Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6000222" data-attributes="member: 70709">Fair enough, although the "Is mechanic X evocative of ability Y?" question is a huge rabbit hole (cf. every magic system ever) and not one I'm particularly inclined to go 10 rounds on.  I personally don't think sneak attack serves the rogue's image very well, not because sneak attacks aren't well modeled by extra damage or because the idea of the sneak attack is at odds with the idea of a rogue, but because the conceit that what a rogue principally does is sneak attack strikes me as unhelpfully narrow.I think the main thing would be drawing connections between classes and the broader world of martial options, of all these characters interacting in the fictional space in a coherent (but not identical) fashion.  For any "maneuver" you might like to see I'm sure we could come up with an extension of existing rogue mechanics to achieve that effect.  What would be missing isn't the effect, it is the coherent connection to other game elements.Knock downs, extra movement, aiding another character with advantage against the same enemy, bonus to a skill check made as part of a freeform stunt, improve the effect of a feint, nonlethal takedowns, wield an unfamiliar weapon or non-weapon as though proficient, opportunistic strike when an enemy is critically hit by an ally, turn a fumble into advantage as though you meant it all along, attempt to grab the weapon of an opponent that just disarmed you, make an attack while slipping through an opponent's space, ignore a sneak attack made against you, perfectly silent attack against an unaware opponent, steal something as part of another action.The rogue doesn't need to do any of those things, but I bet most rogues would find a few things on there they might find appealing.  Could you do any of those things with other mechanics besides ED?  Of course, mechanics are arbitrary.  I think there is something to be said for having a single system to handle effects like these that all the martial classes could tap into, rather than writing a new mechanic for each subset of them that would reasonably be used by a given class.  Having different mechanical subsystems to do similar tasks certainly does emphasize distinctions, but it also tends to hide similarities and obscure interactions.  I'd like to have it both ways, if possible.Ahh, different book, no worries! Yes, you are correct about the difference between how a fighter might spend ED and the way a 3.5 rogue might use the ambush feats.  But there is no reason to assume rogues have to spend ED in the same manner as the playtest fighter (though they might) any more than there is reason to suppose they would gain it in the same manner.  For example, I could define that rogues (or just a specific scheme) gain and usually spend ED parallel to these feats:Tricky Combatant: The rogue gains nd6 ED the first time each round it hits an opponent against which it has advantage.  A rogue starts with one known maneuver, and learns an additional one every 3 levels.  When the rogue has advantage against a target it may spend ED to activate certain combat maneuvers after the attack is known to be successful, even if the maneuver normally requires a character to spend ED before making the attack.  Only maneuvers learned by rogue levels may gain this benefit. [A list or method to make it clear to exactly what maneuvers this could apply.]That's just a sketch of how it might look, but you can see that it could almost exactly replicate the existing feel of sneak attack and the ambush feats (although this rogue could also choose not to spend the ED immediately), while hooking into a system other martial combatants use.  Just because the fighter and the rogue could both speak the language of ED doesn't mean they have the same things to say!</blockquote>

Verification