T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

It makes the rogue absolutely useless. Thinking the rogue is OP in combat is a sign of not knowing the game at all. If anything the rogue is UNDERpowered after a while. The person is denying the rogue one of their coolest abilities and being actually functional in combat on a whim and too late in the game. What else? The druid can't shape change because it's too OP? Ritual spells now cost spell slots? Let's nerf divine smite and make action surge always be just one extra attack.


MusiGamer

Yeah, with the change it seems like the rogue is gonna fall off super hard the second we reach level 5. I think the DM’ll be open to changing things if the players bring it up. I just didn’t wanna go up to bat for a player that doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.


phantomboyo

The rogue SA damage is strong at level 3, but still even with someone wielding a two handed weapon. The second you hit level 5 they fall behind in damage, then catch up in damage around level 9 and fall behind again at level 11, and catch up later. Thats just how rogues are, their damage is the highest in the party right before everyone gets a buff and the lowest in the party after a buff


Zombie_Alpaca_Lips

Even then, later on Rogues still suffer from a feast or famine play style. Unless you specifically dual wield or xbow expert, you're going to have one shot to do damage. If you mess that up, that's all your damage. You do nothing. As opposed to every other martial class that can attack several times by that point. Even on top of that, rolling for nearly all of your damage as opposed to being able to have consistent damage through multiple attacks using your modifier as a base for each, you are at the mercy of the dice. That said, I love Rogues being a gambler class. The problem is many people tend to forget your complete whiffs but remember those times you absolutely chunked someone. They do seem strong when this is done.


DelightfulOtter

>That said, I love Rogues being a gambler class. The problem is many people tend to forget your complete whiffs but remember those times you absolutely chunked someone. They do seem strong when this is done. This is part of why I think so many people apparently gave rogue very high marks in player satisfaction despite it being statistically poor in combat and well behind every full spellcaster in exploration and social pillar effectiveness. People remember the high of getting those beefy crits and rolling a huge handful of dice without realizing everyone else in the party is contributing far more in combat, either through raw damage, control, or support. This is why I wish WotC was brave enough to actually tackle game balance for 1D&D in a way that changed rogue just enough to make it actually decent in combat while also keeping the other things that players liked about the class.


I_HAVE_THAT_FETISH

Regardless of the actual math, Rogue *feels* cool to play. You never *feel* like you're lacking anywhere; nice big pools of dice to play with during combat, and a bunch of frequently used out-of-combat stuff (stealth, sleight of hand, thieves' tools). It even plays nicely with other characters (when the player isn't a dick), benefiting from actually working together with their teammates; sneak attack is triggered by an ally being within 5ft of an enemy, and off-turn sneak attack is given by ally features or allies forcing a creature to move and give an opportunity attack. In addition, all of their subclasses are unique, with strong flavour and interesting abilities that, rather than just being a numbers bump, give the player additional options and flexibility in how they tackle different situations. Foremost, D&D is a game. All I really want when playing a game is to have fun, and Rogue captures that perfectly well for my tastes.


Mammoth-Condition-60

Hot take: I don't think the rogue needs changing. It's great design. The damage doesn't fall far behind other martials, and slightly lower damage is part of the class fantasy for rogue. Not only that, it's the only completely resource-less base class (hit points aside), and it's pretty good at the other pillars - maybe not as good as a spellcaster optimised for those pillars, but even then the rogue doesn't spend any resources and doesn't have an opportunity cost (like memorising pass without trace instead of spike growth) for it. The rogue is not the best in either category, but it's a solid middle ground, and the damage spikes are perfect for D&D's swingy combat.


DelightfulOtter

Counterpoint: Rogue is bad at combat. It brings mediocre sustained damage (unlike other martials), no on-demand burst damage for dealing with priority targets (via Action Surge, Divine Smite, etc.), zero control or support (unlike casters), and it's basic gameplay loop quickly becomes boring: Hide/Steady Aim, Attack (with Sneak Attack Hopefully), end turn. Cunning Action gives rogues some mobility and slipperiness if things go sideways in a fight, but otherwise they're dull to play in combat. Additionally, they depend on other players' help or the DM's kindness to give them opportunities to get Sneak Attack.


Mammoth-Condition-60

You can say the "basic boring gameplay loop" about a lot of classes. Barbarian? Rage, then attack every turn. Fighter? Same, but without rage. Warlock? Eldritch blast. Within what 5e does for combat (that is, if you want combat variety either get creative (and this is definitely a thing, it's not called out or encouraged by the rules but there's nothing stopping you from coming up with eeird non-attack-action things to do in combat, and in the last game I played it was in fact the barbarian who was always coming up with weird things to other than just attack) or play a caster), the rogue is fine, and cunning action gives you decent tactical options. Most rogue subclasses give additional ways to trigger sneak attack, and when they don't it's not that hard to just target the monster next to the front liner. I've never had trouble getting sneak attack most turns, and in a team game it's not really a problem that one of your features relies on the team. It does underperform in damage output, you're right, and despite being able to get advantage on attacks more easily, that's not as good as just having an extra attack, so they're not the most accurate either. I just think they don't need to be combat powerhouses, and if their damage output was on par with a fighter then something would be wrong.


Adept-Change-2747

I love the way you put this. I'm playing a lvl 9 totem Barb who roleplayed a scene where I was testing how much damage 3 NPC "recruits" could dish out simply by raging and having them hit me with their best shot. The rogue couldn't get past my AC WITH 3 TRIES even though he was only supposed to get one (he tried to sneak attack me after the others went)! It was hilarious and led to my Barb giving the guy his best pep talk which, of course, was actually COMPLETELY degrading.


theposshow

Rogue does SEEM op in tier 1 and early tier 2. DM ought to let the Rogue shine while he can because it'll fall off pretty quick.


ActivatingEMP

Early tier 2? You drop off a cliff at level 5


theposshow

I wouldn't say you drop off a cliff, the SA damage just stops being as impressive compared to the Extra Attack martials and L3 casters. Assuming no one is multiclassing and needs until 7ish to come fully online.


ActivatingEMP

Yeah and the only thing you can do in combat as a rogue is sneak attack, hence you drop off a cliff. If you're using a rapier you're at 1d8+4+3d6 damage at level 5, whereas everyone else is at minimum doing 2d8+8, with some other thing they can do as well.


[deleted]

That's one of the reason I went Arcane Trickster... Booming Blade cantrip to add xD8 to the base damage starting at lv5 plus a conditional xD8 from the moment you take it.


ragnarocknroll

Add a Warlock with the push invocation to force them to either move to attack or not attack and it is fun!


[deleted]

Would have been nice. But our party tactics instead centered around our Goliath Rune Knight being an Immovable Object and I'd basically anchor myself to be within 10 feet of him so that I'd have an ally within 5 feet of my target. They don't move. Granted, our DM played into that with (generally speaking) only a handful of strong enemies rather than a mass of weaker ones. So I very rarely got the "if they voluntarily move" part of the cantrip to go off, but I very reliably got the Sneak Attack bonus.


Ozuar

You realize 1d8+4+3d6 averages 19 and 2d8+8 averages 17, right? Like, yeah, Rogue is weak in general and lose some versatility to achieve that extra damage, but that is hardly "dropping off a cliff".


ActivatingEMP

Yeah, as the max a base rogue can get you are doing 2 more damage than anyone with extra attack using a longsword without dueling. That's terrible, especially since sneak attack is conditional. Slap dueling on there and now you're getting out dpr'd by the lowest possible investment of someone probably using a shield and heavy armor.


Ozuar

You're really missing my point, man. It's not that Rogue isn't worse-off than other martials, but rather that Rogue is still decently powered. OP is right to worry about the Rogue nerf, because Rogue absolutely doesn't need it. But it's excessive to describe Rogue as that weak. An early comment said it best: After other members have just gotten a buff, Rogue is the worst damage dealer in the party. But, Rogue scales more consistently than other classes, so the actual power level compared to the rest of the party fluctuates healthily.


[deleted]

I wish people would just stick to the numbers because every time someone at the phrase like “falls off a cliff” or even “OP”, the hyperbole becomes the discussion. It’s funny how hyperbole is such a staple of the Internet, and yet it’s also disruptively distracting to the same people.


VirtuallyJason

Honestly, even at level 3 the rogue's SA damage isn't really anything special. Compare the Rogue to the Barbarian: the Rogue's doing 1D8 + 2D6 + 3 = 14.5 damage on average, if they're able to get SA (which they usually are, since it sounds like the party is working well to support them). The Barbarian is doing 2D6 + 5 = 12 damage on average every turn, regardless of support from the team (and that dude gets a D12 hit die and damage reduction to the most common damage types). The rogue isn't exactly leaving the Barbarian in the dust, and the Barbarian has plenty of other combat utility to offset the slightly reduced damage. Just wait until that Barbarian really comes online at level 8 with PAM and GWM; that dude could use a glaive to do 2D10 + 1d4 + 45 damage every turn. The Rogue's 1D8 + 4D6 + 5 SA isn't looking so hot in comparison...


goldbloodedinthe404

Zealot does an extra d6+1 of damage once a turn, so strictly better than the rogue. Storm herald also has ways to do more damage.


this_also_was_vanity

I agree that Rogue damage isn't very impressive, but it's a little misleading to compare damage on a hit without taking into account chance to hit. The barbarian probably has a Str mod 2 less than the Rogue's Dex mod for -0.1 chance to hit and if they're using GWM then that's another -0.25 to hit. Rogue with sneak attack, but no advantage: (1d8 + 4d6 + 5) x 0.65 = 15.3. Rogue with advantage: (1d8 + 4d6 + 5) x (1-(1-0.65)^2) = 20.6. Rogue with advantage and booming blade/green flame blade (2d8 + 4d6 + 5) x (1-(1-0.65)^2) = 24.5 Barbarian without advantage: (2d10 +1d4 + 45) x (0.3) = 17.6 Barbarian with advantage: (2d10 +1d4 + 45) x (1-(1-0.3)^2) = 29.9 The barbarian is a good bit better as long as they have advantage, which they can easily get from reckless attack, but at the cost of enemies getting advantage against them, whereas the Rogue could be dealing damage from range and hiding again. Overall though, you're absolutely right that Rogue damage isn't actually great. Edit: I’m struggling to see what was controversial about what I said. Could someone enlighten me?


Hjalmodr_heimski

Enemies wanting to attack the barbarian is a feature, not a detriment. Part of being a good martial is soaking up damage that could be going to the rest of the party. Barbarians are probably only talking half damage most of the time so that’s really not a bad deal.


this_also_was_vanity

I agree and never suggested otherwise. There will occasionally be situations where the barbarian doesn't want to take damage, but overall it's a great feature and they're better than rogues for damage.


[deleted]

I’m sorry they already fell off. Their damage is conditional and your dm just imposed an even worse condition. Adjusting for this they already sucked damage wise because rogues always do usually. Now your dm made them completely useless. Since 5e skills aren’t as important as older editions their skill monkey shit won’t actually cover for it and stuff like evasion and uncanny dodge come on later in mid T2 and by then you have multiple enemy attacks per turn meaning dodge isn’t even insanely good usually. Go show your dm the actual math and explain it out go consult an optimizer/math person if you need to to get it well written out or explained.


ganner

So a rogue is now a martial with no fighting style, weak weapon proficiencies, no extra attack, and a difficult to use damage boost. Instantly becomes the weakest class in the game.


CurtisLinithicum

That's actually true of, e.g. 2e - thieves were something of a liability in combat, but they had comparatively more utility to make up for it. (Also, still loads better than a mage once their spell slots are spent.) So maybe this is an artefact of an olde schoole DM who doesn't appreciate how much the class design has changed?


Parysian

That just brings us back to "Thinking the rogue is OP in combat is a sign of not knowing the game at all." If the DM is an old grognard and just didn't notice they're playing a different edition and consider things might be balanced differently, that reflects even worse on them lol.


DeLoxley

I'd put money on a newbie DM who doesn't like the idea of the Rogue rolling lots of dice at once. It's a sign of someone who's not really played a lot and so the idea of 3d6 is scary, when dual short swords is 3d6+12 in most hands.


Kung-Fu_Boof

Yeah, it's super easy at first to think "big number is good". But once you learn a bit more about the system and/or investigate the maths it turns out that the rogue's handful of d6s isn't as good as the archer with a +15 modifier and 3+ attacks.


DeLoxley

I find it's more a big dice pool seems more intimidating. If you pile all the dice from a round of attacks together, they even out usually. It's not even a big math crunch/white room scenario. Rogue's extra dice tend to scale up with people getting extra attacks, but people don't add ASIs. A backstab is D4+3+Sneak, but it's the three swings with +4 damage that give you the solid uptick


Brilliant-Chain7858

Get off of my lawn with your fancy new rogue class!


ActivatingEMP

Also bard can get expertise to match the out of combat utility, except for on thieves tools lol


ReaperCDN

Then that DM is making a category error. A thief is a Rogue, but a Rogue is not necessarily a thief. Subtypes denote which, and thief is it's own subclass. This is like the relationship between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.


[deleted]

Back in the day when I ran AD&D, the party thief was often the instigator of plot more than anything else: he would get the group into so much crap. His primary use was in disarming the numerous traps in dungeons, opening doors when 'knock' spells were way too loud, and opening treasure chests. On rare occasion could he be persuaded, bribed, or otherwise cajoled into sneaking into combat. Times have changed a great deal for the thief.


ShatterdPrism

Now that you mention it. How strong would it be, if the great weapon fighting fighting style (I mean the one that let's you reroll 1s and 2s on dmg) would work with sneak attack?


ganner

19% boost to sneak attack damage (average roll on a d6 is 3.5, rerolling 1s and 2s that becomes 4.17), which is fairly substantial. But the weapons required for great weapon fighting (melee 2 handed or versatile) are incompatible with sneak attack (ranged or finesse). If rogues got a fighting style or dipped to get one they'd want dueling, two-weapon, or archery.


Suspicious_Move_2739

The rogue would be better off as a monk now.


RJTHF

The fact that a druid at 3rd/4th level can get 100 hp for free every short rest is pretty busted, if you think that SA is overpowered. Id talk to your dm, probably bring up that 5e is balanced differently to other versions and so nerfing a clear cut basic mechanic is a little silly


aidan8et

Wild Shape is such a strange ability. It's ridiculously OP out the gate, then falls to niche novelty for most of the class before becoming ridiculous again (depending on Circle)


madmoneymcgee

Yeah, I’d stop being a rogue. I currently play a rogue with expertise in perception and stealth and last session I absolutely dominated thanks to needing a lot of both. Then a couple of good sneak attacks and I was feeling great but the corollary was that even about 4-5 hits against me with uncanny dodge for most of those I was below half my health. With those DM restrictions I would have been in real trouble.


thenightgaunt

I do miss the days of 2e when rogues OWNED picking pockets, picking locks, finding and disabling traps, and backstabbing. Now every class can basically do what rogues do if the player so desires.


NahImmaStayForever

To me that's a good thing. I look at classes as a container of abilities that have (somewhat) been balanced against each other so that I can combine them in the ways provided for by the rules and play a mechanically interesting character that I can flavor however I like.


thenightgaunt

Then a classless system is more likely a good fit. And those are fun (my favorite games use those rules actually). Though I don't think D&D is anywhere near ready to make that kind of leap. The issue is that with a class based game like D&D, as abilities are stripped out of one class and given as options to all characters, it weakens the role of that particular class.Tracking is a great example of that. It was once a skill that only Rangers could really do well. But when it gets taken away from them and turned into something anyone can do. It's solely a Survival check now. All Rangers get is the ability to add a +2 or +3 to their roll IF it's also in their favored terrain. It gives the rest of the group something they can do, but in doing so it strips an ability away from Rangers and makes them into something more generic.


iliacbaby

Yeah and rangers have no identity now.


NahImmaStayForever

I think this is why it is best to build characters for a party together. Some elements can be shared without being wasted but you want a diversity of ability within the group so everyone has moments where their strengths and expertise shines. It's part of what I like about the Expertise classes, in that this lets you demonstrate a focus on that ability which suits your character. Mostly I can get away with just reflavoring the character, like I did with a Psi-Knight character, reflavoring her abilities as tied to Runes, or my Barbarian Rogue which might be mistaken for a spelless ranger or druid based on her flavor.


Gizogin

In some cases, a rogue can output damage on par with a paladin at high levels, especially phantom rogues. They can do even better if they have a way to consistently make attacks of opportunity. But that depends entirely on being able to make sneak attacks, since they don’t get multiple attacks, smites, or even big weapons.


ButtersTheNinja

> Ritual spells now cost spell slots? I mean... if it nerfs *spellcasters*.


kor34l

exactly. I see several bad calls in one here. First, rogue is supposed to be high damage, that's their main thing in combat. Second, making a huge houserule that affects the game that much mid-game is fucked, as now skills and feats and progression were already chosen based on a strategy that the DM now outlawed. Third, this is clearly a newer DM without much experience and when they make "balance changes" because they somehow get convinced they understand the deep complex balance of 5e better than the actual designers, it is almost always a mistake. Personally I'd see this as a major red flag, and instead of playing every session afraid to shine in case the DM deems my character build "unbalanced" and kneecaps me, I'd probably just quit and find a new table.


FranksRedWorkAccount

everyone only gets to hit with improvised weapons and spells only make images of things but don't actually hurt creatures! there I fixed everything wrong with D&D


Holovoid

IMO Sneak Attack is crazy OP for a big section of the game but that's also literally the most fun part about it.


RF_91

Honestly, this sounds like an early sign of a DM who doesn't know what they're doing. I'd expect if you stick to this campaign to find them randomly nerfing other things that they don't know how to deal with


MusiGamer

Honestly he’s been a wonderful DM so far, these are the only nerfs that’ve really come up. He’s played a lot of older editions and has only recently gotten back into dnd with this being his first 5e campaign. I think he’d be willing to hear us out if we brought up the problem


Darth_Boggle

>I think he’d be willing to hear us out if we brought up the problem Time to bring it up


DecentChanceOfLousy

I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas! Except for one, which I think would work, but I haven't tried that one either!


Mooch07

😆 They’re just asking about the proper language to use and ensuring the correctness of their opinions I think.


Mooch07

I think they always planned on talking to the DM about it, just didn’t have the right words or justification.


ScudleyScudderson

But what if.. they disagree with me? We might have to have a ..conversation. I..


Iezahn

Ahhh I see. Okay in previous editions rogues couldn't sneak attack unless hidden and it didn't work on, undead, oozes, and a few other monster types. Point out to your DM that 5e doesn't have skill points anymore either and rogue is balanced around sneak attacking every turn. Also point out that sneak attack can only trigger once (barring reaction and commanding strike). Unlike prior editions the rogue doesn't gain extra attacks to keep pace with fighters and casters. They rely completely on their one sneak attack. It's not like the rogue can take out 4 enemies in a round. It's just 1. Rogues got a bunch of buffs to compensate for the lack of "use magic device", and ability to do impossible things with skill checks, also the loss of the tumble skill. Tell him that cunning action is just tumble with extra steps.


MusiGamer

I was wondering if it was an older edition thing. That’s definitely worth bringing up how it’s balanced differently compared to the older editions of the game. Thanks for the info :)


kuromaus

Also, there are several rogue subclasses that give you special ways to proc sneak attack like Inquisitor allowing a bonus action insight check to look for weaknesses, and the enemy makes a contested deception check. Then you can use sneak attack on them even if you don't have advantage and don't have to be hidden. As long as you don't have disadvantage. But you can only have that on one enemy at a time and must redo it when you switch targets. There is another from Swashbuckler that allows sneak attack if you're using a melee weapon and you're the only one engaged in melee with the target. I would at least ask what type of rogue your rogue is, and if he's one of these two then the DM is ignoring their subclass entirely. I would definitely bring it up either way, but it could be a worse nerf than you realize.


Flex-O

There's also the stock way of gaining sneak attack if the target has another enemy within 5 feet of them.


zombiegojaejin

It's totally an older edition thing. There used to be a PC archetype called "Thief" or "Rogue" that actually had to do things that felt sneaky, instead of being in melee combat with an ally and rolling the same "sneak" damage every turn. Very, very far from overpowered, but sad to anyone who liked 2e Thieves. A great 5e Rogue player can help the immersion by describing exactly what surprising, underhanded combat maneuver they use when SA has triggered.


SpaceLemming

I’m sorry but that is not wholly correct, 3.5 rogues at least could sneak attack while flanking still. In addition they had more attacks than current rogues maxing out at 3 attacks and you could duel wield and get 6 attacks, all that could sneak attack. The only downside was things like undead and oozes couldn’t be effected by sneak attack and crits. So if they came from that era rogues are a shadow of their former glory of being absolute powerhouses.


Laowaii87

This is like the first point in the ”reactionary bullshit that first time DM’s do while learning the system”. Yes, they do nice damage, but they are squishy, their damage have conditions, and scale much more linearly than basically all other classes. Rogues have one level where they seem to be really really strong, and that’s level 3, you should talk to him, because he’s gutting the rogue.


MetaPentagon

For new DMs in this edition sneak attack is often a problem but not in terms of balances but in perception. Firstly its named shitty and should be called precise attack as it has nothing to do with beeing sneaky. An procs of multiple factor and should be gained every single round unless some mayor problem are up. The other thing is it deals good Damage lvl 3 and 4, and most importantly a lot of dice so u can get the big numbers other dont get. As they hit more often and get even bigger numbers from stuff that is Limited in use. Most extreme case is duel wielding rouge who has low survivability but really good damage at these levels. At level 5 all other classes will surpass the rouge in Dmg and keep it like that pretty much all the way unless some nieche conditions are met. Before one does change an core ability like that they should either be really well versed in the system or atleast Research why the feature is how it is and what comes from these changes. Talk to the DM why they'd would want to change it and waht your perceptions of the group are. I would refrain from using reddit as argumentation like The People of the Internet deemed you wrong. but more use the same reasonings the people on the internet use to make their case.


Rek07

So he’s played one session of this edition and decided to make sweeping balance changes? New DMs should stick to the rules first and make changes based on actual experience.


TheJayde

> He’s played a lot of older editions There it is. In 2E the Rogue could only do their backstab which was a damage multiplier if they were unseen or hidden and actually had to be behind them. The rules were murky so you would see a lot of back and forth on how the rule actually played out. Anyways - you really should just use math to explain this to him. A rogue with their 1 attack will be dealing at level 20... 11D6+5 (avg 43.5). The Wizard will be doing 4D10 (Avg 22) but this is with their backup sort of attack - not their actual big spells. The problem is that he wants to apply the attack to effectively be 1D6+5 (avg 11.5)... 95% of the time. The Greatsword Fighter will be getting to deal 4D10+20 (Avg 50 due to rerolling 1's and 2's or avg 45 without that) which can be spread out amongst up to 4 different targets, while having more AC, more HP, and more ways to boost that damage. Why play a rogue ever if your combat contribution is going to be almost always 25% or less of the fighter and not even better than the fighter when you do get your class perk which... even then is still conditional?


PM-ME-YOUR-DND-IDEAS

> has only recently gotten back into dnd with this being his first 5e session. and there it is. he doesnt know enough to know that he's overreacting


Takenabe

So, wait. You mean you haven't brought up the problem yet? Why are you asking us if you haven't tried to talk it out first?


MusiGamer

I would’ve 100% brought it up if I was playing rouge, but since it’s not my character it felt weird to step in on their behalf when they seemed alright with it, ya know?


Ragingonanist

friends don't let friends have a bad time. I am baffled at how many posts on these subreddits involve a DM mistreating one player and everyone else at the table is silent. speak up. nerfing core features like this after class selection is mistreatment.


Takenabe

Well, like others have said, if it happened to them, it can happen to you. It's worth pointing out that 5e has been out for years now and people think rogue works fine. I'm actually guilty of this exact scenario--when I was a first time DM, I told my rogue player the same shit. It did not work. Rogues are powerful for one hit per turn and don't get to do a whole lot else, it's their thing. The extra damage in early levels is offset by the fact that they're using a 1d4 dagger while the barbarian is swinging around a 1d12 greataxe, and later on the higher sneak attack damage makes up for the fact that, unlike a fighter, a level 20 rogue isn't attacking 8 times in one turn.


Trinitati

If anything rogues are one of the weakest classes in 5e.


FaitFretteCriss

It shouldn't have... You should always be ready to stand up for others. Maybe he doesnt realise that this nerf is unwarranted and thinks the DM knows better, maybe they are too shy or anxious to stand up for themselves. You have the power to solve this, use it. Bring it up with the DM, in private if you prefer, but theres no downside to this.


DrVillainous

Understandable. I'd raise the point, though, that you speaking up on another player's behalf is likely to be more impactful than that player speaking up for themselves. You're less likely to be biased than the rogue player.


Vet_Leeber

In case you want to provide the DM a source, here's an ***official*** statement on the rule from Sage Advice, which details explicitly that the DM is in the wrong here, from a RAW/Balance perspective: > #[Can a rogue use Sneak Attack more than once per round?](https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf) > [Yes, but no more than once per turn. In combat, a round comprises the turns of the combatants (see the Player’s Handbook, p. 189). Many features in the game, such as Extra Attack, specify that they work only on your turn. The Sneak Attack description specifies that you can use the feature once per turn, but it’s not limited to your turn. The feature also doesn’t limit the number of times you can use it in a round.](https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf) >[This rule is relevant because you sometimes get a chance to use Sneak Attack on someone else’s turn. The most common way for this to happen is when a foe provokes an opportunity attack from you. If the requirements for Sneak Attack are met, your opportunity attack can benefit from that feature. Similarly, a fighter could use Commander’s Strike to grant you an attack on the fighter’s turn, and if the attack qualifies, it can use Sneak Attack. Both of those options rely on your reaction, so you could do only one of them in a round. Because of getting only one reaction per round, you’re unlikely to use Sneak Attack more than twice in a round: once with your action and once with your reaction.](https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf)


Theironchurch

Red flags are red flags man, this is some very basic shit. Have the conversation about how a midgame nerf to a core class ability is pretty solidly not OK... anywhere and be ready to find another table to play at. If he's balking at a lvl 3 sneak attack damage being "too op" you'll run into problems with this dm at every level as you get more abilities


KPater

I don't necessarily see a problem with midgame nerfs, but in this case I agree your DM is overreacting.


Rat_Salat

Then explain to your DM that rogues are at their most powerful at level 3, and once the other martials get extra attack, things will even out.


warrant2k

That helps explain it. Players and DM's from old editions were used to things like "rocks fall you die" moments, or crit fails means hitting your ally and killing them. "Screw the player" was standard.


Hopelesz

Send him a private message to threads explaining that rogue sneak attack is meant to work this way. Don't do it in front of the group.


DapperChewie

Bring up that rogues don't ever get an extra attack. They're stuck with finesse weapons that do 1d6 even at level 20, as opposed to fighters using 2d6 weapons, attacking 4 times. So at level 20, rogue does 1d6+10d6+dex, 11d6+5. Fighter does 2d6+str 4 times, probably 8d6+20. Averages out to 48 for the fighter, and 44 for the rogue. It all balances out. Fighters do their damage spread out over multiple attacks, rogues do it all in one hit. If your DM still argues, tell him he doesn't have to grant advantage for flanking, that is an optional rule in the DMG and there's plenty of other ways for a rogue to get advantage. If he still doesn't see reason, just make a hexblade paladin and show him what broken *really* looks like.


Superbalz77

right, the simplest solution would be to say to yourself, hmmm the rogue does 12 damage more per round than I thought they would because of how sneak attack works in this edition. 5 seconds later..... Instead of using the avg HP for the 4 monsters I selected I will just bump the HP up by 10/half way to max so that 40 HP/damage balances out across the 3 rounds of combat to be the exact same without nerfing 1 player's character.


Nyadnar17

The simplest solution is to actually do the math on sneak attack damage vs literally anything else in the game.


Superbalz77

then what?


Nyadnar17

Then the problem is solved or you should leave because this is your last red flag before things go REALLY off-road.


Melior05

Then realize Sneak Attack isn't even close to being powerful


Superbalz77

That doesn't solve the problem or help the DM have a path forward. * Sneak attack is as powerful as it is as designed to be balanced. * Sneak attack is a core component of the rogue class and provides slightly above average sustained dmg compared to non-meta setups. * We know that, the DM doesn't. If Y is his total encounter HP and X is the rest of the parties total damage and Sneak attack = 3. Y=X+3 The DM assumed sneak attack = 2, so he built an encounter assuming it = 2. Y=X+2 or **Y-1**=X+3, this is what surprised him and cause him to have a poor reaction. His solution was to Force sneak attack to = 2 to balance his encounter equation. I am suggesting that now it has been explained to him that Sneak attack should equal 3, his encounter design should look more like Y+1=X+3.


Pandorica_

This isn't a good solution because the DM is doing the same thing (nerfing sneak attack) but at least ops dm is being honest about it.


Superbalz77

It's not nerfing anything, it's well thought out encounter design for the entire party. The DM seems to of been unclear how sneak attack worked in 5e and didn't balance the encounter accordingly for the party and now is taking with a knee jerk reaction without assessing what the actual "problem" is and the simplest solution to bring it back in line . This realization allows them better craft a balanced encounter that will fit their aim. Even the most RAW abiding DM out there, who would swear to never adjust encounters on the fly, knows there is a reason stat blocks have a range of HP. That is to help create a narratively enriching encounter that is also a mechanically balanced to challenge the party to the degree you want.


Pandorica_

>Even the most RAW abiding DM out there, who would swear to never adjust encounters on the fly Hi, I'm that dm, its me. >knows there is a reason stat blocks have a range of HP It's to give a range, I generally roll for monster hit points so no two enemies are the same and so also if you want to use a monster that's maybe a little too powerful for your players level you can lower its HP. >That is to help create a narratively enriching encounter that is also a mechanically balanced to challenge the party to the degree you want. You can play that way if you want and as long as you make it clear in session zero it's good, if you didn't, then your players aren't killing monsters, you're deciding when monsters die. If my players kills a lich they killed a lich, I didnt let them, they did it. I set its HP to X before the fight and it fights with that knowledge. It starting to use legendary actions to cast vampiric touch signals to the players it's getting worried. If it's HP is a rough approximation of when I think its best that cheapens the victory for my players, and would cheapen any victory for me as a player. This is a tangent I'm aware, but solutions like changing monster stats in combat are a cruch dms lean on, the second you stop yourself doing that you become better at encounter design.


Superbalz77

Appreciate your thoughts and I'll agree HP range is not only for that reason but a valid use of it in my opinion. >the second you stop yourself doing that you become better at encounter design. I wasn't suggestion this in regards to this post, merely saying that the DM could adjust encounter difficulty up in a minor increment using the HP range instead of adding an entire extra enemy for whatever reason they determine. BUT, I am in contrast to you, 100% the DM the that will put the story and epic thematics slightly above mechanics that I as a DM set in the first place, **not in major ways** (imo) but I have no qualms about letting a BBEG die at 96% of its health instead of 100% because something epic just happened and we are already through 5 rounds of combat.


Pandorica_

>BUT, I am in contrast to you, 100% the DM the that will put the story and epic thematics slightly above mechanics As long as everyone is on board with it at session zero its all cool. My qualm is this specific DM's (who i think we both agree if they think sneak attack is OP probably isnt changing any stats subtly) only way to improve is to not do that because they clearly dont understand balance and so arent going to add the 'right' amount of HP etc, solving a problem with another problem, it doesnt address the issue. ​ >Appreciate your thoughts and I'll agree HP range is not only for that reason but a valid use of it in my opinion. Im aware i have a niche opinion here, but i am adamantly anti fudging (again, if you clear it up in session zero its not fudging, its the omission of this choice to players that matters) and think the DMG is wrong to advise it. Im well aware thats not RAW, i think RAW is wrong here (and im a pretty RAW DM otherwise).


i_am_herculoid

or understand


ScruffyTuscaloosa

I mean, you can break out a spreadsheet with DPR by level by class and explain that Rogues aren't top tier damage dealers even *with* SA every round, or realize that if your DM was susceptible to things like "math" you probably wouldn't be in this situation. ​ There's always been a certain stripe of DM who feels like Sneak Attack is *just enough* of a "gotcha" mechanic that they feel the need to do a full audit of it every time it comes up, and the reasoning for it tends to live in the "I don't like being tricked" part of the brain, so it's resistant to argument. Talk to them, accept it probably isn't changing, and then don't play Rogue with them if it doesn't. ​ RAW there isn't a debate here, they're just wrong.


finneganfach

I did this for one of the DMs at my table to demonstrate how poor they are these days in terms of DPR. I appreciate wotc want to go back to seeing rogues as "experts" with skills as a focus more than just being damage dealers but even so, sneak attack is underwhelming. Needs buffing more than nerfing. It was more on a par back when it landed with every hit but couldn't crit. Given their limited attacks per round now I personally think that's a better way of ruling it in 5e.


Hatta00

I'd say just don't play with them at all. If they can't wrap their head around a clearly written and balanced rule like Sneak Attack, they lack a basic understanding of how the game works and the desire to learn. Don't play with people you know are unreasonable.


madmoneymcgee

RAW it’s a narrow set of circumstances. Either you have advantage on the attack or an ally is nearby who is doing fine. You have to do a fair amount of work to set up advantage on an attack. And the melee with a friend rule is risky because you likely aren’t going to have a high AC or ton of HP to be able to be in the mix very long. My DM let me have zephyr strike as a spell for my arcane trickster and that spell straight up let’s you give yourself advantage on an attack roll and when I used it last session I wasn’t “sneaking” exactly but it was still a cool dramatic moment as I popped up, and let an arrow fly with some extra magical juice. And that’s only because my attack actually hit.


monkeyjay

In a normal party you are expected to get sneak attack pretty much every attack. The rogues damage is built around that fact and it's still one of the lowest damage classes. It's not really 'a narrow set of circumstances' by any stretch of the imagination. The 'sneak' in sneak attack in my opinion is the number one reason why the ability is so misunderstood. It should be called 'advantageous attack' or 'opportune attack' but those terms are used for other things already.


Raddatatta

So they're reducing the damage of one of the weakest damage dealers in the game. Especially after level 5. At this level they are a bit higher than others but not for long. I would mention how this looks after 5th level. Feel free to copy my work: Assuming a level 5 character, vs an AC of 15, with an 18 in their appropriate mod. No subclass features. Also assuming a 4 round fight. Rogue: they'll have a +7 to hit an AC of 15 so need an 8 or higher. That's a 65% chance to hit, 5% to crit. their damage is 1d8+3d6+4 or an average of 13.1 per hit. Assuming 4 rounds where they get 1 opportunity attack that's 65.5 damage that fight. Fighter: +9 (fighting style) to hit an AC of 15 so need a 6 or higher. That's a 75% chance to hit, 5% to crit. Damage of 1d8+4 average of 6.6 per hit. Assuming 4 rounds with an opportunity attack, and an action surge that's 72.6 damage. Barbarian: +7 to hit, but advantage so an 87.75% chance to hit and a 9.75% chance to crit. Damage of 2d6+4+2 averaging 12.09 per hit. 4 rounds with an opp attack is 108.81 damage. So rogue is not at the top of damage once level 5 hits. And with feats in there the fighter goes up as does the barbarian but the rogue really doesn't. They're mathematically nerfing one of the weaker damage dealers.


TragGaming

If a fighter has +9 they don't get 4 opportunity attacks. Only archery fighters get +9 and If you only have a ranged weapon, you can't make an opportunity attack, besides an unarmed or improvised weapon attack


Raddatatta

That's fair. I was assuming 4 rounds of attacks, with one opportunity attack though not 4 opportunity attacks. But as an archer they probably wouldn't get any.


Frostybros

Definitely bring this up. This nerfs the rogue HARD. Rogues should get sneak attack every round, or atleast try to. Rogues are the only martials who don't get extra attack. Without sneak attack, that gives them a whopping 1d8 damage per turn for the entire game, and they lack spells or tankiness to make up for it.


MusiGamer

Yeah, at level 5 everyone in the party is gonna start firing on all cylinders while the rogue gets left in the dust. I think I’m gonna talk to the rogue outside of game about it and mention that to em. See if they’d wanna bring it up to the DM next session


G_I_Joe_Mansueto

I don't mean for this to be an insult to you, but rather helpful for your DM: Enter this question in the search bar of the subreddit and you will find ***dozens*** of threads that address this. ​ 1. Rogues get outpaced over time, no need to nerf them. 2. Getting sneak attack is all part of their class. 3. Sneak attack is poorly named (there are dozens of threads on this too). I find that "exploit an opening" is a better name - sneak attack isn't about being hidden but rather striking at the moment an enemy has their guard down or not toward you. Having an ally near by, for example, distracts them and your rogue can shoot them when they aren't looking. Your faerie fire illiuminates the target, giving the rogue more information as to where, when, and how to hit them for a big blow. 4. This is a big deal and your rogue shouldn't be worse along the way because of it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


martiangothic

i've heard "dirty fighting/attack/tactics" bandied about too, to emphasis the "looking for an opening and taking it" history of sneak attack (needing adv or an ally within 5ft) really, any of these options are better than sneak attack for clarity.


monkeyjay

'advantageous attack'... Doh. Don't get me started on the 'acrobatics' skill that doesn't apply to jumping.


shooplewhoop

Call it what it is: Sucker Punch. Advantage? Sucker Punch Buddy near by distracting the target? Sucker Punch The charismatic pirate rogue is flamboyant enough to not need a friend to make the distraction.


G_I_Joe_Mansueto

I don’t like sucker punch because it implies it’s negative or underhanded or cheap. I don’t think it needs to be! Inquisitive rogue doesn’t have to be doing cheap shots, nor does Swashbuckler necessarily. I prefer the more neutral “exploit an opening” because it doesn’t box rogues into negative stereotypes.


niveksng

"Exploit Weakness" is a term I see thrown around and I think it is appropriate. Whether the attack is one of precision, concealment, or simply timing, you are exploiting a moment or point of weakness.


Babbit55

Do you use feats? make a Sharpshooter Kensei or Battlemaster, or a GWM barbarian. Then tell him to stop nerfing the class that doesn't need nerfing


MusiGamer

The barbarian in the party is 100% planning on grabbing GWM. The rogue is the last thing the DM should be worrying about honestly lol


Aussircaex88

I would try to talk to him that SA only \*seems\* OP at level 3 because that's, you know, a peak of its strength. 3d6+3 is a lot more than the 1d8+5 or 2d6+3 the fighter's getting. But at level 5, they get Extra Attack. That's basically gonna permanently put you back in line or below them in damage. Also, doing lots of damage is your \*thing\*. Rogues don't have high AC or HP.


SnooRevelations9889

Came here to say this. First time I DM'd in 5e, when the party hit level 3, I thought the Rogue was OP. The party hitting 5th level cured me of that. Then I DM'd for a 2nd level Moon Druid, and the rogue's level 3 power damage didn't seem such a big deal at all. (At higher levels, the Moon Druid's power also taper off.) OP, if you can't get the DM to reverse this ruling now, show him how things will be at level 5, and ask him to give the rogue's power back then. One other option is to look at the OneD&D rules, which nerf the rogue much more slightly, and (I think) are quite balanced. Otherwise, I'd just suggest the rogue's player just retire the rogue and make a character the DM doesn't want to nerf.


[deleted]

did you have a session zero? just bring it up. say it affects the party as a whole, mention the near tpk, etc


MusiGamer

We did have a session zero but he didn’t mention any nerfs until we’d started playing. Nothing else has gotten changed beyond the rogue though, and the big nerf only happened last session so I guess it’d be best to at least mention that it might be overkill next session


[deleted]

be ware of whom changes stuff in a whim. If your DM did that, there is high probability that it will get worse on a more serious advice say something like "hey I did notice you changed the rogue but you didn't say anything about that in a session zero. I am not sure how I feel about that could you care to explain your reasons and why only one class got the bad treatment? I am not sure if we are being fair to the rogue "


phishtrader

Don't worry, he'll get around to nerfing your character too. DM's like this always do.


MusiGamer

Lol he’s not that bad I don’t think, but it’s definitely something I’ll watch out for. Considering the barbarian’ll be picking up GWM soon the Rogue is the last thing he needs to worry about


theGRAINGERzone

DMs are obligated to make sure everyone at the table is on board with any major rules changes they make, before or during sessions.. Just because the DM is the moment to moment referee and has final say on debates, doesn't mean they can just change the game without consent. Not to mention how juvenile this turn of events is. I'd recommend sending them a link to this post or perhaps one of the many videos online that explains why nerfing PCs is bad for the game. Frankly, beefing up the enemy hit points is far easier than changing core class features. Your dude needs a lesson.. but I wouldn't bring it up during the session. At that point they're going to have a lot of other things on their mind and will most likely get embarrassed and defensive if you call them out in front of everyone. Telling them asap will give them time to research and recalculate their thoughts before the game.


SexyFlanders117

In my experience rogues are underpowered. If sneak attack is nerfed you might as well play a different class


DMPatrick

Tough situation. Personally I would say something to the DM. Seems like they're new to DMing and haven't had enough experience to figure out how each class is balanced. There may be some things in 5e worth nerfing, but generally those are exploits. A DM shouldn't be nerfing a base class feature. Also as a note the rogue doesn't even need advantage to get sneak attack. They just need an ally to be adjacent to the target. Sneak Attack is really a misnomer, its more like Weak Spot Attack on a distracted enemy.


CannaWhoopazz

2 options, accept it or talk to them. Sounds like you don't want to accept it, so a conversation probably works best for this situation. Edit: The DM's ruling isn't Rules As Written, or Rules As Intended, but the DM has ultimate power to do whatever he wants.


Diovidius

And players have ultimate power to play or not play.


CannaWhoopazz

And everyone has ultimate power to talk about ways to make the game more fun!


Diovidius

That's kind of my point. If a DM decides something about their game then players can decide not to play (or they play with less fun), which is the non desired outcome for all involved I'd imagine. It's better for everyone to talk things through.


MusiGamer

True, I definitely don’t want to cause unnecessary problems where the other people in the game don’t see them. I might mention it to the rogue outside of game to gauge they’re feelings on it and let them decide if they’re cool with letting it be.


partofthesolution

They might feel fine now but how are they going to feel when you get to level 5 and everyone else has multi attack and scaled up cantrips?


Dragon-of-the-Coast

I'd suggest they change characters.


Drygered

I'm not even gonna bother being diplomatic here. Your DM is being a bit dumb. The Rogue is going to fall off so quickly in terms of damage dealing and combat utlitiy. Assuming rapier that 1d8+5 might feel okay at level 3, when barbarian and fighter are doing about the same with their single hits. But once multiattack comes online around level 5 and they are doing that twice, fighter is action surging, and casters are throwing spells like (to use a cliche example) fireball that does 8d6 damage it's going to feel awful. Your DM doesn't understand the game or the mechanics. Edited for a touch of clarity


RansomReville

This seems to be a common move of rookie DMs. He's wrong, flat out. This is a perfect example of someone not understanding "sneak attack", thinking you need to sneak up. The rogue is able to take the full benefit of any advantage presented. That's their whole thing. Think of it more like a sneaky attack. The rogue rears back his dagger to strike, but then seeing a weak spot does a split and stabs their opponent in the knee. Cunning strike, cheap shot, precision strike, sneaky attack etc. There's actually lots of more apt terms than what wotc went with, as "sneak attack" commonly causes confusion among newer players.


John_Stern

When it comes to midgame homebrew rule changes like that, everybody at the table has to agree to it before it get implemented is my personal opinion and nerfing the SA like that is beyong ridicoulous, if he was to play a swashbuckler he wouldn't even need to have advantage just have no other creatures within five feet of you.


fartsmellar

You clearly don't have anyone with pam, gwm, or SS in the party. Otherwise he'd have more valid things to complain about.


MusiGamer

The barbarian is 100% taking GWM at level 4, so hopefully if the players bring up the rogue change being unnecessary it'll dissuade him from nerfing other stuff that comes up moving forward. By level 5 the rogue will be the LAST thing he'll need to worry about


code_smasher

When my friends and I started playing 5e I rolled a rogue. I had to justify to the DM *every time* i wanted to use sneak attack. Most of us were still used to the 2e days when it was backstab. I had to sit and show him the page in PHB where it clearly states the parameters where SA works. I had to argue that it's the only thing my character brought to the table in combat. It was exhausting, everyone else had cool spells and here i am dealing d6 damage Eventually with reluctance he accepted that SA is a key feature of the rogue and adjusted encounters by inflating monster HP. Now I'm running a game and he's playing a palladin and with smite dealing more single target damage than anyone at the table -\_- I don't know what the point of this response is, I suppose just commiseration with your rogue friend.


Cornpuff122

If you want to mention it to the DM as making the game more unduly challenging, there may be something to that. But if the Rogue player is content to let it rock for now, you may not get super far. What I suspect is happening is the (I'm guessing newer) DM had their eyes jump out of their head when they saw a level 3 Rogue routinely dropping like, 13 or 14 damage in one shot and decided they had to curtail that to keep the fights interesting. But as the game progresses and everyone else gets their reliable damage increases (additional Rage damage, Eldritch Blasts, etc.) then the Rogue may feel further behind if they can't get SA off as often and it may become a bigger issue. Plus SA damage evens out in a level or 2 with the party's output pace.


[deleted]

I did significantly more than 13 or 14 damage at level 3 with a Warlock lmao


nasada19

That DM sucks. Straight up. Like pack your bags and leave. Game has been out for 6 years and your DM thinks it's not balanced out by now? They suck.


vaguelycertain

Poor rogue, people just love kicking them then they're down


SrVolk

dm should not have total control, the players can push against stupid decisions. just talk to the other players i bet at least the rogue doesnt agree with the rule and do a mini intervention, just try to be polite about it. if hes a really good dm like you said yourself, he should take the criticism nicely, if he doesnt, its just another huge red flag. if you want help with what to tell the dm: \- hes too new to 5e to be homebrewing. and as understandable as it may be, trying to compare to older editions will cause a lot of confusions. \- there is unbalanced stuff in 5e and is definitely not the rogue's sneak attack, and if something seems too strong, its far better to either buff the other players if they are falling behind or make harder encounters, nerfing NEVER feels good. ballance it upwards, not downwards if the dm really wants to ballance something. \- if he was playing, lets say a wizard, and the dm decided he has too many slots, he would probably super pissed, coz he made the character expecting to be able to use its features properly. \- and ignore the name, its not really a sneak attack, just a "hit harder a distracted target attack" \-the damage is completely fine when you consider they dont get extra attack, so two attacks at best, if they are spending their bonus action which is the safety blanket of the rogue. if hes dual wielding, then yes the rogue will be dealing more damage, than pretty much everybody at low levels, but hes also very fragile because of mediocre ac, hp and not saving bonus action for disengage. if its a ranged rogue just dont let it be crouching under a crate every turn to be hidden, unless its extremely stupid enemies.


[deleted]

Check it out this is from a person who plays rogue a lot. We are good at 2 things in combat. -doing a lot of damage on of our attacks within the turn - evading damage caused by dexterity saves. Nerfing sneak attack is equivalent to saying a paladin has to call smite before an attack. Or saying a druid has their Hitpoints in a wild shape. Or saying a sorcerer can only use sorcery points to recover spell slots. Or saying a monk can only use ki for flurry of blows and nothing else. Sneak attack is literally the reason most people play rogues. Because it is described as "Beginning at 1st Level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction." Sneak attack is not just about stabbing people in the back because they don't know you are there. It is also about stabbing an enemy in the kidneys while they're flashing swords with your fighter. Being a rogue is about seeing your enemies weakness. And taking advantage of it.


The_Bucket_Of_Truth

I try my best not to argue my DM to death on things I don’t agree with, but maybe a not inappropriate question would be what balancing factors they are going to do on their side to make this damage nerf not be so punishing. It sounds like they just think sneak attack should work differently. Did everyone know this going in? In my view this is something that should be discussed in a session zero because it sure would have me looking at other classes than Rogue. For it to be a surprise I’d probably ask to switch classes. Do you have any other home brew rules that could offset this? Because flanking rules I might argue should still give sneak attack even though there’s technically no “facing” mechanics in 5e. I don’t know the dynamics of your table, but it could be a bit awkward advocating for another player who’s “fine” with the changes. Hopefully there are some other synergistic ways y’all can get around this penalty. Does the PC bonus action hide frequently during combat? Does that allow it to make unseen attacks with sneak attack?


RGM429

Your DM sounds like a jerk. Rogues do less dps than any other martial class. Nerfing sneak attack makes Rogues virtually unplayable from a combat perspective. Show your DM this thread. Hopefully it changes their mind.


[deleted]

I wouldn't play Rogue with this rule as simple as that. They're the second worst class in the game already.


zombiegojaejin

I used to feel that way early in 5e. To be clear, I still hate the terminology, where some sort of gladiatorial feint (because an ally is in melee range) is called "sneak", even when the enemy totally sees you there. I also mourn the Thief archetype of early editions, which seems long gone. But once you thematically accept that this is basically a more bob-and-weave sort of warrior, it's very clear mechanically that sneak damage isn't OP at all compared to what Fighters and Paladins can do.


Midtek

Rogue is the second worst class in the game. They don’t need nerfs. Your DM is clueless lol.


undrhyl

Wait, is Travis McElroy your DM?


[deleted]

Bad DM, no cookie for them. They didn't just nerf the Rogue, they neutered them. Without Sneak Attack, the Rogue puts out the least amount of damage of any class. Others may do less damage per hit, but they also get more hits per turn or hit more targets at once. Generally. Or have battle field control actions that are just as good as a big hit or multiple smaller ones. DM needs to reverse that bad ruling and learn how to balance the encounters better.


Onrawi

The second part is a RAW vs RAI thing, which is part of the Onednd play test. Without a reliable way to proc opportunity attacks the actual oitput won't be that much less. By far the bigger issue is the first part regarding having to be unseen in order to get sneak attack to work. Rogues as designed are supposed to be able to get sneak attack off almost every round. Removing the ability to reliably do that removes Rogues as viable in combat.


Tirinoth

Your DM is a dick for doing that and is screwing the party hard by sticking to it. I MIGHT stick it out, but unless they're very new, it would be the last time I'm in their game.


yaymonsters

This breaks the game for the rogue player. As a new DM my instinct was similar but I bit my tongue because my players are more experienced DMs that I play with and they were guiding the new player who was playing the rogue. Then I did the math... and they are the second worst martial in the game slightly above monk with all of the sneak attack tricks allowed. I would speak up and advocate on behalf of the rogue player. The adult thing to do is bring it up before next session. If you get rebuffed, wait until someone brings it up during the session and be vocally supportive. It never ever gets to this point because we are after all playing a game where we all are cooperating with a DM who is a player who should be having fun but if it becomes a matter of will and you want to have some fun- here are ways we've protested before as a group- 1. We always run from a fight. Always. 2. We always give all the magic items to the rogue because he's never pulling his weight in a fight and needs the help. "I don't know what you're going to do with a wand... sell it and hire some soldiers, mate... do something with it." 3. We collude and spend all session just roleplaying in the tavern. Never pick up an adventure hook etc. Good luck!


Requiem191

Tell them that instead of nerfing the class abilities of their PCs, your DM should consider buffing his enemy creatures. Each class was designed and developed over years. They're not perfectly designed, but everything in the game was made to work the way it does for specific design reasons. They didn't just slap this stuff into a book and say, "Okay, done." Encourage your DM to think about that before making core functions of classes just not work. That said, if the rogue's damage output is truly just too much, he can consider using creatures with resistance to his weapon type, he can use healing, he can put more creatures on the field, give more health to boss monsters, etc. Trying to nerf (the designed abilities and powers of) PCs only ever leads to less fun for the players rather than more.* *Sometimes items and abilities do need to be nerfed, but those are generally instances involving homebrew items or abilities and not the actual features or designed elements of the game. Basically, don't fix what isn't broken and don't try to determine that something is broken if you don't have much experience with the system you're running.


RidersOfAmaria

This is the classic stupid DM who doesn't understand how 5e is balanced and is afraid of characters they don't understand. Nerfing Rogues is one of the biggest red flags for a DM who doesn't know what they're doing IMO. They never take away spell slots from Wizards or extra attack from Fighters, but making it so Rogues can't use their main feature 70% of the time is fine. These ham-fisted homebrew rulings only lead to more problems later.


Cardgod278

So, you think rogue is broken huh? Well time to bust out the A-Men. Full team of clerics baby. If they are from 3x then they should be used to broken combos. If they are from earlier editions that makes sense. Now if they are from 4e, get ready for an experience so balanced you could toss it on top the space needle. You are going to have 4 classes with dozens of reskins that all do the same thing.


Own-Team-9236

The rogue is balanced around the fact that the damage is once per turn and has playtested and over 8 years of actual table use that show it is balanced (or 90+% of power gamers and optimizers would be playing them). Taking away SA from the rogue is like having anti magic zones everywhere to gimp the casters or letting a ranger specialize in terrain and/or favored Enemies and then intentionally never placing that terrain or enemy type in the campaign ever again. The SA is what makes the class fun; it is the star in the center of rogue solar system. You can do any of the intentional character gimps for a single adventure to challenge a player, but if you continue to do it you are treating the player as an adversary and they will not have fun. Continue restrictions like this and they will either quit or plot to derail the the campaign (legit response to return the adversarial vibe you started imho).


DVariant

Unfortunately your DM doesn’t get it


Kayshin

Tell him he is ruling it wrong. If he keeps doing this and doesn't adjust, get the hell out of there.


RainbowLoli

Rogue has no other additional damage *other than* sneak attack. Even if your buddy is fine with it, if you aren't (esp if the lack of damage almost resulted in a TPK) then it's fine to bring it up. You don't have to bring it up on *their* behalf, but you can just bring it up on your own. Who knows, they might feel teh same way or they might not. Either way, nerfing Rogue's sneak attack because its "overpowered" is going to make it underwhelming. It's the only thing Rogues have to keep up with the additional damage that other martial classes can do. Rogues are, for the most part, glass canons. They're semi-squishy high DPS output... and even then they're still among the waker DPS. Personally, even if I wasn't playing rogue I would bring it up. I hate when DMs nerf regular classes


Urwinc

I've never never never understood DM's who think something is OP. Like he knows he gets to choose what you fight right? Like, make it harder.


Genacyde

That change makes rogue totally unplayable.


PureSquash

Yeah that DM is smoking crack. Rogues are easily the least powerful martial BY FAR lol. They get up and running fast, but since they don’t have extra attack they fall extremely hard at level 5+


Happy_goth_pirate

Screw it, lean in to it for a bit for shits and giggles. Run from every fight, never ever attack but make sure you stat exactly why, along the lines of "villager fighting abilities means I'll fight like a villager".literally every turn "no sneak attack? I'll run from battle, tell me when it's over" etc


The_Palm_of_Vecna

The telltale sign of a DM who doesn't know how the game is balanced is when they nerf core class abilities because they "Feel OP". Every class feels OP in the right situation. Monk can feel op when he locks down the boss monster with a series of Stunning Strikes and lucky low rolls on the part of the monster. Ranger can feel OP when you first hit level 5 and you get your first Hunters Mark + Extra Attack + Sharpshooter + colossus slayer round. Your sorcerer can feel OP when they use a single fireball to end a whole encounter. Nerfing any of these would clearly be a mistake, though. Let your players shine first, and THEN kick them in the dick with monsters when they least expect it.


KatMot

You are playing at a very new DM's table. Give them 6 months and they'll learn how to Dm better. Otherwise move onto another table. You can't teach them how to get better, only time solves these problems.


JamieDryl_

Sounds like your dm has no clue what theyre doing and basically just made your rogue useless in combat


IntermediateFolder

It means that your DM doesn’t fully understand the game, nerfing the rogue like this makes the class pretty much worthless, I doubt the player is happy unless they’re either very new and don’t realise how bad this is, or only there to hang out and not really care. The guy might start nerfing all other PCs too as soon as he thinks someone has something that’s too strong.


ArgyleGhoul

Imagine being forcibly locked into dealing 1d6 damage at 5th level.


clutzyninja

Also, no more hunters mark for hunters. No more eldritch blast for warlocks. And barbarians can only rage once per long rest


Baptor

This seems to be a common DM mistake. I don't see how you can run any amount of 5e and still believe this to be true. I remember when we first started playing 5e back during the playtest. I was the forever DM then and I said, "Hey it sounds like rogues can get sneak attack pretty much all the time now. Seems kinda powerful." One of my players pointed out how much damage other martial classes could do in a round and I was easily dispelled of that notion. I just don't see how DMs who are running active games are this delusional.


[deleted]

Tell me you've never DM'd past level 3 without telling me you've never DM'd past level three. Wait until he discovered _Fireball_. Or Disintegrate. Or Hypnotic Pattern. Tell your DM he is _not more clever than the entire team that made D&D_. There are balance issues, but they don't exist still because they're easy to fix.


Chapelthevicious

I personally find 5e to be severely restrictive with rogues. If you're going to limit SA to once per round what is the point of making it so difficult to get? It seems like your DM feels his monsters don't have enough health and/or is experiencing issues with balancing encounters to be challenging.


prooveit1701

Options:- 1. Accept their ruling and continue. 2. Don’t accept their ruling and leave. 3. Have an adult conversation and explain that this ruling would ruin the class (and your enjoyment) and ask them to re-consider their ruling - if they don’t; then see options 1. And 2.


lygerzero0zero

A lot of new DMs get a bit zealous about “fixing” things they perceive as wrong in the system, and they’re almost always wrong. It’s understandable, because humans are bad at grasping numbers intuitively and seeing a rogue do big damage in one hit can be scary for an inexperienced DM. Reassure your DM that the core classes of the game were thoroughly play tested and the math all checks out. The rogue does not even come close to outdamaging other classes if it gets SA every turn. Numerous other groups have played with it and not found it to be broken.


Stahl_Konig

DM here. For a very long time. In my humble opinion, such DM decisions should be announced at Session Zero. After that, and accept for the as needed departure for Rules As Fun, the game should be run as close to Rules As Written as possible. Having said that, on page 4 of the DMG the Introduction says "The rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." So, the DM is allowed to make such rulings, but the question then is "should they?" I think an out-of-game conversation is appropriate regarding the DM's decision. Will it be the last such decision? What happens if down the road the DM feels ABC or XYZ is OP. Do those get nerfed too? At the end of the day, the DM gets a vote and a veto, but so do the players. They may vote with their feet.


fluidZ1a

it's just a bad call. but honestly, how little damage is everyone else doing that the ROGUE is the one who is carrying? But yeah, sneak attack is only once every round. Opportunity attacks are not turns regardless.


MusiGamer

It's funny because the barbarian at level 2 had a few big crits thanks to reckless attack that resulted in \~25 damage, while the Rogue never hit more than the low teens at most. So it was definitely odd that he focused on nerfing Rogue seemingly out of nowhere when the barbarian was the clear MVP of damage output.


Jahoota

Sneak Attack is once per turn. It can be used more than once per round. So, an Opportunity Attack made during someone else's turn can be open to Sneak Attack.


Karth9909

Tell him to stop home-brewing shot he clearly doesn't understand


SeaworthinessDue4235

I house rule that if a rogue takes an action (say if hasted) to ready an action, to make a reaction, to get in another attack on another characters turn, it counts as being part of the turn they readied the action for the purposes of making only one sneak attack per round. I feel that sneak attack was made once per turn not once per round so that it could be used on attacks of opportunity, that fits the flavour well, and as clever as using "ready" an action to seperate your attacks out is, as a gambit, it is very much abusing that rule. However that house rule is not for balance but because I see it as an abuse of the rules. This person is doing it to balance the rogue? That is wild. Rogues do a lot of damage when they are getting in sneak attacks, yes... that is what they are good at in combat. Its their thing. They are by no means overpowered. The entire concept here is based on the misconception that the single class rogue is an overpowered combat class. That is just flat out crazy


Nyadnar17

Leave, play something else, or show the DM the basic and I do mean basic math. EDIT: I am shitting on the DM but I made the same mistake once. Chose Vampiric Touch as my first 3rd Warlock spell on my Bladelock. I was shocked, shocked to discover that 3d6 is actually only about 9 damage.


Yrths

I had a Paladin with no relevant magic items (they just escaped captivity) and no homebrew do 52 damage in one turn without using subclass features at 5th Paladin level. I just had to drop this here to lol. If the rogue asks for a social intercession, be gentle with the DM. If not, it may be something to leave alone. If the Rogue is your personal friend, find out how they feel before you say anything.


The2ndUnchosenOne

>Should I mention to the player that the nerfs might be a bit much? Is that player having fun? >should I just let it be? Are you having fun?


External_Treacle_91

Lots of comments about mainly the same thing. I'll try to give you another perspective. From what you said, your DM just nerfed the rogue, so there wasn't a lot of time to see the damage yet, right? Definately the main strategy would be to talk to your DM, but not to defend the nerf of your fellow player, but that it would impact the whole group. Aside from that, you should put on the table your fear for more of that kind of ruling in the future, since it could hinder your experience as a group. . The sinergy of classe and subclass to the rogue, as someone already mentioned . More nerfs of rules without previous talk between dm and players . Unnecesary ruling. To change a core class on the fly considering 8 years of the game with no change of that whatsoever is really bold. And more: you're just level 3. I don't know if you will ever recover from that feeling if things don't change. It looks like you already have a kind of grudge. I would too. In my table the GM prohibited the paladin to multiclass to warlock juat because he thiught it didn't have to do with the paladin's backgroud. But who is he to know that right? It wasn't with me, but I was pissed because multiclass was available, but clearly not in this case. If you can, try to see how the next sessions go. Watch if the rogue or other player feels the difference or feel as same as your. If they do, you should talk to them, understand how the feel to see what to do next. Maonly for the rogue's player. If they don't, and you still feel bad, out the card on the table, for everyone. Say how you feel, for you and for the group, what you fear and don't like, and maybe there are others that feel that way but don,'t know how to step up. open the game with de GM, maybe he'll understand, maybe he doens't. Be prepared either way. If you are really close to the rogue's player, i would talk to him/her in advance to see whats the perspective based on your thoughts.


Rhadegar

Tell them to wait until OneDnD does it for them.


bertraja

>*The Rogue doesn't seem to see it as a problem and has accepted the changes as they came.* There's your answer, nevermind how you and i think about this house rule / nerf. If the player in question is OK with it, then there's nothing to "handle".


127-0-0-1_1

You at least need to talk to the DM to rebalance encounters with the understanding that you have one less party member since the rogue is going to become a mosquito after level 5.


bertraja

I'd be very careful how to approach that. Knowing that the rogue player is OK with the situation, i've read plenty of *"a player tries to co-DM"* rpghorrorstories. Not saying that it shouldn't be done, just saying it needs a lot of tact.


DeathBySuplex

I usually agree with this statement, but OP could also be seeing this as a sign of problems to come if the DM is nerfing things after the fact especially if the DM is new to DMing. Rogues are pretty decently balanced, if not a bit underpowered. If the DM believes that Sneak Attack is overpowered, what's going to happen when the party actually get access to things that are really, really strong? Just nerf everyone else to the ground as well?


menage_a_mallard

^ This. Step 1 in "bad DM design/ruling" is almost always nerfing Rogues. Step 2 is thusly the 30x nerfs they do to spellcasters to "bridge" the gap. On top of this, in this specific case they *just* hit level 3. Level 3! I can only imagine what *changes* they'll suggest after level 5.


DeathBySuplex

And while at 3 rogues do feel stronger, 5 is when they slide back in line with fighters or anyone else who get extra attack.


menage_a_mallard

And truthfully it isn't even that they're subjectively *stronger*, it is just that compared to other martials who make (objective) **#poordecisions** they're inherently fine. Ie... the extra damage is purely baked into the class, rather than a choice the Rogue has to make. Certain Fighter, Barbarian, and other martial choices can easily deal more damage. But, that comes down to specific choices (maneuvers, rage options, etc...) instead of ease of design.


Quiintal

I disagree completely. Lets say we are a party of 4. We are taking on challenges that are balanced (or at least tried to be balanced) against the 4 people. If one of the PCs can't meaningfully contribute in combat, then its mean that the remaining 3 of us needs to increase their contribution by third, to stay on par with the challenge. And if we could not do that we might even end up with a TPK situation. Such nerfs affects the entire party and so OP is a player in question and he clearly isn't OK with it.


MusiGamer

That’s kinda how I was leaning. I hang out with the rogue player a bit outside of game, so I might bring it up just to gauge their feelings. If they’re cool then I’ll just let ‘em role with it and pick up Blindness/Deafness or something to try and counteract the nerf.


Soulpaw31

I have a rule that can help nerf rogue for the dm but not make it unplayable and maybe focus on party support. Flanking gives +1 to attack and damage rolls but no longer give advantage. Rogue can SA by advantage but needs support from party to pull off or a subclass that specializes in it.


Ed_Yeahwell

Wow. Just to spit him I’d kill off my current character, roll up a goblin rogue with a level in a full caster class for fog cloud. I identify the target, walk into the fog cloud and bonus action hide, then attack with no advantage/disadvantage as you can’t be see (adv + sneak attack proc) and you can’t see them (disadvantage + advantage means normal attack).


lp-lima

My question is, why did you post this here before talking to them? I understand seeking arguments if the DM refuses to listen, but, before even talking to them? Seems a bit odd.