D&D 5E Sneak Attack: optional or mandatory?

[Li Shenron]

I don't remember exactly how it went across playtest packages exactly, but the Rogue's Sneak Attack has been just an option at some point.

At different times, the designers had stated that they wanted Sneak Attack to be just an option, for example tied to some Rogue Schemes, but not a feature of all Rogues. IIRC there was a general consensus towards this idea. Currently however, it is indeed a feature of all Rogues.

Today I noticed that Mike Mearls tweeted (in response to Jeffrey Cox asking about a feature to swap Sneak Attack for something else, in a way similar to swapping Wizardry): "not sure if that would be in the PH - people really didn't like having to choose between SA and something else."

This is quite surprising for me... I don't mind if Sneak Attack is a fixed feature, but I really thought there were many more people wanting it optional than people wanting it mandatory!

So what's your take on this? Would you prefer (A) all Rogues to have the same Sneak Attack in common, or (B) only some specific Rogue subclasses, or do you actually like Jeffrey's proposal of (C) having it totally optional i.e. not tied to subclasses?

 

[Kobold Stew]

(B) without a doubt.

The rogue was in a real sweet spot for what I wanted 3-4 packs ago, and this choice (like many others) brings a homogenization to the rogue that I would prefer were not there.

 

[Plaguescarred]

A) A mandatory/commun feature to all rogues. The thief/rogue always had a form of sneak attack or backstabb and i think its one of its core feature throughout its history.

FWIW Mike Mearls recently tweeted that people didn't like when they had to choose sneak attack over another feature;

@orangejeff any chance of a way to swap out sneak attack for something less... underhanded & dirty. Like mages & wizardy but for rogues.
@mikemearls not sure if that would be in the PH - people really didn't like having to choose between SA and something else.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Deleted

 

[Kinak]

I really want the classes to have strong mechanical hooks, something you can say "this is what the class is about mechanically."

So, if sneak attack is going to be that hook, subclasses shouldn't mess with it. If rogues are the "making skill checks as reactions in combat" people, or whatever, then it's possible some of them will get sneak attack and others will get different damage options.

I honestly think sneak attack works fine as the rogue hook, though. In any case, barring a complete redesign, it should be mandatory.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[DEFCON 1]

The other question of course that the designers have had to ask has been "How do you balance a combat ability against a non-combat ability"? And that's been the big issue I imagine about this the entire time.

How much non-combat stuff equals the additional damage of Sneak Attack? Or can you even make that sort of equivalence? Is that even possible? With so many different tables having such a wide range of focus when it comes to the other two pillars of the game, can you make any sort definitive statement like "These additional four languages equal Sneak Attack"... or "This extra Lore and a bigger expertise die equals Sneak Attack"?

If you take out Sneak Attack from the Rogue... obviously, the class is gimped in combat. Regardless of whether or not you give the rogue any extra abilities to the other two pillars. And I would imagine that those players who playtested this gimped version of the Rogue during combat scenes came to the conclusion that even with other stuff in return... the gimping is just too much. Especially if every table also then rated highly or lowly any of the other stuff they got from the other two pillars in return.

So I would imagine that if/when the book is released and Sneak Attack ends up a feature across all rogue sub-classes... they're going to leave it up to an individual table to figure out for themselves what that SA is worth TO THEM, should the table's DM wish to have a non-SA sub-class or build. Because the first time WotC themselves tries to put in the book a sub-class without SA, probably 75% of the players are going to decry the non-combat stuff it got in return as not being enough, or being too much.

 

[Rhenny]

I don't mind it being a class feature, but, I'm hoping (and looking forward to) part of the overall rules that discuss and advise the DM and players how to work together to customize (or create) any class or sub-class by modifying, deleting or adding specific features/abilities. It will be difficult to determine an exact formula for swapping out features, but if there is a clear and easy to follow guide with examples it will bring so much more to the table for those that want to futz with characters.

 

[Mistwell]

If an overwhelming majority didn't like choosing between SA and something else, then definitely put SA in there for every rogue. If enough people don't like that, they can publish a module later to allow you to alter that, or a sub-class without it. But, do what you need to do, to get a majority of players on board with your core rules. That's what the playtest is about - to see what people really do and do not like.

 

[Roland55]

SA just seems like such a core attribute that I had to go with A.

But I wouldn't be upset if B turned out to be the choice. I try to stay flexible ... which, at my age, means I stretch every single doggone day.

 

[GX.Sigma]

To me, the Rogue is supposed to be the skills class. It feels weird that sneak attack is a core Rogue feature, since that's more of a murder thing than a skills thing. I don't think all skillsy people should be into murder. Indiana Jones and Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have sneak attack.