D&D (2024) Dungeons and Dragons future? Ray Winninger gives a nod to Mike Shea's proposed changes.

[darjr]

Cool. So the rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not tied and bound or effected by the slow spell. But otherwise all the time.

I think sometimes folks are to situational for my taste.

If the quoted post is true there is room for a DM to rule other cases. Some unforeseen.

Edit: naive was a autocorrect, not kidding. My phone is trying to kill me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They will expect the new editions of the core rules to sell in the same way as the current editions, which continue to have good sales.

They are simply updated replacements to keep the game current. They are not intended as cash cows.

I don't think that's true. They are putting significant creative and (especially) marketing effort into making new core books. It seems odd that they wouldn't expect core book sales from them.

 

[overgeeked]

No, but having disadvantage on the roll (from invisibility or many other possibilities) does negate the sneak attack from Steady Aim.

Cool. So three. The rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not: tied and bound, effected by the slow spell, or at disadvantage. But otherwise all the time.

 

[Reynard]

Why is it important to you to understand current players?

You only play with your own players. So they're the only ones you need to understand. Understanding me gets you nothing.

That's a very narrow view of the hobby. There are many people playing at conventions, at game stores and, more and more, online. Understanding the community and the general desires of "other players" makes for a broader pool of players. The isolated group is increasingly the minority, I think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yet people seem to get that Rogues are supposed to be able to Sneak Attack, by and large. It's already in the rules as written, making the rules as intended more clear is the role of revisions.

Do they? People keep telling me that this forum is not representative.

 

[Reynard]

Funny enough, one of the last books for 3rd Edition was a Rules Compendium. The nice organized bundle of rules was put out right before the Edition was put out to pasture.

Which was actually a really great thing to do. They knew some people would be sticking with 3.5 for a long time and they gave them a "going away present."

 

[darjr]

Cool. So three. The rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not: tied and bound, effected by the slow spell, or at disadvantage. But otherwise all the time.

That last one is a yawning gulf of DM arbitration though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's kind if the game, though: the odds are always stacked for the house, and in 5E the players are the House.

Maybe in your game. In mine, if I intend the players to see a situation as challenging, it is.

 

[darjr]

Which was actually a really great thing to do. They knew some people would be sticking with 3.5 for a long time and they gave them a "going away present."

I bought that book and kinda loved it. I never used it.

My sons however, 3.5 being their intro to D&D, took it with them. One of them anyway, not sure which one….

 

[overgeeked]

I think sometimes folks are to situational for my taste.

If the quoted post is true there is room for a DM to rule other cases. Some unforeseen.

The whole game is predicated on situational calls and rulings. That's a feature not a bug. The problem with the rogue is that some players felt nerfed because their referee's ruled things in such a way to reduce the amount of sneak attacks the rogue could use. So WotC needed to fix things by adding steady aim, thus removing (or seriously limiting) the referee's ability to make those specific calls. The rules cannot cover everything and the designers certainly shouldn't try to. That way lies madness.

But, if the design intent is one thing the designers should not hide that behind layers of rules and rules interactions. The designers have said point blank that the rogue is designed around the assumption that it can always sneak attack. But, instead of designing the class that way, they chose to leave it up to the referee...only to come in later and add in steady aim to fix their initial mistake.

Edit: naive was a autocorrect, not kidding. My phone is trying to kill me.

Seriously, turn off your autocorrect. It's more trouble than it's worth.