Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
SA may be the default, but I'd like to see the option for a player to trade it for a different class feature should he wish.
D&D 5E Sneak Attack: optional or mandatory?
- Thread starter Li Shenron
- Start date
Savage Wombat
Hero
This. I agree with Mearl's tweet, but I've seen just enough players want to "trade in" sneak attack for something else that it should be an option. Maybe just a sidebar titled "what if I don't want SA?"
Squidmaster
First Post
Unlike my comment on the recent Ranger thread, I disagree with everything that Kobold Stew said. 
I'm very much in love with the current iteration of the rogue class. It makes me want to play a rogue even though I rarely have done that in my 20+ years as a gamer. Sneak attack seems like a decent mechanical hook for all rogues to me as well, since they are a bit of a jack of all trades class. Without the sneak attack, they run the risk of becoming far too awesome out of combat and useless in a fight.
I'm very much in love with the current iteration of the rogue class. It makes me want to play a rogue even though I rarely have done that in my 20+ years as a gamer. Sneak attack seems like a decent mechanical hook for all rogues to me as well, since they are a bit of a jack of all trades class. Without the sneak attack, they run the risk of becoming far too awesome out of combat and useless in a fight.
To be fair, the OP only asked what we preferred.
The fundamental nature of the rogue has changed in several ways since over the past few packets. Let's pick out four of these:
1. Backstab for all (instead of scheme-based backstab or isolated strike or some other combat trick)
2. Expertise die for in Dex and eventually another ability (as opposed to skill-based expertise)
3. no extra skills or backgrounds (because skills are gone and backgrounds give lore)
4. all feats become mega feats (making the granting of "skill tricks" otiose and less customizable for an individual rogue).
With the latter three changes (relating to the skill-monkey idea), insisting on keeping Backstab for only a few rogues probably doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that SA shouldn't be available to any rogue that wants it. I am saying that I prefer the more diverse build choices that were available to rogues before, where a credible STR-based or CHA-based rogue exists alongside a straight DEX-based or DEX/CHA-based rogue, with even more possibilities available.
As other subclasses emerge, it is possible this wish will be answered for me, in which case it is possible that backstab for all makes sense. I just don't see it in the current (limited) preview we see now (which is forced to make all thieves charming for some reason).
The fundamental nature of the rogue has changed in several ways since over the past few packets. Let's pick out four of these:
1. Backstab for all (instead of scheme-based backstab or isolated strike or some other combat trick)
2. Expertise die for in Dex and eventually another ability (as opposed to skill-based expertise)
3. no extra skills or backgrounds (because skills are gone and backgrounds give lore)
4. all feats become mega feats (making the granting of "skill tricks" otiose and less customizable for an individual rogue).
With the latter three changes (relating to the skill-monkey idea), insisting on keeping Backstab for only a few rogues probably doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that SA shouldn't be available to any rogue that wants it. I am saying that I prefer the more diverse build choices that were available to rogues before, where a credible STR-based or CHA-based rogue exists alongside a straight DEX-based or DEX/CHA-based rogue, with even more possibilities available.
As other subclasses emerge, it is possible this wish will be answered for me, in which case it is possible that backstab for all makes sense. I just don't see it in the current (limited) preview we see now (which is forced to make all thieves charming for some reason).
Squidmaster
First Post
Heck, I was just being goofy, Kobold, but you probably knew that. You make some very good points. I think that the mega feats create challenges for all classes one way or another, but that may be an acceptable cost to using them, I'm not sure.
Obviously I chose option A. I like the balance it adds to the class in general as well as the simplicity, and I think that rogues can come up with role-playing reasons for precisely how they implement the backstab damage if they so choose.
Obviously I chose option A. I like the balance it adds to the class in general as well as the simplicity, and I think that rogues can come up with role-playing reasons for precisely how they implement the backstab damage if they so choose.
Absolutely. No harm, no foul!
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
For the twenty or so years I ran D&D (79-99), I always saw the rogue as being mostly about his skills - finding and removing traps, sneaking about while scouting and bypassing obstacles with open locks and climbing. Sneak attack was way, way down on the list - and something you only got off once in a combat.
Clearly, SA got more important in 3E and became the role in 4E. I'd like to see builds be possible where you can have a rogue that doesn't need SA to be useful - but if you want a character whose schtick is to be stabby, you have that option open to you.
Clearly, SA got more important in 3E and became the role in 4E. I'd like to see builds be possible where you can have a rogue that doesn't need SA to be useful - but if you want a character whose schtick is to be stabby, you have that option open to you.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Sneak attack did become more important, but then so did the idea that a rogue had to hold his own in combat - something he really had a hard time doing in 1e/2e because of a bad attack table, low hit points, and a generally low AC. I thought making the bonus damage more reliable, even if less spiky, in 3e was a good idea. And I think we can (and should be able to) expect the rogue in D&D Next to be more effective in combat than 1e/2e. Relying on a sneak attack to provide that effectiveness may be up in the air, but I don't see anything wrong with including it as a standard ability. It helps keep the class in touch with its history.
I hate Sneak Attack as a class feature !
It moves the Thief from Skilled guy to alpha striker. This is as painful to watch as spiked healing ;-)
I would rather have Sneak attack as a common combat maneuver, open to anyone under narrow conditions (such as surprise and outnumbering 3:1) giving extra damage (autocrit on a hit ?) and Rogues being better at setting up those case and exploiting them (adding their expertise die to damage ?)
It moves the Thief from Skilled guy to alpha striker. This is as painful to watch as spiked healing ;-)
I would rather have Sneak attack as a common combat maneuver, open to anyone under narrow conditions (such as surprise and outnumbering 3:1) giving extra damage (autocrit on a hit ?) and Rogues being better at setting up those case and exploiting them (adding their expertise die to damage ?)
Similar Threads
