Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9223714" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><quote modified to number paragraphs>I have a different take on the matter.First of all, I disagree with the stated impression of paragraph 3, sentence  two. The dearth of Sneak Attack damage enhancers* in 10 years of official supplements speaks to the dev team's position on Sneak Attack and whether it should have damage-enhancers, and nothing else. Their position on whether a rogue is an overpowered damage dealer is completely orthogonal to this. Likely, they agree that they are not, as they have been slowly increasing their overall average damage over time -- in D&D 2014 mostly by making SA more likely to trigger each round (first with subclasses, and then with new action options), and in D&D 2024 with additional combat benefits throughout the class. *side note: will people be able to follow along if I shorten this to SADE?Secondly (and my primary point), I think the reason for no SA Damage Enhancers is that (by and large) the devs want iconic, base-class-defining things to be good enough for prime time right on the core class default presentation. There are exceptions -- 2014 Moon Druid does wildshape strictly better than the rest of Druids, 2024 UA Berserker* does rage strictly better -- but as a whole I can see a trend. I think the the general idea is to instead play around in the margins (feats which make casters concentrate better, but not cast 4th level spells at 5th level**), play with very specific portions of the defining feature (tempest cleric can maximize a very limited selection of their spells), or instead address universal qualities rather than these defining features (sure, a paladin loves a holy avenger, but it works with or without the smite feature). I think there's probably a rationale behind it. Likely that upping these features makes puts even more of the class-eggs in that features basket, and also communicates that the default level is an underperforming level.  *I don't know how to rate 2014's 'improved benefit/improved cost, everyone agrees is sub-par' version 2014's Berserker gets. **Yes, Fey- and Shadow Touched, but anyone can grab those and they have solid limiters on which 2nd level spell is gottenNone of this is to say that they couldn't do it. I think people generally agree that a dagger of +2d6 SA damage or feat of SA dice d6-->d8s isn't going to overpower a rogue*. I honestly personally wouldn't mind it (although my preferred way of making a 'the combat rogue' variant would be to simply gets extra attack at level 5 or 6). However, I think it does point to the possibility that there are reasons that they haven't done so other than to make rogue players unhappy or fear of over-powered-ness, and that the reason could be** completely reasonable and comprehensible (if not something you might agree with).*in fact, may be worth less than the opportunity cost, particularly if the dagger is attunement-costing.**here I will add a perennial critique that since 2014 the devs were altogether too restrictive in discussing the whys of their decisions. Of course, I could be completely wrong about this, and I'd still want to discuss paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 7. I think it is a self-incurred recipe for disappointment in the current release ethos to demand official output* and expect to get all reasonable potential options (to the point of framing their absence and being denied or them refusing to deliver that thing specifically). WotC has made it super clear that they are not going to put out all things for all people. Looking at the option-paloozas that 2, 3, and to some degree 4e all became, 5e lags behind in all sorts of potential-options-someone-might-want. There are no Marshals, no str-based archers**, no non-magical rangers, no pacifist builds, no arcane 1/2-caster classes (whatever name you want to give them), and somewhat half-hearted support for Str-based low-armor martial artists. That WotC-published products do not have your specific preferred option is hardly unique, and while I completely understand the disappointment, I don't see a reason that this is particularly or notably more inexplicable or unreasonable than the others missing options.*I'm sure you don't want to hear 'what about 3pp?,' but that definitely seems to be their response in this instance.**and the optimal choice for mimicking the 2e longbow-long/greatsword switch-hitting fighter is a hexblade</blockquote>

Verification