D&D 5E Changing Sneak Attack to Light Weapons

[WayOfTheFourElements]

As usual, you can negotiate whatever you like for your table, that's how the game works. However, sneak attack is a specific 5E mechanic, with specific mechanical effects. If you want to change that via tags and negotiation with your players you can, but that doesn't change the fact that you're making that change, and that has nothing to do with the mechanics as written. Your table rules aren't germane to a larger discussion about how sneak attack works, other than as an example.

I'm not so sure. I think it has everything to do with how the game is written and read: if the game is interpreted in terms of continental (Roman) law or (British) common law (in their Platonic forms).

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not so sure. I think it has everything to do with how the game is written and read: if the game is interpreted in terms of continental (Roman) law or (British) common law (in their Platonic forms).

Um, no, it's about the rules in the book. There's no reading of the rules that differentiates sneak attack (Platonic, British or otherwise). It's cool that you do that, but it's not what it says on the tin at all.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Um, no, it's about the rules in the book. There's no reading of the rules that differentiates sneak attack (Platonic, British or otherwise). It's cool that you do that, but it's not what it says on the tin at all.

I'm not sure about that:

PHB, Page 4:

• "D&D is your personal corner of the universe, a place where you have free reign to do as you wish. "
• The rules "are nothing without the spark of life that you give them."

PHB, Page 5:

• "Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected."

PHB, Page 6:

• "But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."

DMG, page 4:

• "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

DMG, page 5:

• "The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."
• "Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits."

DMG, page 235:

• "The rules serve you, not vice versa."

Maybe you're right, though. Who knows?

 

[GlassJaw]

I really don't like fluff vs. mechanics discussions. While fluff might influence mechanics, good design should not be sacrificed for the sake of fluff.

Anyway, sneak attack (which I agree is poorly named), has 2 conditions:

1. Advantage on your attack roll, or
2. An ally is within 5 feet of your target.

Now, one way to gain advantage is against an unaware opponent but that isn't explicitly stated in the description. If anything, I read the fluff that is there ("...you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction") as more of a "cheap shot" type ability rather than a snipe/backstab attack.

But it's irrelevant.

The rogue is "balanced" by getting its bucket of Yahtzee dice once every turn (and even then, studies have shown it to be still lacking against other classes and builds. The delivery system doesn't really matter. The restrictions only serve the fluff and nostalgia to the thief of the past.

The rogue would be better off balanced against other classes by removing all the restrictions: advantage, ally within 5 ft, weapon type. Once per turn, you deal the extra damage. Easy peasy. I do agree that isn't as interesting.

Honestly, I might even experiment with allowing the rogue to split their d6 pool across multiple attacks in a round. That might encourage two-weapon fighting too much but it still competes with Cunning Action.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I really don't like fluff vs. mechanics discussions. While fluff might influence mechanics, good design should not be sacrificed for the sake of fluff.

Interesting. I would say the opposite. Good fluff should never be sacrificed for the sake of mechanics.

 

[GlassJaw]

Interesting. I would say the opposite. Good fluff should never be sacrificed for the sake of mechanics.

Your head would explode on first day on the job as a game designer.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Your head would explode on first day on the job as a game designer.

How so?

 

[GlassJaw]

How so?

Games simply aren't designed that way. Of course there is a theme. If you are designing a ship-to-ship combat game, you need rules for movement and cannonfire that make sense.

But beyond that, game balance and fun are paramount (well these days it's primarily monetization and player retention but that's another discussion). Those drive everything.

The narrative writers are given some freedom but everything they write must fit within the game (mechanic) design, and often it's non-negotiable. If the designers see a need for multiple tiers of ship power-ups or the economy model requires a way for players to speed up their ship-building, the writers are tasked with describing it in a way that sense. The design influences the fluff.

I've seen situations where there is pushback on the mechanics with respect to the narrative and it's not pretty.

Now what I'm describing is primarily video game design and D&D is a different beast but the philosophy still applies.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Games simply aren't designed that way. Of course there is a theme. If you are designing a ship-to-ship combat game, you need rules for movement and cannonfire that make sense.

But beyond that, game balance and fun are paramount (well these days it's orimarily monetization and player retention but that's another discussion). Those drive everything.

The narrative writers are given some freedom but everything they write must fit within the game (mechanic) design, and often it's non-negotiable. If the designers see a need for multiple tiers of ship power-ups or the economy model requires a way for players to speed up their ship-building, the writers are tasked with describing it in a way that sense. The design influences the fluff.

I've seen situations where there is pushback on the mechanics with respect to the narrative and it's not pretty.

Now what I'm describing is primarily video game design and D&D is a different beast but the philosophy still applies.

Perhaps. I don't know. I've never really played video games. We had Super Mario and Super Smash Bros. for the N64 when I was a young kid. I also played a little Age of Empires I at a friend's house. That's about it. I never found them terribly fun. They seemed more like a puzzle with graphics, but the puzzle and the graphics didn't mesh well together.

I did design an TTRPG in college. We played it for a few years. It ended up being pretty similar to Rune Quest, but with increasing die sizes instead of percent-based skills. I don't remember my head exploding, though. Perhaps, I have dementia. Shrug

As for being a game designer working for someone else, I probably wouldn't enjoy it. Then again, I've never seen much legitimacy in hierarchy and prefer working for myself, taking the work that's in line with my interests and values and leaving the rest. It's the only way to live.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm not sure about that:

PHB, Page 4:

• "D&D is your personal corner of the universe, a place where you have free reign to do as you wish. "
• The rules "are nothing without the spark of life that you give them."

PHB, Page 5:

• "Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected."

PHB, Page 6:

• "But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."

DMG, page 4:

• "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

DMG, page 5:

• "The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."
• "Sometimes mediating the rules means setting limits."

DMG, page 235:

• "The rules serve you, not vice versa."

Maybe you're right, though. Who knows?

I would read those as permission and indeed encouragement to change the rules to fit your game better.
For example in the way that I removed the finesse requirement to Sneak Attack, or gave finesse to bows and slings.
This fits my group and game better than the standard rules, but I still acknowledge that they are a change to the baseline rules of the game that Fenris is talking about.