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

[N'raac]

But my point (and I think part of @Mistwell'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.

Well and good - and those abilities would be "combat abilities", in my view, just like that Acrobat who can deftly avoid attacks, but keep enemies occupied while other characters put their teammates down. Or my own 3e fighter whose main focus was setting the Rogue up to flank and keeping opponents from getting to the Sorcerer, for that matter - the Barbarian did way more damage, but he didn't Disarm and Trip opponents, or avoid AoO's to maneuver into flanking position.

What I am opposed to is a Rogue whose combat options are limited to "swing and miss; swing and miss; swing, miraculously hit for negligible damage; swing and miss", "use a basic mechanic in the hopes of having some minor impact" or "hide/run away" because he has specialized in another area to such an extent that it is the only area he can be effective in. The converse, really, of the 8 CHA, 8 INT warrior who dedicates all of his character resources to melee damage, and as a result has no purpose outside of combat (or even in combat if he can't close for melee) and plays on the "wake me when we roll for initiative" model. Even that's fine if it's a style the group wants, but I would prefer to see characters with some balance presented as the default, and hyperspecialization presented as a module caveated with the risk of players tuning out of/being frustrated by large parts of the game, while dominating other parts, because they are overspecialized, especially when compared to the other characters.

 

[N'raac]

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.

While not directly on topic, there are limits to what the rules, rather than player attitude and approach, can accomplish. No matter how much the rules do to motivate a horror attitude, players sitting around the table cracking jokes, rejecting any possibility their stalwart heroes might ever feel the slightest sliver of fear or negative emotion ("I wade through the pool filled with writing zombie arms to attack the animated corpses that were my character's family") are going to prevent a horror atmosphere taking hold.

This is no different from any other genre - murderous "superheroes", moral, altruistic characters in a "hard-bitten mercenaries" or attacking the villain in mid-moustache twirl, refusing to wait until the GM completes his monologue all wreck the atmosphere of those games just as much. Its another example of the group needing to be on the same page as to the game they want to play.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Lets not get off topic here. We're talking about trading a character's basic combat ability for a non-combat ability. None of those are examples of that. In fact, you haven't given a single example of that. We're not talking about passing up a combat feat for a non-combat feat. We're talking about passing up Sneak Attack, the rogue's main combat feature. It would be like a wizard no longer having spells but only rituals that take 10 minutes to cast.

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 don't think I'm the one cherry picking. Remember, to stay on topic, it has to be a trade of a combat ability for a non-combat one. And not just any combat ability, but one that pretty much is the character's entire combat schtick. If the rogue loses sneak attack, he might as well go get a pizza during combat and let everybody else take care of it.

I know you hate talking about other RPGs for some reason, but this reminds me of one of the worst problems with Shadowrun. The decker has his thing, hacking, and everybody else has their thing, everything else. So if the Decker is hacking, he's playing his own little minigame. If he's not hacking, he's just kind of watching everybody else. This is problematic for gameplay. Nobody wants to be a spectator in an RPG. They want to play!

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

I doubt we'll agree on this, and it doesn't actually apply to the conversation at all, so we should just drop the whole "Is Ravenloft horror" thread.

 

[N'raac]

Drop an argument? This here's the Internet, man - that kind of talk's likely to get you lynched!

On that subject, I liked the Paizo comment on Carrion Crown being horror, but also Pathfinder. That meant that, while scared PC's was certainly part of the goal, they are still heroes expected to have, and take up, the arms and spells to resist and defeat the horrors, not run screaming. That, to me, is also a good description of the Ravenloft setting at its best.

ADDENDUM: I think it is fair to say d20 can do "horror" (pants-wetting PC's, screaming likel little girls horror), but I don't think that's D&D. YMMV

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You replied to me, and it's what I was talking about. I am not in charge of the thread, but I damn well am in charge of the things I say. So if you wanted to talk about something else, why did you say it to me, quoting me?

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.

And I made that clear you're constructing a strawman. The Rogue still uses swords and bows, not a simple dagger. They still have their Dex bonus on that bow. They can still attack from surprise while hiding. The only thing they lost was sneak attack in this scenario. So please, stop claiming it's just a wizard's equivalent 1d4 attack.

 

[Mistwell]

Lets not get off topic here. We're talking about trading a character's basic combat ability for a non-combat ability.

No we're not. At least, that's not what I am talking about, and I've repeatedly said this is not about reducing weapon proficiencies, main stat, or any of the other basic combat abilities. We're talking about a single situational special combat ability (sneak attack). It's something that's been successfully traded in prior editions of the game with no appreciable impact to people's overall games. For example, in 3e, an official variant rogue allowed you to gain feats and lose sneak attack.

None of those are examples of that. In fact, you haven't given a single example of that.

Wait, you asked me what rules other editions had to support these kinds of things, and I gave them to you. You didn't asked me "find me an identical rule". Way to move the goalposts!

We're not talking about passing up a combat feat for a non-combat feat. We're talking about passing up Sneak Attack, the rogue's main combat feature.

It's not the rogues main combat feature. Their main combat feature is hitting you from a hidden spot with an arrow or a finesse weapon. That's always be the rogues best combat tactics. Sneak attack is situational, gives no attack bonus, and only adds a relatively minor amount of damage at the lower levels that most people play with. It's not their main combat ability.

It would be like a wizard no longer having spells but only rituals that take 10 minutes to cast.

Only if it were nothing at all like that. Come on now...cut the BS. It would be like a wizard not adding some bonus damage from an implement or something. Sneak Attack is just a damage bonus to another attack, not the attack itself.

I don't think I'm the one cherry picking. Remember, to stay on topic, it has to be a trade of a combat ability for a non-combat one. And not just any combat ability, but one that pretty much is the character's entire combat schtick.

I was staying on topic. The fighter, for example, got feats in 3e as their primary class feature. If they selected non-combat feats instead of combat feats, that was them trading away. That IS the topic.

As for the rogue, it's not their entire combat. You're exaggerating for effect here. It's an entirely meaningless ability if they don't hit, and that hit itself will do more damage at most levels than the sneak attack adds to it.

If the rogue loses sneak attack, he might as well go get a pizza during combat and let everybody else take care of it.

I don't know why you think this sort of misrepresentation is persuasive, but it's not. All it does is make me question the rest of your posts, since I know you will exaggerate for effect and mock even when the situation doesn't call for it.

I doubt we'll agree on this, and it doesn't actually apply to the conversation at all, so we should just drop the whole "Is Ravenloft horror" thread.

I quoted you the first sentence, which defines itself as horror, and you punt? LOL

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm looking at the rogue's abilities in Next, and really there's Sneak Attack or attacks that require Sneak Attack. Yes, there are a few more like Poison or Ace in the Hole, but the vast majority of a rogue's combat ability comes from Sneak Attack. I don't see how that can be disputed. Mearls has been very clear, increased damage is the main way to differentiate a high level character's offensive ability from a low level's due to the flat math they're going for.

The rogue's attack bonus goes from +1 to +3. Not a big difference. Sneak Attack damage goes from +1d6 to +7d6. That's what makes a high level rogue work in combat. Rogues have two paths in the play test: Assassination (combat focused) and Thievery (exploration focused). Take away Sneak Attack and the Assassination rogue loses access to several key abilities and the Thievery rogue has almost no combat ability.

I don't see how this is disputable. That's just the way it is.

 

[cmbarona]

It's not the rogues main combat feature. Their main combat feature is hitting you from a hidden spot with an arrow or a finesse weapon. That's always be the rogues best combat tactics. Sneak attack is situational, gives no attack bonus, and only adds a relatively minor amount of damage at the lower levels that most people play with. It's not their main combat ability.

*snip*

As for the rogue, it's not their entire combat. You're exaggerating for effect here. It's an entirely meaningless ability if they don't hit, and that hit itself will do more damage at most levels than the sneak attack adds to it.

I'd like to point out that this really depends on the specific iteration of Sneak Attack. There has been some significant fluctuation throughout the D&D Next run, not to mention earlier editions of D&D. I'm currently playing a level 7 Rogue. Right now, that means +2d6. Back in March, it meant +4d6. The level depends, too, though I think it's unfair to dismiss higher level play because fewer people get there. Sometimes it's not too significant. Other times it's tantamount to a second, or at higher levels even a third or fourth, attack when it hits. So, how much of a role it plays can vary greatly depending on the specific rules for Sneak Attack.

 

[Mark1733]

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).

Would you agree though that rogues are typically opportunists at heart? If so, bsckstabbing is simply one combat-related form of opportunism. I think thry are, but they dont neccesarily develop exactly the same way for all rogues. Make it available, but optional.

 

[Kavon]

Would you agree though that rogues are typically opportunists at heart? If so, backstabbing is simply one combat-related form of opportunism. I think they are, but they don't necessarily develop exactly the same way for all rogues. Make it available, but optional.

Yeah, exactly. Like I'd want for the Cleric to have Turn Undead be one of many options, I'd want Sneak Attack to be one of many options for the Rogue.