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

[Dausuul]

Those are all combat uses for the spell. (and by combat I mean destroying things rather than interacting with things). Any suggestions for non-combat uses, such as social and exploration?

Since when is "destruction" synonymous with "combat?"

Creating distractions and producing light are not combat uses. Discouraging pursuit is arguably a combat use, but really it's about avoiding combat. You could also use fireball to send signals, dramatically light a pyre or celebratory bonfire, start a campfire when you've lost your gear, intimidate someone with a flashy display of power, destroy incriminating evidence, or burn your way through a flammable obstacle. Remember the scene in the movie version of "Return of the King" where Pippin had to climb a tower to light the signal beacon? That would have been a whole lot easier if Gandalf had just lobbed a fireball up top (though it might have been a little rough on the guys standing watch).

In my experience, every player character is a closet arsonist, except the ones who aren't in the closet. No matter what the party's trying to do, it's a safe bet they will eventually decide that setting something on fire is an essential part of the plan.

 

[Minigiant]

I just want to trade out sneak attack for poisons, explosives, smokestick, acids, glue pots, flash bombs, and stimulants.

Why does D&D hate Professor Explode D. Dungeon and his disdain for the mages who look down on his proper science?

One day, Professor. One day, you'll show them. You'll show them all.

 

[sheadunne]

Since when is "destruction" synonymous with "combat?"

Creating distractions and producing light are not combat uses. Discouraging pursuit is arguably a combat use, but really it's about avoiding combat. You could also use fireball to send signals, dramatically light a pyre or celebratory bonfire, start a campfire when you've lost your gear, intimidate someone with a flashy display of power, destroy incriminating evidence, or burn your way through a flammable obstacle.

Combat tier, not combat actions, sorry if there was confusion. The reason why I fit those into the combat tier is because of the radius of effect. If you're using a 20' radius spell to light a campfire, seems like an overkill (which for me falls into the combat tier, much the same way as killing the prisoner to use speak with dead on him doesn't fit into the social tier in my opinion). Now if you could use say 1d6 of your fireball spell to light a campfire in a 5' radius while still retaining the other d6s for other uses, that would fall more in line with my thinking.

In my experience, every player character is a closet arsonist, with the exception of the ones who aren't in the closet. No matter what the party's trying to do, it's a safe bet they will eventually decide that setting something on fire is an essential part of the plan.

That's the opposite of my experience, which is probably where we're disconnecting. We're heavily into resource management. You don't fix a $30 chair with a $1,000 nail. I'd much rather see more options for utilizing spells (similar to say the reserve feats of 3.5), which spells could provide smaller benefits over a longer period. It's rare in our games that anyone takes blasting spells (such as fireball) because their utility is more limited for the cost. We're interested in maximizing the benefit while minimizing the cost. A 3rd level spell slot is too import to use to send a signal, create a distraction, produce light, light a bonfire, destroy evidence, etc. Especially since there are much cheaper ways of doing all those things. While you might see some utility in fireball, it doesn't fit in any tier other than combat for me. The cost is too high for the other tiers for what it does (it's probably too expensive for combat tier as well).

I'm not trying to argue with your play style, but it's not what I'm looking for in my games. I'd much rather have a listed mechanic benefit with a system to resolve abilities explicitly in all three tiers. It doesn't mean that you can't also have yours. Adding in mechanics to support using spells, abilities, feats, etc does not diminish creative use of abilities, it only provides the framework for allowing others to use it for different purposes.

 

[pemerton]

I've been in a campaign where Lightning Bolt was used for communication - unlike a fireball, it could actually be mistaken as something natural. In most games, all spells/powers have this kind of noncombat use. It was just 4E, with its emphasis on "ignore the fluff" that lost it

Huh? The DMG expressly calls out that [fire] powers set things on fire (in case it wasn't obvious in any event). Given that a lighting bolt spell creates a great bolt of lightning dealing lightning damage, I think it's pretty obvious that it could be used to send a signal.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Huh? The DMG expressly calls out that [fire] powers set things on fire (in case it wasn't obvious in any event). Given that a lighting bolt spell creates a great bolt of lightning dealing lightning damage, I think it's pretty obvious that it could be used to send a signal.

I'm brand new to 4e, but I see absolutely no reason why it couldn't be used to send a signal, either. (Side note: my players tend to read the actual flavor printed on cards during combat. Not every attack by any means, but someone might say "what does that look like?" when a power is used, and the cards have seemed to be a natural starting point for them.)

As far as I know, too, the section on damaging objects says that there's only three types of damage that don't damage objects: poison, psychic, and necrotic. It seems like 4e relies on the use of keywords to dictate how powers interact with things during game play (as pemerton has noted a number of times). So, we have the following for the Lightning Bolt spell:

Lightning Bolt
Brilliant strokes of blue-white lightning erupt from your outstretched hand.
Encounter Arcane, Evocation, Implement, Lightning
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One, two, or three creatures
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d6 + Intelligence modifier lightning damage.
Miss: Half damage.

If we look at the key words, we have the following:
Arcane: Drawing on magical energy that permeates the cosmos, the arcane power source can be used for a wide variety of effects, from fireballs to flight to invisibility.
Evocation: Evocation powers bring various magical effects into being, including explosions, rays of magical energy, and lingering environmental effects.
Implement: The implement keyword identifies a power that can be used through an implement, and the implement must be a type wielded by the power’s class. You can use implement powers without an implement, and wielding a nonmagical implement confers no benefit.
Lightning: Electrical energy.

So, taking all of that into account, we know that you draw on arcane magic and (usually) channel the magic through your implement (staff, wand, whatever) to bring electrical energy into being. The attack originates from you, and stretches up to 50 feet out (10 squares). As far as I can tell, there's no reason this couldn't be used as a signal in 4e, just like in any past edition; you're still creating a line of lightning, just as you did in prior editions.

Unless I missed something, of course. I'm open to other interpretations.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't believe every rogue MUST have sneak attack. Not every rogue is the sneaky sort. Nor must all sneak attacks be created equal.

 

[silverblade56]

Honest to God this sounds like tactical combat babble to me. It all reads like balance of power wargamer DPR stuff. Thank the Lord 5e isn't going in that direction.

You know what "Kewl Powerz!" they get? They can sneak around, with a rapier or short bow (sometimes with poison, if they're lucky enough to beg borrow or steal it), and take things down like that. They can jump out from hiding and lure a foe into an ambush. They can rig a trap to spring when the foes cross it. They can climb to an unexpected area and drop a flaming vial of oil on the rug the baddy is standing on and watch the room go up in flames. They can convince one set of baddies to attack another set of baddies. Those are the traditional "powers" of the rogue, the "powers" they had under all the TSR editions of the game, and they can still get all that.

Step away from your character sheet, away from little boxes or cards or whatever you've been depending on to decide what to do next round of combat, and just tell the DM what you think you're character would do, given the circumstances and terrain and relations and lighting and rough distance from safety or other foes or allies. Those are your powers - to think of a way to get through the encounter alive and wealthier. Your goal is not to stab something in the back for maximum damage by optimizing your feats and ability scores and class powers and magical items - it's to come out of the encounter alive and hopefully wealthier. Now put the character sheet and/or cards down and figure out a way to do that.



They still get a sword and bow and sneaky abilities and a player with a mind and role playing skills, right?

I admire your creativity, but if you are going to do that instead of sneak attacking, you might as well play a commoner. Anyone can do those things because they are up to player imagination and DM fiat. Maybe the rogue is a little better becuase of his skills, but it's hardly a replacement for sneak attack. I am not saying playing your character like that is bad. In fact, it's good, but we are talking about the metagame rules of the game not the out of the box stuff. What is wrong with having all classes and subclasses having a core competency in combat, exploration, and social interaction by default with a little specializatiion in one or more thrown in the mix? If you want to make a character that focuses solely on one of those aspects, then great, but that is probably fodder for a later moduel or the DMG. That way, you don't get a newbie making a character that is ineffectual in combat or social skills by accident, thus detracting form his fun and possibly the success of the party during that part of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I admire your creativity, but if you are going to do that instead of sneak attacking, you might as well play a commoner. Anyone can do those things because they are up to player imagination and DM fiat. Maybe the rogue is a little better becuase of his skills, but it's hardly a replacement for sneak attack.

If this is true, I think it's a bit of an indictment of the mechanics. Rogues should be better than other PCs at achieving their goals via subterfuge - so better at establishing ambushes, better at leading foes astray, better at tricking them into abandoning their posts, etc.

What is wrong with having all classes and subclasses having a core competency in combat, exploration, and social interaction by default

<snip>

That way, you don't get a newbie making a character that is ineffectual in combat or social skills by accident, thus detracting form his fun and possibly the success of the party during that part of the game.

Nothing is wrong with those goals, in my view. But I don't see why sneak attack is crucial to achieving them. A PC who can reliably produce ambushes, or misdirection, is contributing to the party's combat goals.

Part of D&Dnext's claim to fame is meant to be it's difference from 4e. 4e combat has a particular dynamic, both in respect of GM control over scene-framing and the pacing of resolution; and the rogue in 4e is a striker rather than a multi-target controller; and the upshot of these two design features is that sneak attack is a core ability for rogues. Furthermore, the difficulties in interfacing skill challenge mechanics and combat mechanics in 4e make it hard to build a martial, multi-target controller, because one the situation has been framed as a combat it is difficult for a skill-based PC to engage the situation in skill challenge terms.

If D&Dnext is abandoning 4e's approach to combat, but still can't support a multi-target martial controller of the sort that a rogue could be, then what is it actually bringing in terms of mechanical innovation?

 

[sheadunne]

If D&Dnext is abandoning 4e's approach to combat, but still can't support a multi-target martial controller of the sort that a rogue could be, then what is it actually bringing in terms of mechanical innovation?

Aside from 4e, the rogue has never been a martial class. It has always been an "inbetween class" along with the Monk and Bard. I have always felt that it should be martial and appreciate 4e giving it a place there. I'd like to see the Rogue better at hitting than the fighter (but only in certain circumstances), better than the barbarian at damage (but only in certain circumstances), better at precision than the ranger (but only in certain circumstances). On the other side I'd like to see the rogue have the wizards spell list (but from a mundane point of view). Obscuring Mist (smoke bomb), fireball (alchemist fire), Invisibility (stealth), Illusion (distraction, ambush), etc. Can the rogue be all those things? Equal to most other classes, but only in certain circumstances.

 

[pemerton]

Can the rogue be all those things? Equal to most other classes, but only in certain circumstances.

Tough design gig! And challenging to play well.

In this thread I've been assuming that you'd make those choices as part of your build - so you could build a high-damage rogue (assassin) by choosing sneak attack with all the bells & whistles, build a controlling rogue (gadgeteer) by choosing the options for smoke bombs, flash grenades, etc. So variety within the class, but more uniformity for any given PC.

I don't have a particularly strong preference for my suggested way over yours. My stronger concern is a netagive one: I don't really like is the idea that the rogue has to be an assassin, or that the rogue's tricks have to be things like knocking enemies prone rather than doing sneak attack damage. That sort of weapon play strikes me as the province of the fighter, at least within the D&Dnext design paradigm (look at the gladiator, for instance).

If D&Dnext is meant to be able to support multiple pillars of play without prioritising the infliction of damage in combat, show me by starting with the most natural class candidate for that, namely, the rogue.