Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7519403" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed. But one can see how it unfolded:(1) Killing things (in the fiction) means (in the mechanics) depleting hit points down to zero. (2) Everyone knows that assassins can kill things with a single blow from the shadows. (3) Therefore, stealthy-types need a damage bonus when they attack from the shadows. (4) To be more playable, stealthy-types need their "attack from the shadows damage bonus" to be a bit more broadly applicable - hence its modern incarnation in sneak attack. (5) Now its thieves and not fighters who are the big damage dealers, because everyone knows a flighty rapier-wielder is more threatening on the battlefield then an armoured knight with a sword!In my main 4e game we didn't have a rogue, and the martial striker was an archer ranger, so this particular oddity didn't come up - there is no particular cognitive dissonance in the archer unleashing deadly shots, while the fighter thrusts and parries and occasionally is parried by his enemies.In my Dark Sun game, which is currently on hold while one of the players does a major (multi-year) renovation on his house, there is a rogue and a monk as well as a battlemind and a barbarian/warden, so it will be interesting to see if the striker/defender distinction creates any dissonance.</blockquote>