Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Archangel_Zer0]

Diggin it like I dig graves

No real interest in designing my own system. Plus w/our 2nd daughter almost here and the busy time of year at work, I'm lucky to have time to play WoW, let alone much of anything else. I've helped friends who were designing their own several times and I always just sat there saying "you know this is all just really close to X" or "This is X plus bits of Y here, why not just houserule syetem X?"

I don't need to do all that work b/c they're already doing a lot of the things I wanted to see gone. Not all of course, but I'm not a designer of the team so I'm not surprised more of my input isn't involved Some other systems like Arcana Evolved attack my dislikes in different ways and also ditch alignment and the arcane/divine split, while giving me new races and classes to change the usual archetypes around.

But sometimes I just wanna play D&D, so hopefully the version of D&D we're playing is one that makes me excited and want to play. So far 4E sounds more enticing than 3.5, which i never bothered buying. 3E PHB and a list of the bigger changes worked fine.

Aaawwwwww a family man! Congrats on the baby! Very cool stuff (definitely not my style, but still cool). Well, I definitely understand where you're coming from on that, so with that in mind, houserules and homebrew are looking like your best bet - at least until the final product comes out and we can all make a definitive judgement on it.

 

[ferratus]

Obviously, if 4e was 3e with a different cover, it would not have changed. But it has changed -- in many, many, areas, and those who claim it hasn't changed *enough* need to explain how it should have changed, instead of just deciding any resemblance to 3e is too much.

Like I said, it depends what you want. If you don't want classes or class roles at all, I could see an argument could be made that this is a sacred cow that should have been cut. If you didn't like that there was any class focusing on thievery for moral reasons because it isn't heroic you could argue that

I can do this in a dozen different games. A hundred. If you took Palladium Fantasy and rebranded it "Dungeons&Dragons", would it BE Dungeons&Dragons? What's in a name?

I could easily see an alternate history in which design decisions were made that made D&D into a GURPS clone. With 4e, the powers that be at WotC might have decided that specific races and classes were a relic that limited player choice and the kinds of stories that the DM can tell. They would have, of course, been right. Other people have argued that leveling up disrupts the narrative flow of a story and forces too much attention on combat. They are also right. Now all of these features have positive aspects as well, but one could imagine the decision being made that the cons outweighed the pros. So if 4e had made the changes to remove specific races, classes, and leveling up from the game would it still be D&D? Of course it would, because it would still fill the function of killing dragons in dungeons with weapons and magic.

I could also imagine a less likely alternate history where Palladium Fantasy was so successful that TSR was bought out Palladium Books instead of Wizards of the Coast. A subsequent product could have used the "Dungeons & Dragons" name and probably would have resembled Palladium Fantasy more than a little, but it still would have been an edition of "Dungeons and Dragons". I make no promises as to how successful it would have been.

Aristotle needed to count women's teeth.

Ah, a few mistakes or disagreements make the whole body of work worthless? That seems oddly familiar to some criticisms of 4e. I think somebody can acknowledge Aristotle's shortcomings without saying he should have never bothered or that he had nothing positive to contribute. I also think he should be acknowledged where he (or his tradition of thought) is superior to other philosophers. So too with 4e should it be acknowledged where things are being fixed without the instant backlash that fixing those problems is making D&D not D&D anymore.

 

[SSquirrel]

Oh I'm being very careful to withhold final judgment till I buy the core books. I have all the setting core books for NWoD stuff too, largely so I could verify what I had been hearing from friends regarding their disappointment heh. Whether I buy more 4E books after the core release will become the question, but I'm a lot more on the 4E side than the 3.5 side and so far 4E looks like my cup of tea. Hopefully it stays so.

I just wanna game w/my friends, I don't care what system really...mostly

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh, as a final note on the avoid armour class by targeting a defender's reflex save... yeah I can see that being annoying to a defender. But I also fully expect that defenders are the guys rogues want to annoy with stabbing the least. That's probably why Mouseferatu doesn't use it very often.

Remember, defenders are "sticky." Perhaps it's often not worth trying to go toe to toe with them because you might not be able to get away again.

 

[helium3]

Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.

Well, obviously, your way of playing things is WRONG.

That being said, once you get some 4E under your belt you'll probably have a good idea of whether or not using a Greatsword in conjunction with Sneak Attack is all that broken and various house rules will pop to mind.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Few things that annoy me though.. I really dislike the weapon specific requirements on the powers and class abilities.. "light blade". What if someone wants to play a slightly non-iconic rogue'ish guy? Like a hulking, but light on his feet and stealthy, brute/bandit? With say... A greatsword? He'll be fairly outta luck with the rogue stuff, it looks like. It's not that rare a fantasy archtype either.

There's a fantasy archtype that sneak attacks with a greatsword? Seriously?

In melee, if you do not use a light blade, you can't sneak attack. Makes perfect sense to me.

The class already caters to the "Brawny Rogue" you describe, which is a step up from 3E. But bring in that greatsword, and I'm thinking it's more like a fighter who's dipped into rogue, not vice-versa. You're not trying to slip a thin dagger in between the enemy's armor gaps, you're trying to cleave them in half.

There have been hints that you can "semi-class" with feats, picking up just a little of another class's abilities without taking a full level (so you wouldn't lose sneak attack because you don't actually get it in the first place.) Also, there might be a fighter power which is a clear substitute for sneak attack, would work better with the greatsword, and could be simply swapped out even if you're playing a full rogue. Mike Mearls has indicated that class abilities and powers have been designed that a smorgsboard approach is viable. There are also probably plenty of rogue powers which aren't reliant on the weapon wielded; we're only seeing a small sample.

 

[Ulthwithian]

First post, here. Hello everyone.

The Rogue looks quite intriguing. I agree with most people that the weapon listing seems quite small, to the point that I think WotC is doing 'grouping' of sorts.

Fixed HP progression is good to me because most people already do it in one form or another, but also because it allows for better tuning of encounters (or, put another way, playtest feedback is more valuable as there are fewer variables to consider).

The powers looked quite interesting, though SA was disappointing. I'm hoping that there are powers for the class that add SA damage to the power's damage. That would be a nice inherent scaling of damage with level in a very controlled fashion.

Finally, I see many concerns about the swashbuckling version of the Rogue and its seeming lack in the entry. I think this is mainly due to the fact that most of the powers shown were from the 'Brute-influenced list'. IIRC, most of the suggested powers for the 'glib Rogue' build weren't given to us, and thus the picture we have of the Rogue is lopsided.

Time will tell!

Ulthwithian
4E Fanboy

 

[JosephK]

There's a fantasy archtype that sneak attacks with a greatsword? Seriously?

In melee, if you do not use a light blade, you can't sneak attack. Makes perfect sense to me.

The class already caters to the "Brawny Rogue" you describe, which is a step up from 3E. But bring in that greatsword, and I'm thinking it's more like a fighter who's dipped into rogue, not vice-versa. You're not trying to slip a thin dagger in between the enemy's armor gaps, you're trying to cleave them in half.

There have been hints that you can "semi-class" with feats, picking up just a little of another class's abilities without taking a full level (so you wouldn't lose sneak attack because you don't actually get it in the first place.) Also, there might be a fighter power which is a clear substitute for sneak attack, would work better with the greatsword, and could be simply swapped out even if you're playing a full rogue. Mike Mearls has indicated that class abilities and powers have been designed that a smorgsboard approach is viable. There are also probably plenty of rogue powers which aren't reliant on the weapon wielded; we're only seeing a small sample.

Well, there's Fafhrd for one.. Others too imo, but really... It's not about the greatsword, it's about the (seemingly) very specific role (well, two I guess) offered as playable with the mechanics of the class. It could be a spear wielding guy, how about someone with a mace or club? I guess if you interpret 'sneak attack' as the precise stab with a thin blade to a vital area, it makes sense only to allow it with 'light blades'. But that in itself limits it imo.

What about the blow to the back of the head (or the the arm joints or something) with a club? Or similar? A well aimed spear thrust from the shadows? Or yes, even a sneaky dexterous brute swinging a greatsword from an advantageous position (flanked) in combat. My main point is not about whether a greatsword or a halberd though theoretically be used to "sneak attack" with (that would depend on how you define a sneak attack, obviously the text just says 'combat advantage'), it's about locking the class with a restricted set of options, as far as untradional weapon choices go. That's just this example, could be other stuff.. Like why only +1 with daggers and die-increase on shuriken? Rapier wielding swashbucklers not allowed? Or just mechanically inferior to a dagger wielding (and thusly the most 'iconic' version of the rogue).

Dont get me wrong, as I wrote in my first post, I really like this article and I'm really looking forward to switching to the 4e, it looks awesome.. I just dont understand why they put in these arbitrary restrictions on stuff, that (as far as I can tell from what little we know so far) fixes the classes into the very traditional and (imo) somewhat boring archetypes (mechanic and fluff-wise).

 

[Spatula]

So why can't rogues wield even a simple club? Or sneak attack with a thrown weapon (shuriken or otherwise) or a bow? The class preview is interesting, but the restrictions are surprisingly heavy-handed. Color me disappointed.

 

[outsider]

I find this thread funny, because it has Wormwood complaining about 4e and Lizard arguing against his complaints. Nothing like a good show of crunch to shake up people's expectations!

The rogue looks great. Finally some good attack options other than Flank->Sneak Attack. The rogue has ability to attack any of the 4 defences, which should be nice. Would be better if they had at wills that attack each of the 4 defences, but who knows, maybe there'll be other powers to cover that. It would give them alot of offensive flexibility if they could simply attack whichever defence appears to be weakest on their foe at will.

I'm not really a big fan of Wizards putting suggested builds into the books. But, I know that ultimately I'll find far better builds than what they suggest anyways, so it's not a big deal. Might help less mechanically minded players build a decent character, so I can see why they did it.