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

[Starfox]

Aside from 4e, the rogue has never been a martial class.

In 4E the rogue was a "martial" class because it was not supernatural. The term has nothing to do with fighting prowess. It is an origin, not a role. Yes, the 4E rogue could fight decently well, but that was not what the term "martial" was about. If Next had martial as a power origin, the rogue would once again fit there.

There was never a martial controller in 4E, something that I and some others thought was a lack. There were several threads here about it back in the day, and there seemed to be a consensus (which I did not agree with) that class abilities (powers in the 4E nomenclature) should not involve gadgets. Gadgets is equipment, not abilities. This made it very hard to make a martial controller class for 4E, and I suppose for every edition of DnD. To replace Sneak Attack with controller-y gadgets, those gadgets need to be competitive at all levels, which means they need to be much better than mundane equipment is generally allowed to be in a DnD-based game. But still I think that 4E was more forthcoming for this because of it's power structure - I think that trying to do the same for other editions would be even harder, both to do and to get people to accept.

I did make a serious attempt to build a martial controller for 4E, but interest here was very slight. I invented a "gadget" keyword for their powers, which let me use the standard power format for 4E and still let the powers be mundane. I suppose it could be robbed of it's powers to make a new class for Next, but as I say above, it feels really hard to do. And I am not sure that class would be a rogue.

http://hastur.net/wiki/Martial_Controller_(4E)

 

[sheadunne]

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.

It's certainly the intention of the thread. The question is what is equal when it comes to abilities and choices. And the answer is, it depends

 

[sheadunne]

In 4E the rogue was a "martial" class because it was not supernatural. The term has nothing to do with fighting prowess. It is an origin, not a role. Yes, the 4E rogue could fight decently well, but that was not what the term "martial" was about. If Next had martial as a power origin, the rogue would once again fit there.

There was never a martial controller in 4E, something that I and some others thought was a lack. There were several threads here about it back in the day, and there seemed to be a consensus (which I did not agree with) that class abilities (powers in the 4E nomenclature) should not involve gadgets. Gadgets is equipment, not abilities. This made it very hard to make a martial controller class for 4E, and I suppose for every edition of DnD. To replace Sneak Attack with controller-y gadgets, those gadgets need to be competitive at all levels, which means they need to be much better than mundane equipment is generally allowed to be in a DnD-based game. But still I think that 4E was more forthcoming for this because of it's power structure - I think that trying to do the same for other editions would be even harder, both to do and to get people to accept.

I did make a serious attempt to build a martial controller for 4E, but interest here was very slight. I invented a "gadget" keyword for their powers, which let me use the standard power format for 4E and still let the powers be mundane. I suppose it could be robbed of it's powers to make a new class for Next, but as I say above, it feels really hard to do. And I am not sure that class would be a rogue.

http://hastur.net/wiki/Martial_Controller_(4E)

I was referring to combat effectiveness as opposed to caster effectiveness. The 4e rogue was far more effective in combat than the 3e/2e/1e rogue, at least in my experience. Hence martial. I forget that abilities were linked to keywords in 4e though, sorry about the confusion.

Equipment/gadgets is always a big question mark. It comes up in supers games as well. Is a gadget superhero equal to a mutant superhero, especially if you can take his gear away?

I think looking at the skills/abilities that make equipment more useful in the hands of a rogue is what we should be looking at. I played around with replacing sneak attack with critical hits (maximum damage + weapon damage + weapon effect) instead of d6s for damage. Each weapon/type had a critical effect that happened in addition to damage when a crit was scored. When the rogue hit, his hit was considered a critical hit. He was just better at getting the equipment to do what we wanted it to do, as opposed to the fighter who was better at simply hitting the creature. My intention was to expanded it to all equipment, not just weapons, but I got side tracked with other things. Certainly a cloak in the hands of a rogue could be a different thing than one worn by a fighter or wizard. I could certainly be on board with a well developed "gadgeteer." A rogue who uses regular equipment to greater effect.

 

[Ratskinner]

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

The only thing that makes sense to me under the (non4e*)D&D framework, is if sneak attack was an "auto-kill" ability. The fighter eliminates an enemy by making several successful attack rolls, the wizard through attacks/save/damage rolls, the rogue through several "set-up" rolls about stealth, positioning, poison, etc. However, I think the psychological impact of such a thing on the other players would be traumatic. Not to mention the difficulty of setting this situation up in within the traditional dungeon experience.

*The 4e rogue seems to me much more of a swashbuckler type than the traditional "skulky-but-useless" guy of D&D's thieves and assassins.

 

[Ratskinner]

Equipment/gadgets is always a big question mark. It comes up in supers games as well. Is a gadget superhero equal to a mutant superhero, especially if you can take his gear away?

The only way to handle that well (IME) is with abstract equipment. In supers you have the guy with a "Utility Belt" that has defined abilities to mimic any normal equipment that you might want. Perhaps D&D should greatly expand what you can do with "Thief's tools" or a "Rogue's Bag of Tricks". For reasons unknown to me, D&D has traditionally resisted the idea of abstract equipment. (Its very important to D&D that we know that a needle costs 2sp and weighs next to nothing in ....)

 

[pemerton]

there seemed to be a consensus (which I did not agree with) that class abilities (powers in the 4E nomenclature) should not involve gadgets. Gadgets is equipment, not abilities.

For what it's worth, the designers ended up agreeing with you: the assassin's poison abilities (in Heroes of Shadow) are treated under the power rubric, not under the equipment rubric.

The only way to handle that well (IME) is with abstract equipment. I

<snip>

For reasons unknown to me, D&D has traditionally resisted the idea of abstract equipment.

I agree with both these sentences.

The only thing that makes sense to me under the (non4e*)D&D framework, is if sneak attack was an "auto-kill" ability. The fighter eliminates an enemy by making several successful attack rolls, the wizard through attacks/save/damage rolls, the rogue through several "set-up" rolls about stealth, positioning, poison, etc. However, I think the psychological impact of such a thing on the other players would be traumatic. Not to mention the difficulty of setting this situation up in within the traditional dungeon experience.

*The 4e rogue seems to me much more of a swashbuckler type than the traditional "skulky-but-useless" guy of D&D's thieves and assassins.

Another good post. I also agree with you about the 4e rogue. What I thought Next might be able to offer is a more traditional theif who is skuky-but-useful. Without that being combat swashbuckling. Your suggestion is one interesting possibility, though as you note has its own problems.

 

[Starfox]

The thing that really changed between the 3E and 4E rogues was actually not the class itself, but the much more generous Stealth rules. In 4E it was both a vector of attack, an enabler for sneak attacks, and at high levels an almost impenetrable defense. I had a lvl 26 (or therabouts, memory a bit unclear now) in my Rise of the Runelords 4E campaign. With some item that gave her the equivalent of hide in plain sight, she was extremely powerful and versatile. But again, if we ran with those stealth rules in Pathfinder, I think such a rogue would have been even more impressive compared to the rest of the gang, both on offense and defense. Full round sneak attacks every round with rapid shot - and imagine a wand of Holy Ice http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/holy-ice for those special occasions - with sneak attack at level 20 that's 165d6+30 of damage if all of the 15 touch attacks hit, or an average of 597 points of damage in one round. Barring SR, which would stop a wand dead. Well, actually the wand option does work in RAW Pathfinder now. So I am not sure the 4E rogue really was such a good combatant, compared to Pathfinder at least.

 

[Mistwell]

I admire your creativity, but if you are going to do that instead of sneak attacking, you might as well play a commoner.

I already detailed this in the post you quoted, but thieves get: 1) sneak abilities, 2) trap abilities, 3) skill with a rapier and bow (along with their typically high dexterity and attack bonuses), 4) often superior persuasion abilities, 5) climbing abilities, 6) the ability to wear some light armors, 7) etc.. Commoners do not get any of that.

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 just explained why it is enough to make the rogue competent in combat. I am not saying that the option should be there to remove sneak attack and replace it with nothing. The thing that replaces it is what would be worth it for the player to choose as an option.

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?

Nothing at all. My position, stated repeatedly, is that I think the rogue player should HAVE THE OPTION TO choose a more non-combat ability in place of sneak attack, if they so choose, perhaps contained in a supplementary book.

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 model or the DMG.

Indeed. I am arguing with people who claim the game should never allow the option of swapping sneak attack for a more non-combat ability - not in a supplement or module or any sort of future release. That it simply shouldn't be allowed under the rules.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Sneak attack is fine, as long as it, you know, requires SNEAKING.

 

[Weather Report]

Aside from 4e, the rogue has never been a martial class.

No class is, as there are no Power Sources in pre-4th Ed (thank god, for me).