D&D 5E "People complain, but don't actually read the DMG!" Which sections specifically?

[overgeeked]

Did he say they expected Rogues to be able to get Advantage every round, or to be able to pull off Sneak Attack every round?

Considering you can't sneak attack without having advantage, it's a distinction that doesn't really make a difference.

The latter seems more like a reasonable expectation, and you don't need the former to do it.

Uhm...yeah you do.

"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll" PHB, p96.

 

[prabe]

The designers would have had a hard time ignoring it, I think. The lack of a flanking rule in the D&DNext playtest was a major discussion point on the WotC forums at the time. Lots of players wanted such a rule, and lots pointed to the awkwardness of the conditions for Sneak Attack as reason why one was needed. The designers said they didn’t include flanking by default because they didn’t want combat on a grid to be the default, and they didn’t think flanking played well without a grid, but that DMs who did use a grid could always grant advantage based on positioning on the grid at their discretion.

I missed the playtest. Did the conditions for Sneak Attack change between playtest and publication? They don't seem particularly awkward to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Considering you can't sneak attack without having advantage, it's a distinction that doesn't really make a difference.

Uhm...yeah you do.

"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll" PHB, p96.

You left out the very next sentence.

“You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.”

 

[prabe]

Considering you can't sneak attack without having advantage, it's a distinction that doesn't really make a difference.

Uhm...yeah you do.

"Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll" PHB, p96.

Incorrect.

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @Charlaquin - not an attempt to pile on, promise

 

[Parmandur]

The reason Flanking comes up as an optional rule that's ... inadequately thought through, is that it's not clear the designers looked at (or played with) the rule, because the effects seem so obvious.

Again, why do you assume it is inadequately thought through? It seems to be working as designed, even if it doesn't match every playstyle. It is an optional rule for thst reason.

 

[Parmandur]

The designers would have had a hard time ignoring it, I think. The lack of a flanking rule in the D&DNext playtest was a major discussion point on the WotC forums at the time. Lots of players wanted such a rule, and lots pointed to the awkwardness of the conditions for Sneak Attack as reason why one was needed. The designers said they didn’t include flanking by default because they didn’t want combat on a grid to be the default, and they didn’t think flanking played well without a grid, but that DMs who did use a grid could always grant advantage based on positioning on the grid at their discretion.

Yeah, I've barely ever played D&D on a grid, so that explanation makes sense.

 

[prabe]

Again, why do you assume it is inadequately thought through? It seems to be working as designed, even if it doesn't match every playstyle. It is an optional rule for thst reason.

Because it is, best I can tell, supposed to add tactical considerations to movement in combat--and, based on my experiences, it doesn't do that.

 

[Parmandur]

Because it is, best I can tell, supposed to add tactical considerations to movement in combat--and, based on my experiences, it doesn't do that.

The Critical Role crew uses the variant, and it seems that they have fun with it, and it creates tactical decisions for them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I missed the playtest. Did the conditions for Sneak Attack change between playtest and publication? They don't seem particularly awkward to me.

I think the awkward part is that there are basically two separate conditions - either having advantage, or basically having flanking that isn’t called flanking (and that only rogues can take advantage of), and not having disadvantage. The thinking was, that could be cleaned up significantly by just having a flanking rule, and requiring rogues to have advantage or be flanking the target (or, if flanking gave advantage, just have advantage).

That said, the conditions for sneak attack did change a few times. I don’t remember how many iterations it went through, but I do distinctly remember that at one point the rogue had to give up advantage on an attack roll to make it a sneak attack, which many thought felt awkward because sneak attacking made your attack less accurate, so that got changed to needing to have advantage and not have disadvantage (worded that way because advantage and disadvantage don’t stack and cancel each other out), and later the alternative qualification of having another ally in range of the target instead of having advantage was added because of concerns that requiring advantage to sneak attack made rogues’ combat effectiveness too dependent on DM fiat.

 

[prabe]

The Critical Role crew uses the variant, and it seems that they have fun with it, and it creates tactical decisions for them.

It ... didn't when I used it.