Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3829394" data-attributes="member: 22779">Umm, no.&nbsp; As I mentioned before, sneak attack only works if you flank or attack when the target loses its Dex bonus.&nbsp; That's significantly different than a straight up +xdx bonus.&nbsp; You are confusing mechanics with flavour.&nbsp; The rogue never lost his backstab opportunities because of flavour reasons, but because it was meant as a balancing issue.&nbsp; For some bizarre reason, some people thought that thieves might dominate combat.You confusing being viable with being equally capable.&nbsp; Being viable means that you aren't sitting on your thumbs because you simply cannot do anything directly related to your character.&nbsp; In earlier editions, damage reduction was all or nothing.&nbsp; If you didn't have enough pluses on your weapon, you might as well sit it out.&nbsp; That forced DM's to give out magic weapons that let the players affect the creatures, if they wanted to give the PC's a chance of winning the fight, or they simply could not use those creatures.&nbsp; ((Again, assuming the DM wants the PC's to win the fight and not run away))Sneak attack means that game elements beyond the player's control make the difference between contributing to a fight and warming the pines.&nbsp; So, either the player has to burn significant resources to overcome that limitation (and, in the process work against that archetype you are so eloquently defending) or the DM should choose different encounters to tailor to the PC.&nbsp; Neither option is very good.Did you EVER see this in play?&nbsp; I've never, EVER seen the fighter PC back up to let the cleric dust zombies.&nbsp; Or &quot;save his hit points&quot; against any opponent.&nbsp; The fighter sees a fight and, well fights.&nbsp; You are also making unfounded assumptions here about the expenditures of resources.&nbsp; You do not have enough information to make these kinds of statements.&nbsp; You THINK that per encounter resources are going to have this effect, but, you don't know any better than anyone else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3829394, member: 22779"] Umm, no. As I mentioned before, sneak attack only works if you flank or attack when the target loses its Dex bonus. That's significantly different than a straight up +xdx bonus. You are confusing mechanics with flavour. The rogue never lost his backstab opportunities because of flavour reasons, but because it was meant as a balancing issue. For some bizarre reason, some people thought that thieves might dominate combat. You confusing being viable with being equally capable. Being viable means that you aren't sitting on your thumbs because you simply cannot do anything directly related to your character. In earlier editions, damage reduction was all or nothing. If you didn't have enough pluses on your weapon, you might as well sit it out. That forced DM's to give out magic weapons that let the players affect the creatures, if they wanted to give the PC's a chance of winning the fight, or they simply could not use those creatures. ((Again, assuming the DM wants the PC's to win the fight and not run away)) Sneak attack means that game elements beyond the player's control make the difference between contributing to a fight and warming the pines. So, either the player has to burn significant resources to overcome that limitation (and, in the process work against that archetype you are so eloquently defending) or the DM should choose different encounters to tailor to the PC. Neither option is very good. Did you EVER see this in play? I've never, EVER seen the fighter PC back up to let the cleric dust zombies. Or "save his hit points" against any opponent. The fighter sees a fight and, well fights. You are also making unfounded assumptions here about the expenditures of resources. You do not have enough information to make these kinds of statements. You THINK that per encounter resources are going to have this effect, but, you don't know any better than anyone else. [/QUOTE]

Verification