Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Primal]

Lets see...
My 1978 PHB has Monks, Bo Sticks, Jo Sticks and Scimitars all of which are distinctly non-european. (Not to mention way too many french pole arms.)

So to me I don't see shuriken as being odd at all for D&D. It's always been an odd mixed bag of cultures thrown together for a game.

Uh, "french pole arms" *are* European, right? If you meant that you were annoyed by their names being in french, I *think* (I'm not an expert on medieval weaponry) most pole arms don't have any corresponding names in english.

 

[hong]

Yes, thats a problem with SAGA skills. You can't choose to be not good at something. You can of course simply not use the skills you don't want to have but this is a inelegant solution.

It is a much more elegant solution than not choosing to be not good at something.

 

[Derren]

It is a much more elegant solution than not choosing to be not good at something.

No one can do everything, which is also a core concept in D&D and also "realistic" from a role playing standpoint. Don't make D&D PCs cape wearing superheroes by default.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

I'm happy with this mechanic. My 'math' happiness continues.

 

[hong]

No one can do everything, which is also a core concept in D&D and also "realistic" from a role playing standpoint.

The difference between "good" and "great" will be there, even if not necessarily represented as flat numeric bonuses. The ability to reroll 1/day or use a skill in combat in a class-specific way are all ways that serve to differentiate between the former and the latter. That some people still choose to fixate on flat numeric bonuses indicates a lack of imagination.

Don't make D&D PCs cape wearing superheroes by default.

Who said anything about capes?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And two characters with the same Con and level have *exactly* the same amount of HPs, unless one of them has Toughness or similar Feats/Talents.

True, but after each takes, say, three attacks from a longsword, they'll no longer have the same hit points, right? (Most likely.)

There's really no need to randomize both "damage taking" and "damage dealt." In fact, if you randomize both, you increase the effect of bad luck, which as we all know by now disproportionately affects PCs. So you randomize only weapon/spell damage, because that makes things more uncertain in combat, thus adding excitement. And if you get unlucky in the "HP and damage" department, it's only for one encounter, not for the entire life of the character.

Static HP is clearly a change for the better, IMO.

 

[hong]

Static HP is clearly a change for the better, IMO.

Someone should have told that to Carly Fiorina.


Hong "only Bradd Szszszonye will get this joke" Ooi

 

[Hjorimir]

I absolutely love what I'm seeing in this article. My only real complaint is that they should have called the class Thief in lieu of Rogue.

I'm completely stoked about the lower damage we're seeing. If the rogue, as a striker, is only adding +2d6/3d6/5d6 most other classes will be doing even less (if I understand what the striker role is about).

I personally hope that if 2[W] means double weapon damage it is just that; double the weapon damage but not the other modifiers. When we were playing 1e - back in the day - rolling max damage on your attack was huge. The bonuses in 3e completely overshadow the importance of the die (at least in my opinion) and that just rubs me wrong for some dumb reason.

As for the skills, I'm happy that all thieves...err, rogues...has Stealth and Thievery. Having a rogue who can't help with locked doors, sneaking, and traps is like having clerics who can't heal. I can't count the number of times we've come to a locked door or trap situation and turned to the rogue looking for help only to be told that they had none of those skills.

"Okay, Mr. Fighter, you got the most HPs...good luck...the rest of us will be back here out of harms way rooting for you to leave enough of a corpse behind for a raise dead spell."

 

[Anax]

Someone should have told that to Carly Fiorina.

*wince*



On the "Artful Dodger" with "Positioning Strike" being able to more easily move a giant than a wizard, from way way back in the thread: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. This ability is a kind of bluffing ability, not a shoving ability. You're drawing the enemy off balance and causing them to stumble in a direction you choose. A wiser opponent will notice that something is amiss and not be drawn off balance to the same degree.


On the power of "Piercing Strike": A number of people have noted that because Reflex defense is not going to be as atrophied in most characters as Touch AC was in 3E, this is less powerful than it might otherwise seem. Someone else pointed out that if Power Attack cannot be used with Piercing Strike for some reason, that removes an additional big chunk of power. I would suggest that one reason Power Attack might not be usable at the same time as Piercing Strike is that it may be a power rather than a feat.

Even if it's not, the most likely explanation for why Piercing Strike won't be used *all the time* is that if you choose to use Piercing Strike, you can't use any other powers that round. This is a *first level* power. Chances are pretty good that you'll soon have much better things to do with your time instead of searching for a chink in your enemy's armor... at least until you come up against an enemy who's really heavily armored. Which makes it a good interesting ability, really.


Edit to add an additional thought: It's interesting to note that Stealth and Thievery are listed as both automatic and in the list of class skills. This fits very well with the idea that you extend your list of class skills when you cross-class, but you do not gain automatic skills. A fighter who takes rogue levels will be able to use feats to gain access to these skills, but every rogue has them. That makes a lot of sense on the "what class you are sets the foundation of your character" side of things. Every rogue knows Stealth (how to move quickly, quietly, and unseen) and Thievery (how to palm something, how to maneuver around a place guarded by devices), and how to fight well with light sneaky weapons. A fighter who's cross-trained knows some of these things as well, but not all of them. He's still a fighter, not a rogue. Likewise, a rogue who's cross-trained as a fighter knows some of the things a fighter knows, but not all of them. He's still a rogue, not a fighter.

I'm looking forward to seeing how to build certain types of characters—I think Wizards probably has a pretty good idea that the fast smart fighter was a popular idea in 3E (although non-optimal mechanically), and I can't imagine they'd turn their back on that. I think that there will be some real trade-offs now depending on how you build that—starting from a base of a level of Rogue for the skills will no longer be a no-brainer—and that's definitely a good thing. My hope is that from a base of Rogue you'll be able to build a rogue that has more flexible head-on combat by multiclassing into fighter (but is still at heart a rogue), and that from a base of Fighter you'll be able to build a fighter that has more flexible sneaky combat by multiclassing into rogue.

We'll see, in the not too terribly distant future.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Hmmm. Interesting. Not convincing, but interesting. Nice to see some concentrated crunch for a change after months of waiting. Of course, all of this is out of context, so we don't really know what it all means. For example: combat advantage includes flanking, flat-footed, what else? Thievery skill encompasses what abilities?

I like the fact that powers are clearly defined and there are options there. But I'm disappointed about what appears to be the lack of other customization options:

1. Fixed skills. Why Stealth + Thievery + Pick 4 ... why not Pick 6 to allow some character creation flexibilty. Depending on what's in Thievery ... whya are all rogues automatically thieves? And no impact of Int on skill choice? Unless we aren't see that ... but I'd certainly like to have the ability to build a skillful rogue base on high Int.

2. Fixed hit points. Though I personally like this, I hope there is an optional rule that allows for rolling hit points at each level.

3. Weapon list. Seems too short (where's the short bow? club? sap?). And I dislike "shuriken" ... rather see "throwing knife" with "throwing knife being a category that include all sorts of thrown stabby things. But again, no context. Perhaps there is a "simple" weapon list that all characters can use that include things like clubs & maces.

What we really need to see is how the interaction of feats works with characters. We know/suspect that characters gain feats every other level (roughly), and that feats are now geared more toward utility while the powers are the combat skills. So it may be that there are enough feats that the way to get more skills, weapon, or armor choices is to simply use a feat.

And I'm wondering about TWF, too ... I really like TWF rogues, though the change of sneak attack to once per round would appear to completely nerf the utility of the TWF rogue.