Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6178097" data-attributes="member: 2525">No we're not.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; We're talking about a single situational special combat ability (sneak attack).&nbsp; It's something that's been successfully traded in prior editions of the game with no appreciable impact to people's overall games.&nbsp; For example, in 3e, an official variant rogue allowed you to gain feats and lose sneak attack.Wait, you asked me what rules other editions had to support these kinds of things, and I gave them to you.&nbsp; You didn't asked me &quot;find me an identical rule&quot;.&nbsp; Way to move the goalposts! It's not the rogues main combat feature.&nbsp; Their main combat feature is hitting you from a hidden spot with an arrow or a finesse weapon.&nbsp; That's always be the rogues best combat tactics.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's not their main combat ability.Only if it were nothing at all like that.&nbsp; Come on now...cut the BS.&nbsp; 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 was staying on topic.&nbsp; The fighter, for example, got feats in 3e as their primary class feature.&nbsp; If they selected non-combat feats instead of combat feats, that was them trading away.&nbsp; That IS the topic.As for the rogue, it's not their entire combat.&nbsp; You're exaggerating for effect here.&nbsp; 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 don't know why you think this sort of misrepresentation is persuasive, but it's not.&nbsp; 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 quoted you the first sentence, which defines itself as horror, and you punt? LOL</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6178097, member: 2525"] 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. 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! 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. 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 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. 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 quoted you the first sentence, which defines itself as horror, and you punt? LOL [/QUOTE]

Verification