As you should!

That was my first instinct as well!

I actually got the notification for Treantmonk's video first...

I did that.

Yup.

Great point.

I think the optimal approach is to have a Vex weapon in one hand and a Nick weapon in the other. That way, you use Steady Aim or Hide to get advantage on your first attack and use Vex to get advantage on your second attack.

@@kclubok I'm really not sure if you can use two masteries in the same turn or if you need to have Nick in both weapons to use it

@@kongoaurius In the playtest, you could use two masteries in the same turn if you were using two different weapons. I assume that is unchanged in the final version, but we'll have to see it to be certain.

​@@kclubokIt's the thing which would make dual-wielding worth doing, and make it a lot more interesting, so hopefully they kept it.

Now you know what I sound like drunk!

That’s rich!😂😂😂

I was too.

The new rogue is fine, if you leave it exactly as is and also add a short rest resource that lets them add extra damage on a sneak attack. Without that it's far, far too weak. Why would I play a rogue instead of just a dex fighter flavored as a rogue? A valor bard will probably end up being capable of out-dpring a rogue if they build right

​@@override367A free use per short rest of a Cunning Strike would be good? It'd also strongly entice players to try them out instead of favoring damage out of habit

​@@zTom_ 2d6 free to use on cunning strike each short rest would be cool

I'd have preferred something slightly more creative than what's effectively just a damage boost. One interesting suggestion I saw was Stroke of Luck earlier, but as a 10 instead of a 20. I think you could have that, but then at level 11 it changes to the rogue's level, eventually becoming 20, and then you add another small feature on top of that capstone.

Fair enough, they are rocking!

I feel like they should give rogues Sneak Attack on ALL weapons they get as default proficiencies. Longsword + simple weapons would give Rogues a taste of what every other martial (I think) already has.

@@bigguy679 That'd work. There's no doubt a lot of ways to accomplish it. I love that Brutal Ruffian sorts of Rogues who are strength based are reasonably well supported in 4e or Pathfinder 2e. But I still think the weapon list from the playtest needed at least a few more options. A d8 one-handed Slow weapon would be great for sword-and-board tank-type characters, a useful control option.

I really want clubs added as a weapon they can sneak attack with because it makes sense for criminals to use such a weapon to strike an unexpected blow.

@@user-ni7ji3fb8m maybe I’d have been better off saying earlier D&D editions. Just compare 5e to 4e, 3/3.5, AD&D 2e, Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2e. Far fewer weapon choices in 5e. And that was fine for 10 years of 5e, but Mastery changes things. The weapon list overall is far too small now.

There's the nick property, so they still have 3 sneak attack attempts at level 1 on each turn if they have advantage (one from the from the regular attack, one from the extra attack from nick with the second weapon and the third from the bonus action with the first light weapon), so if the first light weapon have another weapon mastery property, even without multiclassing, they can use 1 mastery property twice and do 1 sneak attack in a turn, so rogues have less chance of missing their one big attack and waste their turn. And at level 5 with cunning strike, you can combo it with weapon mastery and apply 2 (1 from weapon mastery and 1 from cunning strike) debuffs, and at level 11 you can apply 3 debuffs, so rogue without multiclassing is much more consistent and versetile now, it might not even need multiclassing to get extra attack anymore, and that's without considering the subclass changes.

Per the DnD Beyond article: when you use the Trip option of Cunning Strike on one enemy, you can target an additional creature within 5 feet of your Mage Hand

​@@Gnomeo5They mentioned that part

I was thinking that it would just be permanent.

They should also make it not require components

Yeah it was horrible to hear. The Rogue is already the worst class in 5e, only getting passable damage with reaction sneak attacks. The gap has really widened now, especially with Fighters and Barbarians becoming so much better at skill checks. It seems to be another case of Crawford not understanding what features are powerful, like with Brutal Critical.

Nice.

Everyone take 1D4 psychic damage.

Me too. Maybe we'll see a revised option on a future book?

Noooo that’s rubbish I like swashbuckler

Pretty sure you'll still be able to use the Xanathar's guide swashbuckler with the new version of the rogue. And it wouldn't surprise me if they made a revised version in the future

The swashbuckler will still be legal, it just didn't get updated. But I get your meaning.

I know this is a hot take, but I like Xanathar's version more than the UA one. So I'm fine with it not being in the new PHB.

Or you just say that you make your own. Which is the far more sensible explanation.

Of all the classes, the Rogue managing to get something expensive for free, no questions asked, is the most believable.

@@CJWproductions It's the 'appearing out of nowhere' that's just immersion breaking to me. Rather than fixing poisons and kits at baseline to encourage their use, they've just folded the benefit into the class as being indistinguishable to "you just magically deal poison damage now". Poisons should have been an augmentation option; anyone regardless of class can buy, harvest, or craft (give tool proficiencies a reason to exist). The rogue already had the thematics in their existing class features to set them up the the 'best' poison users. Fast Hands (or some similar variation depending on subclass) could easily have been elaborated as being ideal for applying poisons to weapons more efficiently in the action economy. No, we just get them operating on videogame logic instead. "You have poisons now. They're better that basic poisons from adventuring gear, so that item's now pointless. But it's not an item you have to make/carry/hide. It's not something you can give to an ally or apply to traps, it only exists when you specifically make a sneak attack. Never mind if the DM sets up a story where the rogue is disarmed for narrative reasons; the rogue is just able to produce poison at the moment of attack anyway.... because magic?"

better yet: the poison exists in this Schrödinger's state of being there but not being there at the same time. You have poisons you can use for attacks... but you can't trade it, or sell it. It's better than the 100 gp basic poison, and you have infinite amounts... but you cannot part with in under any situation.

This is more thieve's cant. Worthless RP BS to say they made a buff to the class.

"balance in fights is what matters most to most players" Having played for over 40 years now, I have not decided if that's a good thing or a bad thing. DnD can and should focus on combat, as combat is one of the more fun things to do. But there are several classes, such as the Rogue and Ranger, that provide out of combat value. Bard too. How much or how little really depends on the campaign, and should be discussed before hand so players know if they are building a class that can have it's moment to shine. Nobody likes sitting at sesh after sesh with nothing to do.

@@jmnemonic99 What strikes me is that it feels bad if session after session you either have nothing to do outside combat, but the same is also true if you have nothing to do inside combat. That’s the big innovation of damage Cantrips-a wizard with no spells can feel like they’re contributing. I’m glad folks like Barbarians and Fighters are getting a little bit more out-of-combat utility. Pathfinder 2e did a lot for this with the 3 action system and multiple attack penalties. You don’t want to spend 3 actions attacking in most cases because the miss chances keep going up, so folks use utility skills to debuff enemies. Rogues have twice as many skill increases and skill feats, so they can do more different more things well in combat, deception tricks, intimidation tricks, and so forth. The impact of any individual skill use is small, but that’s ok. Putting small debuffs on enemies adds up when everyone is tossing one in there in addition to their attack each turn.

@@jmnemonic99 The issue is that skills and what not are cool but others can use them as well and most parties can cover the essential skills without ever considering a rogue. Like you said Ranger and Bard also cover a lot of out of combat utility while retaining spells slots and combat prowess due to said spells slots. Rogue is just the posterchild for whats wrong with DnD martials, WotC doesnt want to raise them to super human status. So Rogues can just hide, they cant turn invisible because thats magic and they dont have magic. Rogues can't shadowstep because blink is a spell and they dont have magic. Rogues also get it the worst because they are also not a combat class so they can't even be a dpr monster or meatshield. All the utility a rogue can provide is skills and skills aren't magic and thus have strong limitations in most games bound by "realism" compared to a wizard who can just cast spells that do the same thing but bend the laws of physics and reason.

@@jmnemonic99 This is why I warn people away from Rogue. If you want utility, you're better off going Bard, Artificer, or Ranger. All three of these have repeatable and low resource utility value. But they can also do this while being an asset in combat. It's not fun being in a combat when your character is making virtually zero impact.

I do think one of the big issues with rogue being balanced around 5e's out-of-combat play is that the designers barely have a conception of what that play even looks like outside of spells. And folks might argue that's a good thing, that it better enables roleplay and active problem solving to not have icky rules in the way, but it means that there's next to no mechanical support for any idea a group can have about out-of-combat play without making a lot of assumptions. Many games with a lot less cruft have a better idea of how explorative or narrative play work on a fundamental level---limited skill checks and dungeon turns in OSR games, building up resources in Lancer, gaining opportunities and using Fabula Points in Fabula Ultima---and having a baseline of play makes it much easier to work with those systems in out-of-combat play than 5e can generally offer. The fact that the designers have next to no idea on how out-of-combat play, and by extension skills, are meant to work in 5e means they can't really design interesting options for either---Jack of All Trades, Expertise, and Reliable Talent are ultimately boring designs which just tweak numbers---and players don't get to choose any interesting options either unless they have access to spellcasting, which are often overtuned to simply solve problems as opposed to being a piece of a solution.

Off topic, what do you think about the new fighter and specifically the Eldritch Knight?

​​@@nicolocarolo9787 Very excited to play one, especially with the new Jump spell. Going to try a Final Fantasy dragoon (finally!)

As soon as I heard they could use magic items as a bonus action I was like "no way". Pipes of Haunting as a bonus action is wild. Have an artificer in the party and you are better at using their items than they are.

Also, best Thief Tactic: Cunning Strike Disarm, Cunning Action to pick up and stow their weapon. "Hey Ogre, Greatclub who?"

@@AwesomeWookiee cunning strike disarm is gone.

You really only need one d8. Roll it multiple times and add as you roll, take the average damage and multiply it, or just roll half the times then double the sum. There's a lot of ways you can do multi-dice rolls with a single die, and honestly it's easier for some tables due to the space it saves.

I think it'd be cool for Assassin's to specialize in first round burst, so every ability works for round 1. At level 3 they get advantage on initiative and attack rolls during round 1, maybe it would be nice for level 9 to give you an extra attack during round 1, might even have been cool if they got that old thief capstone where you get a second turn during round 1 for.

Maybe he's just branching out.

@@timhaldane7588 Leafing through the comments and replies I was able to uproot your clever pun.

Maybe the disarm cunning strike will be tied to the swashbuckler when it's re-released.

in the optimisation community it was always seen as incredibly underwhelming outside of the context of getting a few levels in it on a different main class, and was a contender for the worst class in the game already. I personally dont see those announced changes changing it much

Yeah the causal player and optimizer perspective on this class were WILDLY different. I believe it was the second or third most played class in the game so I can understand why they didn't want to change it too much? But at the same time, look what they did to the fighter which is THE most played class lmao. Honestly they could just through extra attack on the rogue and it would have kept up with the balance changes to the other martials. I may just homebrew that...

The Rogue is in an odd place, because it's a class that's objectively pretty bad, but it FEELS good to play. It doesn't scale well at higher levels, its primary damage source is situational despite being balanced around happening every turn, and skill monkeys really aren't that valuable when spells exist to just bypass many skill checks. But with that said, it feels fucking awesome to roll so many dice on an attack and to add such an obscenely large number to a skill check so that failure is impossible. It's like the opposite of the Ranger, in that sense.

Rogues kind of get extra attack if they're holding a dagger in the off-hand... But something like a 1/sr or pb/sr ability to just add your sneak attack dice to a hit whether it qualifies or not, or some other QOL or damage boost would have been nice.

layman players and DM's see big number on skill check and barely competitive melee combat DPR and go "OOOOH it's so strong!" even though Skills in 5E have very few RAW applications and are really just the DM making up stuff based on vibes...

Or randomly laughing

wouldn't that be every video they make just as one video?

@@MrTrilbe He speaks in full sentences twice here!

That or crawford pushing his glasses up every time he makes some corny comment just before he and todd share a creepy laugh. God their vids are corporate sometimes

​@@masterd4964I just hope they sell enough 2024 phb that Jeremy can afford new nose pads on his glasses! I suspect he thinks that it makes him look like Clark Kent.

Druid would be so much more streamlined if you had wildshapes based off of "templates," and you get a certain number and type per level (i.e., swimming speed, flight, multiattack, resistance)

I, too, wish 5e had class feats.

Not sure that's true

I'm curious if the fix to Opportunity attacks will fix the Extra Attacks issue as well.

IT does not need to damage scale.

Psychic blades have equivalent damage to a pair of +3 daggers, with better throwing range. They just don't have the increase in to hit chance that magical weapons get.

​@@nathans9764 having an increased hit chance increases your damage chance too. Now, that's not AS much the case as it is for bigger weapons but it's definitely a big consideration. +3 is toward end game, so let's assume level 13ish. Then, assuming 20 Dex and a target AC of 19, let's compare. A +3 to damage will do, on average, is 6.3. A +3 to damage and attacks will do, on average, is 7.8. Again, this isn't as big a difference as say, a maul, but any added damage is impacted. So on top of that you have sneak attacks dice, so, adding that The +3 to damage w/ sneak attack, does on average: 21 The +3 damage and attack w/sneak attack, does on average: 26 So, it's a difference of 5 damage per round, over a 4 round combat that's *20* less damage. This is only exacerbated by any additional sources of damage

Every class is better if you add fighter… 😂

​@@haukionkannel"Fighter is the bacon of multiclassing" - Dungeon Dudes

Yeah, been playing a Rogue for almost 3 years in a long-term campaign. And by Rogue, I mean my first 4 levels were in Rogue and the rest have been in Gloomstalker Ranger lol.

@@haukionkannel Nah, most classes don't combine as well as rogue and fighter, because for a caster you're delaying spellcasting, and for a non-caster you're usually getting redundancy in extra attack, which is a huge part of your power budget. Rogue and fighter have features that both stack and are non-redundant (e.g. expertise and tactical mind work together just fine). Other multiclasses also work well for rogue but are more likely to interfere with your theme.

That is so true. The missing second attack makes them already much weaker in 2014. The new update with trading sneak dice does not feel well here. They should have given those options without the trade-off and also add the swashbuckler with a second attack at least.

He defintely gives more details.

Then again, you may want to cast Mage Hand so often that it is always active. :) Just have to convince the GM of this.

Yep.

Pun intended, I hope

Ha I was gonna say, nice pun!

"Pact"? That man is a Warlock! Grab your pitchforks and torches!

Why are you just whining? There is nothing substantial or productive in what you said. You're just making a bunch of (baseless) attacks, with biased wording. Stop bringing everyone down by injecting negativity where none needs to be.

@@hawkname1234 bro, they were LITERALLY bragging about creating a cohesive rules glossary in a previous video. Look, you can play 5e and enjoy it, I do to! I am just going to be honest about the quality of the product they release. And, honestly, if we want a better product, we should point it out.

Not everything in D&D has to be about doing damage.

@@spooderous No, but when most of what the class can do in combat IS damage, you want it to be up to par.

@@Woeboez Congratulations. That's the whole reason why they made the changes they did, genius. It's called having options and not just being able to do everything just because it makes you feel good.

These guys are the dream team. Love it when they have collaborations

It is add on damage to your attack, it is not meant to do a lot of damage. It is damage no one else can do.

I have a few thoughts about this. I think the most important one is that they can't make sneak attack deal great damage on its own because they have to balance around the fact that teammates can give you a reaction sneak attack. Sneak attack kinda has to be a little bit sub-par because of that. I see it like this, I've never heard a non optimizer complain about the rogue damage, and optimized parties with a rogue will enable off turn sneak attacks, so everyone is pretty happy. Does that make sense?

I wish they’d just return to multipliers. Start with 2x, work up to 5x at high level. Except assassins get to 7x

@@SophiaAphrodite of which you get 1, sneak attack doesnt even compete with classes that get 2 weapon attacks after level 5 which is every other martial. So yes everyone else is doing that damage and they get to do it over 2 hits so if they miss 1 they still do half damage unlike the rogue who loses a round of damage.

i've already accepted they've massacred it lol

It was already OP

@@SophiaAphrodite ranger is only good because of broken bullshit like gloomstalker, pwt/surprise, lifeberries, conjure animals, etc. literally all of this has been gutted, and rangers that didn't take broken options like that were not that powerful

I doubt that's how most tables are going to read it. Or the devs. But technically yu may be right, so it might apply at Treeantmonk's table. :o

@@carlcramer9269 True, but the movement restriction is kind of unintuitive anyway given that the whole point of the feature is to wave movement restrictions, so I could see people accidentally getting it (close to) right.

Yup, me too. I didn't see a need to wade through the hype.

Burly fighters up front, spell casters bringing spells like Hold Person, and Faerie Fire. Then Rogue throws Debuffs left right and centre.

I also think people greatly underappreciate and undervalue the amount of utility the rogue brings to the table outside of combat.

@@dwil0311 Agree. Ang honestly that's what I like most about the new Ranger - yes, its combat is more powerful and more fun, but I really love the "Expert" style of the playtest ranger. I hope that's still there in the 2024 version, even if they dropped the Expert tag as an official group.

Reliable talent at lower level is what allows a rogue to keep peace with all the non-combat utility the martial classes now get.

​@@carlcramer9269 As I said, I think they need *something* but I really hate RT, which removes drama and engenders some of the exact same problems bounded accuracy was designed to fight. I played a high level rogue for a while and found that the DM was always shopping for super high DCs precisely because there was NO drama in anything I tried to do in which I was proficient/had expertise at lower DCs. I didn't really have to make any kind of decision all that often, either. You could say this was just bad DMing but it was actually quite common in previous editions and I think it's induced by the mechanic. RT encourages adversarial relationships between DM and player and is, well, boring. (I have similar objections to other autosuccess mechanics that are in the 2014 Ranger, for the same reasons---things that aren't a challenge simply disappear from the game entirely.) This is totally off the top of my head but, maybe something like: *Rogueish Fortune* (Level 1 ability): As a rogue, you have an outrageous fortune that sometimes helps you do things that more ordinary adventurers could not do. You may add +D10 to an attack, ability check, or save. This die must be rolled after rolling the D20 but before it is resolved. You gain an additional die when you have 5 levels in Rogue, 2 additional dice when you have 11 levels in Rogue, and 3 additional dice when you have 17 levels in Rogue. This feature resets on a short or long rest. It's pretty much the opposite of reliable but instead leans into rogues being tricky and exciting. It also gives the Rogue something to be happy about at short rests. To be clear, I am sure it could be improved and would need playtesting, but unlike RT, it requires the player to be engaged.

Take firebolt or any ranged cantrip and you're a better Soulknife than the Soulknife

@@drawberry_jam Firebolt - 1d10 without modifiers or masteries. One chance for Sneak Attack. Psychic blade: 1d8+dex, and extra BA attack for 1d4+dex, with Vex mastery. Two chances for extra attack, and probably at least one advantage. Later on soulknife can use psionic dice to buff psychic blades. Firebolt only get +1d10 damage at cantrip level progressions. So, nah, it wouldn't break anything. You only need to remove eldrich blast combinations (easilly done with "you can use catrips you get with Arcane Trixter subclass" or something).

Well booming blade and green flame blade exists

@@doctorbr2195 yes, but they are the only option, no Firebolt into the face or Electric Touch

I think they removed Dazed from the list of conditions.

Steady Aim means you are getting advantage on every attack, so yeah, you should be seeing more sneak attacks.

They even fixed it in an early playtest and then rolled it back.

You did not watch the video apparently

You would enjoy tales of the valiant 5e ..every class gets a subclass feature at 3rd..7th..11th and 15th level

@@Alex-rq8mh they specifically were talking about the lack of gaining any features at 6th level. this seems liek more of the same problem.

@@Alex-rq8mh First couple of playtest packets of tales of the valiant was poorly written, and when i saw NERFED fighter i droped it completely. Is it any better now?

It's not really much of a buff. A CBE Rogue doesn't need a BA to dash or disengage very often, so the BA they spend on a 1d4 attack works just fine, and they don't need a fighting style to get the bonus ability damage.

​@@AnaseSkyriderCBE most likely wont je the same in the new books so that isn't really a point of comparison.

@@ansatheatrocious6083 I seriously doubt they removed the bonus action attack, or whatever equivalent buffs they have to do to work it into TWF while being mechanically basically the same.

Aye aye sir!

This is so strange. In my experience it is pretty easy to sneak attack already: have at least one melee companion or just hide with BA (towns, forests, dungeons present a lot of opportunities to hide). When I play with a rogue in party they sneak attack in 80%+ cases. And what is the problem with steady aim? Never seen it get banned by anybody. And now as SA is a base feature fewer DMs will think about banning it.

Yeah… now with weapon masters it is even easier!

I guess your tables can't say no to steady aim now at least. Imo, a rogue should be hitting sneak attack just about every turn at a table that cares about optimising at all.

@@user-be1wk4lk8l yeah unless you are against monsters with blindsight, tremor sense, in a map with no cover, and the monster have a lot of AC. Usually i land shots, but i cast find familiar often. I saw a lot of player taking the swashbuckler for the always confirmed sneak attack on hit

I will say, there is a small chance the new monster manual is much less poison immunity focused. Would be a shadow buff to this assassin.

We make a good double feature.

Pretty sure why they removed it was to keep the DM's job simple. If a creature has only one melee weapon in its stat block, what will it do after being disarmed?

I don't know that you need to do anything about it beyond making sure the gap between the weakest and the rest isn't too large.