Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Campbell]

[off-topic]
What the heck is with all this "katanae" and "ninjae" business? Did I miss the internet memo in which we were all instructed to append bogus latin pluralizations to Japanese nouns?

The English plural of katana is katanas. The Japanese plural of katana is katana.

I see that you have not yet learned the secrets of Real Ultimate Power student.

 

[The Little Raven]

If the "everyone is proficient with simple weapons" thought is true, then clubs and saps would probably be under simple weapons (a sap is pretty damned simple to use). As for why they wouldn't be usable for a sneak attack, beats me... I personally think SA should be limited to any one-handed or light weapon with which you are proficient.

 

[hong]

[off-topic]
What the heck is with all this "katanae" and "ninjae" business? Did I miss the internet memo in which we were all instructed to append bogus latin pluralizations to Japanese nouns?

The English plural of katana is katanas. The Japanese plural of katana is katana.

It's very simple. Just as the plural of bacteria is bacteriae, the plural of ninja is ninjae. And the plural of katana is katanae.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes. There is a fundamental difference between house ruling to customize a game to particular tastes and house ruling to fix an inability of the game to achieve its default gameplay goals.

It's kind of like the difference between taking your dog to the vet because the dog is sick, and taking your dog to the genetic engineer to give it a poison-tipped scorpion tail.

Except that wouldn't be a problem, but would in fact be awesome. Awesome verging on METAL.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's very simple. Just as the plural of bacteria is bacteriae, the plural of ninja is ninjae. And the plural of katana is katanae.

I see what you did there.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ah. I see.

All complaints about 3e are valid.
All complaints about 4e are invalid.

That DOES make the arguing much simpler! Thank you, Dr. Awkward!

All complaints about either edition that demonstrate that there are actual problems with the rules that are unintentional and detract from the game due to error on the part of the game designers are valid. See 3.0 Haste.

Corollary: since we don't have the 4E rules, all complaints of this sort regarding 4E are speculation, and are therefore ungrounded. For any such complaint, the proper answer is, "don't you think they'd have thought of that, if you came up with it yourself after 30 seconds of reflection?"

All complaints about how you happen to dislike a particular feature of either edition of the game, accompanied by the declaration that house-ruling that feature is not good enough, and followed by the conclusion that the game is therefore broken, are invalid.

But if you stick to your formulation, I'm sure things will work out for you.

 

[hong]

That would be disappointing.

Actually, I suspect that some kind of 4E worldbuilding splat can't be far down the line. It's an obvious weakness of the new design philosophy, and even if it wasn't so at the start, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would have made it very clear.

 

[Incenjucar]

Except that wouldn't be a problem, but would in fact be awesome. Awesome verging on METAL.

This is where displacer beasts came from.

Also to beat up the kid who came up with owlbears.

 

[Spatula]

....for you. You are not everyone. Randomly generating a substandard character is not fun for me or anyone else I know.

...and gee, I said just that in the bit of my post that you failed to quote and apparently failed to read.

 

[Spatula]

If you don't want a ranged striker, then why does the rogue need a bow?

If you don't want a ranged striker, then why does the rogue need a crossbow or sling or shuriken? I haven't once said anything about range strikers, I'm asking how it makes sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow (any crossbow) but not a bow.