Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6176569" data-attributes="member: 7006">The other question of course that the designers have had to ask has been &quot;How do you balance a combat ability against a non-combat ability&quot;?&nbsp; And that's been the big issue I imagine about this the entire time.How much non-combat stuff equals the additional damage of Sneak Attack?&nbsp; Or can you even make that sort of equivalence?&nbsp; Is that even possible?&nbsp; With so many different tables having such a wide range of focus when it comes to the other two pillars of the game, can you make any sort definitive statement like &quot;These additional four languages equal Sneak Attack&quot;... or &quot;This extra Lore and a bigger expertise die equals Sneak Attack&quot;?If you take out Sneak Attack from the Rogue... obviously, the class is gimped in combat.&nbsp; Regardless of whether or not you give the rogue any extra abilities to the other two pillars.&nbsp; And I would imagine that those players who playtested this gimped version of the Rogue during combat scenes came to the conclusion that even with other stuff in return... the gimping is just too much.&nbsp; Especially if every table also then rated highly or lowly any of the other stuff they got from the other two pillars in return.So I would imagine that if/when the book is released and Sneak Attack ends up a feature across all rogue sub-classes... they're going to leave it up to an individual table to figure out for themselves what that SA is worth TO THEM, should the table's DM wish to have a non-SA sub-class or build.&nbsp; Because the first time WotC themselves tries to put in the book a sub-class without SA, probably 75% of the players are going to decry the non-combat stuff it got in return as not being enough, or being too much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6176569, member: 7006"] The other question of course that the designers have had to ask has been "How do you balance a combat ability against a non-combat ability"? And that's been the big issue I imagine about this the entire time. How much non-combat stuff equals the additional damage of Sneak Attack? Or can you even make that sort of equivalence? Is that even possible? With so many different tables having such a wide range of focus when it comes to the other two pillars of the game, can you make any sort definitive statement like "These additional four languages equal Sneak Attack"... or "This extra Lore and a bigger expertise die equals Sneak Attack"? If you take out Sneak Attack from the Rogue... obviously, the class is gimped in combat. Regardless of whether or not you give the rogue any extra abilities to the other two pillars. And I would imagine that those players who playtested this gimped version of the Rogue during combat scenes came to the conclusion that even with other stuff in return... the gimping is just too much. Especially if every table also then rated highly or lowly any of the other stuff they got from the other two pillars in return. So I would imagine that if/when the book is released and Sneak Attack ends up a feature across all rogue sub-classes... they're going to leave it up to an individual table to figure out for themselves what that SA is worth TO THEM, should the table's DM wish to have a non-SA sub-class or build. Because the first time WotC themselves tries to put in the book a sub-class without SA, probably 75% of the players are going to decry the non-combat stuff it got in return as not being enough, or being too much. [/QUOTE]

Verification