Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2610252" data-attributes="member: 17296">Well. I think it's a good rule, but an incomplete one. My reasoning: The game is theoretically balanced the way it is, including allowing sneak attack in all the situations you're taking away from them. Therefore you have to give something back to them too, in exchange for this taking things away.Now, what you're doing here is arbitrarily placing limitations on when and why a sneak attack can be placed, so the logical thing to do to counterbalance this is to simultaniously increase the when and why a sneak attack can be done. As a start I recommend allowing sneak attacks on all things, discernable anatomy, weak spots, or not. Actually that's probably the best "counter" to this limit, it covers the rogues main weaknesses (allowing sneak attacks on anything) as a bonus in exchange for taking away from their prime strength (allowing sneak attacks in many normal combat situations). Now that I've presented my actual ideas, on to further commentary:I liked this, because to me it sounds like you think that they ARE*, currently, more combat machines than fighters. Have you every actually SEEN a full rogue, at high levels? Compared them to fighters? Sure, I'll admit that a full fighter class isn't really the best choice at levels 15+ with all the other options out there, but in combat a straight rogue levels 15+ is pathetisad compared to a straight fighter. Except in certain limited circumstances, and ones that become more and more limited as levels increase.(Needless to say, I think that they are most certainly NOT*)Anyhow. Reasons against the rule? Because the game as written is balanced out, including the rogues ability to sneak attack in all the situations you'd like to deny him sneak attacks... and you've done nothing there to suggest a balance for the things you're taking away. By your own text you're saying that these things are very powerful, so taking that into account you *have* to give something of equal power back, or you're just spamming rogue-hate.^_^You're contradicting yourself there. It's a self-contradicting statement. You clearly DO think that it weakens sneak attack, or else you couldn't think that it "balances" it... since you clearly state that you think sneak attack is overpowered (in some circumstances).</blockquote>

Verification