Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arytiss" data-source="post: 5865661" data-attributes="member: 47811">I'm inclined to wait until I see how the numbers work out myself. 10d6 is a lot of dice, and since we don't know what monster HP is going to be like yet, we don't know what proportion of the HP those 10 dice are going to shave off.Giving up the CA for the Sneak attack is an interesting idea, and prevents such effects as the 100d6 damage rogue from 3.x (or, at least, reduces the threat of it), and I also like the idea of enabling other classes to Sneak Attack, but only the rogue to do it well.I suppose one thing we should be looking at is the rogue's role in the party. In 4th ed he was a striker. A damage dealer. Other classes could do the sneaky-sneaky lock picking and trapfinding and the non-combat roles weren't prioritised as much in the design. From what we've heard so far however, the non-combat roles are intended to be just as important as the combat roles, which means a return to the sneaky rogue as an important and (perhaps) necessary member of the party. The use of rogue talents here certainly seems to suggest that as part of the intent.The big question seems to be wether or not other classes should be allowed to Sneak Attack, or wether that should be purely the domain of the rogue. I think, perhaps, were the ability wedded to a theme (as well as the rogue) it might work better and prove more popular.</blockquote>