Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Larrin" data-source="post: 6177509" data-attributes="member: 55816">I would like sneak attack to be the 'default'.&nbsp; You can craft a thousand different combat substitutions, but in the end sneak attack is simple and fits the broad-strokes version of a rogue and most rogue subclasses.&nbsp; You sneak, then attack.&nbsp; Its hard to beat that, any simpler and it would just be &quot;attack&quot;.&nbsp; As edditions have progressed the 'sneak' portion has become easier, and many variations simply play with what is defined as 'sneak'.&nbsp; I see no good reason why most base models of rogue subclasses shouldn't simply start with it.Options to replace it? Sure. No reason not to. But make it a choice that ONLY affects sneak attack, not an entire subclass.&nbsp; That way ANY subclass can have the simple, effective fun of sneak attack and ANY subclass can have the fun, new option that someone feels is better for their character than sneak attack.&nbsp; If giving up sneak attack is a prerequisite to taking a subclass, you are only hurting the subclass, not making it better.&nbsp; That is the choice that people really hated making (I think).&nbsp; A swashbuckler that MUST give up sneak attack will always be inferior to a swashbuckler that CAN give up sneak attack.My goal: The first time player can take any subclass of rogue and the DM can be assured that they still have the handy tool of sneak attack to fall back on in combat.&nbsp; The player that knows what he is doing can take any subclass of rogue and ditch the sneak attack he doesn't want for something he knows will make his character better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Larrin, post: 6177509, member: 55816"] I would like sneak attack to be the 'default'. You can craft a thousand different combat substitutions, but in the end sneak attack is simple and fits the broad-strokes version of a rogue and most rogue subclasses. You sneak, then attack. Its hard to beat that, any simpler and it would just be "attack". As edditions have progressed the 'sneak' portion has become easier, and many variations simply play with what is defined as 'sneak'. I see no good reason why most base models of rogue subclasses shouldn't simply start with it. Options to replace it? Sure. No reason not to. But make it a choice that ONLY affects sneak attack, not an entire subclass. That way ANY subclass can have the simple, effective fun of sneak attack and ANY subclass can have the fun, new option that someone feels is better for their character than sneak attack. If giving up sneak attack is a prerequisite to taking a subclass, you are only hurting the subclass, not making it better. That is the choice that people really hated making (I think). A swashbuckler that MUST give up sneak attack will always be inferior to a swashbuckler that CAN give up sneak attack. My goal: The first time player can take any subclass of rogue and the DM can be assured that they still have the handy tool of sneak attack to fall back on in combat. The player that knows what he is doing can take any subclass of rogue and ditch the sneak attack he doesn't want for something he knows will make his character better. [/QUOTE]

Verification