought actor was good"

Fixing all of these bonkers edge cases also creates room for actual optimization that takes more than one obvious step.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> IMO, so does deciding what I'm going to do with cunning action each turn, and more precisely where am I going to move.




Sure. But with the old rule the list of choices was longer because it included the 2nd attack. 

I’m not saying I don’t like the new dw rule, just that I enjoy hard decisions.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure. But with the old rule the list of choices was longer because it included the 2nd attack.
> 
> I’m not saying I don’t like the new dw rule, just that I enjoy hard decisions.



I have a hard time seeing the decision process for making the bonus action attack as being a hard decision.  The basics are:  You missed with the first attack and qualify for sneak attack, then you bonus action attack unless you are low on hp.

I mean I respect the overall stance of 'hard decisions'.  I just don't agree that this is one.


----------



## Blue (Oct 8, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.



Average campaign length from both WotC surveys and DnDBeyond usage is 1-10/11, so average sneak attack over a campaign is around 3d6 for total damage with a short sword of 4d6+4 (16-20 DEX over the course of the campaign), average damage 18.  So IF you manage to trigger an an Opportunity attack (say 50%), and IF fulfills the requirements for sneak attack (say 75%), and IF you hit (commonly used 65%), then we see (14.6*0.5*0.75*0.65) = ~4.4 expected damage per round.

Asserting that bonus action usage, especially considering the extra uses that Cunning Action and subclasses give, is "nowhere near a loss of" 4.4 damage is not a supportable statement.

Also, this assumes melee rogues.  Ranged rogues were very unlikely to get an attack on someone else's turn so in practical terms it's not a change for them.


----------



## Blue (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Although, since it’s two rolls and not advantage it’s still not as attractive as ranged. Even at 13th level (yay?) subtle strikes doesn’t give you sneak attack against a solitary opponent.



One attack with advantage: Either d20 hits does WEAPON+SNEAK

Two attacks without advantage.  Two d20s.  Either one hits does WEAPON+SNEAK, but if both hit you get 2x WEAPON+SNEAK.

Two attack rolls without advantage is superior to a single roll.  That is before considering that the ranged using Steady Aim also has the detriment of not being able to move which will come up sometimes.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Blue said:


> One attack with advantage: Either d20 hits does WEAPON+SNEAK
> 
> Two attacks without advantage.  Two d20s.  Either one hits does WEAPON+SNEAK, but if both hit you get 2x WEAPON+SNEAK.
> 
> Two attack rolls without advantage is superior to a single roll.  That is before considering that the ranged using Steady Aim also has the detriment of not being able to move which will come up sometimes.



Once you factor in crit chance it’s possible for the advantage version to outperform the TWF with no mod damage on 2nd attack.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I have a hard time seeing the decision process for making the bonus action attack as being a hard decision.  The basics are:  You missed with the first attack and qualify for sneak attack, then you bonus action attack unless you are low on hp.
> 
> I mean I respect the overall stance of 'hard decisions'.  I just don't agree that this is one.




I mean, you just said it: unless you are low on hit points. Or you otherwise really need to do something else. 

Orrrr…and I love this one…you land the first attack but the monster isn’t _quite_ dead. Do you gamble on 1d6 killing it, if you hit? (“Do you do six damage, or only five? Well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky, punk?”)

Again, I like the new version, but there’s incontrovertibly less decision-making: you _always_ make the 2nd attack.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

Blue said:


> Average campaign length from both WotC surveys and DnDBeyond usage is 1-10/11, so average sneak attack over a campaign is around 3d6 for total damage with a short sword of 4d6+4 (16-20 DEX over the course of the campaign), average damage 18.  So IF you manage to trigger an an Opportunity attack (say 50%), and IF fulfills the requirements for sneak attack (say 75%), and IF you hit (commonly used 65%), then we see (14.6*0.5*0.75*0.65) = ~4.4 expected damage per round.
> 
> Asserting that bonus action usage, especially considering the extra uses that Cunning Action and subclasses give, is "nowhere near a loss of" 4.4 damage is not a supportable statement.
> 
> Also, this assumes melee rogues.  Ranged rogues were very unlikely to get an attack on someone else's turn so in practical terms it's not a change for them.



This analysis ignores using hold action to get a sneak attack in the first round when the rogue wins initiative. Maybe my experience is different but I use that all the time.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I mean, you just said it: unless you are low on hit points. Or you otherwise really need to do something else.
> 
> Orrrr…and I love this one…you land the first attack but the monster isn’t _quite_ dead. Do you gamble on 1d6 killing it, if you hit? (“Do you do six damage, or only five? Well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky, punk?”)
> 
> Again, I like the new version, but there’s incontrovertibly less decision-making: you _always_ make the 2nd attack.



Two thoughts.

1.  We can hone into the little slice where these things can really matter but 90% of the time whether or not to TWF was a no brainer decision.
2.  Due to the no-brainerness I think it's just different decision making, not really less or easier.


----------



## FrogReaver (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> This analysis ignores using hold action to get a sneak attack in the first round when the rogue wins initiative. Maybe my experience is different but I use that all the time.



Can you clarify what you mean here?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Can you clarify what you mean here?




Combat starts. Rogue is not hidden. Rogue wins initiative.

Choice 1: shoot an arrow, or run up and stab. No sneak attack.

Choice 2: “hold action until an enemy is next to an ally, then attack it” (note that this takes a bit more coordination if rogue is melee)

Edit: and even if you are hidden but out of range, waiting until an enemy _is_ in range. And/or during combat, waiting for an enemy to poke their head out from behind cover.


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 8, 2022)

clearstream said:


> For sure, and I agree it's a pretty hard nerf to attach Sneak Attack to your Attack action!
> 
> A couple of notes on hide.
> 
> ...



You have to beat the DC 15 to enter stealth. The number you roll becomes the DC for active perception checks to find you (taken as an action).


----------



## Blue (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Once you factor in crit chance it’s possible for the advantage version to outperform the TWF with no mod damage on 2nd attack version.



An interesting possibility I hadn't considered.  We're back to 2014PHB crits, so sneak attack would get increased.  Let's look at the math.

Assuming a hit-but-not-crit chance of 60% and a crit chance of 5% on a  single die (so 35% chance to fail).

W=Weapon damage
S=Sneak Attack damage
B=Bonus damage

Rolling once with advantage gives us:
No hits = .35*.35 = 12.25%
Crit = 1 - (.95*.95) = 9.75%
One hit = (1 - .1225 - .0975) = 78%
Expected damage = (W+S+B) * 0.78 + (2(W+S)+B)*.0975 =
*0.975W+0.975S+0.8775B*

TWF gives us:
On-hand attack:
Expected Damage (W+S+B) * 0.6 + (2(W+S)+B) * 0.05 =
*0.7W+0.7S+0.65B*

Off-hand attack:
Sneak attack can only be applied if not already done.  35% chance the on-hand attack was a miss and sneak attack can be applied here.
Expected damage = (W + 0.35S) * 0.6 + 2(W + 0.35S) * 0.05 = 
0.7W+(0.21+0.0175)S =
*0.7W + 0.2275S*

Total expected TWF damage is
*1.4W +0.9255S+0.65B*

Advantage attack expects to do 5% more Sneak Attack and 22.75% more Bonus damage - DEX mod, magic, and other static numerical bonuses.

TWF attack expects to do 42.5% more weapon damage.

Best TWF without any feat expenditure is a short sword, so 3.5 damage on a hit (and the hit chances are already worked in).  So that's 1.4875 expected damage.

First couple of levels this edges tows TWF.  Late game this heads towards advantage.  At it's biggest discrepancy, a 20th level rogue (10d6 sneak) with a +5 DEX and +3 weapon we get:

(35 * 0.05) + (8 * .2275) - 1.4875 = 1.75+1.82-1.4875 = 
*2.0825*

So at it's most for a 20th level character it's around a 2.1 HP per round expected difference.  You are right, but in practical terms they are pretty much the same.

Thanks, I hadn't considered that option.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> *Because it pushed his players into not camping as often.
> 
> Why is probably more a question of player psychology than hard rules interactions.  We probably will never know that answer.




Actually after one campaign, my players just pushed on their own account and timed their big guns more carefully. So yes. It was all psychology.


----------



## Blue (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> This analysis ignores using hold action to get a sneak attack in the first round when the rogue wins initiative. Maybe my experience is different but I use that all the time.



Yes, that's a corner case where you are not making any attacks on your own round.  It's likely first round per combat at most, and assumes that (a) a foe will decide to close with you and (b) at the time that they will also have to intentionally moved adjacent to an ally of yours to allow sneak attack.  What are the odds of that?  Not just in your game, since if you use it "all the time" it sounds like you have a DM that is intentionally empowering you with that, but across all games?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 8, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Can you clarify what you mean here?



Bill means "ready" when saying "hold". 

I'm pretty darn sure that they will fix that oversight and allow readied actions to get SA.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Oct 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I'm not sure I'd even call "2h fighter took gwm" an "optimizer". That's almost dropping unoptimised builds to a point like "maxed int or thought actor was good"
> 
> Fixing all of these bonkers edge cases also creates room for actual optimization that takes more than one obvious step.



I wouldn't either. 2h Fighter with GWM does not have massively increased damage over the baseline.
GWM + PAM + Precision attack human variant BM Fighter is a much more optimised character and their damage can be much higher.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 8, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Combat starts. Rogue is not hidden. Rogue wins initiative.
> 
> Choice 1: shoot an arrow, or run up and stab. No sneak attack.
> 
> ...



Choice 3:  MOVE behind something.  BONUS action hide.  SHOOT with SA damage.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 8, 2022)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I wouldn't either. 2h Fighter with GWM does not have massively increased damage over the baseline.
> GWM + PAM + Precision attack human variant BM Fighter is a much more optimised character and their damage can be much higher.



I still have trouble calling that optimization because there's no min to min/max, it's just thoughtless max all things.

Edit: that's part of the problem with 5e, there are never any tradeoffs to power


----------



## Sir Brennen (Oct 8, 2022)

What if the Sneak Attack rule was changed to restricted to once a *round,* rather than once a turn (2014) or once on_ your_ turn (1DnD current playtest doc)?

Then the situation of a rogue readying an action for an ally to get next to an enemy, and using their reaction to attack, would allow SA in that situation.

I think that plus the new TWF rules might be a fair compromise.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 8, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> What if the Sneak Attack rule was changed to restricted to once a *round,* rather than once a turn (2014) or once on_ your_ turn (1DnD current playtest doc)?
> 
> Then the situation of a rogue readying an action for an ally to get next to an enemy, and using their reaction to attack, would allow SA in that situation.
> 
> I think that plus the new TWF rules might be a fair compromise.




I like, that it is tied to the attack action.
I think, readying actions should allow for readying an attack action instead of just an attack.
Ok... you actually ready an attack action... So I now have to look up, if you can now use twf as a reaction...

So for the rogue, they just need to drop "on your turn".


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 8, 2022)

THEMNGMNT said:


> I believe it's safe to say that the vast majority of players do not know that rogues can get an off turn sneak attack. It's a niche playstyle for optimizers.



I have to agree here. In all of my parties that have had rogues, I haven't had any that would reliably get double sneak attacks through OAs or other means. It just didn't happen.

So the optimized rogue is nerfed, the "standard" rogue probably won't notice much.

As to the hide rules, if passive perception is truly gone for use in finding enemies, this is A HUGE HUGE buff to stealth. Getting a 15 stealth for a stealth focused character is trivial. the only thing that stopped stealth before was the one person with the crazy high passive perception, so if that's gone....nothing stops stealth.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually after one campaign, my players just pushed on their own account and timed their big guns more carefully. So yes. It was all psychology.



Re the psychology of it.

When long-resting for an 8-hour night, there is kinda a sense that the monsters are resting too, moreorless.

But when long-resting for a 24-hour full rest, there is a sense that alot of things might change by the time they get back to monsters.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 9, 2022)

Blue said:


> Yes, that's a corner case where you are not making any attacks on your own round.  It's likely first round per combat at most, and assumes that (a) a foe will decide to close with you and (b) at the time that they will also have to intentionally moved adjacent to an ally of yours to allow sneak attack.  What are the odds of that?  Not just in your game, since if you use it "all the time" it sounds like you have a DM that is intentionally empowering you with that, but across all games?




No you are needlessly constraining the requirements. There are a bunch of scenarios where it works. When the rogue has high initiative (which happens frequently) there are a variety of ways to Ready (!) Action to get SA. No empowerment necessary.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 9, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Choice 3:  MOVE behind something.  BONUS action hide.  SHOOT with SA damage.



Sure, when there’s something to hide behind _and_ they’re already within range.


----------



## Blue (Oct 9, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> No you are needlessly constraining the requirements. There are a bunch of scenarios where it works. When the rogue has high initiative (which happens frequently) there are a variety of ways to Ready (!) Action to get SA. No empowerment necessary.



So are there a bunch of scenarios it works, or is it "all the time"?  The first is believable.  The second was your original claim that I felt required the DM empowering you.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 9, 2022)

Blue said:


> So are there a bunch of scenarios it works, or is it "all the time"?  The first is believable.  The second was your original claim that I felt required the DM empowering you.




It was colloquial “all the time.”  Maybe English is not your first language but it is idiomatic and does not mean “every single time.”


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 9, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure, when there’s something to hide behind _and_ they’re already within range.



Of the 3 scenarios that's the one that is by far the most common at my table for the rogue getting SA.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 9, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I mean, you just said it: unless you are low on hit points. Or you otherwise really need to do something else.
> 
> Orrrr…and I love this one…you land the first attack but the monster isn’t _quite_ dead. Do you gamble on 1d6 killing it, if you hit? (“Do you do six damage, or only five? Well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky, punk?”)
> 
> Again, I like the new version, but there’s incontrovertibly less decision-making: you _always_ make the 2nd attack.



It's a good point and a dilemma that does currently come up, but currently only for the two-weapon rogues. Would be great if all rogues get something else to do with their bonus action that competes with cunning action, or if cunning action included more options - perhaps something that comes from their subclass at 3rd level (like the Thief's Fast Hands, the 5e Mastermind's Master of Tactics Help action, or the 5e Arcane Trickster's bonus-action spells). 

So at 3 level, could the Assassin use Cunning Action to reroll a missed attack ? The Scout could use it to make another (single) attack at a cost (disadvantage/exhaustion?) - i.e. a weaker form of the 5e Scout's capstone Sudden Strike? The Swashbuckler might not need Fancy Footwork any more so Elegant Maneuver could come earlier?


----------



## clearstream (Oct 9, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> You have to beat the DC 15 to enter stealth. The number you roll becomes the DC for active perception checks to find you (taken as an action).



"On a successful check, you are Hidden. Make
note of your check’s total, which becomes the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom Check (Perception)."

It may be the intent is active. As written it would include passive.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 9, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> It's a good point and a dilemma that does currently come up, but currently only for the two-weapon rogues. Would be great if all rogues get something else to do with their bonus action that competes with cunning action, or if cunning action included more options - perhaps something that comes from their subclass at 3rd level (like the Thief's Fast Hands, the 5e Mastermind's Master of Tactics Help action, or the 5e Arcane Trickster's bonus-action spells).
> 
> So at 3 level, could the Assassin use Cunning Action to reroll a missed attack ? The Scout could use it to make another (single) attack at a cost (disadvantage/exhaustion?) - i.e. a weaker form of the 5e Scout's capstone Sudden Strike? The Swashbuckler might not need Fancy Footwork any more so Elegant Maneuver could come earlier?




Oh, good point about rapier rogues. 

But they should burn in hell so we can add that to the “pros” column of the new rules.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 9, 2022)

I don't know why this change, I don't remember plenty of complaints in the last 8 years about sneak attack on OA being a real problem.

It's interesting also what they haven't changed: Reliable Talent, despite the way it becomes useless if you follow Crawford's sage advice about passive checks setting a base result of 10 for everyone attempting everything... can we take it as WotC realized Crawford was plain out wrong about its own sage advice?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> I don't know why this change, I don't remember plenty of complaints in the last 8 years about sneak attack on OA being a real problem.
> 
> It's interesting also what they haven't changed: Reliable Talent, despite the way it becomes useless if you follow Crawford's sage advice about passive checks setting a base result of 10 for everyone attempting everything... can we take it as WotC realized Crawford was plain out wrong about its own sage advice?




I guess passive checks just disappear.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 9, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Of the 3 scenarios that's the one that is by far the most common at my table for the rogue getting SA.



Huh. We have combats all the time _frequently_ where there is nothing to hide behind, and/or out of bow range. We also enforce weapon drawing/stowing rules, so a rogue who wants to shoot once then engage has some choices to make.

If your rogues are using this too frequently you might get accused of “DM enablement.”  /wink


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 9, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I guess passive checks just disappear.



That would be an interesting and even welcome change from me, but I don't believe it will happen. Although the fixed DC for hiding might be a hint.


----------



## CM (Oct 9, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> What if the Sneak Attack rule was changed to restricted to once a *round,* rather than once a turn (2014) or once on_ your_ turn (1DnD current playtest doc)?



This is how I've been houseruling SA since 5e launch and it's been fine. Will continue that way if 5.5e restricts it to the attack action on your turn.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 9, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Huh. We have combats all the time _frequently_ where there is nothing to hide behind, and/or out of bow range. We also enforce weapon drawing/stowing rules, so a rogue who wants to shoot once then engage has some choices to make.
> 
> If your rogues are using this too frequently you might get accused of “DM enablement.”  /wink



I dunno what to tell you.  Most dungeons have doorways, forests have trees, towns and ruins have buildings....maybe featureless large open spaces is something your table likes?

Ranged rogues (2 of the 3 rogues that have been played at my table) pretty much never engage in melee.  The one melee rogue we have had (my swashbuckler) sticks and moves so once again avoids actually being in melee unless it's his turn.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 9, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I dunno what to tell you.  Most dungeons have doorways, forests have trees, towns and ruins have buildings....maybe featureless large open spaces is something your table likes?
> 
> Ranged rogues (2 of the 3 rogues that have been played at my table) pretty much never engage in melee.  The one melee rogue we have had (my swashbuckler) sticks and moves so once again avoids actually being in melee unless it's his turn.




We only play white room campaigns. Infinite flat, featureless plane. Detect magic reveals faint lines making a 5’ square grid. 

:-/


----------



## Sabathius42 (Oct 9, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> We only play white room campaigns. Infinite flat, featureless plane. Detect magic reveals faint lines making a 5’ square grid.
> 
> :-/



So D&Tron?


----------



## MGibster (Oct 10, 2022)

Cyber-Dave said:


> Statements like this one belie a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the math of the game. Having an extra bonus action with which to hide, dash, or disengage is nowhere near a wash to the loss of 10d6 plus your ability modifier damage (endgame), and when you break down the loss, that is the difference across the two editions.



Who gets to end game 10d6 though?


----------



## Cyber-Dave (Oct 10, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Who gets to end game 10d6 though?



That’s not the point. Read a few posts down. An endgame number is just a shorthand used to emphasize a mechanic’s scaling potential. Honestly, long story short, it boils down to this: melee rogues gained +1d4 to 1d6; they lost 1d6 to 10d6. They did not gain an increase to sneak attack probability until 11th level. At 11th level, melee rogues do gain an increase to hit probability. The net result will be about a 12.5% higher probability of scoring a sneak attack (I say about, for that number is calculated with a 50% hit rate—the real number varies by hit rate). Assuming a 50% normal hit rate at level 11 and ignoring criticals (which will favour the 5e rogue anyway), the rogue is gaining a total of 2.18 + up to 1.75 (3.13) damage with One mechanics at the cost of 8.75 damage in the hands of a clever rogue player in 5e. If the hit rate is better than 50% (and it almost certainly will be), those numbers further favour the 5e rogue. I’m of the opinion that the net result does not improve gameplay. Ultimately, community feedback will speak to the desires of the community as a whole.


----------

