Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="graydoom" data-source="post: 28398" data-attributes="member: 164">[rant]Format:"Sarcastic remark that really should not be said, but I'm sarcastic." Lesson that should be followed in discussions like this."Hmm. Or maybe we think this is a legitimate interpretation of the data and maybe, just maybe everyone doesn't think exactly like you!" Lesson 0: Insults, accusations of hypocrisy, and so on never help."And my bet is that you just hate rogues and want them to be crippled." Lesson 1: Saying that someone is a "class-hater" or "class-lover" contributes nothing to a discussion except a greater tendency to become a flame-war."Hmmm. Or maybe we think of it as when the rogue is able to attack the opponent when the opponent cannot effectively defend himself, and strike a vital spot for extra damage, just like the PHB says on page 47." Lesson 2: Sarcasm may make you feel better, but it just gets other people sarcastic. Like this. Heck, I'm feeling a lot better right now."Hmmm. Or maybe we don't think of sneak attack as the same as the near-equivalent of it from 2e. Maybe we think of it like the PHB seems to on page 47. Maybe the creature will continue to be unable to "effectively defend itself" for as long as the conditions for the rogue to be able to make a sneak attack exist." Lesson 3: References to "common sense" rarely help. Nor does it help to claim that only one interpretation of how things can work is the only way it can work."Yeah, and it's totally insane to have to think at all! I mean, the DM shouldn't have to think! Why should I have to put in monsters to balance out the players?" Lesson 4: All balance is dependent on a well-balanced adventure. A hackfest adventure will make combat skills more valuable. A adventure with absolutely no combat will make combat skills less valuable and diplomatic skills more valuable. You cannot isolate an atypical, unbalanced campaign and say that the conditions in it are true for all campaigns. And just like that, a campaign with absolutely no constructs, undead, plants, oozes, or armors of fortification will make sneak attack more valuable, and a campaign of only constructs, undead, plants, and oozes will make sneak attack less valuable.Claiming that you have to put in undead and constructs to balance out rogues is like claiming you have to put in monsters other than ones with low HP and AC to balance out fighters. Well, duh.Any class will become imbalanced if the campaign that it is in is imbalanced. And pretty much any class can do massive damage is you set it up just right. This does not mean that said classes are overpowered.[/rant]Normally I try to stay calm, but sometimes I get sarcastic. Sorry about the above if it gets anyone mad <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />. But you really shouldn't insult people and stuff like that when you are making posts like this, or use loaded words like "naive" and so on. I probably do stuff like that way too often myself... that's why I try to stay away from discussions that go nowhere <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />.Please, don't post things like "My guess is that you all just hate rogues. I picture Sneak Attack like this, and any other interpretation is silly. Common sense says that a rogue performing a sneak attack should be godly. It's pretty naive to think otherwise. And it's completely ludicrous how rogues can't affect constructs or undead."</blockquote>

Verification