Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6177602" data-attributes="member: 42582">I voted for Option B, but that was before reading the thread. Some of the arguments for Option C are pretty good ones.My preference would be for two sorts of options:(1) I like [MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION]'s idea that the both the triggering condition for sneak attack, and the form that the bonus damage takes (eg debuffs), can be variable across individual character builds. (2) But I also like the idea that there would be sub-classes whose strength is not combat (whether as striker or controller) but non-combat, be that exploration, deception, lore or some mix of possibilities.While I feel some of the force of [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]'s argument against (2),  I think that the game already permits building combat-weak PCs. For instance, a wizard can be built who only learns non-damaging spells: say, an illusionist who knows Light, Minor Image, Prestidigitation, Charm Person, Disguise Self, Fog Cloud and Comprehend Languages.If the game permits that sort of PC, why not a non-magic using PC who specialises in (non-magical) prestidigitation, social skills, disguises, languages and the use of smoke-and-mirrors distractions (say flash powder and sneaking to distract and confuse enemies)?In either magic-using or non-magic-using form this PC does put certain demands on a GM that a more straightforward attack-and-damage PC does not; but that's something for advice about playstyles and the like, and isn't grounds for eliminating these builds from the game.(One option would be to have these sorts of combat tactics inflict psychic damage, but in D&Dnext psychic damage seems to be confined to mind-blasting effects like Feeblemmind and Mind Blast, rather than more mundane forms of mental stress also.)I would much rather that a rogue get two attacks at 8th level like the other martial classes - and have sneak attack dialed down appropriately for those rogues who have it - then have the current approach, which makes rogue combat competence so dependent upon this weird class feature which, apart from anything else, is hard to reconcile with the fact that fighters are meant to be the experts at fighting.If the rogue played, by default, more like an AD&D leather armour wearing fighter/thief, I would rather that to a sneak-attacking glass cannon. Then non-sneak attack builds would still have a minimal combat viability - comparable to a de-magiched cleric in attack and defence - but instead of building on that with sneak attack would have other domains of expertise.</blockquote>

Verification