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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9221013" data-attributes="member: 93670">Noting that a very poorly designed gestalt item exists is hardly a good point of support for "precedent." I think you are still ignoring & trying to obscure the fact that the original request I pushed back against was back here in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rogues-been-in-an-awkward-place-and-this-survey-might-be-our-last-chance-to-let-wotc-know.701571/page-14#post-9218589" target="_blank">138</a> for items that "modify sneak attack and sneak damage" -NOT- the new hypothetical item that grants some amount of sneak attack damage to anyone using it.  I've pointed that out previously, that alone combined with avoidance of explaining why this new item is needed without going back to talk of magic items for rogues & rogue experience specifically feels like a return to the 3.5 days of listening to a player trying to construct a roundabout GM ruling to allow something they know is over the top by getting rulings on unrelated things that could combine in silly OP ways. It's also possible to say  that something is a downside of [legacy class specific items] without having "strong opinions" about them & a hypothetical new item makes those downsides worth noting if the  shapeshifting new hypothetical item seems to be designed in a way that keeps the downsides for one side of the dmscreen but not the other.Also don't forget wotc has made no indications that 2024 will be changing [spoiler="this"][MEDIA=twitter]850183402808463365[/MEDIA][/spoiler]Wotc themselves have set & seem intent on maintaining a rather high bar for why these items are needed.  As someone said earlier... a magic ite, that replicates sneak attack is different from a magic item that requires sneak attack... You seem to be switching between the two as convenient & it doesn't look good.</blockquote>

Verification