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

[Nikosandros]

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.

Agreed and, in addition, the initial percentages for thieves at low levels are really abysmal in AD&D. Also, backstab in AD&D is very much reliant on the goodwill of the DM.

 

[am181d]

I'd be interested to hear more from the folks who would like Sneak Attack to be mandatory. I'm not really sure I understand that point of view. (I can understand players who would always take that option when presented, but not sure why they would want other rogues to be required to take the same ability.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'd be interested to hear more from the folks who would like Sneak Attack to be mandatory. I'm not really sure I understand that point of view. (I can understand players who would always take that option when presented, but not sure why they would want other rogues to be required to take the same ability.)

I'd like combat ability to be mandatory for all classes. Sneak Attack seems like the best way to do it for Rogues. However, I'd be open to alternate methods of making them good at combat.

Part of my reasoning is in my previous post: Our entire group found the 2e Thief to be so horrible at combat that nobody would play a single class Thief.

But to extend this to other editions, I recently made a post in another thread where I explained that we had a player make a character with a bunch of classes in 3e. His character was nearly incapable of hitting anything in combat and had nearly no combat abilities at all. He was nearly incapable of being hit or taking damage mind you, since he super specialized in defense.

Our DM designed encounters around the number of players in our group and really worked to make combats challenging using the formulas in the book. Which meant that simply having this character in our group made all the enemies harder to fight. There were more enemies, so we needed to output more damage to defeat them. However, one character outputted no damage at all. It wouldn't have been so bad if he'd at least been absorbing attacks. But the DM had most monsters completely ignore him since the DM knew he couldn't be hit. Sometimes he did it out of habit and just had all monsters attack everyone but him. Sometimes he actually had the enemies attack him for a round and then had them decide that he was too well protected and move on to new targets.

A couple of times we found combats were so challenging that nearly the entire party was dying and bleeding to death except for this one character who was standing there at nearly full hitpoints. The entire party knew that if we replaced that character with one who could fight, we would have defeated that combat without any real difficulty, mind you.

This same thing applies to basically any character who is incapable of fighting. I view D&D as a coop game where each player is expected to contribute at a minimum level to the success of the mission. A character who is incapable of fighting is not contributing to the success of the mission in one of the most important ways.

Though, not everyone thinks in those terms. Some people create characters PURELY based off of some story they have in their head. Which is fine, but whether they know it or not, they are affecting the success of the mission one way or another. If the system doesn't support the creation of their 14 year old halfling boy rogue who doesn't carry weapons...well, then it might push them to play a different character who fits the game better.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'd be interested to hear more from the folks who would like Sneak Attack to be mandatory. I'm not really sure I understand that point of view. (I can understand players who would always take that option when presented, but not sure why they would want other rogues to be required to take the same ability.)

There was a thread I participated in on the Paizo board a month or two ago, in which a relatively new player built a bard/something not related to a bard (level 2 total character), in other words a really weak character, and showed up at Pathfinder Society with that. This isn't an edition thing, by the way, you can easily make a weak character in 3.x (many monks) or a really weak hybrid character in 4e.

Maybe the poster was trolling, though. Many players didn't like the idea of running with a PC who couldn't contribute much and wouldn't even pass an interview to join the group (like in many organized play scenarios, the DM and players have no choice about who they play with), and many DMs didn't like the idea of trying to balance encounters for such a PC either.

Furthermore, while D&D is a flexible game where you can "play what you want", you actually don't get to do that. Not for long anyway. You need to play something that suits your adventuring group. In many cases, this could mean design a character concept, then show it to the DM ahead of time so they can tell what you need to do to have a contributing PC. (A friend of mine told me she wanted to play a "Disney princess" in a Pathfinder game, a druid/bard combo, so she was basically a bard who could talk/sing to animals. Another weak PC. She's often not serious.) I'm not a Pathfinder guru, but I told her what sort of reaction she'd face (incredibly negative) and suggested she look up archetypes for the bard (greensinger? I dunno) that could let her accomplish this.

Having an incredibly weak PC is just as bad as having a ridiculously powerful PC.

Suppose someone came to my group and told me they wanted to play a master thief. No sneak attack, just lots of social skills and Thievery. They've effectively developed a kender handler without the insanity. I would tell them they have designed a non-adventuring character and can't participate in the adventure as a PC. Naturally someone would say "you're not letting them play your character, and treating your playstyle as superior to theirs", which is fair enough. They can take their playstyle to another group, assuming they could find one that suits them. (Note: This never actually happened to me.)

 

[Kinak]

I'd be interested to hear more from the folks who would like Sneak Attack to be mandatory. I'm not really sure I understand that point of view. (I can understand players who would always take that option when presented, but not sure why they would want other rogues to be required to take the same ability.)

For me it's just an issue of the class having a mechanical underpinning.

I don't think, for example, that wizards or clerics should be able to opt out of casting spells. Barbarians can't opt out of rage, even though plenty of barbarian concepts would work without.

Now, that doesn't mean that rogues need sneak attack necessarily. Combat maneuvers based on skill training (like in Essentials) would work fine. Even something like a luck pool could probably work well with the the rogue ideal. I just think each class needs some key non-optional mechanical hook that the rest of the class can hang on.

I'm just not interested in classes that just say "here's a giant pile of abilities, do what you want." At that point, I feel like you have a bad classless system and should just go the rest of the way so it can work properly.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[cmbarona]

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.

Indiana Jones and Sherlock Holmes both had their fair share of fighting ability (Jones could throw a decent punch, Holmes was a notable brawler/wrestler), and both carried guns. Both go on adventures expecting that there could be fighting involved, and both have killed in self-defense. Maybe Sneak Attack isn't the best way to represent it, but there is an assumption that combat is part of the adventuring skill set. If not Sneak Attack, there needs to be something else to balance that out.

 

[Mistwell]

There was a thread I participated in on the Paizo board a month or two ago, in which a relatively new player built a bard/something not related to a bard (level 2 total character), in other words a really weak character, and showed up at Pathfinder Society with that. This isn't an edition thing, by the way, you can easily make a weak character in 3.x (many monks) or a really weak hybrid character in 4e.

Maybe the poster was trolling, though. Many players didn't like the idea of running with a PC who couldn't contribute much and wouldn't even pass an interview to join the group (like in many organized play scenarios, the DM and players have no choice about who they play with), and many DMs didn't like the idea of trying to balance encounters for such a PC either.

Furthermore, while D&D is a flexible game where you can "play what you want", you actually don't get to do that. Not for long anyway. You need to play something that suits your adventuring group. In many cases, this could mean design a character concept, then show it to the DM ahead of time so they can tell what you need to do to have a contributing PC. (A friend of mine told me she wanted to play a "Disney princess" in a Pathfinder game, a druid/bard combo, so she was basically a bard who could talk/sing to animals. Another weak PC. She's often not serious.) I'm not a Pathfinder guru, but I told her what sort of reaction she'd face (incredibly negative) and suggested she look up archetypes for the bard (greensinger? I dunno) that could let her accomplish this.

Having an incredibly weak PC is just as bad as having a ridiculously powerful PC.

Suppose someone came to my group and told me they wanted to play a master thief. No sneak attack, just lots of social skills and Thievery. They've effectively developed a kender handler without the insanity. I would tell them they have designed a non-adventuring character and can't participate in the adventure as a PC. Naturally someone would say "you're not letting them play your character, and treating your playstyle as superior to theirs", which is fair enough. They can take their playstyle to another group, assuming they could find one that suits them. (Note: This never actually happened to me.)

As a DM, I've had several players over the years use combat-weak characters, and we've always had a great time. It's the DMs job to juggle it so everyone has a chance in the spotlight, and everyone has an opportunity to contribute. If your games are so skewed to combat that someone who creates a character who isn't good at combat won't have fun - it's on the DM to address that, not the player.

In fact, a thief with lots of thievery and social skills is a GREAT character for the DMs game. This offers the opportunity for an excellent cat-burger adventure, or a political intrigue adventure, or all kinds of great adventures! Why would you not like that, as a DM?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like backstab is a class feature, but I've always preferred it as an exploration rather than a combat feature. That is, I'd like it to be a skill that's only usable when the target is not in combat. It would then be a skill for removing minor enemies while sneaking around rather than an advantage for major combat. The idea of surprise backstabbing someone that knows you're there, even when flanked, has always seemed a little wonky to me.

 

[am181d]

(A friend of mine told me she wanted to play a "Disney princess" in a Pathfinder game, a druid/bard combo, so she was basically a bard who could talk/sing to animals. Another weak PC. She's often not serious.)

For the record, this sounds awesome. I get how letting player's toggle their combat efficiency could cause problems for pre-packaged adventures and organized play, but this is exactly the type of character (concept over mechanics) that I prefer in my home games. I know that DM and play-styles vary, but I've never had a problem balancing adventures for the characters players bring to the table or providing each player with unique challenges based on their character's core competencies.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's the DMs job to juggle it so everyone has a chance in the spotlight, and everyone has an opportunity to contribute.

I heavily disagree with this. If I'm running the Dungeon of Ultimate DOOM that I've been spending the last year writing up in great detail filled with horrendously deadly traps and nasty monsters who want to eat your face and you show up with a character who is an 8 year old girl who spends her days picking daisies in the field and doesn't know how to wield any weapons or solve any puzzles...you should expect to have nothing to contribute to the party...and likely to die.

D&D isn't improv acting. It's a specific game with specific conventions. One of which is "You will face nasty monsters and you need to be able to defeat them".

The person you were replying to specifically mentioned Pathfinder Society adventures, at that. In Pathfinder Society, the DM isn't allowed to change the tone of the game or adapt to a non-combat player at the table. They get an adventure that says "You enter the room and the door slams behind you. In the room are 3 beholders who want you dead. Roll for initiative!" That's what you have to run.

If your games are so skewed to combat that someone who creates a character who isn't good at combat won't have fun - it's on the DM to address that, not the player.

No it isn't. You make a character that fits the game you are playing. If I'm playing a Call of Cthulhu game, I'm likely not rolling up a Space Marine or even a Commando. They don't fit the game. Most of that game involves running away from enemies and avoiding touching books. Playing a Commando with Automatic weaponry is missing the point.

D&D is mostly about defeating monsters, venturing into dungeons, and solving problems that require larger than life abilities to solve.

That's not to say that there aren't people out there using the D&D rules to run games that aren't within the D&D theme. I'm certain there will be 100 people who read this who tell me I'm completely wrong and that D&D doesn't HAVE to involve monsters, combat, dungeons, or even problem solving.

Be that as it may, D&D should support that as its primary method of play.

In fact, a thief with lots of thievery and social skills is a GREAT character for the DMs game. This offers the opportunity for an excellent cat-burger adventure, or a political intrigue adventure, or all kinds of great adventures! Why would you not like that, as a DM?

Because most of those adventures don't work well in a group. A cat-burglar adventure reminds me of the time I attempted to run a rogue sneaking into a castle as an adventure. None of the rest of the party could help because they were so bad at stealth. So, I went into the other room and ran the PC through an adventure where they hid from guards and made their way from room to room searching the castle. Which took 2-3 hours. With 5 other players sitting in the other room being extremely impatient that they weren't being involved.

Political intrigue always reminds me of the adventure I once played where one player spent the whole session attempting to make political contacts and woo one of the ladies in the court while the rest of us sat there looking at our 8 charisma scores and decided not to open our mouths to avoid causing any problems for a couple of hours straight.

Combat, puzzles, and exploration get the entire party involved. Everyone has to help defeat the beholder. Everyone has a chance to figure out the puzzle. Everyone can contribute to searching the room.

Not that you can't use those other things as pieces of an adventure to allow one person to shine. But you need to keep them short enough that no one else gets bored and quickly move onto the parts of the game everyone can contribute to.

So, if someone is ONLY good at the parts of the game that tend to exclude everyone else, they don't make a good character.