Rogue powers, sneak attack and weapon selection

[AtomicPope]

In 1st Edition you couldn't Sneak Attack (Back Stab) with an Axe or Hammer. Using specific weapons is nothing new. There was a reason that Theives in 1st edition used short swords and daggers - Backstab.

Let's quit pretending that Sneak Attack was just the kewlest thing ever in 3e. Damn near everything was immune/resistant or could easily be immune/resistant to Sneak Attack. Let's see:
1) Undead
2) Oozes
3) Constructs
4) Plants
5) Elementals
6) Displacement effects
7) Invisibility
8) Warforged
9) Fortified Armor
10) Prestige Classes (such as Warshaper, etc)


The list is of monsters alone is just staggering. I've played in many campaigns where Rogues and Scouts couldn't get bonus damage in damn near every adventure. When you're facing constructs and elementals in Xendrik for three months straight it's no small wonder that your Rogue quits and your Scout retrains.

Sneak Attack is better. Weapon specifics adds character and defines style. In 3e they got rid of style and introduced bad math. Now we have good math and style.

 

[Kordeth]

I'd respond that a sap shouldn't work with the majority of your rogue powers. And a garrote especialy shouldn't. A sap should work for whacking someone on the back of the head. A garrote should work for strangling someone from behind. And if you're looking for unarmed attacks of deadly precision against vital points, you might want to wait for the inevitable Ninja class.

I'd respond that a sap shouldn't be statted out as a weapon at all, but rather as something akin to a single-target sleep spell. Make a Str attack vs. Fort, if you hit, the target is dazed (save ends). Against a target who grants you combat advantage, a hit renders him unconscious (save ends).

 

[gribble]

I'd respond that a sap shouldn't work with the majority of your rogue powers.

And it appears that it doesn't. Therein lies my problem: If it doesn't my character concept is sunk (especially with the lack of monks in 4e).

 

[hong]

It really depends on who you intend to sap.

If most people in the world are just peons (= minions, 1 hp wonders but let's not go there), then any hit will suffice to take them down. 4E doesn't have separate tracking of nonlethal damage; instead you can decide when you take them down whether it's a killing blow or knocking them out.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Sneak Attack is better. Weapon specifics adds character and defines style. In 3e they got rid of style and introduced bad math. Now we have good math and style.

Sneak attack is better, but only if you can use it. Fixing problems with sneak attack, then creating an arbitrary restriction to limit its use is awful.

In 3e, you define your own style. Hopefully, 4e allows that as well, or will allow it the Martial Handbook after people that need to have style defined for them get their generic, cookie-cutter rogue from the PHB.

 

[Dormain1]

I think an easier way to fix sneak attack is that you can only do it with weapons you are proficient with, it makes no sense that a rogue can SA a dragon with a dagger but not a longsword.

Its about precision not backstabbing (hence the rename) if you can get a clear shot at some vital area (eyes, hands, corners) then why not, it's not like there is a huge gap in dmg in weapons compared to the additional 2d6 from the sneak attack

"oh no he has hit me with 2d6 plus 1d10 instead of 3d6..."

Give me the dwarven rogue with axes, I beat he can show you he can sneak attack

PC1 "hey that guys got a dagger betcha he's a rogue...watch out for the sneak attack"
PC2 "at least that other one has a longbow, mhhaww you can't sneak attack"

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think hong's nailed it. Anyone that sapping is going to dispose of will be a minion. Otherwise it's a bit of an anticlimactic end to an important bad guy, isn't it?

 

[AtomicPope]

Sneak attack is better, but only if you can use it. Fixing problems with sneak attack, then creating an arbitrary restriction to limit its use is awful.

In 3e, you define your own style. Hopefully, 4e allows that as well, or will allow it the Martial Handbook after people that need to have style defined for them get their generic, cookie-cutter rogue from the PHB.

It is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is:
based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles.

There is a distinct, concious, stylistic reason for deciding that a certain group of weapons is necessary to qualify for a specific attack. Your reasoning suggests that an unarmed attack should be made axe or with a heavy crossbow because in 3e you make your own style. The definition of Sneak Attack requires a precision strike. Your using 3rd edition contradictions while simultaneously making outrageous and derogatory statements against the contrary that are false. Arbitrary it is not.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

It is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is:
based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles.

There is a distinct, concious, stylistic reason for deciding that a certain group of weapons is necessary to qualify for a specific attack. Your reasoning suggests that an unarmed attack should be made axe or with a heavy crossbow because in 3e you make your own style. The definition of Sneak Attack requires a precision strike. Your using 3rd edition contradictions while simultaneously making outrageous and derogatory statements against the contrary that are false. Arbitrary it is not.

It is explicitly arbitrary. It's based solely on the personal wishes, feelings and perceptions of the 4e design team.

Unless you are really claiming that a dagger is as accurate a weapon at 50 feet as a longbow is.

 

[tgaptte]

Gotta love sneak attacking with a one-point-of-damage-ever shuriken.

I like to call them my "MINON BUSTERS"!!