If you think any module requires a certain tactic to resolve the party goals, you've opted for a one-true-way system without even realizing it. Pretty much any adventure can be resolved without a lot of combat, if that's the approach the party decides to take.
I do not see, nor have I seen, a single scenario expecting the vast majority of challenges to be resolved without combat activity. That doesn't mean I can't defeat the Caves of Chaos by hiding an unstoppered decanter of endless water at the top of the canyon and waiting for all the opposition that would ever come out and threaten the Keep to be drowned. It does mean that is neither a common approach nor the expected approach of the designers or the adventure authors.
I get it, you love combat in your D&D. Sometimes I do too. Now, do you get some people do things different, and it's a role playing game? Wargames are intended for 100% combat. This is not a wargame. It's a role playing game, where the party decides how to approach each situation, and some use combat as a conflict resolver, and others use other methods. We once "beat" the hall of the giant kings without using any combat abilities, and we had a blast.
I'm assuming we're back to the old G Series, which in addition to "a long time ago" (assuming the reference is not to a later rewrite/sequel for another edition) is not the experience most gamers describe nor, I expect, the one anticipated given the array of combat statistics provided in the scenario. Again, when a best-selling series of adventures is designed to be largely resolved by non-combat means, with combat being a negligible and ancillary aspect of the adventure, I will see the potential for a character lacking combat options entirely. Note that I am similarly opposed to allowing any class to trade away its special abilities used out of combat. I'm opposed to hyperspecialization in either form, so it's not 100% combat either, however this thread includes a component of "should the rogue be able to trade away his major special combat ability for greater noncombat competence?"
Which raises a related point. N'raac, did you ever play a TSR version of the game, for any extended period of time? Or are you coming at this just from a WOTC-era perspective?
I started playing in
**God I feel old - second time this week I've had to think about this on the Boards** 1980 in high school. Lots of leisure time then. Played RPG's Friday evening and all day Saturday (the latter meaning "from just after lunch, often driving home as the sun rose" for several years after university. With age and other responsibilities, my group is down to a 3-4 hour evening session every couple of weeks or so. So I'd say the vast majority of my gaming precedes WOTC involvement, and certainly predates 3rd Ed (by which time we were probably down to an average of one game session a week, half in the 3-5 hour range and half in the 6 - 10 hour range). And we took a few years before we even tried 3e after its Y2K release, by which time we were gaming less than that.
So I'd say I've played extended D&D games long before WOTC came along, much less bought TSR or published 3e. Not that I'm sure why 33 years of backstory is overly relevant to a thread on what the new edition should hold.
That said, I was not part of the ilk that considered the game was made "better" by claims that Magic Missile could specifically target each of an opponent's eyes, unfailing blinding the target, or that Create Water might be cast to appear filling the target's lungs, or that a Wall of Force might be cast on a plane such that anything contacting it would be sliced in half. To many back in that time, this was considered the height of "gaming creatively".
Substantiate your claim that removing sneak attack from the rogue equates fairly with having no combat abilities competitive with the other characters such that the rogue is a non-issue in combat. That seems to be a patently false exaggeration given my experience, but I am listening to your evidence. So make a 5th level (average level - most games last from first to tenth level according to survey data) group using the playtest pre-gens and fairly balanced/normal equipment and challenges, remove sneak attack and replace it with nothing, and show me how that converts the rogue to a non-issue in combat. I am guessing they're not nearly as non-issue as you think, and you will find sneak-attack isn't the critical factor in the rogue being viable.
Enough people have addressed the extent to which Sneak Attack contributes to the Rogue's ability to contribute in combat. Perhaps the difference in perception relates to too much OD&D/BECMI (or just Basic)/AD&D 1st/2nd Ed, back in the day when the Fighter would contribute 1 to 2 attacks, doing 1d8 + 3 to +6, the spellcasters husbanded their spells rather than casting every round because they didn't have cantrips, bonus spells, etc. and the rogue's 1d8 Longsword or 1d6 arrows were meaningful, even to that 88 hp Huge Ancient Red Dragon, and Backstabs were rare opportunities.
Both PC classes and opponent power have grown markedly in the intervening years. To return the Rogue to his 1e/2e level of combat prowess while leaving all else at a level commensurate with 3rd or 4th Ed would leave the Rogue sadly behind his teammates. The state of the Sneak Attack ability implies this is not the direction in which Next is heading.
Come on, Mistwell. Rogues get two offensive combat powers. Two! They get Sneak Attack and Ace in the Hole. That's it, unless they're Assassin subclass, then they get Assassinate (which requires Sneak Attack), Poison, Stunning Ambush (which requires Sneak Attack), and Death Strike. Take away Sneak Attack, and rogues get one offensive combat ability (at 20th level), and Assassin rogues get three total. And that's a combat focused character, who loses three combat abilities, half of their offensive powers.
How is that not significant? You don't need complex comparisons. Sneak Attack is all they get until 20th level.
And there's another clear statement of how the Rogue's combat ability is largely linked to Sneak Attack.
Honest to God this sounds like tactical combat babble to me. It all reads like balance of power wargamer DPR stuff. Thank the Lord 5e isn't going in that direction.
It isn't? I thought the main differentiator between high and low levels was trending to how many hp you have, and how much you can take away. Please cite a designer comment refuting that.
You know what "Kewl Powerz!" they get? They can sneak around, with a rapier or short bow (sometimes with poison, if they're lucky enough to beg borrow or steal it), and take things down like that. They can jump out from hiding and lure a foe into an ambush. They can rig a trap to spring when the foes cross it. They can climb to an unexpected area and drop a flaming vial of oil on the rug the baddy is standing on and watch the room go up in flames. They can convince one set of baddies to attack another set of baddies. Those are the traditional "powers" of the rogue, the "powers" they had under all the TSR editions of the game, and they can still get all that.
As indicated elsewhere, these are largely things the rogue is no better at than anyone else, by default. They are things the rogue did in prior editions because, while anyone could do them, everyone else had equal or better things to do in combat, or they required the ability to Hide, be Stealthy or Climb, which is no longer exclusive to rogues, has not been for several editions and is, to some, not believed ever to have been the intent.
To "wealthier", the focus on wealth was a problem with "thieves", which is a key reason they became "rogues" in second edition. Give them different choices of combat powers, sure. I vote for that, not "they are all sneak attackers". But not a structure where rogues can do what anyone else can do if they don't use their own special abilities, and not a structure where rogues only get to do anything impressive if they have extended periods to prepare in advance, or get a lucky break and get to use an ability that has not come up in weeks because it is overly situational.
I don't agree with this way of framing the matter.
First, there is the issue of "irreversibility". That's been discussed upthread, with reference to retraining etc, and I've got nothing new to add on that score.
So how often should rogues, and any other characters, be able to retrain, and how much can they change at each such increment? As it stands, I don't believe there is any indication a rogue could ever reverse the trade-away of his sneak attack, so I am assuming the default, non-modularized rules will not provide for this at all, much less quickly. A module allowing retraining would fit nicely with one allowing greater specialization.
Second, a wizard whose spells take a minute to cast cannot cast spells under time pressure. Why would I accept that as a comparison to a non-sneak attacking rogue? For instace, a fast-talking rogue shouldn't take a minute to persuade a guard to look another way; or a ninja-esque rogue shouldn't take a minute to drop a flash grenade.
I don't believe you are responding to my actual comparison, hence your disagreement with my framing. IOW, I disagree with how you are framing my comparison.
The 1 minute wizard is a comparison to a rogue who trades away sneak attack for non-combat abilities. I oppose that. All rogues should have combat abilities beyond "stab it with one of my simple/light weapons".
A rogue with flash grenades or social skills usable in combat has selected from a group of combat abilities of equivalent power, across the levels, of sneak attack. I support that over "all rogues have sneak attack".
I reiterate : there are fine fancy designs in this threadto replace this monstrous damage spike, but I am quite sure an extra attack at lvl 8 (wi5h built-in spring attack) and nifty ways to use their expertise die in combat would be enough in my book.
If the answer is that sneak attack is overpowered, and that group of combat abilities the rogue may choose from should not include it, or include a less powerful form, we're no longer discussing whether Sneak Attack is mandatory, but whether it is balanced with the combat abilities of other classes. My contention is the Rogue should have combat abilities that allow him to contribute consistently with other classes in combat. He should neither overshadow other classes (especially any class with less noncombat punch) nor should he be overshadowed by them (same caveat). All classes should have some ability in combat and out, so no one is wholly overshadowed in either.
Look. I disagree. Anybody can do those things. A fighter can climb up and drop the oil. A wizard can hide in the dark and shoot people with a bow. A cleric can be the decoy. They can all do all of those tasks. And they all have "kewl powerz" so I don't know why you think taking away the rogue's schtick is okay when everybody else gets to keep theirs. All the things you list rogues can do through "roleplay" aren't specific to rogues, so what's the point? What makes me want to play a rogue instead of a fighter, cleric, or wizard?
Precisely!
)
