Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12


log in or register to remove this ad


Even if you didn't have to take them?

Yes, unless they were optional ad-ons. But if they were effective choices available to everyone I would stick with the games I am playing now (because others would use them, and I would feel pressured to take them if I wanted to build certain kinds of characters). I just really dont like mundane encounters and dailies.
 


Yes, unless they were optional ad-ons. But if they were effective choices available to everyone I would stick with the games I am playing now (because others would use them, and I would feel pressured to take them if I wanted to build certain kinds of characters). I just really dont like mundane encounters and dailies.
By "effective", do you mean optimal, or at lease close to? I don't really see the point of including them if they're ineffective or pointless.
 


I'd have to see it in play, but not because of the reason implied in the poll. I'd be quite happy to see "sneak attack" become something anyone can do, even with spell, to some minor degree (or at least an option anyone can pick up without multiclassing). Then make rogues the masters of that basic technique.

I'm less enamored of damage expressions routinely going up into the 10d6 to 20d6 range--especially in a system intended to scale down the numbers. It seems counter-productive to me. That part, I'd definitely need to see in play.
 

I like the idea that anyone who is in a flanking situation can deal a little extra damage. I always thought it was strange that rogues could sneak attack someone who knew they were there just because someone else was fighting the same guy.

It also didn't make sense that the guy who spends all of his time training with his weapon only got a puny bonus to hit and nothing more from the flanking maneuver.

If adding 10d6 to the rogues damage would be over kill, maybe reducing the die size to a d4 or a d3 could be a better alternative to adding special attacks or something else.

I'm not a fan of the pile of junk pathfinder added to the rogue class, I'd as soon not have a crap ton of stuff piled onto characters just to avoid dead levels.
 

Even if you didn't have to take them?

They must be optional.

Look, even among 4E fans at my table encounter/daily powers for Fighters were always reason for jokes.

I couldn't find a single good roleplaying explanation why a warrior should use a maneuver just once ("oh, the enemy now knows how it works and won't be hit again!" "but I want to use it on that kobold that was around the corner!")...

So, yes, IF there is encounter/daily powers for Fighter and Rogues they should be very optional and, in my opinion, be in a suplement, not in core.

It's not that is badwrongfun, it just doesn't work well for a lot of people Wotc is trying to win back.

At will powers, or maneuvers, are welcome, of course.
 

Novel idea, but I don't think it will work. You're giving someone the option to deal 1d6 extra damage, or move an extra square, they're going to choose the extra 1d6 damage almost every time. Worse, they are going to be *expected* to pick the extra 1d6 damage, and will feel like they would be letting down their party if they didn't.

The idea is novel, but the implementation is... not quite insane, but that's what I voted anyway.

Everyone *does* already have something cool when they have surprise. They're calling it attack advantage. If someone wants to deal more damage with advantage or surprise, they can get a feat/power which does something like that, or pick up a level or three of rogue. I think I want to see sneak attack in the exclusive domain of the rogue (unless there will be an assassin class, in which case I suppose they can share the feature).
 

Remove ads

Top