Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12

[Boarstorm]

Personally, I think Rob Schwalb's idea is brilliant.

What do you guys think?

http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/03/28/sneak_attack_and_backstab

 

[Janaxstrus]

Can't say I'm a fan.

I see nothing wrong with the way sneak attack was in 3E and I'd much prefer that version to this.

 

[Boarstorm]

Can't say I'm a fan.

I see nothing wrong with the way sneak attack was in 3E and I'd much prefer that version to this.

But that's the great thing about the idea -- if you want 3E-style sneak attacks, just pick the bonus to Sneak Attack damage every time the option is presented. If on the other hand you'd like some diversity, you can grab a maneuver or two.

If you envision yourself more as a skill-monkey rogue, disregard sneak attack entirely and focus on widgets, etc.

 

[Shroomy]

I'm intrigued by his suggestions (hey I like choices!), though I would like to see a more concrete system before I come down one way or another. My main worry would be to make each choice roughly equal to one another, so the decision doesn't become an automatic no-brainer.

 

[hemera]

Not sure honestly. I liked the 3rd/3.5/PF versions of Sneak Attack. (and while I'm at it, the rogue talents from Pathfinder) Backstab brings up bad bad memories of being really useless in 2e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I actually prefer the "useless" 2E method. But i do think thisis the option that will probably satisfy most players, so i can live with it. Also glad to see nothing that looks like an encounter or daily power for the rogue.

 

[Dausuul]

Personally, I think Rob Schwalb's idea is brilliant.

What do you guys think?

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

I voted "have to see it in play." But honestly, I'm not really clear on what the problem is that this proposal fixes. "Non-rogues don't get sneak attack" has never struck me as a big issue in D&D. You have a bonus to hit unaware enemies, which seems fine to me.

What I would like is a move away from the Flanking Rogue. In 3E and 4E, rogues follow one simple dictum: Thou Shalt Flank With The Fighter. You stick close to the fighter, flank the enemy, and sneak attack every round. You can sneak attack by, y'know, sneaking, but nobody does that. Maybe you do a little out-of-combat sneaking to set yourself up for the first round, but once the fight begins, stealth goes out the window.

I would very much prefer to see the rogue follow a different paradigm, more like the AD&D backstab, where you actually sneak up on the enemy. My ideal rogue combat model would be to spend a couple of rounds maneuvering to get into position, then deliver a devastating attack on a key target--a spellcaster, a leader, whatever--quite possibly a one-shot kill. After that, you dance around the edges of the fight striking where you can.

 

[paladinm]

If we do this (allow sneak attack/backstab to everyone), we eliminate one more reason for the existence of a Rogue/Thief class; and we move closer to merging the Rogue and Fighter classes. Any fighter can backstab; and with the fighter's damage capacity, if will be some backstab indeed!

 

[Bluenose]

I like the idea that anyone who has combat advantage can do extra damage to a target. I'm less sure about how this would work for rogues, since it's not clear what benefits they're gaining in place of the damage they give up.

 

[TwoSix]

Not bad. Hopefully some of those combat maneuver options are encounter or daily powers.