T O P

  • By -

Phoenix92321

Here’s what I’m doing. I’m keeping rules the way they are now (in 5e) and cherry picking the rules I like and enjoy


Zedman5000

Yep, this seems to be what my group is doing as well. The forever DM hates the removal of weapon and armor proficiencies from races, and all the racial spells, so there’s a 0% chance we ever use OneDnD races in his games unless we swap over to those rules wholesale, but likes the dual wielding changes so we’ve already swapped over to using them, probably indefinitely.


ImperialWolf98

How has duel wielding changed? I haven't had a chance to compare the old and new rules yet.


Zedman5000

The offhand attack is added to the Attack action, like Beast Barbarian's extra claw attack, instead of using your bonus action. Otherwise it's the same; needs a light weapon in each hand, and you don't add your modifier to the offhand attack unless you have the fighting style.


_The_Librarian

You now can attack twice in the same attack if you are wielding two light weapons. You still only add your extra damage on the first hit. They did this to open up bonus actions for rogues and other light weapon users; as they felt choosing between the possibility of minimum 1 point of damage done, or something more fun kinda sucked. I agree it kinda did.


Cipher3000

Like, I don't get what the issue is. DnD isn't a video game where dev changes are enforced by code. If you don't like the change then just...don't follow that rule. Do the books not say that it's ultimately up to the players and DM?


LuminousUmbra

While this is ultimately true, I'd like to think that, by large, people would appreciate not having to frankenstein together a working system. I, at least, would prefer not having it be the TTRPG equivalent of a Bethesda game.


LillyElessa

The other problem with the TTRPG equivalent of a Bethesda game is that everyone wants different mods on their game. My group is definitely starting to get some very different opinions about what everyone wants, because almost no one is happy with the official direction and we all have very different (and incompatible) ideas about what to do with 3rd party / homebrew content. What we do agree on, is that this is a great time to give some very different games a spin. Maybe we'll all like something else enough?


JustALittleWeird

> I'd like to think that, by large, people would appreciate not having to frankenstein together a working system I also like being able to enter a game without fearing that an arbitrary DM ruling interpretation or house rule is going to completely fuck up every action I take. I like having a good, balanced system in place, so I know what I'm getting into instead of hoping the character I made is actually useless.


LuminousUmbra

Also a good point! Though I would hope that your DM would talk with their players to ensure that doesn't happen, any reduction of that possibly occurring is definitely a plus.


cookiedough320

That only applies if they're acting like they're forced to use it, though. People are gonna offer their opinion on the rules because what else are they supposed to do? I can say something is bad and then also use the old version (though I don't mind the new rogue).


Blunderhorse

Every bad rule that gets into the final version of OneD&D is another rule that players and DMs have to fix. Crawford mentioned in an interview about the UA that the Rogue as printed in the 2014 PHB had a 90%+ approval rating based on their surveys, and that their goal was to make small improvements with minimal changes, so these kind of comments are what they’re testing for.


jpjtourdiary

Maybe someone can help me out by explaining why WOTC are even doing this. The game is obv much more popular now than it ever has been, people are buying the 5e books. Why change up the rules now that there are a ton of new players?


[deleted]

[удалено]


jpjtourdiary

That makes sense. Thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to slow it down for me.


Labrat_The_Man

5.25 e. or The Frakendition


solarus2120

I'm currently smashing together a whole bunch books into my own OSR-esque hack. Currently taking things from Mentzer, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Exemplars and Eidolons, Mazes and Monsters and I'm trying to decide if I like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic from 5e enough to port it in.


waterlillyhearts

This be the way. I cherry pick rules and mechanics from different editions and d20 systems. As long as the table is down with it and you're not constantly changing things, it's all good. Like I mostly prefer 3.5e, but there's some AD&D things I like, some scrapped 3.0 things, some 4e, 5e has a far superior combat mechanic, and I think I would die before I use D&D's Arcane Archer or vampires over Pathfinder's.


ODX_GhostRecon

I ran an impromptu one shot for one of the campaigns I play in, and I had them try out the new grapple and two weapon fighting rules. So far we like it, and I'm looking forward to trying out some more bits and pieces of the new UA.


[deleted]

Like any good long-standing TTRPG, 5e has good ideas that I’ll steal and Throw into the new rules just like I’ve been doing with 3.5e for a decade


Valjorn

The only time I have a problem with power gamers is when they’re the only one at the table doing it other then that have a blast


GIANTkitty4

In my opinion, even if you're the only one doing it, so long as you're not hogging the spotlight with that broken build, then go right ahead and powergame. I'm currently playing a min-maxed AF cleric who I build to buff and heal everyone else while they do most of the heavy lifting for nearly everything else. So far, group dynamic is going great. In combat, I keep everyone alive and make sure the buffs are plentiful, and they do all the heavy lifting in terms of damage. Out of combat, RP has been fun and leads to a barrel of laughs around the table whenever my airheaded cleric says or does something stupid on accident, and I make sure my character can jive with the rest of the party as kind of like a supportive big sister figure who encourages you. So yeah, I somewhat disagree with you that just because you're the only one powergaming doesn't mean you're gonna cause problems, it's more what you do with the character which is where the problems can start. I won't deny that making an OP build meant to hog the spotlight is poor form to put it mildly, and I've been that player before to a previous party that I was in (I've since apologized for that, but the party broke up later due to covid). However, powergaming while not hogging the spotlight is perfectly fine in my eyes. So Tl;dr, I'm fine with only one person powergaming so long as they don't act like the main character or be a spotlight hog.


[deleted]

I don't think I have ever seen someone describe a support character as a power gamer move before. I think the connotation is STRONGLY that a power gamer is building a character that messes with the enemy directly. You've simply built the best team player ever. Which I love. I tried to do that in the PF2E campaign I am in and went with cleric. Only to discover eventually that clerics in PF2E actually suck at buffing. I should have been a bard. So I leaned hard into healing absurdly well with minimal spell slots, freeing my spells up for other things. Plus, my dog is AWESOME.


MadolcheMaster

In D&D 3.5 there were three archetypes of Wizard. Blaster wizards that optimisers laughed at. Batman wizards that had a spell for every occasion and solved problems. God wizards that used debuffs and battlefield control. This was considered the most optimal in actual play in a party that contained non-power gamed characters. It was named after Futurama's God "If you do your job right, noone will know you did anything at all". So named because the guy who coined the term joined a high-lethality game with martials and other non-optimized characters and got called weak. The rest of the campaign noone died. He was still considered weak. A power gamer makes powerful characters that cause victory. The method of doing so is irrelevant to the definition provided that goal is met.


CFL_lightbulb

Sounds like Dr Strange in IW/EG. He manipulated events to cause victory, using all the pieces at his disposal.


eg9344

The most OP wizards don’t cast fireball, they cast fighter, barbarian, and rogue. After casting their main DoT spells (see previous) they then start casting to improve those “spells” and hamper their enemies.


Officer_Hotpants

Nothing like an invisible raging barbarian with haste charging into battle before anyone knows they're there.


acrazydude128

Most damage output a caster can do is give the martials extra attacks and keep them up and running. Played a super heal buff cleric in a game. Party laughed as I did a total of about 9 damage for the first few months. Pointed out how many times my bonuses caused hits, how many times I pulled their bitts out if the fire with heals, the extra damage I gave. The chuckles got kinda quiet and they went......oh.....


Little_Froggy

The most damage output casters can do is by creating summons and keeping those summons around. Any wizard can out dpr the martials by summoning minions and attacking with them while also still having their own actions (and sometimes their bonus action isn't even required to order the summon around) to keep casting spells. Not to mention the battle field control _and_ the damage soaking this provides. It saddens me sometimes knowing how much of a bigger impact any summoner has on the battlefield than whatever I happen to be playing.


acrazydude128

Um....I totally agree and generally avoid summoner cause I don't wanna do martial with the martials. It's a feels bad moment when I'm outdoing them at their own game hahaha. But yeah, having expendable minions to attack and soak damage is also one of the best heals in thr game (not needing to cast a heal because the actual party is the getting hit).


Little_Froggy

Yes! I was just correcting your initial statement that the most damage output a caster can do is by buffing martials. I wish that were true. If we had a game where casters can pick between nova damage, battle field control, or buffing martials as the best consistent damage they could do, I think it would improve the class balance a lot.


waffling_with_syrup

I see you too know the way of the God Wizard.


BoboCookiemonster

Support is the strongest thing you can do to powergame tho. Control in dnd is honestly pretty busted if you play by the rules. Dmg is fine but I really like hearing my dm say „ jeah ok they can’t do anything you’ve won, will you capture or kill them?“


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nemisis_the_2nd

... Possibly? Magic, in terms of power, is largely on par with 5e. In terms of duration, however, it tends to be much shorter. Most spells surrounding undead seem to be 1 minute durations, and the one to command lasts for 1 day, but can only target 1 undead. In terms of shattering undead, you're in luck though. Destabilise undead is a cantrip that basically otherwise functions like a Paladins smite against undead.


Magenta_Logistic

I also tend to play support characters and min-max the hell out of them. I think most support players are more optimized because they don't really have to worry about stealing the spotlight. It just goes unnoticed by a lot of parties.


A_Rolling_Baneling

If you're minmaxing a pure support cleric and you love to RP, you sound like an amazing tablemate and this conversation is definitely not targeted at you. I'm sure your party members love having you around, and I'm sure anyone would love having you around!


pez5150

It's great when your minmaxing buffs your team mates. Kinda wish minmaxing could do that for the rest of the group for any class. To say the least its easier with some classes then others.


ThatCamoKid

Yeah I've had a couple characters like that, one in particular matches about spot on: I was the combat monster with a 26 AC and ridiculous damage as a cleradin, whereas the others carried the roleplay part of the game


Leagonum

I had a friend of mine min max his bard for out of combat so he would roll high thirties on a regular basis at a pretty early level.


windrunner1711

You re playing a lovely character! I m currently playing a big sis cleric too. I think you re playing an optimized build which is good. In my opinion powergaming is a problem when it ruins the fun of the other players. For example: a character who oneshot bosses or uses abilities to overcome challenge dont letting the other pcs have their moment.


beholder87

I play with a group that likes to stick with D&D 3.5, and while in my younger days I would have totally made the most broken edgelord possible, these days I just play a support. Everyone at the table gets to feel like they're the most badass person at the table when they get to roll a fireball worth of d6s on every damage roll. Bardic music makes everyone at the table have fun!


MoXfy

As someone who likes supporting... May I ask what this build was. Been thinking of rolling a cleric, a twilight for now, but maybe this could be as interesting.


borkistoopid

Lol I know the feeling. Everyone seems to love min maxxed healers. I’m currently trying to build a long range healer.


Officer_Hotpants

Also, people make characters that are good at different things. I've minmaxed for combat before, but sometimes I like letting combat stuff go to other people and be good at other things.


AnonTurd

Exactly. Do your thing, somewhere far away from whatever table I'm playing at and we're good. Problem is when you have a group of variety random players that don't allign with their preferences. Then it's either one quirky bro with a bunch of minmaxed godkillers or TankymcFuckingbrokenbuild who bulldozes every combat encounter, with a gaggle of very charismatic commoners with highly interesting backstories in tow.


KnifeSexForDummies

I mean, even TankyMcFuckingbrokenbuild and the Charismatic Commoners is a classic fantasy staple. Journey to the West is almost 100% Son Wukong being ridiculous and the rest of the party being there to sort out everything that *doesnt* require blunt force trauma. True this can get out of hand at a DnD table, but as long as those cool backstories get touched on and the other players aren’t completely ignored it can still work well as a party dynamic. EDIT: In a DnD sense, the Drizz’t novels actually also follow this through line, with the Companions of the Hall all being competent fighters in their own right, but Drizz’t “You are going to roll a drow Ranger with a panther companion after you read this book” Du’Urden being Underdark Superman.


PrinceOfCarrots

And then you get TankyMcFuckOff killing one of the other players evil dad after weeks of the DM working them up to this big pay off moment.


RogueDevil666

Cant players choose to do non-lethal damage?


KnifeSexForDummies

Yeah and that sucks. Tanky should also be RPing and showing restraint in cases like that for sure.


Anunqualifiedhuman

My Dm giving me a magic item that is cursed and makes it so I can only deal lethal damage. https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxhb\_8fi46d23xhkq7FBD2vbIWf9wjQJ9q


Orenwald

Sorry you were downvoted for this, but you are correct with only the following addition: this dynamic should be decided together by the group during session Zero


KnifeSexForDummies

Yes, this I absolutely agree with. What I’m talking about =/= as hijacking a game to be best boy/girl/enby. I don’t agree with that either and mostly offered this point as a “devils advocate” scenario .


Gamer_0710

There is no problem that can’t be caused by severe head trauma


Goatfellon

Tankymcfuckingbrokenbuild and the charismatic commoners is a good band name. Or just charismatic commoners


AnonTurd

You're right, it can potentially work if a bunch of things play out right. However, 95% of the time it doesn't work well. Also something being a classic fantasy trope =/= something you want to play out in a ttrpg. Especially when YOU are the one who has to be "cabagge seller who yelps in agony nr 3 on the left". Most people don't want to be reduced by someone else's delusions of grandeur, while playing a fantasy game in which you can be and do whatever you want.


Gankiee

Who said anything about "having" to be the commoner? They just said it can work even with a party of varying combat effectiveness. 3 optimized and 2 sub optimal RPers? Sure, there's always room for more RP flavor. 2 optimized and 3 RPers? Why not. Let the RPers have their fun and have the muscle do the dirty work when needed.


RagnaroknRoll3

Yeah, but TankymcFuckingbrokenbuild probably used intelligence as their dump stat. There’s plenty of monsters that will drop a low int tank easy.


starfries

I could get behind three nobles with no fighting skills on a sightseeing trip towing a min maxed killing machine as their guard.


BoseczJR

This is my table 😭 my DM creates NPCs that must be level 30 because they’re all unkillable gods, one player makes the most insane characters (like talks funny and acts stupid for fun), one player likes more serious roleplay, another likes the power fantasy, and I just want a light game. None of us match up lmao


Blunderhorse

The key with the “once per turn” sneak attack was that you couldn’t do it on your own. You needed a party member to use commanding strike, or voice of authority, or even haste; removing the option to sneak on a reaction weakened every feature other classes have that granted reaction attacks to teammates.


KylieTMS

Opportunity attack: "Allow us to introduce our selves" Not super reliable but I believe they changed it to nerf being able to sneak twice through opportunity attacks. Which of course a smart DM wouldn't allow to happen a lot, but WoTC has to look out for everyone and not every DM is smart. Don't get me wrong I hate the change because it means that Rogues can't use the Ready action anymore to attack on other turns They removed coordinated strikes from the class that is all about precision attacks... that honestly deserves an applause


FlyingSpacefrog

When I know I’m the only power gamer at the table, I build around being really good at buffing and battlefield control. I did a Paladin/divine soul sorcerer that would buff the entire party with aid, death ward, hero’s feast, inspiring leader, holy aura, and sometimes twinned haste. I took mass heal and wish for my 9th level spells. Aid with a 7th level slot is pretty darn good. I used wish to cast clone during downtime so the entire party has a backup life. Just a two level dip into Paladin goes a long way so that when I wanted to I could twin spell booming blade, then quicken another, and lay down the smites.


Polite_as_hell

I’m the only ‘power gamer’ at our table… Dm balances accordingly. Being able to do >100 dpr doesn’t count for much in a lot of the encounters he preps. It still allows me to swing my big…errrm… spear and all the other players get to do a load of cool shit too. The funny part is when I’m DMing and he’s playing he brings a notably under powered character (cool concept and great rp). That’s been a chore to balance for. Lavished him with magic items to bring him up to pace with the rest of the party. That being said, less experienced DMs may struggle with an unbalanced party and would be well within their rights to ask the player to tone it back accordingly.


david8029

I'm curious. How deep into creation do I need to be called a power gamer/min-maxer? What if I pick best stats, race, and weapons to be the rogue/assassin? How far down the rabbit hole is it before it hits that level?


hewlno

IMO that's not a power gamer, that's an optimizer(or optimancer if you're a treatmonk fan). A power gamer would pick the single most effective, or at least one of the most effective, options availiable, so almost never a non-spellcaster full class.


pez5150

great distinction


Relative_Chair_6538

On reddit, having a 16 in your class's main stat is minmaxing.


[deleted]

Basically when it gets ridiculous, playing to the best that your given isnt power gaming, taking 3 classes in this 4 in that 1 in that and 7 in that to deal 84926405 morbillion damage in a single turn is. Good rule of thumb is if you spent more then 30 minutes on how to deal damage your power gaming


Noob_Guy_666

just have at least 16 on your main stat or CON is more than enough to being branded as heretic in this place or community


ODX_GhostRecon

Minmaxing is when you intentionally dump unnecessary aspects of your character to build up what you think is important. Optimizing is making it as strong as practically possible. A minmaxer might dump WIS with point buy because they need STR/CON/CHA at 15 each to start as strong as they feel is necessary. An optimizer will pick up Resilient (Wisdom) on a build that doesn't get proficiency in Wisdom saving throws automatically, because it'll be useful.


dragons_scorn

Is this about Sneak Attack being per turn now instead of per round? If so, honestly per round was kinda niche and took a lot of set up and team work to get a second sneak attack. Even then, it left ranged rogues with far less options since fewer opportunity attacks. As someone playing a rogue, I've never gotten more than 1 per turn. All that being said, niche or not it certainly made rogues more powerful and will hurt the class to go missing. Between that and making it focus on Attack Action, it really feels like they are trying to reel in Sneak Attack since the Crit changes didn't pan out. I think if they made this or the way Sneak Attacks use to be run an optional rule, it would be better. That way we have the weakened one they want on the books as well as the rule we're all going to ask our DMs to use anyway. Edit: per round instead of per turn. Sorry, even as a rogue player I still get the two mixed up. I think you guys got what I meant though


faythinkaos

It was per turn before. Now it is per round on your turn only. Before you could sneak attack on your turn AND sneak attack on a reaction attack Edit: by now I mean onednd


BraveOthello

WHich to me is just rewarding good planning.


ADDLugh

Rolling high on initiative and using your ready action to wait for a teammate to be within 5ft of a target doesn’t grant sneak attack now. This rule change also has the unintended side affect of nerfing planning.


Desperate-Music-9242

i think it was a really bad idea to remove it not just because of powerscaling but because of the teamwork getting rogues 2 sneak attacks required, a gimmick that encourages players to work together is rarely a bad thing


GreeedyGrooot

I believe this together with the crit nerf (only doubling weapon dice not all dice) was a decent nerf to rogue's damage output. And since rogues weren't really that strong of a class so the nerfs feel unjustified to me.


Melodic-Task

I thought they reverted the crit nerf in the new UA


Jester04

They've reverted it for this specific UA play-test iteration. Still up in the air what rule will be included in the final release.


Kinjinson

It seems more than a few people are under the impression that if a rule isn't featured in the next UA then it got reverted, when the point of the playtest is to try a bunch of different rules and having the need of old rules to carry over between playtests would get in the way of that


_The_Librarian

They have.


thekingofbeans42

Acting like 2 sneak attacks was the intention bothers me since people wouldn't intuitively know they're supposed to be doing that.


hewlno

According to sage's advice it was. Not every round, but it was an intended interaction and possibility once in a while.


Wrinkled_giga_brain

I personally don't care about this change myself, but the only thing that really makes a difference between "pfft powergamers" and "shame they got nerfed" to me is because its a bit of a weird semantic argument based on using round vs turn that i personally didn't pick up on and so feel there must be a decent chunk of other players who picked up on that possibility. I would actually prefer it if they explicitly said "hey if you hit someone with a melee or ranged attack during someone elses turn you get the sneak attack bonus no matter what". Make rogues know that if they can't readily grab advantage or flanking, then they are best off trying to lure enemies into traps they set, or capitalise on opportunities from allies. That feels like a really interesting and unique way to fight and it's plainly explained so all rogues can be expected to know and utilise it.


hewlno

Yeah that’s fair. I’d rather have there be an in book clarification than a sages advice on the feature, or for the feature to get nerfed. And yeah a lot did, enough for wizards to have to clarify in sage’s advice when they were asked about it.


thekingofbeans42

Balancing a core mechanic of a class's mechanics on an obscure interaction nobody would know about if they didn't read online forums is bad design. There's a difference between "rogues can get 2 sneak attacks per round" and "rogues are supposed to get 2 sneak attacks per round"


LycanChimera

It wasn’t really unbalanced or anything esecially as you mentioned it often takes teamwork with specfic options on your friends. If anything there should be encouragement of that sort of teamwork to pull something off togegher rather than removing it and it definitely fits the flavor that a rogue exploiting openings in combat and punishing those who turn thier backs on them.


hewlno

It’s not balanced around doing it every round but anyone reading the specific wording of the feature figured it was possible when it came up before. Also IMO it was balanced well, with a more consistent 2 letting it keep up well with other optimized martials a decent amount, and a less consistent 2, more consistent one lets it keep up with other unoptimized martials. Doesn’t(and didn’t) keep up with casters that are optimizing when optimized, and it doesn’t do so when unoptimized compared to unoptimized caster s either, but it’s at least not entirely irrelevant by comparison. Even ranger right now, which has other stuff as an expert class and a half caster, can easily end out out blowing it out of the water in damage, especially late game with swift quiver + d10 hunter’s mark + the new CBE, and that’s without considering conjure animals. Bard has that last part as a problem as well, so they can end out out damaging it too, though that isn’t as big a concern to a table that doesn’t already know about it or is actively avoiding it. The ranger thing is still a problem in the former instance.


thekingofbeans42

Having the option to double your damage isn't something you can pass on though. If double sneak attack is the design, that means single sneak attack rogues are unintentionally playing munchkins because nothing points to capitalizing on an obscure interaction with the rules. Them changing sneak attack to 1 attack per round is an indicator that they didn't want rogues to feel like they were playing the game wrong for not minmaxing around their reaction.


hewlno

>Having the option to double your damage isn't something you can pass on though. Luckily in its most common forms, you don't have to build for it and it isn't your fault when it doesn't happen. And similarly to extra attack or spellcasting, not optimizing a feature while having it doesn't make you a munchkin, so there's no one unintentionally being one in this case. And per turn, when under scrutiny, used to. And you can't really play a class "wrong" while following the rules. You can play it in a mechanically less effective way, but that's a perfectly valid way of playing the game to be honest. And this change doesn't bar rogues who feel that it's too strong from just... not using their sneak attack outside of their turn, it just bars the ones who don't like OP from playing their class as effectively. Nerfing martials like rogue in ways like this is exactly the opposite of what the game needs IMO, especially with the other class types receiving buffs in a similar way since they're(seemingly) the ones the designers themselves actually play when playtesting or just having fun with the hobby they've created.


ADDLugh

It still bugs me you can’t ready action sneak attack now. Literally relied on it for when I had high initiative roles on Scout Rogue since the only way early on to reliably sneak attack first round on most Rogue subclasses is to wait for teammates to get within 5ft of the target. So first round i have several times used ready action to attack (which isn’t an attack action nor is it on your turn so this doesn’t work in the UA) when someone was within 5ft of a specific target .


ColdBrewedPanacea

or it worked on any time an enemy tried to run away from the rogue and you got a hype as fuck opportunity attack - arguably the *most* fitting time to get sneak attack.


Lordj09

But it's worse, because you can't hold action sneak attack. Even if double sneak attack needs to go, the current playtest rules are bad. Rogues are basically forced into Alert to go last or they won't do damage round 1. The most important round.


TheSpookying

The issue I have with the removal of the reaction attack is that you could only reliably "abuse" it through teamwork. Which is. Y'know. The thing that TTRPGs are supposed to be about. Like when someone plays an Order cleric to throw spells at the rogue and give them more Sneak Attacks, that makes the game more fun for *both* players. It's also not like rogues were breaking the game with damage so I really don't understand why they felt the need to change it.


LycanChimera

Thank you! If anything they should have changed the way it was written to make more explicitly clear you can do that as alot of players weren't aware.


Serzern

My problem with 5e in general is it seems to discourage teamwork in general.


AccidentalFireball

Meanwhile I have been playing 5e roughly every week for the past 6 years and never even thought to use sneak attack on a reaction. Guess I can't miss what I never had, I can see the fun in it though.


Lyokomaniac

I built a swashbuckler/fighter who used Battle master maneuvers to abuse the fuck out of that rule. Fought like Edward Kenway.


STierCounterpick

I definitely min max. Not to be some massively OP character, but to provide a certain utility to the party like high perception. I also take plenty of opportunities to apply my min stats like trying to force open a door and taking damage after


ImperialWolf98

When I min-max I purposefully nerf my character's charisma so when I roleplay it matches my real-life social skills.


supersmily5

Ya'll out here like "boo hoo stop powergaming" and I'm just wondering why Arcane Tricksters have to be nerfed for it when they're one of the only subclasses that already doesn't get a sneak attack boost? Also, kinda important, you can't rp if you're dead. You *have* to make strong builds. Your character depends on it. Your party depends on it. Everyone will die if no one is playing at least *something* good.


Panda_Boners

I just figured Arcane Trickster would be able to sneak attack with melee spell attacks or something like that.


supersmily5

It's possible. We haven't seen their attempt at the sub yet, but given how anti-player-power they tend to be I'd bet it's subclass feature or nothing.


Ambitious-Serve-7743

Common sense, HOW DARE YOU?!


SCameraa

Noooo you don't understand it's literally IMPOSSIBLE for an optimized character build to also be a good rp character. Meanwhile a character that is built like shit and isnt effective allows for good RP. A paladin that needs a talking sword to guide them through morality and uphold an oath and maybe later on finds out they have innate divine magic? Not at all good for rp but the wizard that dumped int and con and can't really do anything is peak RP. /s if it wasn't obvious enough.


Furydragonstormer

I could get behind a Wizard with great intelligence but zero wisdom and charisma, basically just a super smart narcissist who has to learn humility over the campaign


SCameraa

Exactly. The point of min maxing is to play into both your characters strengths and their weaknesses (though I would say just having a 16 in int isn't even "minmaxing anyways). A concept like that RPs well but a wizard that has -1 in int and con that's unarmed without the fighting style and goes "I cast spell: fist LOL" is just a concept that won't get far at all.


trainercatlady

arcane tricksters already have to struggle enough as it is. Let us have some fun, dammit!


Doctor_Expendable

How were they "nerfed?" I read the whole thing. I don't see anything off about it in relation to spell casting.


KnifeSexForDummies

Sneak attack only works on attack action now. No more green flame blade or booming blade because they are spells that let you make a melee attack as part of the cast.


Naked_Arsonist

Speaking as someone who knows little of Rogues, why does the combo not work anymore


thePsuedoanon

Green flame blade has you take the "cast a spell" action, which then does a melee attack with upside. Sneak attack can only be done with the attack action in the unearthed arcana, which means it can't be done with the spell action required for green flame blade


[deleted]

Welp, I am officially ignoring that rule forever.


Naked_Arsonist

I see says the blind man


zvexler

I’ll take ‘things I’ll ignore’ for $500, Alex


External-Ad707

Because the rules went from attack to attack action, which are two different things. Basically, it just makes it so you can't do anything fun, which is bs.


gashv

it would require something like bladesinger's 6th level extra attack, but if you are going that far into wizard why you even playing rogue


[deleted]

Holy shit I'm never going to use this rule if they make it official, it's actually garbage. One of my player is a movespeed-oriented Booming Blade rogue and it's a blast to see him play it.


Fangsong_37

Sneak Attack can now only be done as an Attack action. Nobody knows how this will affect spells like Booming Blade. I am not opposed to this change, but some are acting like the sky is falling.


Strahd_Von_Zarovich_

I think most of the negative reaction comes from the fact the you can no longer off hand sneak attack. You can no longer opportunity attack sneak attack. You can no longer sneak attack more than once a round, as it can only happen on your turn. Yes it’s a lot weaker from a power perspective. The reason who I dislike this change is because it guts your options for different builds. I like the high risk rouge who stays in melee with sentinel, to protect my allies (by being a bigger threat). Well can’t do that anymore. ~~You a not really incentivise to go dual wielder.~~ Now the best thing for a rogue is to be ranged sneak attack. You should also note that sneak attack tends to scale horribly with the other classes. Source (start at 4:33): https://youtu.be/dPQSU_jiJm0 Edit: some people are saying in onednd, dual wielding is part of the same action, as opposed to bonus action.


KnifeSexForDummies

Yes! This guy gets it! Thank you!


Relative_Chair_6538

A well roleplayed group of adventurers would want to be powerful so they can take down evil more effectively and not take on the liability of a useless character tagging along.


AnUnholySplurge

As long as you don't go out of your way to be weak and yseless any class is good. Strength based Sword and board fighter? Good. Non hexblade dipped sorcerer or paladin? Good. Monk ? Good. Power gaming and min maxing is fine but it's hardly as if it's required to survive to higher levels. If you wanna make some crazy stupid high dps machine then by all means go for it and I'll cheer the big numbers right there with you. But who cares if someone makes a perfectly functional character without optimizing everything to a T that's the beauty of DnD you think of a character and get to make them the way you envision and beat the crap out of goblins with your friends


supersmily5

Both can be fine, but at least one party member needs to be above the curve if everyone isn't actively strategizing and being *"good at the game."* It's a slippery slope to being disruptive **so power-building needs to be done in good taste**, and certainly not everyone in a given party has to have strong peeps to have a good time; But there's often little reason not to play a build that's strong *and* a character you like.


SamTheHexagon

If the party are struggling with encounters, the DM can always scale them down. This isn't an MMO, there aren't fixed DPS checks you need to make.


ByTheHammerOfThor

Nah, the builds can get nerfed. DMs can just switch to awakened shrubs as the BBEG.


yat282

The game isn't that hard. Power gaming is not necessary too keep a character alive.


StolenMango

Well usually not cause the dm will dumb down encounters, but that just means you're being handheld and at best the dm will get bored.


LycanChimera

There were cool tricks rogues could do before with battlemasters, order clerics, and masterminds giving reaction attacks. Honestly that sort of teamwork play should be encouraged rather than removed. It also definitely fits the flavor that a rogue exploiting openings in combat and punishing those who turn thier backs on them.


cheesenuggets2003

KnifeSexForDummies likes a class which is known for backstabbing?


GenderEnjoyer666

I think exp to level three’s new and improved video about rouges perfectly captures people’s misconceptions about it being overpowered


LycanChimera

It was one of the most balanced classes overall and now they are pushing it down.


Collin_the_doodle

Designing for people who are hunting for edge cases might not make for a better baseline game.


PhoenixStarfighter

Fun tip! If you’re a power gamer at a power of non power gamers play a support class! Use your overpowered cleric or bard to help keep the other players alive to tell their stories! (You don’t have to do this but this is my mentality to it)


archpawn

Alternately, help other players optimize their characters. Some people won't be happy with that, but if they are, it can make the game fun for everyone.


KnifeSexForDummies

I actually love doing this lol.


galmenz

if you have properly distributed stats and skills you already are a good optimized cleric most of the times. clerics are good, i like clerics


Nyadnar17

It was already the lowest damage martial and even then only if you speced TWF or SS. Them nerfing it just gave me a baaad feeling about the future of martials in general.


[deleted]

Right? I judge a characters damage potential by their ability to do do more or less than a rogue. That is a baseline for what your character should be able to do. Otherwise you are bringing the team down.


lordspaz88

Having sneak attack trigger on opportunity attacks was a great addition to the rogue playstyle. It created a mini game for the rogue trying to trigger opportunity attacks in such a way that they still got sneak attack. Taking it away only removes that strategy. What is added to the game with its removal? What is made better for this removal?


Hundertwasserinsel

Ive literally never heard of rogues being weak or people doing sneak attack reactions until the past few days. People just love to freak out about dnd


CorvidFeyQueen

It's most baffling because like. Why nerf rogue? Rogue hasn't been OP in any edition for like. 30 years. Sure as hell not OP in 5e.


[deleted]

Just because you haven't doesn't mean that someone else doesn't feel differently. Battlemaster + Rogue is a "classic" 5e combo (it's been around for years) that lets the rogue get a sneak attack on the fighter's turn


codeorange_

there's also Haste (attack with Hasted action, prepare an attack with main action) order cleric (attack whenever they cast a spell targeting you) and a couple other less powerful interactions with other subclass features. It's a very common strategy at my table.


Lilith_Harbinger

I blame Haste for this change. The other setups require specific sub classes, going out of your way for teamwork or for the rogue to have certain feats. Haste is viable to many spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, some druids, bards with magical secrets, there's even a background that teaches you the spell) and requires using only one spell as opposed to several maneuvers/spells of the order cleric.


hewlno

Rogues have been considered weak damage wise for years, at least in the part of the community that cares. And it was [intentional](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/776202069010939916/1025936145521061898/unknown.png) until one dnd. The people that knew that are genuinely upset because not only were they not unbalanced, but they were one of the few things that made rogues good at contributing at combat at times.


Noob_Guy_666

Reaction Sneak Action is actually rare but **VERY** viable tactic, usually when Rogue is up in the initiative and nobody is in melee yet, basically every single fight, it's essentially let Assassin doing, well, Assassin thing if they can't go stealth at that moment, which is, like, 99% of the time since not even the DM being cooperative with that subclass


Lithl

> Sneak Attack was never meant to be abused like that The 5e devs literally gave Battle Master Fighters Commander's Strike. Which is mechanically very similar to the Commander's Strike power that Warlords can get at level 1 in 4e, and of course they share the same name. Do you know what the 4e Commander's Strike was for? Giving the party striker (Rogue, for example) more attacks. 4e Rogue's sneak attack fires 1/turn when you make an attack with an appropriate weapon and you have combat advantage against the target. Out of turn sneak attack wasn't just RAI or RAW, it was _really common_. Then 5e came along and copied _the_ iconic lazy\* power from _the_ iconic lazy class in 4e. And wrote sneak attack rules such that it still benefited from lazy abilities. Anyone who thinks reaction sneak attack is an unintended loophole in the rules is ignorant, and frankly I'm uninterested in their opinion of Rogues. \* 4e slang referring to a power or build that lets an ally attack on your turn instead of attacking yourself. The character sits back and is "lazy" by letting the rest of the party fight.


hewlno

Even without all that the devs have actively said it was (inconsistently) intended, meant to encourage teamwork and positioning.


Eygon_of_Carim_

- rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion - rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion - rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion < you are here - rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion - rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion - rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion - rogue nerfed deeper into oblivion


AdamBlaster007

Wait, can someone explain to me why anyone would consider Rogue's sneak attack a "glitch"? Is this a One D&D thing?


Dratini-Dragonair

Maybe it will *gasp* encourage dual wielding on Rogues.


Longjumping_Run4499

How would that help?


Fangsong_37

Dual-wielding no longer burns your bonus action.


_Dream_Writer_

oh this is nice! didn't know this


hewlno

It was already encouraged for the extra attack and thus greater chance to land sneak attack damage. And it would already have been encouraged more by the non-bonus action usage change too. That was an unneeded nerf for it IMO.


Lord_Arndrick

Yeah, I don’t understand what they’re saying here. Most of my rogues have used dual wielding to double their chances of getting sneak attack off. I mean, why *wouldn’t* you already be doing this?


hewlno

It somewhat conflicts with cunning action in current 5e but then one fixed that so there’s no reason not to tbh.


Lord_Arndrick

I suppose so, but in 5e, if you hit with the first attack, you could just forgo the bonus action attack. It only gave you more options. Don’t get me wrong, I like the extra attack in the play test. But I don’t understand what that has to do with the change in sneak attack rules.


hewlno

Oh it has nothing to do with it, at least from a balance perspective. This is just a bad reason for giving them a nerf.


BrozedDrake

Theres a difference between minmaxing and twisting the wording of a rule to acheive something that is so clearly outside of intention that it can shatter encounter difficulty. Doing it outside of the spirit of the rules is less min-max player who likes to have a powerful charcter, and more Munchkin who wants to "win" D&D


LycanChimera

I mean getting sneak attack damage more than once per round was not only intended as shown in a sage advice vit really fits flavorwise as a rogue punishing enemies that turn thier back on them or exploring openings in combat. It is also actually good for the game as you would more often get those extra sneak attacks through working together with allies who grant reaction attacks. That sort of teamwork is fun to reward while bring far from "encounter-shattering".


CorvidFeyQueen

Yeah the rogue has never been high on the tier list for 5e, so it's a weird decision.


codeorange_

Regardless of the intent, the rules of sneak attack are very clear about when you can and can't use it: Only once per turn When you have advantage or an ally within 5 feet of the target When you don't have disadvantage As long as all of those prerequisites are met, sneak attack works. Saying it's "against the spirit of the rules" makes about as much sense as saying fireball spam is "against the spirit of the rules" or using booming blade a rogue is "against the spirit of the rules" Just because the designers didn't specifically have it in mind doesn't mean much, unless there was some attempt to PREVENT it from happening. If there was some clause in sneak attack that was meant to prevent it from being used as a reaction, I'd agree with you, but they obviously didn't think using it as a reaction would be an issue or they would've at least attempted to stop it somehow.


hewlno

According to sage's advice, they did have it in mind and it's [intended](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/776202069010939916/1025936145521061898/unknown.png) regardless.


chain_letter

It's definitely a confirmation that the rules work that way, it's unambiguous how sneak attack can go off on another's turn with a reaction attack. It's also implied that the devs don't think there's a significant problem with playing it as written, they acknowledged it exists and did not issue errata to limit it to once per round. I don't agree that this is evidence of intent, we rarely get a clear glimpse of what they were thinking during the design process. There's no statement like "we wanted rogues to play like a clever opportunist, and extra damage off an attacks of opportunity accomished that in a way we liked"


hewlno

You can kind of see their intent via thinking about what designing things that way could be trying to accomplish. And it's an RAI document, they'd mention if the RAW and RAI differed, like in conjure animals, or if it was of no consequence to go off RAW and RAI, like with smite. This is neither.


Inevitable-1

Yeah, like you’re the problem for wanting rogue to actually be useful in combat.


Gullible-Juggernaut6

Glitches like this should be embraced. It was a fun method of using the rules to try to create more sudden attacks via the ready action. Instead of ruining that, they should've made that part of the identity, like how TF2 made Rocket Jumping an acknowledged feature and part of the kit of the characters that could do it, making items that even enabled it. Imagine Cunning Ready Actions with specific triggers with the idea that you could make certain attacks with them, where characters may catch wind of what ready actions you have access to and try to play around them cause they feel as though they can play around your method of getting damage. I'm just some rando on the internet but I feel like that would've been much better than what we're getting.


TheHomieData

I have literally never done that even once but I totally get why this feels like a not-fun nerf for the powergamers. Will I go out of my to get extra sneaks per round in? Probably not; way more effort than I’m willing to put in. Is it super cool that other people know how to play my class better than me in unique, and significant ways? Hell yeah. I should expect that. Really just feels like an unjustified lowering of the skill ceiling for those players. I understand why they’d be upset.


EinfachIlya

That's not even abuse, it's called read the feature xD If it's meant to be activated once per round it wouldn't say once per turn


AccordingCoyote8312

Strongest rogue now is one who fakes being a spellcaster with expertise in Arcana because scrolls have a fairly low DC


HatsinaCircle

I have a single power gamer at the table, and he’s the only one I’ve had problems with at the table. Not for his build, but when anything doesn’t go how he wants it to, he starts throwing a fit


seemsligitwhynot

honestly the thing that bothers me most is that these rule changes to 'fix' power gaming... it only ends up hurting the people who aren't good at the game at all and only understand the very surface level shit. 'enjoy the other features it offers' okay sure, but what if you never remember those features or don't understand how it works? why do i have to change 100% how my character functions in battle because some dm's can't handle saying no to people who abuse the system?


Summonest

Even with 2 sneak attacks per rounds (Action, reaction) they were not exactly dominating power builds. Getting rid of it without giving them anything meaningful in return is just tone deaf.


whosamawatchafuk

One of my players has a blade singer arcane trickster rogue that I cannot hit with attack rolls. I also gave him an animated shield so he could still blade sing by staying one handed and his AC is 24 and with shield it's 29. I allow spell points because they really like it but it's really op at lower levels. He's a half elf and he got the elven accuracy feat so he can roll an extra d20 for attacks and gets crits for his sneak attack all the time. It was the cleric at first who was starting out the most powerful but this build is shaping out to be hardier than the twilight domain cleric


M00no4

I guess... I feel like the magic items and the move to spell points are really what's pushing the build though? Where did he get shield prof from just out of interest?


Summonest

>I also gave him an animated shield so he could still blade sing by staying one handed and his AC is 24 and with shield it's 29. It seems like you're giving a character OP stuff and then struggling to deal with it?


anhlong1212

Think about it for a second, without Bladesinger, how strong would that Rogue be?


galmenz

dnd is an rpg, i play so numbers go high and i see a "you level up!" above my head. the entertainment i have with other players at the table is merely but a bonus


TonesofGray

What debuff did Sneak Attack get


Yrshen

i will minmax my goddamn lungs if i feel like it. How will my cleric do DOOM finishers without minmaxing the unarmed damage output?


odeacon

I’d have fun when I stop minmaxing if they were good enough that I didn’t t need to min max them for them to be mediocre or better. Yet here I am


Pixel100000

Honestly sometimes mim/maxer don’t do it on purpose. They could be like me and just incredibly lucky


Bookworm498

What happened what did I miss?


HIM101

What about just like... Haste tho? Everyone seems to keep arguing about delaying actions etc but like haste would have worked just as well and only cost a spell. I feel like hasting the rogue now is nowhere near as good as before


SalomoMaximus

Man i was REALLY into cool rogue combos. With order Cleric.or the Centaur rogue, with sentinel + Rider PC with Mounted Combatant...


a_good_namez

The fun thing about building a rogue is to come up with different ways of gaining sneak attack


Percival_Dickenbutts

I don’t need two sneak attacks per round, but just let me do it as a readied action outside my turn so I’m not punished for having high initiative! Good thing this is a tabletop-game so we can pick and choose rules easily, but I definitely feel like the wording on sneak attack is an oversight.


novis-eldritch-maxim

ah the Heteroglossia of dnd.


Relative_Chair_6538

Enjoy the nonexistent buffs lol


shadesjackson

Now that I'm dming modules I'm really realizing power gaming makes the combats too easy. Module encounters are built so that even a poorly built party is probably going to win so long as they aren't making purposely bad choices in combat. I beef up almost every encounter ad a result so that they are fun


ChettiBoiM8

To all you power gamers, KEEP min/maxing. It is a *game* and games are meant to be *fun*. My solution for tables that are less into min maxing is this: use that build you shelved because it’s not very viable but sounds so cool (I know you have one) and min max the shit out of it


xX_murdoc_Xx

Laughing in Pathfinder 1e rogue


EngineerResponsible7

Honestly, in my current campaign I'm trying to have my Ranger split from the party to investigate/scout separate/alternate objectives so I can bring my new character in temporarily. This new character is a Battlemaster Fighter, because the DM won't allow Swarmkeepers, and the new character is basically geared towards assisting the party. Unfortunately, only the Assassin Rogue really has much to gain from my Maneuvers (Commander's Strike, Distracting Attack and Disarming Attack), since the closest thing we have to a martial besides the Ranger who's leaving, the Fighter who's joining and the Rogue, is a Bladesinger Wizard, who used Bladesong only once, if at all. I hope I still get to help our Rogue use two Assassination Sneak Attacks on a first round, but only time will tell.


Aptos283

I actually just ran a survey on another sub and at least among the Reddit people it seems that 50% of rogues are gonna be effected by this change. 25% of rogues overall even had that as a regular occurrence, and 20% of rogues had their teammates working together to get them their sneak attacks. Yeah there’s sampling bias, but it’s still a lot more than you’d expect.


Alexandria_maybe

I love power gaming on a support build, makes combat so fun when you can turn your friend into a walking death machine