You replied to me, and it's what I was talking about. I am not in charge of the thread, but I damn well am in charge of the things I say. So if you wanted to talk about something else, why did you say it to me, quoting me?
Sounds like a difference in posting style. I post to “the discussion group”, and I use quotes for context. If I want to direct a comment to a specific Board member, we have private messaging and [MENTION=6682655]Poster[/MENTION].
And I made that clear you're constructing a strawman. The Rogue still uses swords and bows, not a simple dagger. They still have their Dex bonus on that bow. They can still attack from surprise while hiding. The only thing they lost was sneak attack in this scenario. So please, stop claiming it's just a wizard's equivalent 1d4 attack.
In 3e, Rogues are proficient with all
simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword. I don’t play 4e, and I’m not conversant with any changes in 5e. A halfling rogue uses Small weapons, so his rapier, short sword or shortbow (in 3e, at least) does the same 1d4 as the wizard’s dagger. Are there larger weapons he can Finesse?
No we're not. At least, that's not what I am talking about, and I've repeatedly said this is not about reducing weapon proficiencies, main stat, or any of the other basic combat abilities. We're talking about a single situational special combat ability (sneak attack). It's something that's been successfully traded in prior editions of the game with no appreciable impact to people's overall games. For example, in 3e, an official variant rogue allowed you to gain feats and lose sneak attack.
First off, what worked in another edition may or may not work here. Losing a 2e Backstab would be a lot less of an issue, as it was much less frequently useful. 3e is, to me, where the “trade all abilities in one area to hyperspecialize in another” issues started to arise, so a 3e variant doesn’t really sway my view.
Second, I have said repeatedly that I am not opposed to other options instead of Sneak Attack, but that this combat ability should be tradable for a different combat ability. My first choice would be a variety of combat-related choices, not sneak attack as the default.
I'm looking at the rogue's abilities in Next, and really there's Sneak Attack or attacks that require Sneak Attack. Yes, there are a few more like Poison or Ace in the Hole, but the vast majority of a rogue's combat ability comes from Sneak Attack. I don't see how that can be disputed. Mearls has been very clear, increased damage is the main way to differentiate a high level character's offensive ability from a low level's due to the flat math they're going for.
This shows me two things. First, Sneak Attack is the biggest combat ability. Second, choices need to be in the base, core rules, otherwise other mechanics naturally start to assume that Sneak Attack will be there. Thanks for the heads up, ThirdWizard.
It's not the rogues main combat feature. Their main combat feature is hitting you from a hidden spot with an arrow or a finesse weapon. That's always be the rogues best combat tactics. Sneak attack is situational, gives no attack bonus, and only adds a relatively minor amount of damage at the lower levels that most people play with. It's not their main combat ability.
So the Rogue’s main ability, in your view is that he can find a spot to hide in and surprise you from there, which is somehow
less situational than a sneak attack? At 1d6 to 7d6, I find sneak attack a pretty sweet damage adder. If I’m starting with an attach that does 1d6 (or 1d4) and adding 2d6, that triples my damage. An average of +7 damage on 2d6 is like having an extra 14 STR. That seems like more than “a relatively minor amount of damage” – what does an equivalent level Fighter deal out reliably (versus this at least somewhat situational bonus)?
I was staying on topic. The fighter, for example, got feats in 3e as their primary class feature. If they selected non-combat feats instead of combat feats, that was them trading away. That IS the topic.
The fighter’s bonus feats had to be combat-related. This would be similar to providing a choice of combat-related benefits, one of which is Sneak Attack, rather than defaulting to Sneak Attack, which is my preferred approach.
As for the rogue, it's not their entire combat. You're exaggerating for effect here. It's an entirely meaningless ability if they don't hit, and that hit itself will do more damage at most levels than the sneak attack adds to it.
WTF is the rogue attacking with that does more than 2d6? 3d6? Up to 7d6? Apparently, Next is making way more changes to weapon damage than I expected!
I'd like to point out that this really depends on the specific iteration of Sneak Attack. There has been some significant fluctuation throughout the D&D Next run, not to mention earlier editions of D&D. I'm currently playing a level 7 Rogue. Right now, that means +2d6. Back in March, it meant +4d6. The level depends, too, though I think it's unfair to dismiss higher level play because fewer people get there. Sometimes it's not too significant. Other times it's tantamount to a second, or at higher levels even a third or fourth, attack when it hits. So, how much of a role it plays can vary greatly depending on the specific rules for Sneak Attack.
To me, the Sneak Attack also has to be meaningful damage at all levels. If it is not, then the ability itself is poorly designed. How much is “meaningful”? At least enough that, when it applies, the Rogue can deal as much or a bit more damage than a Fighter reliably delivers with his hits.
Would you agree though that rogues are typically opportunists at heart? If so, bsckstabbing is simply one combat-related form of opportunism. I think thry are, but they dont neccesarily develop exactly the same way for all rogues. Make it available, but optional.
Yup – make it available among other combat-related abilities based on opportunism. You know what? Let’s also give them the ability to either add to an existing combat ability (eg. +1d6 Sneak Attack) or take one of the other ones every 3rd level (assumed based on 1d6 to 7d6 progression). Choice is great, but I want all characters to have choices of combat abilities and choices of noncombat abilities, not the choice to hyperfocus on one and take nothing in the other (at least in the default/core rules)
