Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Doug McCrae]

I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)

For example, if the next version of Word lacked the capacity to use the letter 'e', would it be an *improvement* because it was a *change*? There's way too much for change for change's sake in 4e as it is; why wish for more?

Change doesn't always lead to improvement. Often it doesn't.

NOT (IF C THEN I)


But you can't have improvement without change. When I look at the rules and see no change, that means there has been no improvement.

IF I THEN C
NOT C

THEREFORE NOT I


I'll wager that's the most cast iron argument you've seen on the internet all day.

 

[Vigilance]

I disagree, because this implies all aspects of a thing are de facto broken, and thus, must be changed to be improved. (And SA was changed, just not *eliminated*)

I can guarantee you this, nothing will improve if nothing changes.

Sometimes you have to take a chance, change something because you think the alternative might be better, and see how it shakes out.

You're a designer.

You know this.

 

[Lizard]

Change doesn't always lead to improvement. Often it doesn't. But you can't have improvement without change.

NOT (IF C THEN I)
IF I THEN C

The assumptions you seem to be making are that:
a)There's always room for improvement
b)That change itself has no cost which can mitigate the effects of improvement, that is, that the cost of change can be higher than the benefit of improvement.

Completely removing Sneak Attack would have had several negative effects, such as steeper learning curve, the necessity of a wholly new mechanic to enable 'single target high damage, but not always', the loss of something which helped 'define' rogues since at least AD&D 1e, etc. The 4e devs might well have had a better mechanic early in playtest, but decided it wasn't better *enough* to justify the costs. Or it might be no one came up with a better way of having rogues do the 'striker' thing than good ol' sneak attack.

Sort of why we don't use laser pistols, even if they could in theory be built. A good ol' handgun kills people as dead as dead can get, and even if a laser is a bit better, the cost and fragility outweigh the damage gain. There's only so dead a person can be, and a CPR makes 'em just that dead.

 

[Lizard]

I can guarantee you this, nothing will improve if nothing changes.

Sometimes you have to take a chance, change something because you think the alternative might be better, and see how it shakes out.

You're a designer.

You know this.

Yup. I ALSO know that changing things that work, in the name of change, rarely leads to improvement. I'm pretty sure the 4e devs looked at every subsystem in the game and said "Can we change this? Should we change this?"

If the answer to either question was "No", it wasn't changed. Only if BOTH questions were "Yes" was it changed. (Of course, the second question is pretty subjective, but that's what playtesting is for...)

 

[nightspaladin]

I'm sure someone else has mentioned this but since I went to bed last night there has been 6 more pages of posts to wade thru. I think rapier is included in the rogue's weapon list. Here is why:

Do you remember War Pick from the Critical Hit preview? It listed it's proficency as Pick group. I think the proficencies listed are what groups the rogue gets. So Rapier may simply be a type of short sword. Same goes with throwing knifes are probably in the shuriken group.

 

[Wormwood]

Do you remember War Pick from the Critical Hit preview? It listed it's proficency as Pick group. I think the proficencies listed are what groups the rogue gets. So Rapier may simply be a type of short sword. Same goes with throwing knifes are probably in the shuriken group.

Oooh....now that's interesting.

 

[ltbaxter]

I'm sure someone else has mentioned this but since I went to bed last night there has been 6 more pages of posts to wade thru. I think rapier is included in the rogue's weapon list. Here is why:

Do you remember War Pick from the Critical Hit preview? It listed it's proficency as Pick group. I think the proficencies listed are what groups the rogue gets. So Rapier may simply be a type of short sword. Same goes with throwing knifes are probably in the shuriken group.

Possible, but I *really* doubt that.

- Light blades are described all over in the feats but not a listed proficiency. Almost surely that is a 'group'
- Hand crossbow is definitely the name of single weapon, not a group. Likewise in 3e short sword and sling are single weapon names.
- If you list several unique weapon names, it would be odd to list weapon groups in the same list, especially without calling one a group.
- Having 'shuriken' as a group would please some people, but adds a ton of complexity and similar options at a time when they seem to be streamlining and pairing down quite a bit.
- They're really stressing the "stick it between a rib" at ultra-close range thing, there's not a hint of "swashbuckling" in any of the fluff we're seeing in this article. While a rapier-based striker might be feasible and a lot of fun, it sure doesn't sound like the basic rogue describe here is any kind of fencing master.
- So... Rapier may be a light blade, or it may be useful non-proficiently, or may be a racial proficiency, but I doubt it's a short sword.

Still - ya never know - and good of you to point out the distinction between pick as weapon and pick as group. At this point there's still a lot of speculating we're all doing

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

Oooh....now that's interesting.

I pray that was sarcasm.... as if this train of thought hadn't been presented about 28 times already by people who weren't trained in "Gather Information" *cheap joke rim-shot*

 

[ltbaxter]

Doesn't positioning strike seem odd?

I really did enjoy the article 'Sneak Attack' but after reading through all these pages here, I'm wondering if I'm the only one perplexed by one of the skills mentioned...

The _only_ point in the article that left me thinking "What?!!?!?" is the synergy modification in the Positioning Strike. By itself the Strike is a very interesting and balanced tactic. A great way to slide an opponent one square using your mental cunning instead of a strength based bull-rush. But add in Artful Dodger and get: "Artful Dodger: You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Charisma modifier."

Eek!! Even a 1st level rogue who pushes charisma or is of a high-charisma race can push around a big brute an insane distance. 25' (5 squares) would not be out of the question at all. In fact, this seems like you could possibly push something like a Dwarf around a greater distance than his move rate just by being charismatic and artful??? And/yet it needs a light blade to work and is called a shove.

I hope they reconsider this! It's the only thing in there that screams "D&D Final Fantasy edition". Or... am I in the minority thinking this is insane? I like the idea of synergies in skills, just not the details of the one synergy I see mentioned so far.

 

[WhatGravitas]

- So... Rapier may be a light blade, or it may be useful non-proficiently, or may be a racial proficiency, but I doubt it's a short sword.

Thing about the Rapier could be that it's a light blade, but significantly better than other light blades, hence requiring the rogue to get a feat to use.

Cheers, LT.