Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8493079" data-attributes="member: 7032025">That is a very weak argument, since they are not based on as many attacks as other classes in general, and someone has to be on the low end anyway. Whereas it's been said by the devs about sneak attack (and they added lots of easy cases to have sneak attack without advantage), nothing has ever been said about advantage.It's an option and comes with consequences which more or less invalidate cunning action.Again, no proof of it, as with most options it just gives capabilities to choose from. And making that change 7 years later just shows that the situation was really not that bad, especially in a game where balance is certainly not a major aim (and again, from the dev's own mouth). Moreover, once more, basic design is supposed to take into account the standard game, without options such as feat and multiclassing, where the rogue actually is not doing that badly.That is not the way 5e is designed. Rulings before rules, and circumstances are extremely variable. There is absolutely no need to rule that you cannot ever hide in the same place. It might work in some circumstances with some adversaries and not work in similar (but still slightly different) circumstances, so there is again no need to strictly define &quot;abuse&quot; up front.. On the other hand, the game is all about giving adv/dis based on circumstances and the way the player describes his actions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8493079, member: 7032025"] That is a very weak argument, since they are not based on as many attacks as other classes in general, and someone has to be on the low end anyway. Whereas it's been said by the devs about sneak attack (and they added lots of easy cases to have sneak attack without advantage), nothing has ever been said about advantage. It's an option and comes with consequences which more or less invalidate cunning action. Again, no proof of it, as with most options it just gives capabilities to choose from. And making that change 7 years later just shows that the situation was really not that bad, especially in a game where balance is certainly not a major aim (and again, from the dev's own mouth). Moreover, once more, basic design is supposed to take into account the standard game, without options such as feat and multiclassing, where the rogue actually is not doing that badly. That is not the way 5e is designed. Rulings before rules, and circumstances are extremely variable. There is absolutely no need to rule that you cannot ever hide in the same place. It might work in some circumstances with some adversaries and not work in similar (but still slightly different) circumstances, so there is again no need to strictly define "abuse" up front.. On the other hand, the game is all about giving adv/dis based on circumstances and the way the player describes his actions. [/QUOTE]

Verification