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

[pemerton]

I feel the motivation for this ability lies in the hit point mechanic. Rogues are to be back-alley men and should be able to do things like knock others unconscious with a sap.

Agree with that, but don't you think it's weird that back-alley thugs can do this but fighters can't? The only way I can reconcile that is via genre considerations - rogues are given the mechanical tools to live up to genre expectations, whereas fighters are given mechanical tools to make them be more heroic/knight-esque (no back ally sapping for them).

But once you locate class abilities within this sort of explicit metagame framework, a whole lot about D&Dnext starts to unravel.

 

[Minigiant]

My idea is that a rogue should be able to choose between:
a Sneak Attack that deals Xd6 damage
a Defensive Roll that reduces Xd6 damage
a Henchman who has Xd12+X HP
an Explosive that deals Xd6 fire damage

Switch a combat ability for exploration ability or social feature with the "power level" of Sneak attack would make if harder for DMs and designers to make good assumptions for their adventures

 

[Starfox]

* A Defensive Roll that reduces Xd6 damage: This isn't very useful unless the rogue is otherwise capable. It is nice if there is a macguffin for the rogue to steal and run off with, but great defenses without offense only works as long as anybody cares if you are there.

* A Henchman who has Xd12+X HP: 6+ Xd6 might be better, and some minor combat ability - the typical henchman of a villanous mastermind. This could work, but has the same problems as Leadership - another character on the board. But of you compare it to an animal companion, it could certainly work. It also has non-combat utility.

* An Explosive that deals Xd6 fire damage . If this is good at blowing up doors and walls, it is also a non-combat utility.

Adding some of my own. Again, not deeply thought through.

* Ability to daze enemies for a round, Save DC 10 + Cha +X, where you can spread X out over several targets if you want. Some noncombat utility for chases and the like.

* Ability to create entanglement in an area for a round (caltrops/overturning carts, as appropriate)

I made a Daredevil martial controller class for 4E that I never finished, but that had lots of mundane control abilities along these lines, it can be scavenged for ideas: http://hastur.net/wiki/Martial_Controller_(4E)

 

[Minigiant]

* A Defensive Roll that reduces Xd6 damage: This isn't very useful unless the rogue is otherwise capable. It is nice if there is a macguffin for the rogue to steal and run off with, but great defenses without offense only works as long as anybody cares if you are there.

* A Henchman who has Xd12+X HP: 6+ Xd6 might be better, and some minor combat ability - the typical henchman of a villanous mastermind. This could work, but has the same problems as Leadership - another character on the board. But of you compare it to an animal companion, it could certainly work. It also has non-combat utility.

* An Explosive that deals Xd6 fire damage . If this is good at blowing up doors and walls, it is also a non-combat utility.

Adding some of my own. Again, not deeply thought through.

* Ability to daze enemies for a round, Save DC 10 + Cha +X, where you can spread X out over several targets if you want. Some noncombat utility for chases and the like.

* Ability to create entanglement in an area for a round (caltrops/overturning carts, as appropriate)

I made a Daredevil martial controller class for 4E that I never finished, but that had lots of mundane control abilities along these lines, it can be scavenged for ideas: http://hastur.net/wiki/Martial_Controller_(4E)

Yes, Defensive Roll would be weakened if the rogue lacks a way to display himself as a threat. But it would match acrobats, scholar, and athletes better than SA does as it doesn't make every circus performer turn adventurer or professor turn archeologist into an expert at backstabing. Then there are things like poisons and bombs a roller could employ to suplement his lower offense.

For the Henchman, I was more or less trying to suggest replacements that would level for level match the progression of SA. So it would get HD at the same time a SA rogue got biggger SA. The Henchman's stats would not be great either. All 12s, 11s, 10s, and maybe an 8. This way the rogue couldn't depend on using the henchman to make checks. It would be a HP sponge with heavy armor and the martial weapon the rogue gave him. An armored simple packmule with a greatsword who says "Yes, Boss" over and over.

I don't think the craftable Explosive would be too bad it it could be used for noncombat. The point is the SA replacement would not be a reliable noncombat feature while granting a combat bonus. So the alchemist rogue could make a Xd6 explosive, Xd6 spikes, a thunderstone for deafness and stun to X people, and maybe a smoke bomb. Certainly usable for exploration but limited enough to not tilt the rogue too far.

 

[sheadunne]

The issue with the rogue is that she plays like a martial, acts like a caster, and is all about the fluff. In my experience, the further you shift the rogue away from martial (removing sneak attack or reducing it) the more unsatisfying the class is to play. In 3.5 there were some fun feats that allowed the player to reduce sneak attack damage to add other effects. Aside from the crapy mechanic that you had to take a feat to do it, it was usually not in your best interest to do something other than straight up damage. D&D has always been about the damage. If the choice is between killing the monster and knocking it down, killing it is usually your best option. If the feat instead allowed you to make a separate attack to knock down the target after the sneak attack, that would have been a little more fun for the cost of a feat.

I just feel that exchanging the ability to do damage for something else is never a good idea, it certainly doesn't seem that way in 5e which focuses perhaps even more on dealing damage.

I want the rogue to have fun and interesting things to do (caster) that support the design of the character (fluff), but still holds his own in a fight (martial). I'm just not sure D&D has ever gotten it right with the inbetween classes (Rogue, Monk, Bard), and I think this is because in D&D if you can't deal straight up damage (martial), you need to be able to affect multiple opponents at the same time (caster). Trading the rogues ability to deal straight up damage, for the ability to affect a single opponent doesn't feel like he's contributing very much in comparison, even if the rogue has mechanics that accurately reflect the fluff.

 

[N'raac]

Consider Charm Person as it appears in the current playtest:

The spell charms it target until the caster or a companion of the caster does anything harmful to it.

And a charmed creature cannot attack it charmer (and the charmer has advantage on social interaction with the charmed creature).​

Put these together, and until the caster or a companion harms the target of Charm Person, it cannot attack the caster and the caster has advantage on social interaction with it.

This does not take a creature out of a fight unless it is the only creature, or unless the caster can - via social interaction - persuades it to abandon its friends/allies. A rogue could have the ability to do these things without magic, say by bluffing a creature into surrendering.

To take a step back, Charm Person is one of how many spells a wizard will have available to him (not the spell list, but the choices of spells he can choose to cast)? At first level, the Rogue having the equivalent of Charm Person might be a reasonable combat ability. That L1 wizard will likely only have a couple of offensive spells, and both may have no great combat choices if they run into the wrong opponent (here, a non-human), and be back to their weapons. However, it has to scale up with level - at L3, L5 and L12, that Wizard has a lot more options that a Charm Person and another minor offensive spell, and the rogue should have combat abilities that are similarly enhanced in power, effectiveness and/or versatility. Sneak Attack powers up without becoming more versatile, but it already works on most targets, certainly far more than Charm Person does.

So, short answer, I'd agree this is a combat ability, but not that it is sufficient, by itself, to replace Sneak Attack at all levels. Perhaps this could be a choice to replace 1d6 of Sneak Attack, but I'm not even certain of that.

My idea is that a rogue should be able to choose between:
a Sneak Attack that deals Xd6 damage
a Defensive Roll that reduces Xd6 damage

* A Defensive Roll that reduces Xd6 damage: This isn't very useful unless the rogue is otherwise capable. It is nice if there is a macguffin for the rogue to steal and run off with, but great defenses without offense only works as long as anybody cares if you are there.

I think the defense is a good ability, but only if we play in genre - opponents still try to attack the rogue, who can strike back with his very limited weapon damage, but he ties up an opponent. If, however, the PC's and/or NPC's just say "he can reduce our damage, so just ignore him and attack the other guys", then the ability loses its value. This could be effected mechanically - the Rogue also gets an ability to taunt the opponent(s) to be affected by the reduced damage, and those enemies are either forced to attack the rogue, or are markedly penalized if they do not.

a Henchman who has Xd12+X HP

Workable - seems like a reskinned animal companion, and needs to be comparable in power to such a companion. Perhaps the Henchman should have X character levels, with some choices for the Rogue to select from (nothing wrong with a Cleric or Wizard, or even an apprentice Rogue, henchman). But then it is becoming much more a "second PC" on the board.

an Explosive that deals Xd6 fire damage

Again, workable (less so if one adopts the Pathfinder alchemist class, but I see no indication D&D will do so). It doesn't have to be fire - concussion or shrapnel damage would work fine. The fluff could be an issue (what stops him handing these out to teammates, for example), but it seems a very close replacement for sneak attack.

Switch a combat ability for exploration ability or social feature with the "power level" of Sneak attack would make if harder for DMs and designers to make good assumptions for their adventures

Agreed.

Adding some of my own. Again, not deeply thought through.

* Ability to daze enemies for a round, Save DC 10 + Cha +X, where you can spread X out over several targets if you want. Some noncombat utility for chases and the like.

* Ability to create entanglement in an area for a round (caltrops/overturning carts, as appropriate)

These all seem reasonable. I come back to the need for these abilities to scale with level, or to be taken as only a partial replacement, perhaps with some abilities being available in lieu of +1d6 Sneak Attack (so if Sneak Attack starts at 1d6 and works up to 7d6, a Rogue could instead have 7 social-flavoured abilities like the Charm Person and Daze options by top level, usable independently or in tandem, or seven environmental abilities like the entanglement one. Some of these abilities could be specific growth to earlier choices (like, say, expanding that Charm Person to a broader target group, either more than one person, or non-person targets), or be level-restricted (eg. can't be taken before 5th level, likely matching a level where Sneak Attack would get an extra d6).

These start to look like Rogue Talents/Special Abilities - did those flow through to Next? I get the sense that Next has worked to reduce spellcasters to a power level more comparable to martial characters, contrasted with Pathfinder's addition of abilities to the martial characters with less or no increases to spellcasters, which may become a significant differentiator between the two systems.

 

[Li Shenron]

< Just stepping into my own thread to check the poll results... >

I think our 3 poll options are quite even at the moment. Most voted was "sneak attack as mandatory" at 37% but together the 2 options where sneak attack is optional are 57%. Of course it's just a little bit over 90 votes, hardly relevant compared to WotC statistics, but at least this sounds to me more like I expected compared to Mearls playtest survey results.

 

[N'raac]

First, I think the choice Mearls may be seeing is perceived as "all get Sneak Attack" or "they can trade it off for less/no combat abilities and more noncombat focus". This thread shows "it should be one of several equivalent combat options" is much more popular, with a significant group wanting to restrict the replacement abilities to combat abilities, at least as the default/core rule. That gradation's not really in the poll (so I have not voted).

Second, this is a poor sample as people on the group are already experienced gamers likely to be interested in more options and OK with more complexity. As well, the thread title probably leads more "make it optional" readers to pop in at the outset.

I wonder how the choices "Mandatory for all rogues"; "Let them choose from equally useful combat options" "Let them trade it off for combat or non-combat abilities" and "Let them trade it for more non-combat abilities only" would go over.

 

[cmbarona]

< Just stepping into my own thread to check the poll results... >

I think our 3 poll options are quite even at the moment. Most voted was "sneak attack as mandatory" at 37% but together the 2 options where sneak attack is optional are 57%. Of course it's just a little bit over 90 votes, hardly relevant compared to WotC statistics, but at least this sounds to me more like I expected compared to Mearls playtest survey results.

It's hard for me to draw conclusions from this poll, because I think the questions aren't asked in a specific enough way. I changed my answer from A to C, but I had a specific caveat in mind.

When asking if Sneak Attack should be mandatory, I first considered that as their main, and only, method of holding their own in combat. If that is the case, then yes, I do think the rules should prevent a new player from falling into a trap of non-combat-proficiency. However, it has become clear that the rules could be written in a way that allows each Rogue to choose a different combat ability in the place of the one they would be losing by foregoing Sneak Attack. If that were the case, then yes, I would prefer that option.

What I would not prefer is a set of rules, at least in the PHB without any warning as to its consequences, that allows a Rogue to forgo their main combat ability and replace it with a non-combat one. At least not in D&D, which is a game that leans on combat. It doesn't have to, please don't assume I'm saying that. But I'm assuming most D&D players have at least one significant combat per session, sometimes more. It's a significant enough portion of the default rules that characters need to be able to contribute... unless you're an experienced enough player to understand what a tradeoff entails, and making tradeoffs like that involves a set of rules that I think belongs outside the PHB.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think a big part of the problem (to take a step back) is that the niche of the rogue has been eroded significantly. Rather than identifying the ways that they fall between other classes (though sheadunne's analysis has a nice feel to it), I'd prefer to think about what rogues do.

This thread is asking that question, essentially, but asking if their niche is "sneak attack".

So what defines a rogue? The answer could be:
a. someone who is fragile in combat but capable of high non-magical damage under the right circumstances (through e.g. sneak attack).
b. skill monkey -- jack of all trades
c. sneaky guy or perhaps sneaky trap guy

All of these have been foregrounded in different ways in the past, and ot some extent all are jostling for position now. The problem (if there is one) with the implementation in DDN is that all of them are eroded with the simplified rules.

c.: halflings and wood elves have considerable sneaking ability already. This leaves traps (undersupported in the playtest) and evasion/uncanny dodge type-abilities. Good, but the niche is eroded.

b. skill monkey. With the simplification of skills to ability checks, this manifests itself in expertise dice. The default is with DEX checks, and the subclasses expand that (CHA and INT). That's good, but if you aren't playing (just reading) the flexibility that offers might not be clear. It's a powerful mechanic [and one that I think could helpfully define humans instead of the flat +1, as I have argued elsewhere], but it feels like weak sauce because (1.) its range of applicability is not spelled out, and (2.) there are other non-roguey ways to get expertise dice, again eroding the niche.

a. Which leaves the fragile-but-with-conditional-high-damage situation. It's a good niche, complementing the fighter, but if it means that the rogue will sometimes be doing more damage than the default-martial class, then it needs to be circumstantial. This is what my suggestions upthread were aiming at. Does it happen when surprising? When the opponent is distracted? when fighting only with knives? One of the things that makes the rogue fun to play for me is that weapon choice matters very little -- when the circumstances are met, you can do almost as much damage with a dagger or a hand axe as you can with a great sword, and that's fun (for me). The player should have to work to meet the condition, however -- it simply can't be too easy to get; it has to change the default combat style.

So: within the framework provided by the DDN rules currently, what do I want to see for the rogue?

* a conditional way of being very effective in combat under certain conditions (with sneak attack being one available option)
* a corresponding defensive ability (evasion/dodge)
* a second background, for all rogues. (this is the out-of-combat benefit I'd most like to see; it was in the earliest test packs, and it was flavourful and fun)
* some expertise die applicability not available to other classes
* subclasses that allow thieving, charming, assassinating, etc. specialties. (but note the separation of charming from thieving)