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

[sheadunne]

No class is, as there are no Power Sources in pre-4th Ed (thank god, for me).

See above. I was referring to martial/caster not 4e power sources.

 

[Dausuul]

Sneak attack is fine, as long as it, you know, requires SNEAKING.

Yeah, I'd like to see more focus on this. How often do 3E and 4E rogues bother with stealth to get sneak attack? Most of the time they just flank and stab.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yeah, I'd like to see more focus on this. How often do 3E and 4E rogues bother with stealth to get sneak attack? Most of the time they just flank and stab.

Stealth is really hard to use in combat (for good reason). The Cunning Sneak rogue build does make this pretty easy, as well as a few scattered PH1 rogue and Essentials thief utility powers. However, you don't need this to sneak attack, since there's many ways of getting combat advantage.

If sneak attack required sneaking, I would hope rogues would get sneaking abilities that go beyond "bonus to Stealth checks".

 

[Dausuul]

Stealth is really hard to use in combat (for good reason). The Cunning Sneak rogue build does make this pretty easy, as well as a few scattered PH1 rogue and Essentials thief utility powers. However, you don't need this to sneak attack, since there's many ways of getting combat advantage.

If sneak attack required sneaking, I would hope rogues would get sneaking abilities that go beyond "bonus to Stealth checks".

Oh, absolutely. Sneak attack needs to be a viable combat option, which means sneaking also needs to be a viable combat option. It's interesting to note that both of the current packet's rogue builds (thief and assassin) move in this direction somewhat. The assassin gets a monster damage bonus when attacking a surprised foe; the thief gets an extra action each turn which can be used to hustle, disengage, or hide.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Indeed. I am arguing with people who claim the game should never allow the option of swapping sneak attack for a more non-combat ability - not in a supplement or module or any sort of future release. That it simply shouldn't be allowed under the rules.

I'm going to take a stab at trying to explain why I think it would be a bad thing for the game to present the option to decrease ability in one pillar to excel at another.

I prefer to have PCs who can contribute equally but differently in all situations. I like proactive, invested players, who when presented a situation sees multiple options laid out before them. Those options shouldn't be driven by their character's mechanics but by the fiction of the game. A character who has given up a great deal of combat prowess is going to want to avoid combat. A character who has given up a great deal of exploration options will not care about exploration. A character who has given up the ability to take part in social interaction won't be as interested in intrigue. So by giving hte option to remove combat prowess in favor of, say, social interaction, to my mind, is taking away useful options from the player. Suddenly you aren't siloing abilities, you're siloing PCs.

Beyond that, I want players who are invested and excited by all kinds of different aspects of gameplay. When the PCs come into the den of thieves and have to convince the guildmaster to help them, I don't want gameplay to suddenly be driven by the guy who forewent Sneak Attack for Improved Parlay or whatever ability replaces it. I want the group as a whole to come together, for everyone to want to interact here. That means I want every PC to have a relevant interaction ability. This is especially true if this encounter is the climax of the adventure or session, just as if it had been a fight with a BBEG.

So whatever option you want to give the PC in exchange for Sneak Attack? I want that to be siloed out. I want all rogues to have access to that as part of their interaction pillar. Then, they can change that out for something different way of interacting. Options are great. Removing options isn't great, and I don't think it should be encouraged or really even allowed. I say the same about, for example, giving the rogue to forego their skill dice for more combat ability, or give up trap finding for better social interaction. Let everyone have their standard abilities in each pillar and let them customize that to their heart's content.

But, don't force character to choose which pillar to specialize in, which is basically what would happen if you could trade one pillar for another. If someone wants their PC to be a smooth talker, they shouldn't have to give up their ability to be an equal in combat. That's not something I want to see in D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to take a stab at trying to explain why I think it would be a bad thing for the game to present the option to decrease ability in one pillar to excel at another.

I prefer to have PCs who can contribute equally but differently in all situations.

<snip>

I want players who are invested and excited by all kinds of different aspects of gameplay. When the PCs come into the den of thieves and have to convince the guildmaster to help them, I don't want gameplay to suddenly be driven by the guy who forewent Sneak Attack for Improved Parlay or whatever ability replaces it.

How do you reconcile that with the traditional D&D approach to spell memorisation, which permits exactly this - it permits a wizard taking a specialised load-out, and it creates situations where (for instance) the solution to the guildmaster negotiation is some sort of charm spell.

 

[Starfox]

A charm spell was never a genuine solution to a social scene around here. A stopgap measure yes, but charm wears of and often leaves the victim angrier than he was.

 

[Minigiant]

Spell memorization allows for changing of ones spells. Having the improper loadout of spells fr the day's challenge and being useless is part of the design. It's only a problem if the player repeats this or purposely avoids spells of a common obstacle of the setting or playstyle.

Because rogues cannot adjust their features on a regular basis to fitting the setting, the option to remove sneak attack and not replace it with a combat class feature would be bad.

It's the same as a DM allowing a sorcerer to not take combat spells in a combat heavy 3rd edition campaign

 

[silverblade56]

I already detailed this in the post you quoted, but thieves get: 1) sneak abilities, 2) trap abilities, 3) skill with a rapier and bow (along with their typically high dexterity and attack bonuses), 4) often superior persuasion abilities, 5) climbing abilities, 6) the ability to wear some light armors, 7) etc.. Commoners do not get any of that.



I just explained why it is enough to make the rogue competent in combat. I am not saying that the option should be there to remove sneak attack and replace it with nothing. The thing that replaces it is what would be worth it for the player to choose as an option.



Nothing at all. My position, stated repeatedly, is that I think the rogue player should HAVE THE OPTION TO choose a more non-combat ability in place of sneak attack, if they so choose, perhaps contained in a supplementary book.



Indeed. I am arguing with people who claim the game should never allow the option of swapping sneak attack for a more non-combat ability - not in a supplement or module or any sort of future release. That it simply shouldn't be allowed under the rules.

I agree that the rogue doesn't need sneak attack to be effective in combat, but he does need something more useful in combat than some skills and imagination from a game mechanic standpoint, unless those skills come with abilities that allow him to contribute in combat to the same degree sneak attack does. If they want to have a core option to replace sneak attack with something equally useful in combat that's fine. I don't, however, think it's a good idea to let them trade it (at least in the initial core rules)for out of combat skills, skill dice, expertise dice, or whatever the skill mechanic is. You seem to be saying you are fine with a rogue that can trade off his primary combat schtick for more skills because having a high dex, a rapier, a shortbow, tumble, climb, and stealth is "good enough". You may be able to accomplish a lot with imagination, a lenient DM, and some roguish skills, but that really doesn't replace actual class abilities. What about players that aren't good at thinking outside the box? The game is for them too. That sounds like a way for an inexperienced player to accidently make a charater that isn't very good at combat, which most D&D games have a lot of, and make him be bored for a significant portion of the game. That isn't good for the game, and just saying " Be more creative." or "Think outside of the box" doesn't really cut it in that situation. I don't think it would serve the game well to have a lot of rogues that are like 1E/2E thieves, very suboptimal in combat while the other classes get good combat abilities to play with.

 

[ThirdWizard]

How do you reconcile that with the traditional D&D approach to spell memorisation, which permits exactly this - it permits a wizard taking a specialised load-out, and it creates situations where (for instance) the solution to the guildmaster negotiation is some sort of charm spell.

I think in this thread people have repeatedly pointed out how a daily spell selection is completely different than a character build that can't be changed (or can only be changed every several levels through retraining).

Spell lists are also much more granular than other options all the other classes have. You can choose degrees based on how much of each pillar you expect to run into per day. Spells selection allows a spellcaster to operate on any pillar based on what is coming up.

If you wanted to do something similar with rogues, you'd have to give them somewhere around 20 abilities from a larger list, easily changeable, and have them work in various pillars sometimes overlapping.