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

[Kavon]

I'd say making Sneak Attack mandatory for each type of Rogue is just as inappropriate as making Turn Undead mandatory for each type of Cleric.
Not every rogue is a backstabbing assassin.
Not every Cleric is an undead hunting follower of god (as in, not every deity cares about having its followers killing undead - basically, there should be only one deity/domain that gives Turn Undead).

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]

People have always used D&D to play those things, yes. But, what rules were in previous editions that were about political intrigue?

Off the top of my head, some of the utility powers from 4e. Tons of feats from 3e. Much of the Dragonlance setting from 1e/2e (I think I saw a kit about it too?). Plenty of adventures for all of those.

Or horror?

Tons of monsters, adventure support, even undead expansion books. Really I think horror you don't have a leg to stand on. It's a well supported concept for D&D, and always has been. The entire Ravenloft setting came from it. Heck it's such a well supported theme for D&D games they even have D&D horror music for your sessions.

Was the fighter giving up BAB to gain skills?

BAB is mostly a 3e concept, and in that case he was giving up feats like Cleave for feats that support skills.

Was the wizard giving up spells to learn to track?

Feats from 3e, like track instead of extend spell. Utility slots in 4e.

Not to my recollection.

Well you can cherry pick things we know were not the way it was done and ignore the way it was actually done, or we can have an honest conversation. I'm for the later. In 4e it was mostly through utility powers, in 3e it was mostly through feats, in 1e/2e there wasn't much TO trade but they did provide some in skills and powers and in setting support and even some magic items to try and support those things once they noticed so many people were using D&D for those things. Heck they even tried to support space adventures with 1e/2e, right there in the core books.

So, I don't see any need for D&D to include exclusionary (emphasis there!) rules for those things that we've always handled with rulings instead of rules.

Except it was handled with rules, as I just detailed.

I love Ravenloft, by the way, and I've played and run several games of it. But, I wouldn't classify it as horror. I would classify it as dark fantasy, which is different.

"Ravenloft is primarily a Gothic horror setting." That's the description. First sentence.

 

[Mistwell]

Wall of Text

First, lets correct some assumptions.

We're talking about the rogue/thief trading backstab, for a non-combat ability.

That's it. That's what I was commenting on. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY AT ALL, NOT FOR A SINGLE SOLITARY MOMENT, has suggested that a thief no longer be able to wield a sword like normal, or a bow, or have their attack progression lowered, or force them to not take Dex as a key stat, or anything else relating to combat. We're talking about trading one special ability: sneak attack.

So now that we've dealt with the majority of what I view as a strawman, you tell me why this rogue/thief would be useless and bored in combat without sneak attack? I played that in 3e (it was an option) and it was great.

As for your four conflicting styles of PCs issue: I've had good DMs, mediocre DMs, and bad DMs. Every single good DM was able to adapt their game to give everyone a spotlight in the game, and nobody was ever bored, no matter what choices they made for their PCs. I challenge you to game with Kevin (Piratecat from this board) and make whatever friggen bizarre combo character you want, and team with a group that has equally "incompatible" PCs, and I promise you with 100% certainty everyone will have fun and nobody will be bored. Same goes for Kirin (Kiznit from this board), and a half dozen others I know of, some on this very board.

I can't go into the details on how that is done in this thread...it's way off topic, but I think it might make for a worthwhile thread. But my simple answer is yes - you can have a great game, even with four players and their PCs who prefer different things from the game. In fact, it can be even more fun that way.

 

[Minigiant]

Well when I originally asked Mearls on twitter the question if you could be able to switch out Sneak Attack for another class feature, I meant for another combat ability. Because of twitter's character limit, I could not ask the question completely.

To me, a rogue should not be locked into offensive and underhanded tactics of Sneak Attack. They could get damage reduction equal to their "sneak attack dice" if the attack doesn't have advantage (perfect for acrobats). Or they could get a henchman/bodyguard/pet with "sneak attack dice" for HP (perfect for lazy noblemen and gangleaders).

But according to Mearls' reply, a lot of people hated not getting SA on the rogues. So it would be in splatblooks if it ever came.

 

[pemerton]

Everyone should be able to fight with equivalent power, because D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff!

At the moment, Next lets me build a 1st level Illusionist who has no damaging spells: Light, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation; Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Detect Magic, Fog Cloud.

As I gain my two spells per level I have plenty more non-damaging options, too: Alarm, Grease; Darkness, Invisbility, Levitate, Spider Climb; Blink, Dispel Magic, Fly, Water Breathing; Arcane Eye, Dimension Door, Polymorph, Stoneskin; Contact Other Plane, Passwall, Scrying, Seeming; etc.

Is that a build that the game shouldn't allow?

combat has always been a lengthy, multi-stage process so small increments can still have some impact over time. Social skills and exploration have been “one roll, succeed or fail”.

This is not the case for 4e, which does not adjudicate social encounters as "one roll, succeed or fail".

 

[Starfox]

I will peek in and sat I am say I am for siloing - that is to have a class have certain minimum capacity in different areas, such as combat, social, and exploration. I have GMed games that started out as almost entirely non-combat, and where one PCs ended up almost completely incapable in combat. As combat elements slowly crept into the story, this turned out to be a problem - the character was not only incapable of combat, but also completely uninterested in it. Because the character had been made without any combat capabilities, the player had drawn the logical conclusion and given the PC a personality to match. This was in a point-bye system (my homebrew), meaning there was no siloing at all - you could put all your points wherever you liked.

The very point of a class system for me is the siloing. Classes come with certain built-in abilities for different areas. In 5E, these areas have been defined - they are combat, exploration, and social. Each class is to have some competence in each area. In addition to this core competence, there can be a few freebie points (like feats) that can go into any area.

Now, I am not saying that a rogue HAS to have sneak attack. But if each class has a certain minimum (and maximum) combat ability, it becomes much easier to make encounters and scenarios. Taking out sneak attack (the rogue's most important combat schtick) and replacing it with something in one of the other two areas (exploration or social) might take the rogue out of the expected level of competency.

In conclusion, a great GM can make the game work for any group, but the GM's work is still made easier by a bit of siloing in the class system.

 

[N'raac]

We're talking about the rogue/thief trading backstab, for a non-combat ability.

I was unaware you were in charge of deciding what may be discussed on any given thread. I think the rest of us, or at least some of us, may view the issue a bit wider. This is especially ironic given the next post indicates the original tweet that motivated this thread was directed at swapping sneak attack for a different combat ability only.

So now that we've dealt with the majority of what I view as a strawman, you tell me why this rogue/thief would be useless and bored in combat without sneak attack? I played that in 3e (it was an option) and it was great.

I set that out above. If the Halfling Rogue has a slightly better attack bonus and the same damage as a human wizard in melee (ie 1d4), that seems pretty boring to me. Could the Rogue have better "no tradeoff combat" abilities to resolve that? Sure. Could it be resolved with a choice of combat-enhancing abilities, one of which is Sneak Attack? Again, sure. Must the ability add damage? No, not really (see below). But "hey, you can dump combat for noncombat or vice versa"? As a default, my preference is NO. As an optional rule, caveated for the issue of bored/frustrated players and overspecialization, sure - more options will never be a bad thing.

Well when I originally asked Mearls on twitter the question if you could be able to switch out Sneak Attack for another class feature, I meant for another combat ability. Because of twitter's character limit, I could not ask the question completely.

Thanks for that clarification!

To me, a rogue should not be locked into offensive and underhanded tactics of Sneak Attack. They could get damage reduction equal to their "sneak attack dice" if the attack doesn't have advantage (perfect for acrobats). Or they could get a henchman/bodyguard/pet with "sneak attack dice" for HP (perfect for lazy noblemen and gangleaders).

Both good ideas. Something aimed at the ranged combat rogue, who doesn't get in there and flank, would also be nice. And even a choice of three or four in the base rules gives us something to build on, rather than the possibility of some other option being in PHB V, when "sneak attack" is ingrained, and there are a host of other abilities building off it on the assumption each and every rogue will have that specific ability.

But according to Mearls' reply, a lot of people hated not getting SA on the rogues. So it would be in splatblooks if it ever came.

As a very revolutionary concept, wouldn't it be nice if the first release at least made an effort to be a complete game, not the obvious first volume in the PHB Encyclopedia? Yes, I know, bad business to make the game complete in its core rules rather than spread the rules over an encyclopedia of sourcebooks that everyone will have to buy to have a complete set, and that ship has long since sailed in the D&D world. It hasn't exactly made the Hero system publishers business take off. But it would be nice to buy the core rules without feeling the Money Siphon push its way into my wallet to wait for the next dozen volumes you need to actually have all of the truly "core" rules.

At the moment, Next lets me build a 1st level Illusionist who has no damaging spells: Light, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation; Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Detect Magic, Fog Cloud.

Charm Person is combat-useful, as is Fog Cloud. Let's not equate "useful in combat" with "deals significant damage", or even "deals damage". Minigant suggests an ability for an acrobat that mitigates damage taken, and a character who can distract one or more of an enemy group for a few rounds while taking limited or no damage in return is also "useful in combat". Lots of other options exist.

As I gain my two spells per level I have plenty more non-damaging options, too: Alarm, Grease; Darkness, Invisbility, Levitate, Spider Climb; Blink, Dispel Magic, Fly, Water Breathing; Arcane Eye, Dimension Door, Polymorph, Stoneskin; Contact Other Plane, Passwall, Scrying, Seeming; etc.

Most of these have definite combat advantages. I suggest that the wizard who has no combat-useful spells, or who has no non-combat spells (like Arcane Eye or Alarm) is pretty rare. Again, "non-damaging" is not "useless in combat". I can't count the number of times a spellcaster Dimension Door'd himself and another character to a better location (to flank and sneak attack; to get at the spellcaster behind his line of bodyguards; to get past the distraction to the real target faster). If we have no combat, how useful is Stoneskin?

Is that a build that the game shouldn't allow?

No. What I don't want is a spell list restricted to, say, scrying spells and other spells with no, or virtually no, chance of being useful to cast in combat so the wizard player is reduced to stabbing with his dagger or firing his crossbow at 10th level, resulting in him breaking out the tablet to surf the web whenever combat starts, with a postit on the back that says "at my initiative, duck and cover".

This is not the case for 4e, which does not adjudicate social encounters as "one roll, succeed or fail".

Again, I'm not very familiar with the 4e mechanics, so I can't comment on specifics. I'd like to see options for adjudication methods, actually. There's nothing wrong with "one roll, succeed or fail" for tasks that have limited game impact, and a more detailed, granular resolution system for more important challenges on which the specific game focuses. In a game of political intrigue at the King's Court, maybe social conflict should have a deeply granular resolution system playing out over many "attacks" and "counterattacks", and a duel with the King's Champion should be a one roll resolution.

 

[pemerton]

Charm Person is combat-useful, as is Fog Cloud. Let's not equate "useful in combat" with "deals significant damage", or even "deals damage".

<anip>

I suggest that the wizard who has no combat-useful spells, or who has no non-combat spells (like Arcane Eye or Alarm) is pretty rare. Again, "non-damaging" is not "useless in combat". I can't count the number of times a spellcaster Dimension Door'd himself and another character to a better location (to flank and sneak attack; to get at the spellcaster behind his line of bodyguards; to get past the distraction to the real target faster). If we have no combat, how useful is Stoneskin?

But my point (and I think part of [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s point - though I don't want to put words in another poster's mouth) is that a rogue who can't sneak attack might still be useful in the same sorts of way.

Instead of Dimension Door or Spider Climb, the rogue is an athlete and acrobat. Instead of Fog Cloud and Invisibility, the rogue is a ninja with flash powder grenades. Instead of Charm Person, the rogue is a smooth-tongued con artist. Etc.

In a game of political intrigue at the King's Court, maybe social conflict should have a deeply granular resolution system playing out over many "attacks" and "counterattacks", and a duel with the King's Champion should be a one roll resolution.

This is how HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel handle these matters - you use extended resolution, or one roll resolution, depending on what aspects of the game you want to focus on.

 

[Starfox]

But my point (and I think part of [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s point - though I don't want to put words in another poster's mouth) is that a rogue who can't sneak attack might still be useful in the same sorts of way.

And most of us here (but not those answering the WotC survey) seem to think exchanging sneak attack for something else that is combat useful is ok, even if it doesn't involve direct damage. If a rogue had the ability to run around and trip multiple foes, for example, that is a control effect that is highly useful in combat. It changes the rogues combat role from striker to controller, but he still has a combat role. What is less useful is something like an improved Sense Motive or Sleight of Hand - tough even those might potentially allow useful combat stunts.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You JUST said it really irks you and people need to try other games that do this better. That's you caring if people want to use D&D for those things. So, why then immediately pretend you don't care?

I can't answer for him. However, I can explain what I think he meant. I'm perfectly happy if people like D&D so much that they insist of attempting to run games it wasn't meant to run using its rules.

In the same way that I'm perfectly happy if a bunch of people get together in a backyard and play football in a 20ft x 20ft area using a cardboard box instead of a football. It won't really resemble football in any way that I'd recognize...but if people are having fun playing their football variant, then let them have fun.

On the other hand, if these same people start petitioning the NFL to change their rules so football is played with a cardboard box because they destroyed theirs and it isn't easy to find a cardboard box of the right size and weight to play their game anymore, I say "No, that's now how football is played. I'm happy that you found a variant that made you happy....but please don't mistake your variant for the original game."

D&D has always supported horror, from the very beginning, and in every edition of D&D. If you don't want D&D to support horror, tough. Ravenloft will always be there. All the horror creatures will still be there, and people will still play with plenty of horror in their games, and WOTC will continue to publish horror advetures in Dungeon magazine for Halloween.

Horror is kind of hard to quantify. Can you make people scared or run an adventure with a horror theme in D&D? Sure. Can you run a game where all the PCs spend their time running and screaming because ghosts are chasing them and they have no idea what to do about it like most horror movies? Unlikely. D&D characters are armed with magic items, spells, and supernaturally powerful fighting techniques. They beat up ghosts without difficulty. They kill the boogie man and banish him to another dimension where he's never heard from again.

Ravenloft had to add its own set of house rules to encourage this sort of behavior. Over the years, it's prevented a bunch of spells from working correctly, it's created insanity and fear rules, it's given evil way more power to make it more frightening and done a number of other things to try to encourage a horror setting.

The fact that it needed house rules for this sort of things just proves that the D&D rules aren't well suited for this sort of game. Even WITH those house rules, I found that most Ravenloft games didn't end up having the horror atmosphere that it was supposed to have. Mostly because the D&D rules don't work well with horror.

Are there people out there using it for horror? Sure. People can work AROUND any problem. All you have to do is ignore or change a bunch of rules and you can make it work perfectly. Some people are so used to ignoring and changing rules that they barely know what the original rules for D&D are. Some groups barely use rules at all and play games closer to Improv Acting than D&D. When you aren't even using the D&D rules at all, it's easy to make nearly anything work.

But that isn't D&D supporting those concepts, it's the individual groups having written their own game that supports it using D&D as a basis.