D&D 5E Sneak Attack: optional or mandatory?

[Falling Icicle]

That's not all you said. You said, "I am strongly against the idea that it's okay for a class to suck at combat if they're good at social interaction or exploration".

Maybe you have a different idea of what "sucks at combat" means than I do. I just mentioned, as an example, a character that's only half as powerful in combat as the combat-focused character. Many people would think that "sucks at combat." I'm talking about the rules at least giving each class, BY DEFAULT, a minimal degree of competence. That's a far cry from forcing everyone to play a combat monster.

You, on the other hand, are the only one who has outright stated, "I am strongly against the idea that it's okay for a class to suck at combat if they're good at social interaction or exploration". You are the only one who wants there to be no option for those players. So you're the guy I am responding to. If others want to take that position, I will respond to them as well.

I was talking about the core, default rules of the game. We all have our own vision of what the final game should look like. None of us are going to get all of what we want, and for every person that gets something they want, there will be another person out there that wanted just the opposite. I, for example, am very much in favor of spellcasters having at-will cantrips, including attack spells like ray of frost. There are also people that hate them. Does it make me a selfish jerk for wanting the game to include them, even though it will make those other people mad? We all have our own opinions about what should and shouldn't be in the PHB. You do. I do. I guess we're all selfish. None of us are going to get 100% of what we want in the game. Thankfully, there are house rules, or, if that's not enough, plenty of other RPGs to play.

 

[pemerton]

I voted for Option B, but that was before reading the thread. Some of the arguments for Option C are pretty good ones.

My preference would be for two sorts of options:

(1) I like [MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION]'s idea that the both the triggering condition for sneak attack, and the form that the bonus damage takes (eg debuffs), can be variable across individual character builds.

(2) But I also like the idea that there would be sub-classes whose strength is not combat (whether as striker or controller) but non-combat, be that exploration, deception, lore or some mix of possibilities.​

While I feel some of the force of [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]'s argument against (2), I think that the game already permits building combat-weak PCs. For instance, a wizard can be built who only learns non-damaging spells: say, an illusionist who knows Light, Minor Image, Prestidigitation, Charm Person, Disguise Self, Fog Cloud and Comprehend Languages.

If the game permits that sort of PC, why not a non-magic using PC who specialises in (non-magical) prestidigitation, social skills, disguises, languages and the use of smoke-and-mirrors distractions (say flash powder and sneaking to distract and confuse enemies)?

In either magic-using or non-magic-using form this PC does put certain demands on a GM that a more straightforward attack-and-damage PC does not; but that's something for advice about playstyles and the like, and isn't grounds for eliminating these builds from the game.

(One option would be to have these sorts of combat tactics inflict psychic damage, but in D&Dnext psychic damage seems to be confined to mind-blasting effects like Feeblemmind and Mind Blast, rather than more mundane forms of mental stress also.)

I'd like to know what kinds of abilities people would want to exchange for sneak attack.

<snip>

Without sneak attack, a rogue's damage is pitiful. They don't get extra attacks, so most of their damage at higher levels comes from sneak attack.

<snip>

They could give rogues two attacks and make sneak attack less powerful, but even then, it's still going to be a pretty big chunk of a rogue's damage potential.

I would much rather that a rogue get two attacks at 8th level like the other martial classes - and have sneak attack dialed down appropriately for those rogues who have it - then have the current approach, which makes rogue combat competence so dependent upon this weird class feature which, apart from anything else, is hard to reconcile with the fact that fighters are meant to be the experts at fighting.

If the rogue played, by default, more like an AD&D leather armour wearing fighter/thief, I would rather that to a sneak-attacking glass cannon. Then non-sneak attack builds would still have a minimal combat viability - comparable to a de-magiched cleric in attack and defence - but instead of building on that with sneak attack would have other domains of expertise.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

As a DM, I've had several players over the years use combat-weak characters, and we've always had a great time. It's the DMs job to juggle it so everyone has a chance in the spotlight, and everyone has an opportunity to contribute. If your games are so skewed to combat that someone who creates a character who isn't good at combat won't have fun - it's on the DM to address that, not the player.

In fact, a thief with lots of thievery and social skills is a GREAT character for the DMs game. This offers the opportunity for an excellent cat-burger adventure, or a political intrigue adventure, or all kinds of great adventures! Why would you not like that, as a DM?

Exactly right.

"Balance" in RPGs as an abstract element of game design is and always has been a crock. The only meaningful balance in an RPG is fun-balance, simply making sure that all of the players have as much fun as possible. And the way to do this is spotlight-balance. The DM makes sure that everyone has star time, hopefully of roughly equal duration, and also minimizes bored time, where a player has nothing useful to do.

And spotlight balance is utterly dependent on adventure design. Every strength and weakness is circumstantial. If an adventure has a lot of oozes and fungi your crit specialist is out of luck. If an adventure has no mind magic then it doesn't matter that a PC has lousy will saves. It's the DM's job design/modify the adventure so that it's fun for his group.

Spotlight balance is not particularly hard to do. All it requires is communication between the DM and the players and a willingness on the DM's side to try to make the game fun for his players. As a DM I've never had a situation where I couldn't easily modify an adventure to give all my players spotlight time while still maintaining my vision for the adventure.

 

[Starfox]

"Balance" in RPGs as an abstract element of game design is and always has been a crock. The only meaningful balance in an RPG is fun-balance, simply making sure that all of the players have as much fun as possible. And the way to do this is spotlight-balance. The DM makes sure that everyone has star time, hopefully of roughly equal duration, and also minimizes bored time, where a player has nothing useful to do.

It irks me when people post stuff like the above, because it shows a disdain for other people's game style and is almost an accusation of badwrongfun. IMO it is not at all pointless to talk about game balance. It might be true to you, but it is not universal. A role-playing game is a combination of many things, and one of those things is a tactical board/miniatures game. And in such a game there can be winners and losers - players/characters who shine, and those that suck.

But really, this is a separate discussion and mostly a matter of what terms we use - what we mean when we say words like "balance". I've been thinking of trying to make a glossary for ENworld, including many of the terms from Forge but also providing terms for the alternate meanings of words like "high fantasy", "game balance", "gameism" and other terms that different people put very different meanings into.

 

[N'raac]

That's not all you said. You said, "I am strongly against the idea that it's okay for a class to suck at combat if they're good at social interaction or exploration".

OK, to me, I want a game that does not encourage, or perhaps even enable, characters whose players will be bored or frustrated for a significant portion of the game. I also want the ability to run a game which includes significant combat, social and exploration aspects. So I want characters who have something to contribute in all three realms. From your comments in prior posts, the character you ran was not a direct combatant, but he could contribute in combat and you were not bored in combat. To me, that character does not "suck at combat".

My logic would also say "I do not want characters able to trade away all of their non-combat abilities to further pump up their combat abilities". That is, I do not want the game to enable a situation where all but one player "look down at their 8 Charisma" and complete absence of social skills, and just sit around while the one player who did not dump all social abilities in favour of another combat bonus plays solo for two hours. I want all of those characters to have some abilities that allow them to contribute, to some extent, in that social encounter.

If a player wants to choose options so that they focus on non-combat at the expense of combat, fine. And if they want to focus on combat at the expense of non-combat, that's fine too. But "at the expense of" is what I want. I definitely do not want not "to the exclusion of", so that the GM's choices are reduced to "have no challenges of this nature", "leave one or more players bored with nothing to do when these challenges appear" or "ignore the mechanics and give the character who invested 100% of his character resources in other areas some kind of freebie so he can participate".

This includes "combat wombats" who sacrifice all skills in any non-combat role to eke out every possible combat advantage, then bitch and moan that they have no fun when a challenge which can't be solved by killing whatever stands before him comes up. I don't want to have to choose between that player being bored (and whiny) or other players being forced to play a 100% combat game where the noncombat abilities they chose, at the cost of not being 100% combat-optimized, never come into play - leaving them frustrated because they never get to have the spotlight in combat (Combat Wombat is superior on all levels in that arena) and never get to have the spotlight where their skills shine, because that's no fun for Combat Wombat.

Optional rules to swap out "to the exclusion" should be presented only with the clear statement that "this is GM option, will leave the character bored and frustrated when these situations arise, and is generally recommended only where these challenges will be minimal or entirely absent in the expected game".

With that in mind, I would support a diverse array of choices of combat-useful options, whether sneak attack is a default, or one choice of many. I would not support the default ability to build a Rogue (or any other character) whose only combat function is to hide under a table and not participate through a three hour combat session.

 

[Dausuul]

My preference would be that all rogues should have some way of contributing in combat; but they don't all have to have Sneak Attack. I would like to have some rogue builds get nondamaging combat tricks instead. Or perhaps make it an Unearthed Arcana option to replace.

 

[Mistwell]

I was talking about the core, default rules of the game.

If that's the case, we may have no disagreement. Earlier it looked to me like you were saying you wanted the default the be that, AND you wanted no options to allow for it to be non-combat.

So, are you saying you'd be fine with options, in a supplement or module, to alter it to be non-combat?

 

[Mistwell]

OK, to me, I want a game that does not encourage, or perhaps even enable, characters whose players will be bored or frustrated for a significant portion of the game.

Cool. Then we need a really good DMG, to teach DMs how to keep their players entertained, no matter what options they choose for their PCs. That's the only solution to preventing boredom, is good DMing.

I also want the ability to run a game which includes significant combat, social and exploration aspects. So I want characters who have something to contribute in all three realms.

You can have a game that includes all three aspects, but you can't insist on characters who do all three...because the players who control them may not want to do all three. All you can control is the world...not the players choices. No matter how much you prefer they fight, they may not want to fight. No matter how much you want them to explore, they may not want to explore. No matter how much you want them to engage in a social drama, they may not want to engage in that. There is no way, through the rules, you can make them do any of this. As a role playing game, all you can do as DM is give them opportunities and see what they choose to do with them.

From your comments in prior posts, the character you ran was not a direct combatant, but he could contribute in combat and you were not bored in combat. To me, that character does not "suck at combat".

ANY character can "contribute" to combat. I gave a example earlier of using a little girl character to contribute as a scout and someone who lures foes into a party ambush. That's contributing...without ANY inherent fighting ability.

My logic would also say "I do not want characters able to trade away all of their non-combat abilities to further pump up their combat abilities". That is, I do not want the game to enable a situation where all but one player "look down at their 8 Charisma" and complete absence of social skills, and just sit around while the one player who did not dump all social abilities in favour of another combat bonus plays solo for two hours.

We're talking about trading an existing combat ability (SA) for a non-combat one. We're not talking about trading an existing non-combat ability for a combat one. Raise the specific issue and we can talk about it.

Fortunately they got rid of that sort of mechanical social encounter issue. Now, if the PCs want to engage, even with an 8 charisma, they can still do OK.

I want all of those characters to have some abilities that allow them to contribute, to some extent, in that social encounter.

They have that. Their mouths. The players tell you what their characters do, and you determine what happens based on what they do. It may involve a roll, or an opposed roll, and it may involve circumstance bonuses or penalties based on what they said they did. But nobody is useless in that encounter.

If a player wants to choose options so that they focus on non-combat at the expense of combat, fine.

Cool. So, what are we debating then?

And if they want to focus on combat at the expense of non-combat, that's fine too. But "at the expense of" is what I want. I definitely do not want not "to the exclusion of", so that the GM's choices are reduced to "have no challenges of this nature", "leave one or more players bored with nothing to do when these challenges appear" or "ignore the mechanics and give the character who invested 100% of his character resources in other areas some kind of freebie so he can participate".

The players need to be inventive enough to figure out how to contribute even without extraordinary tools to do so. They can all hit something with a club or a sling stone. They can all aid another or defend another. They can call distract and lure foes. They can all dump over a barrel of nails or throw caltrops or toss burning oil. Nobody is helpless in combat, even without sneak attack.

Optional rules to swap out "to the exclusion" should be presented only with the clear statement that "this is GM option, will leave the character bored and frustrated when these situations arise, and is generally recommended only where these challenges will be minimal or entirely absent in the expected game".

No. That's an excuse for lazy DMing. You, as DM, need to adapt. Your players need to be inventive. A thief without backstab is not inherently boring in combat. I am cool with an explanation of how it will impact the game (not that exaggerated and misrepresentative one) - but it should be the player's choice to still choose that option if they want to.

With that in mind, I would support a diverse array of choices of combat-useful options, whether sneak attack is a default, or one choice of many. I would not support the default ability to build a Rogue (or any other character) whose only combat function is to hide under a table and not participate through a three hour combat session.

There is no such issue in play here though. Nobody is saying the rogue can trade their ability to stab with a sword or shoot a short bow. Let's talk about the issue at hand, not an exaggeration for effect.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No it isn't. You make a character that fits the game you are playing. If I'm playing a Call of Cthulhu game, I'm likely not rolling up a Space Marine or even a Commando. They don't fit the game. Most of that game involves running away from enemies and avoiding touching books. Playing a Commando with Automatic weaponry is missing the point.

D&D is mostly about defeating monsters, venturing into dungeons, and solving problems that require larger than life abilities to solve.

I'm gonna agree with you here, and point out that the whole mentality that "D&D can be everything to everybody" is something that really irks me. People need to get out of their bubble and try out more RPGs that would really do some of these things better than D&D does them. I don't care if people want to play their (for example) horror game in D&D instead of Chill, Dread, or Trail of Cthulhu. I really don't. They can do what they want. But, if people say they want D&D to have options to support horror games, when those awesome games are out there, it really irks me. And when people say that D&D isn't a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, because they don't emphasize that when they play D&D, then I just... I don't know.

It's like saying the Dresden Files RPG isn't an RPG about urban fantasy because you could use the rules to play a sci-fi drama. Or like saying that Everyone is John isn't about John because you could rename him Bob for your game. Well, that's great and all. And, I'm happy for people who have almost no combat in their D&D games. I mean, I've gone sessions without combat myself. I know it can be done, and I know it can be fun. But, if somebody asked me what D&D was about, I would say its about killing monsters, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful. Regardless of what you or I or somebody else does with the system, read over the rules. D&D is about heroic, dungeon exploring, skull breaking, high fantasy. Pretending it isn't is not only a disservice to D&D, its a huge disservice to all the other games that do intrigue, horror, sci-fi, whatever better than D&D does them. And I guess that's why it irks me. Because I like other RPGs besides D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm gonna agree with you here, and point out that the whole mentality that "D&D can be everything to everybody" is something that really irks me. People need to get out of their bubble and try out more RPGs that would really do some of these things better than D&D does them.

That paragraph, directly contradicts your next paragraph.

I don't care if people want to play their (for example) horror game in D&D instead of Chill, Dread, or Trail of Cthulhu. I really don't. They can do what they want.

You JUST said it really irks you and people need to try other games that do this better. That's you caring if people want to use D&D for those things. So, why then immediately pretend you don't care?

But, if people say they want D&D to have options to support horror games, when those awesome games are out there, it really irks me.

D&D has always supported horror, from the very beginning, and in every edition of D&D. If you don't want D&D to support horror, tough. Ravenloft will always be there. All the horror creatures will still be there, and people will still play with plenty of horror in their games, and WOTC will continue to publish horror advetures in Dungeon magazine for Halloween.

And apparently, somewhere you will be all irked about this.

And when people say that D&D isn't a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, because they don't emphasize that when they play D&D, then I just... I don't know.

It's about those things, and other things. It's you insisting it only is about those things that causes the conflict.

And, I'm happy for people who have almost no combat in their D&D games.

Yeah, you're happy, but really irked if someone wants the rules to allow for supporting that. That doesn't sound like you're really happy for them. If you were really happy for them, you'd want the rules to allow them to continue to do that into the future.

I mean, I've gone sessions without combat myself. I know it can be done, and I know it can be fun. But, if somebody asked me what D&D was about, I would say its about killing monsters, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful. Regardless of what you or I or somebody else does with the system, read over the rules. D&D is about heroic, dungeon exploring, skull breaking, high fantasy. Pretending it isn't is not only a disservice to D&D, its a huge disservice to all the other games that do intrigue, horror, sci-fi, whatever better than D&D does them. And I guess that's why it irks me. Because I like other RPGs besides D&D.

Nobody is pretending D&D is not about those things. What I am saying is it's ALSO about other things. Nobody is "doing a disservice" to other games by saying D&D is also about other things. I don't know why you continue to try and make this issue about non-D&D games, or why you keep assuming the people in this thread don't also play other games, but for myself neither is the case. Let's talk about D&D and what you can do with it, what it's always supported, and not what other games do.