6
\$\begingroup\$

The Inquisitive rogue's 3rd-level Insightful Fighting feature (XGtE, p. 46) originally states:

At 3rd level, you gain the ability to decipher an opponent’s tactics and develop a counter to them. As a bonus action, you can make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn’t incapacitated, contested by the target’s Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don’t have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.

This benefit lasts for 1 minute or until you successfully use this feature against a different target.

This is the homebrew feature I'm interested in having replace Insightful Fighting:

At 3rd level, you gain the ability to analyze incoming attacks and develop a counter to them. Whenever you take the Dodge action, you gain a bonus to your next attack roll equal to your Intelligence modifier. If this attack hits, you can use your Sneak Attack on it even if you don't have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it. This effect lasts until the end of your next turn.

This applies whether the Dodge action is taken using an action or bonus action (if a feature allows Dodge using bonus action).

This supposed to feel like parrying and counterattacking an enemy. I'm playing a more cunning rogue, rather than dexterous one, and find that I'm lagging behind with my attack modifier.

Although I'm planning to homebrew most of the subclass features, for this question I'm asking: How does this replacement feature compare to the original Insightful Fighting? Is it a balanced replacement

I'm not too worried about Eye for Weakness combo (I don't think I'm gonna reach that high), so I guess it works the same.

Notable concern:

  1. Feature that grant Dodge as bonus action, so you can Dodge, then solo Attack with Sneak.
  2. Same with 1, but instead of Attack, cast True Strike for 'guaranteed hit'.
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It reads like a rogue could Action: Dodge on one turn, Bonus Action: Dodge on the second turn, and then attack with a bonus equal to double their intelligence by the end of the second turn. Is that intended? \$\endgroup\$ – Rykara Jul 8 at 17:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you explain your concern #2 a bit more? It doesn't seem to me like using True Strike in this way in any way circumvents the usual downside of True Strike - that is trading 2 attacks for 1 with advantage. \$\endgroup\$ – Vigil Jul 8 at 17:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rykara It won't stack because of the stacking rules (same name effect won't stack with each other) \$\endgroup\$ – Vylix Jul 9 at 1:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Vigil i believe that having more attack bonus make advantage more advantageous. If I'm not mistaken, advantage is equal to +5 bonus at +0 bonus attack roll, but with higher bonus, the advantage can be more than +5. \$\endgroup\$ – Vylix Jul 9 at 1:29
1
\$\begingroup\$

It's probably fine

Insightful Fighting is a little niche; it gives you Sneak Attack against a target when you wouldn't normally get it, but requires a successful check, so is not guaranteed. Counter-Fighting(TM) requires no check, and the attack bonus is not nothing, but is more niche, requiring you to have taken a specific action last round, and while Dodge is pretty good, it's not generally better than giving up an opportunity to land that sweet sweet Sneak Attack.

Of course, no amount of armchair analysis can replace good testing, so go forth, play it, and find out.

What about Monks?

I've ignored the possibility that you may, most likely from a few levels of Monk, be able to Dodge as a bonus action. This is the kind of thing you'd have to worry about if you were writing something for publication, but if it's just for your own character, the solution is simple: just don't do that. Bonus action dodge is hard to get, so unless you're trying to power-game your own homebrew (never do this!) or have a particular character concept that wants the monk levels or similar (in which case probably scrap this feature), it's unlikely to come up.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.