Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8496263" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.</blockquote>