How to let the Rogue sneak attack every round - at level 3

Assuming I have not misread the rules packet, here is a simple way for the playtest party to allow the rogue to sneak attack on every attack starting at 3rd level.

Aiding another's attack gives the aided person advantage, and requires a 10 in the appropriate ability score.  So we can give the rogue advantage every turn by aiding his/her attack, which will allow sneak attacks.  Ok, but we probably don't want to use up another PC's turn each round.

At level 3 the wizard gets a cat familiar.  The cat has a 12 Dex, so it can aid ranged attacks.  Have the cat hang out with the rogue and aid every round.  Poof, constant ranged sneak attacks.

Discuss.

(This occured to me at work so I don't have the rules in front of me right now.  I may be misremembering something, if so please let me know)
I'm not sure the thief needs (or can use) the cat to aid his attacks.


He only needs to use the movement part of his round to hide again and will gain his sneak attack every round. That is, at least until enemies start to look for him.  
It's an action to hide.  
Unless I've misread something, Ivid, it seems to take an action to become "hidden" on one's turn.  As such, the rogue would only get advantage by using up an action to become hidden, so he couldn't also attack on his turn (at least, not at the lower levels we've been given in the playtest).

The cat familiar is an interesting idea, but does the familiar also get its own set of actions or does the wizard need to give up his action to command the familiar?

Bill Newsome


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

"In a hole in the ground there lived....my clan of halfling thieves!"

He only needs to use the movement part of his round to hide again and will gain his sneak attack every round. That is, at least until enemies start to look for him.  

Stealth is an action in these rules, you can't attack and then move+hide.

Given the damage on sneak attack is going up real fast, it seems pretty clear that game balance requires that the rogue not be able to sneak attack everyy round. It may be a rough shift for 4e rogues used to being the primary damage dealer in the party, but the 5e rogue looks like he is stepping back to the more classic lurker/skirmisher role.

Where does it say you can aid attacks to give advantage?  You can aid checks, but attacks are not necessarily checks.  For instance, you'll notice under conditions that they specify a/da on checks and attacks separately.
Just buy hunter traps, and ball bearings.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

How could the cat actually aid the rogue?  What can the cat actually do to allow the rogue to be a better shot?  I can't think of anything that would give an advantage to somebody.
You've never had a cat.

My cat has nearly killed me all by himself about a half dozen times.

I'd be worm food if he had an accomplice. 

The cat has 1' reach, which may make the distracting kitty mitten tactic problematic as combat rules filter in.  Additionally, I keep my kitty's claws trimmed as he's feisty enough to attempt this tactic.

I like playing rogues, but one thing I haven't liked in previous editions is how narrowly defined flanking is. When there's a battle mat, you have to be precisely 180 degrees apart from your ally.  I've seen weird grid movement when three players want to flank one human-sized monster.  I'd like to see flanking in D&D Next loosened up so it's easier to coordinate with an ally who wants to be up close and hacking away at the monster who's vitals you want to stick a dagger into.  By all realistic accounts, fighting against multiple foes is hard.  I don't think a rogue's ally should have to give up his attack for the rogue to gain Advantage unless their opponent is somehow exceptional at fighting against greater numbers.  Against such a foe, assisting actions/spells/items may be required.

Just buy hunter traps, and ball bearings.



DC11 check for ball bearings is not hard to succeed for anything in the bestiary. With no ability modifier, monsters still have a 50% chance to succeed the check. It's better than nothing, but again, it seems like scattering these should take an action. The hunting trap is a bit harder to succeed on, but not by much (40% chance) but doesn't take up as much space as the ball bearings (it doesn't actually say how much space the hunting trap takes, I'd say 5' area, I'd also raise the DC if it's 'hard to detect' hidden under leaves or underbrush).

I'm not saying they shouldn't take these, I'm saying you need to be able to setup the ambush for them to matter, or you might as well hide behind allies since it doesn't cost you any money. I think something we might commonly see is the rogue hiding behind the wizard, and a creature with the Gaurdian theme standing next to both of them. If the Gaurdian can take different orisions, he'd likely prefer Searing Lance to Death Ward (but it might be based on Domain), though stabilzing at-will with no check is probably something you'd also like to keep since your healing is not as strong. As is, the Moradin cleric in this situation will stand next to the wizard and rogue and dodge on his turn (since he doesn't currently have a ranged weapon, he should really have a throwing hammer which I would make 1d8 since that seems to be the Dwarven thing to do to weapons).

Another thing a Rogue (or any charachter can do) is take basic poison and poison their weapons and ammo when they know they are entering a dangerous area. A 50% chance (or worse, or better) that the creature will take an additional d4 is not so bad except that the poison costs 100gp and can only be used once. lol. At least those with ranged weapons can get three con checks / 1d4s out of it. That cost needs to be brought down by quite a bit, I don't see how this effect is worth more than 5gp if that much.


EDIT: On top of that, Halflings carry at half-strength (Strength and Size Rules uggggh) so they can't really carry any hunting traps.
He only needs to use the movement part of his round to hide again and will gain his sneak attack every round. That is, at least until enemies start to look for him.  

Stealth is an action in these rules, you can't attack and then move+hide.

Given the damage on sneak attack is going up real fast, it seems pretty clear that game balance requires that the rogue not be able to sneak attack everyy round. It may be a rough shift for 4e rogues used to being the primary damage dealer in the party, but the 5e rogue looks like he is stepping back to the more classic lurker/skirmisher role.





There is something odd about the lurker benefit. It doesn't quite add up to its suggested potential.  

He only needs to use the movement part of his round to hide again and will gain his sneak attack every round. That is, at least until enemies start to look for him.  

Stealth is an action in these rules, you can't attack and then move+hide.

Given the damage on sneak attack is going up real fast, it seems pretty clear that game balance requires that the rogue not be able to sneak attack everyy round. It may be a rough shift for 4e rogues used to being the primary damage dealer in the party, but the 5e rogue looks like he is stepping back to the more classic lurker/skirmisher role.




Which is, IMO, a terrible idea. At least, as implimented.

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn. That's boring design, and honestly a bit lazy.

I'd much rather have sneak attack be less powerful, and have rogues have interesting options. Like being able to hamstring, trip, blind, poison, even daze opponents.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn.



Even if I agree with your other points, hiding is not "sacrificing a round of doing anything useful." Hiding is useful, because it increases your damage next round.

You might call this nitpick but I really think it's ridiculous when people seem to view hitting something as the only thing that can be useful.

Sneak attack more than doubles the rogue's damage, and hiding grants combat advantage which doubles the rogue's accuracy. 2x accuracy and more than 2x damage = very useful. 

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn.



Hiding is useful, because it increases your damage next round.



Yes, hiding is useful, but a player shouldn't have to sacrifice having fun each turn just to get to use his primary damage-dealing class feature; when the fighter, wizard, and cleric all get to attack each turn and be useful, the rogue shouldn't be relegated to hiding half the time.

Bill Newsome


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

"In a hole in the ground there lived....my clan of halfling thieves!"


The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn.



Hiding is useful, because it increases your damage next round.



Yes, hiding is useful, but a player shouldn't have to sacrifice having fun each turn just to get to use his primary damage-dealing class feature; when the fighter, wizard, and cleric all get to attack each turn and be useful, the rogue shouldn't be relegated to hiding half the time.



This is a mess of illogic.

You appear to be defining "fun" as "attacking." May I suggest that another game – or at least another class – might be more to your liking?

And again I reiterate: the rogue is not "relegated" to hiding. Hiding is one of the most reliable methods of making use of his primary class feature, while ALSO a major defensive bonus. The fact that he spends one round hiding is neither a hindrance to fun nor an option of last resort. Hiding is good. Hiding is fun. Hiding is useful. Let the fighter attack every round – it sounds like you will have a blast playing one. I'll stick with the rogue thank you.

The idea that ONLY attacking = useful = fun is so tedious and so flawed that I can only say I am damn thankful no edition of DnD has ever made every class to your specification. I would be bored to tears.

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn.



Hiding is useful, because it increases your damage next round.



Yes, hiding is useful, but a player shouldn't have to sacrifice having fun each turn just to get to use his primary damage-dealing class feature; when the fighter, wizard, and cleric all get to attack each turn and be useful, the rogue shouldn't be relegated to hiding half the time.


I find it strange as a long time player how quickly the Rogue's role in the party has shifted from a scouting, infiltrating, hit and run type character to one where he is a scary dirty fighter who uses quick weapons and light armor.

Perhaps it is just old school thinking but I feel what you are looking for is a light armored fighter variant rather than a Rogue.

Rogues shouldn't be the primary damage dealer.  They have way too much out of combat ability that is denied the other classes (at least at present).

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.


The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn.



Hiding is useful, because it increases your damage next round.



Yes, hiding is useful, but a player shouldn't have to sacrifice having fun each turn just to get to use his primary damage-dealing class feature; when the fighter, wizard, and cleric all get to attack each turn and be useful, the rogue shouldn't be relegated to hiding half the time.



You appear to be defining "fun" as "attacking."

The idea that ONLY attacking = useful = fun is so tedious and so flawed that I can only say I am damn thankful no edition of DnD has ever made every class to your specification. I would be bored to tears.



I'm not defining "fun" as "attacking." As someone who plays rogues frequently in 4th edition, I enjoy more tactically oriented combats than what D&DNext currently allows.  I am eager to see what optional modules are going to be released, but I am currently not a fan of spending an entire turn hiding just to make use of my primary class feature.  If flanking rules granting advantage are added or other means of adding advantage (such as the 4th edition thief's movement tricks) are put into the game, I'd enjoy combats much more.

And speaking of "bored to tears", it seems very boring to me to walk up to a monster, hit it with my sword, and be done without doing anything interesting like dazing, slowing, etc. that 4th edition allowed.  I'm currently "bored to tears" in D&DNext by having to hide just to make use of my class feature.

Bill Newsome


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

"In a hole in the ground there lived....my clan of halfling thieves!"


I'm not defining "fun" as "attacking."



OK, please rewrite the following quote in the manner that you intended, because currently it uses "fun" and "attacking" interchangeably and implies that performing other useful actions such as hiding (or moving, or healing, or casting a utility spell, presumably) are something that PCs are "relegated" to doing which is not "fun."


Yes, hiding is useful, but a player shouldn't have to sacrifice having fun each turn just to get to use his primary damage-dealing class feature; when the fighter, wizard, and cleric all get to attack each turn and be useful, the rogue shouldn't be relegated to hiding half the time.

 

Personally I think it is "fun" if the most useful thing to do each round is not always to attack. I don't consider performing some action other than attacking to be something I am "relegated" to doing, particularly if it is something that means that my next attack is highly likely to succeed and deal massive damage. I find the challenge of choosing between an attack now or a better, more carefully planned attack later to be "fun."


And speaking of "bored to tears", it seems very boring to me to walk up to a monster, hit it with my sword, and be done without doing anything interesting like dazing, slowing, etc. that 4th edition allowed.  I'm currently "bored to tears" in D&DNext by having to hide just to make use of my class feature.



Not everybody finds applying status effects to be the source of fun. Some people like multi-round high damage combos like those currently encouraged by the 5e rogue. That's the beauty of a class system – you can really create something for everybody. Or at least try to.

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn.



Even if I agree with your other points, hiding is not "sacrificing a round of doing anything useful." Hiding is useful, because it increases your damage next round.

You might call this nitpick but I really think it's ridiculous when people seem to view hitting something as the only thing that can be useful.

Sneak attack more than doubles the rogue's damage, and hiding grants combat advantage which doubles the rogue's accuracy. 2x accuracy and more than 2x damage = very useful. 



It is a nitpick, whether we call it one or not.

The rogue isn't doing something useful with that action, unless being stealthed is situationally of benefit beyond the set up for next round. He or she is spending an turn to warm up their useful abillity. That's it. There might as well be a line that says that the rogue has to spend an action to focus his chi and harmonize with the universe before he or she can strike at full power.

It could be a cool concept, if the rogue got to do something interesting and useful each turn, rather  than spending one turn to be at full capability next turn.


It also just feels wrong to have stealth require an action, instead of costing extra movement or something.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

The rogue isn't doing something useful with that action, unless being stealthed is situationally of benefit beyond the set up for next round. He or she is spending an turn to warm up their useful abillity.



And how could you possibly define that as "not useful?"


That's it. There might as well be a line that says that the rogue has to spend an action to focus his chi and harmonize with the universe before he or she can strike at full power.



Yep, there could be that instead. But instead we have stealth, which requires specific circumstances and a certain check and has special rules. If you want to flavor that as focusing chi, no problem.


It could be a cool concept, if the rogue got to do something interesting and useful each turn, rather  than spending one turn to be at full capability next turn.


This is just semantics. If we say that the rogue makes a basic attack at "full capability," or he spends a turn charging his special attack, does that make you feel better? That's basically what it is – a charge up for a super attack, something that exists in some form in many turn-based games. Charging your special attack is useful thing to do. Getting stealthed presents its own challenges, so that's interesting. Interesting, and useful.
Pre-combat... rogue is sneaking to scout about... aim is to establish surprise upon enemies or, at the very least, prevent surprise upon the party.

Round 1: Rogue sneak attacks from pre-combat hiding.
Round 2: Rogue hides making himself impossible to target this round without use of area effect.
Round 3: Rogue sneak attacks from hiding.
repeat as desired.

It seems people are missing that it requires an action, as in that thing monsters get one of each round, in order to pinpoint a hidden creature and be able in following rounds to attack it.

Being impossible for the majority of monsters to target is not "not useful" nor is it "only for setup of damage."

The rogue is the most survivable class because it is the best at hiding, it doesn't also need to be the one that deals the most damage.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

It's an action to hide.  



Hiding isn't necessary for sneak attack. You just need to have advantage on the attack, not be hidden. So in the original post an ally is spending an action to give the rogue advantage even though the rogue isn't hidden.
At level 3 the wizard gets a cat familiar.  The cat has a 12 Dex, so it can aid ranged attacks.  Have the cat hang out with the rogue and aid every round.  Poof, constant ranged sneak attacks.

Discuss.



Well I guess a bow string could be made of cat gut, but it doesn't look like they can use bows anymore, and if they used a crossbow the disadvantage from firing every round would cancel it out.

Which is, IMO, a terrible idea. At least, as implimented.

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn. That's boring design, and honestly a bit lazy.

I'd much rather have sneak attack be less powerful, and have rogues have interesting options. Like being able to hamstring, trip, blind, poison, even daze opponents.



I suspect that is how they will build the more complex Rogue, that the rogue gives up sneak attack dice to achieve another effect. Remember this playtest is the simple versions of martial characters.
You've never had a cat.

My cat has nearly killed me all by himself about a half dozen times.

I'd be worm food if he had an accomplice. 



I have two 30-pounds Maine Coons and have no doubt that they could take me down if they wanted to.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


The rogue isn't doing something useful with that action, unless being stealthed is situationally of benefit beyond the set up for next round. He or she is spending an turn to warm up their useful abillity.



And how could you possibly define that as "not useful?"


That's it. There might as well be a line that says that the rogue has to spend an action to focus his chi and harmonize with the universe before he or she can strike at full power.



Yep, there could be that instead. But instead we have stealth, which requires specific circumstances and a certain check and has special rules. If you want to flavor that as focusing chi, no problem.


It could be a cool concept, if the rogue got to do something interesting and useful each turn, rather  than spending one turn to be at full capability next turn.


This is just semantics. If we say that the rogue makes a basic attack at "full capability," or he spends a turn charging his special attack, does that make you feel better? That's basically what it is – a charge up for a super attack, something that exists in some form in many turn-based games. Charging your special attack is useful thing to do. Getting stealthed presents its own challenges, so that's interesting. Interesting, and useful.




Charging you chi for a whole round, doing nothing else would not be doing something useful. it would be an action tax in order to do something useful next turn.

If you could, in your non sneak attack turns, stealth and do something else, even if it's not as useful as sneak attack, then I'd be fine.

It's not semantics. Charging up your "super attack" being an action that takes up your whole turn is boring. It's not a useful action, it's a set up, and in game terms it's an action tax. The fact that it exists in other games is irrelevant.

I have no issue with the assassin's shroud abillity (other than the faulty expected damage calculations before it was released and the feat taxes that came out to fix it), because your assassin can be doing interesting and useful things every turn. You didn't have to sit in action stasis for even a single round just to later opperate at full capacity, you were taking an active action every single turn.

That's how SA should work, if they want it to have it be something you don't use every turn.

I'd even be fine with a small boost if you didn't attack in the previous round, as long as the primary feature of the class doesn't depend on not attacking or taking any other proactive action in the previous round.


Aaron: The argument that the rogue is doing something useful by being stealthed is...tenuous at best. What he's doing is making himself not a target, so others are targeted instead. I'm not one of the people on these forums that will rant about how terrible a strategy that is, but I would say it's mostly a wash. It can be fun for some to almost always be stealthed, and that's cool. But it's not really actively helping the group win, is it?

And it's not like the rogue is sacrifising one turn to do more damage than the fighter, because the fighter is getting more attacks per turn as he levels up. If the fighter were the DPR king and the rogue was the damage spike king, that could be cool, but that's not what we're seeing here.

And it would still be better if the rogue was doing control type stuff in between damage spikes, instead of hiding.

Which is, IMO, a terrible idea. At least, as implimented.

The rogue shoudln't have to sacrifice a round of doing anything useful in order to do something useful in the next turn. That's boring design, and honestly a bit lazy.

I'd much rather have sneak attack be less powerful, and have rogues have interesting options. Like being able to hamstring, trip, blind, poison, even daze opponents.



I suspect that is how they will build the more complex Rogue, that the rogue gives up sneak attack dice to achieve another effect. Remember this playtest is the simple versions of martial characters.



perhaps, but perhaps not. IMO, the state of the class is very problematic, and needs to be adressed. We can't just wait and see, because too much of the game will be crafted and ready to go by the time we see more complex versions of the rogue.

Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
At level 3 the wizard gets a cat familiar.  The cat has a 12 Dex, so it can aid ranged attacks.  Have the cat hang out with the rogue and aid every round.  Poof, constant ranged sneak attacks.

Discuss.



Well I guess a bow string could be made of cat gut, but it doesn't look like they can use bows anymore, and if they used a crossbow the disadvantage from firing every round would cancel it out.




I see nothing that keeps the Halfling Rogue from using Bows. They have proficiency in simple weapons, bows are a simple missile weapon. There's nothing currently there about a restriction on two-handed weapons for small creatures. However, since Halflings appear to have a affinity for using slings, they put slings on the sheet. They use the same damage type, are way cheaper and lighter, have shorter range, and don't take two hands.
Unless I've misread something, Ivid, it seems to take an action to become "hidden" on one's turn.  As such, the rogue would only get advantage by using up an action to become hidden, so he couldn't also attack on his turn (at least, not at the lower levels we've been given in the playtest).

The cat familiar is an interesting idea, but does the familiar also get its own set of actions or does the wizard need to give up his action to command the familiar?



I'm not quite sure, but the cat is listed with its own initiative modifier. 
Unless I've misread something, Ivid, it seems to take an action to become "hidden" on one's turn.  As such, the rogue would only get advantage by using up an action to become hidden, so he couldn't also attack on his turn (at least, not at the lower levels we've been given in the playtest).

The cat familiar is an interesting idea, but does the familiar also get its own set of actions or does the wizard need to give up his action to command the familiar?



I'm not quite sure, but the cat is listed with its own initiative modifier. 



I'd let it make checks, so I don't see why it wouldn't be able to aid Dex and Wis checks and attacks.

As is, it appears to have its own place in initiative order. This worries me a bit, as I've heard horror stories about the druids of 3rd edition bringing along their mangerie each with their own turn and full set of actions. I hope we don't return to that.
Unless I've misread something, Ivid, it seems to take an action to become "hidden" on one's turn.  As such, the rogue would only get advantage by using up an action to become hidden, so he couldn't also attack on his turn (at least, not at the lower levels we've been given in the playtest).

The cat familiar is an interesting idea, but does the familiar also get its own set of actions or does the wizard need to give up his action to command the familiar?



I'm not quite sure, but the cat is listed with its own initiative modifier. 



I'd let it make checks, so I don't see why it wouldn't be able to aid Dex and Wis checks and attacks.

As is, it appears to have its own place in initiative order. This worries me a bit, as I've heard horror stories about the druids of 3rd edition bringing along their mangerie each with their own turn and full set of actions. I hope we don't return to that.



Seriously. 4e pets would have worked fine, had they come up with inherent actions from the start, and given them useful things to do as minor actions. Do those, plus some aura like effects, and you've got useful pets that do what they're supposed to do.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Unless I've misread something, Ivid, it seems to take an action to become "hidden" on one's turn.  As such, the rogue would only get advantage by using up an action to become hidden, so he couldn't also attack on his turn (at least, not at the lower levels we've been given in the playtest).

The cat familiar is an interesting idea, but does the familiar also get its own set of actions or does the wizard need to give up his action to command the familiar?



I'm not quite sure, but the cat is listed with its own initiative modifier. 



I'd let it make checks, so I don't see why it wouldn't be able to aid Dex and Wis checks and attacks.

As is, it appears to have its own place in initiative order. This worries me a bit, as I've heard horror stories about the druids of 3rd edition bringing along their mangerie each with their own turn and full set of actions. I hope we don't return to that.



Seriously. 4e pets would have worked fine, had they come up with inherent actions from the start, and given them useful things to do as minor actions. Do those, plus some aura like effects, and you've got useful pets that do what they're supposed to do.



I like the Sentinel / Fey Beast Tamer "they move when you move" bit, but I also really like the summons "minor to do x, y, or z" bit. Somewhere in the middle would be great actually.

However, since creatures only get one action and a move a turn, it might not be so bad.
Unless I've misread something, Ivid, it seems to take an action to become "hidden" on one's turn.  As such, the rogue would only get advantage by using up an action to become hidden, so he couldn't also attack on his turn (at least, not at the lower levels we've been given in the playtest).

The cat familiar is an interesting idea, but does the familiar also get its own set of actions or does the wizard need to give up his action to command the familiar?



I'm not quite sure, but the cat is listed with its own initiative modifier. 



I'd let it make checks, so I don't see why it wouldn't be able to aid Dex and Wis checks and attacks.

As is, it appears to have its own place in initiative order. This worries me a bit, as I've heard horror stories about the druids of 3rd edition bringing along their mangerie each with their own turn and full set of actions. I hope we don't return to that.



Seriously. 4e pets would have worked fine, had they come up with inherent actions from the start, and given them useful things to do as minor actions. Do those, plus some aura like effects, and you've got useful pets that do what they're supposed to do.



I like the Sentinel / Fey Beast Tamer "they move when you move" bit, but I also really like the summons "minor to do x, y, or z" bit. Somewhere in the middle would be great actually.

However, since creatures only get one action and a move a turn, it might not be so bad.



If a summoner can pop out 5 critters, each with a move and action, it will be so bad. :P

A mix of free action things to do, and inherent actions if given no command, and some aura/passive type stuff is probably the best possible system, outside of only allowing pets in a way similar to the 4e shaman.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
It is a nitpick, whether we call it one or not.

The rogue isn't doing something useful with that action, unless being stealthed is situationally of benefit beyond the set up for next round. He or she is spending an turn to warm up their useful abillity. That's it.



He's also not being a target.

This not taking damage thing--very important.  This version of the rogue is about getting away with murder.  You hit then, and then bam, they don't know where you are or where you'll strike from next.

Sounds like great possibility for fun to be had here, unless you're 'stand there and pew-pew from behind the fighter' rogue, in which case, it's not the class being boring. 
Anyone else remember back when sneak attacks were a battle-preventing art-form, instead of "combat rogue"? Granted, they rather needed that when their skills and abilities were completely supplanted by having a caster in the party, but it would be nice if "the guy with tons of skills who's not as good in combat as the front line guy, but can stop a fight from even starting if he does it right" came back to us.
Ugh, pets/allies/summons that require your action or they just stand there would be a deal-breaker for me.  I understand the action economy issue but in-game the effect is just dumb.  A druid shouldn't have to turn to his companion every 6 seconds and coax it across the room.

It's even worse if it's an intelligent cerature that can't make an effective attack unless you direct its every swing.

Maybe it's because I play with mature gamers but it doesn't bother me when the summoner gets 8 turns with all of his summoned beasties.
Ugh, pets/allies/summons that require your action or they just stand there would be a deal-breaker for me.  I understand the action economy issue but in-game the effect is just dumb.  A druid shouldn't have to turn to his companion every 6 seconds and coax it across the room.

It's even worse if it's an intelligent cerature that can't make an effective attack unless you direct its every swing.

Maybe it's because I play with mature gamers but it doesn't bother me when the summoner gets 8 turns with all of his summoned beasties.



He gets 8 turns full of attacks, some of them might even be multi-attacks, and another player might get one turn with one attack. That's a bit much, really. If they are trying to speed up combat, this kind of mechanic needs to be limited. It can still be made to be fun without causing combat to crawl because one player is making decisions for eight charachters in the combat (only the DM should be doing that).
He gets 8 turns full of attacks, some of them might even be multi-attacks, and another player might get one turn with one attack. That's a bit much, really. If they are trying to speed up combat, this kind of mechanic needs to be limited. It can still be made to be fun without causing combat to crawl because one player is making decisions for eight charachters in the combat (only the DM should be doing that).



See, we play without a grid.  If you don't have to tactically move the whole mess, all those attacks can be resolved very quickly.  I guess I don't see roleplaying as competition for the GM's attention, or to have the best character, or the most impressive turn.  Those 8 summons together might just barely do the damage of one of the fighter's attacks, and he gets 3-4 attacks.  So it's not unbalanced, and I really don't care if the summoner's turn takes 4 minutes while mine takes 2.

It is admittedly an extreme example.  I stand by my assertion that "always there" companions deserve their own full turns.  The classes with those companions should be balanced so that they need the extra actions to perform.

I will concede that in grid based games, it's a bit of a PITA to handle a whole bunch of player minions.  Savage Worlds can do it pretty well though, so it can be done.
He gets 8 turns full of attacks, some of them might even be multi-attacks, and another player might get one turn with one attack. That's a bit much, really. If they are trying to speed up combat, this kind of mechanic needs to be limited. It can still be made to be fun without causing combat to crawl because one player is making decisions for eight charachters in the combat (only the DM should be doing that).



See, we play without a grid.  If you don't have to tactically move the whole mess, all those attacks can be resolved very quickly.  I guess I don't see roleplaying as competition for the GM's attention, or to have the best character, or the most impressive turn.  Those 8 summons together might just barely do the damage of one of the fighter's attacks, and he gets 3-4 attacks.  So it's not unbalanced, and I really don't care if the summoner's turn takes 4 minutes while mine takes 2.

It is admittedly an extreme example.  I stand by my assertion that "always there" companions deserve their own full turns.  The classes with those companions should be balanced so that they need the extra actions to perform.

I will concede that in grid based games, it's a bit of a PITA to handle a whole bunch of player minions.  Savage Worlds can do it pretty well though, so it can be done.



I don't mind if the summons are always there and get to do their own actions. I've not played in this environment, only heard of how 3/3.5 summoners can be quite horrid to have in the party because they do so much while the rest of the players only do a little. It's my understand that the build can outdamage the fighter if the druid wants it that way.
What I'm noticing here is that the Familar ability is simply available too soon.

Having another action - at all - is tremendously useful when Aid Attack and Improvise are viable options. The Fighter's ability to do 2 actions each round is completely overshadowed once the wizard can move in two places and set up his own, or the Rogue's attack.

I think if the Wizard got a familiar at the same time the Fighter got 3 actions per round, I'd be totally cool with this. I'm also going to require that the Wizard cast COMPREHEND LANGUAGES: CAT, for the rogue to get advatage in such a way.

Cat & Commander: The Story of the World's Deadliest Assasson
What I'm noticing here is that the Familar ability is simply available too soon. Having another action - at all - is tremendously useful when Aid Attack and Improvise are viable options. The Fighter's ability to do 2 actions each round is completely overshadowed once the wizard can move in two places and set up his own, or the Rogue's attack. I think if the Wizard got a familiar at the same time the Fighter got 3 actions per round, I'd be totally cool with this. I'm also going to require that the Wizard cast COMPREHEND LANGUAGES: CAT, for the rogue to get advatage in such a way. Cat & Commander: The Story of the World's Deadliest Assasson



There is no "Aid Attack."

The Help action only gives advantage to checks. Attacks and saving throws are not checks. Only checks are checks.
Sign In to post comments