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

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think I'd be ok with sneak attack being a feature of all rogues, however I would prefer if the outcome of said attack wasn't always damage. Dealing damage is very much the mark of an assassin, whereas for your common or garden thief I'd rather the attack incapacitate the victim for a short while - enough to get away. For your adventure-rogue, the tomb-robbing/skillsy type, I'd rather see it penalise the enemy in combat, again pretty much so that the rogue can get away or have their allies then deal with the threat.

Traditionally there have been ways to trade your damage in for some of these effects, but I'd rather see damage as an option for some subclasses, with all the fun stuff available for the other subclasses.

 

[Henry]

I find it odd too, but you can't predict what the public wants, sometimes. For sure thee's going to be option or "archetype" later that lets people swap out for something else -- it just might not be in the initial release.

Out of idle curiosity, along the same lines as the ability score / feat tradeoff deal, what ability would each of you consider "worth" the loss of sneak attack to a rogue?

 

[Nikosandros]

I strongly dislike classes that are weak in combat and "compensate" by being great in social or exploration situations. Therefore, I prefer rogues to have something "cool" in combat. It doesn't have to be SA for every build, but I do not want SA to be exchangeable with non combat abilities.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Out of idle curiosity, along the same lines as the ability score / feat tradeoff deal, what ability would each of you consider "worth" the loss of sneak attack to a rogue?

Bardic spellcasting
An alternate fighting style with improved attack/defense -- e.g. swashbuckling
"acrobatic" maneuverability -- higher speed, long & high jumps, ability to dodge blows and reposition, enhanced climbing
Enhanced sneaking -- ability to hide in plain sight, disappear on a whim, perhaps shadow jump
Extreme glibness -- able to defuse tension, avoid an encounter, halt an attacker, with a spoken word or quip

 

[N'raac]

I strongly dislike classes that are weak in combat and "compensate" by being great in social or exploration situations. Therefore, I prefer rogues to have something "cool" in combat. It doesn't have to be SA for every build, but I do not want SA to be exchangeable with non combat abilities.

What about the reverse - characters that trade away all of their social and/or exploration abilities to focus entirely on combat? Perhaps "combat" and "non-combat" (or "melee combat", "ranged combat", "social" and "exploration") abilities should be segregated - you can trade within them to have a variety of combat and non-combat choices, but you cant dump one to increase the other.

This would not preclude characters with a greater or lesser focus on certain areas (fighters, for example, would presumably have more combat abilities, and less non-combat abilities), but it would preclude one trick ponies who devote all of their resources to one area to the exclusion of all others (the fighter would still have some non-combat abilities, and could not trade them for added combat punch).

 

[Henry]

Perhaps "combat" and "non-combat" (or "melee combat", "ranged combat", "social" and "exploration") abilities should be segregated - you can trade within them to have a variety of combat and non-combat choices, but you cant dump one to increase the other.

This was one feature of 4E that i liked, though its implementation I didn't like. I thnk, if anything, if they take this route in 5E, they should be sure to emphasize it in the "tweaking" section they invariably put in the DMG each edition.

 

[Savage Wombat]

What about the reverse - characters that trade away all of their social and/or exploration abilities to focus entirely on combat? Perhaps "combat" and "non-combat" (or "melee combat", "ranged combat", "social" and "exploration") abilities should be segregated - you can trade within them to have a variety of combat and non-combat choices, but you cant dump one to increase the other.

This would not preclude characters with a greater or lesser focus on certain areas (fighters, for example, would presumably have more combat abilities, and less non-combat abilities), but it would preclude one trick ponies who devote all of their resources to one area to the exclusion of all others (the fighter would still have some non-combat abilities, and could not trade them for added combat punch).

Definitely this. I've read posts here before about "trading away your non-combat abilities, and then complaining you have no function outside of combat."

 

[Nikosandros]

What about the reverse - characters that trade away all of their social and/or exploration abilities to focus entirely on combat? Perhaps "combat" and "non-combat" (or "melee combat", "ranged combat", "social" and "exploration") abilities should be segregated - you can trade within them to have a variety of combat and non-combat choices, but you cant dump one to increase the other.

Yes, the reverse should also not be allowed. I don't know if social and exploration need to be separated, but I'm definitely in favor of "segregating" combat and non-combat.

This would not preclude characters with a greater or lesser focus on certain areas (fighters, for example, would presumably have more combat abilities, and less non-combat abilities), but it would preclude one trick ponies who devote all of their resources to one area to the exclusion of all others (the fighter would still have some non-combat abilities, and could not trade them for added combat punch).

This, I would be OK with.

 

[N'raac]

Definitely this. I've read posts here before about "trading away your non-combat abilities, and then complaining you have no function outside of combat."

You mean like "My 6 INT, 8 CHA Fighter who used all his feats to increase his damage in combat is boring when we investigate mysteries, interact with NPC's or, well, do anything other than combat (and ranged combat isn't much fun either.) Fighters are broken!"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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 think this is a key point. Our 2e group refused to play single classed Thieves. It was considered to be an EXTREMELY bad choice. The group needed Thief skills, obviously, but being a single classed Thief meant being so bad at combat that you'd have to sit out large portions of the game(i.e. when combat was happening).

That meant that every Thief was either a Fighter/Thief of a Wizard/Thief. In fact, the 2nd character I ever played in D&D was a Half-Elf Fighter/Thief named Majoru Oakheart. Thus the name on the forum.

Our group saw Thieves as a necessity to play the game but since finding and removing traps occupied so little of the game, you needed another class to round out your skill set.