Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3831030" data-attributes="member: 22779">Reynard, I would agree with you, IF the rogue had anything to fall back on.&nbsp; However, the rogue doesn't.&nbsp; I don't see it as a bad adventure design issue, I see it as a bad GAME design issue.&nbsp; Like you said, it's okay in small doses.&nbsp; So, why have large swaths of creatures completely immune to a players SA?&nbsp; We're talking a fairly large amount of the Monster Manual here.&nbsp; Why not either do one of two things:1) Make sneak attack universal or2) Make the exception to sneak attack MUCH less common.&nbsp; Sure, it might be great if this or that creature was immune to sneak attack.&nbsp; I'll agree, that adds a certain tactical aspect.&nbsp; But, making entire creature types immune to sneak attack just screws a class.Me, I'm lazy.&nbsp; I'll go with option 1.&nbsp; Now the rogue is effective (not powerful, not overpowered, just effective, just like he is with most encounters) in all encounters and as a DM, I'm free to make whatever adventure I want.&nbsp; It does make sense sometimes, to have a dungeon full of undead.&nbsp; So, why not make the rules follow that?&nbsp; Everyone wins here.&nbsp; The rogue player is happy because his stock archetype character works and the DM is happy because he doesn't have to walk on eggshells because someone happened to play a rogue.Win win situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3831030, member: 22779"] Reynard, I would agree with you, IF the rogue had anything to fall back on. However, the rogue doesn't. I don't see it as a bad adventure design issue, I see it as a bad GAME design issue. Like you said, it's okay in small doses. So, why have large swaths of creatures completely immune to a players SA? We're talking a fairly large amount of the Monster Manual here. Why not either do one of two things: 1) Make sneak attack universal or 2) Make the exception to sneak attack MUCH less common. Sure, it might be great if this or that creature was immune to sneak attack. I'll agree, that adds a certain tactical aspect. But, making entire creature types immune to sneak attack just screws a class. Me, I'm lazy. I'll go with option 1. Now the rogue is effective (not powerful, not overpowered, just effective, just like he is with most encounters) in all encounters and as a DM, I'm free to make whatever adventure I want. It does make sense sometimes, to have a dungeon full of undead. So, why not make the rules follow that? Everyone wins here. The rogue player is happy because his stock archetype character works and the DM is happy because he doesn't have to walk on eggshells because someone happened to play a rogue. Win win situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification