D&D 5E Sneak Attack question

[Sword of Spirit]

Sneak Attack is a misnomer. Mentally rename it to "Vital Strike".

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sneak Attack is a misnomer. Mentally rename it to "Vital Strike".

I trust WotC to know the meaning of the word sneak.

Also, "I vital strike the ocher jelly" isn't any better.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I trust WotC to know the meaning of the word sneak.

Also, "I vital strike the ocher jelly" isn't any better.

They used it for tradition's sake, which became the current tradition because the older "backstab" was too limited. If they do another edition, they'll quite possibly rename it to something even more open, like "deft strike". As much as 5e is supposed to be about natural language, it really isn't. It is full of jargon. Sage Advice is proof of that. It's probably most accurate to say that there are certain parts of the game that default to natural language, and certain parts that default to jargon. I'm not sure if there's a good way to categorize which is which (I haven't tried).

Sneak Attack says you "strike subtly and exploit a foes distraction", and that's as far as it goes. Swashbucklers get Sneak Attack when dueling an opponent one on one, so I don't think it relies on their opponent not looking their direction. I'd definitely say a large animal right there controlled by your foe is enough of a distraction, whether it's a war-horse or a cow.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

They used it for tradition's sake, which became the current tradition because the older "backstab" was too limited. If they do another edition, they'll quite possibly rename it to something even more open, like "deft strike". As much as 5e is supposed to be about natural language, it really isn't. It is full of jargon. Sage Advice is proof of that. It's probably most accurate to say that there are certain parts of the game that default to natural language, and certain parts that default to jargon. I'm not sure if there's a good way to categorize which is which (I haven't tried).

Sneak Attack says you "strike subtly and exploit a foes distraction", and that's as far as it goes. Swashbucklers get Sneak Attack when dueling an opponent one on one, so I don't think it relies on their opponent not looking their direction. I'd definitely say a large animal right there controlled by your foe is enough of a distraction, whether it's a war-horse or a cow.

If the ability were a deft strike, it would be called "deft strike."

Cantrips were made at-will. Short rests are 1 hour. Dexterity can be added to attack rolls. I see many break from "tradition." If the devs didn't want sneak attack to be a sneak attack, they could have named it whatever they wanted. They could have named it "flashy kitten love" or "fire fire bang" or "caber toss" or "wrist wrist finesse bling". But they didn't. They named it sneak attack.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I stand on the ground and stick your spleen with my pointy dagger: no sneak attack.
I mount my ancient, half-dead, three-legged horse: very sneaky sneak attack!

Sure! Your skill with Saber and Horse is so prodigious that you can use any mount to deliver decapitating strikes to the neck.

Sprinkle in some Scout subclass and the Outlander background, and one can easily model a scout from the steppe tribes.

Sprinkle in some Swashbuckler and the Noble background and you have a Napoleonic Calvary Officer...a real cad of a grognard

My view is that in a game like D&D where suspension of disbelief is the foundational quality of play....one has to disregard what their personal aesthetic regards as "reasonable" and merely accept what is mechanically possible.

Once you do this, once you "unlearn, what you have learned", the amount of cool narration that opens up to you is immense.

People can always find a flaw in something, if that is their goal.

 

[TwoSix]

If the ability were a deft strike, it would be called "deft strike."

Cantrips were made at-will. Short rests are 1 hour. Dexterity can be added to attack rolls. I see many break from "tradition." If the devs didn't want sneak attack to be a sneak attack, they could have named it whatever they wanted. They could have named it "flashy kitten love" or "fire fire bang" or "caber toss" or "wrist wrist finesse bling". But they didn't. They named it sneak attack.

And they also made it work from a horse. If there's a conflict between what a feature is called and what it does, I default to keeping the mechanic intact and simply reframe the narrative.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And they also made it work from a horse. If there's a conflict between what a feature is called and what it does, I default to keeping the mechanic intact and simply reframe the narrative.

I prefer to change the mechanics to it the narrative. Narrative > mechanics.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sure! Your skill with Saber and Horse is so prodigious that you can use any mount to deliver decapitating strikes to the neck.

Sprinkle in some Scout subclass and the Outlander background, and one can easily model a scout from the steppe tribes.

Sprinkle in some Swashbuckler and the Noble background and you have a Napoleonic Calvary Officer...a real cad of a grognard

My view is that in a game like D&D where suspension of disbelief is the foundational quality of play....one has to disregard what their personal aesthetic regards as "reasonable" and merely accept what is mechanically possible.

Once you do this, once you "unlearn, what you have learned", the amount of cool narration that opens up to you is immense.

People can always find a flaw in something, if that is their goal.

Eh...not my thing. Too superhero. Even the demigod Hercules could only fight one man at a time.

 

[TwoSix]

I prefer to change the mechanics to it the narrative. Narrative > mechanics.

And that's fine, but since I've also never really liked the "sneak attack" narrative, I personally like having it as more of a generic damage increase. Especially since the rogue mechanics make it such an easily reskinnable class.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And that's fine, but since I've also never really liked the "sneak attack" narrative, I personally like having it as more of a generic damage increase. Especially since the rogue mechanics make it such an easily reskinnable class.

Yeah. I prefer rogue as backstabbing thieves who steal from the party and cause undue chaos while avoiding combat and hiding in the shadows. Much more interesting than another combat class.