Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cmbarona" data-source="post: 6178503" data-attributes="member: 71281">It's hard for me to draw conclusions from this poll, because I think the questions aren't asked in a specific enough way. I changed my answer from A to C, but I had a specific caveat in mind.When asking if Sneak Attack should be mandatory, I first considered that as their main, and only, method of holding their own in combat. If that is the case, then yes, I do think the rules should prevent a new player from falling into a trap of non-combat-proficiency. However, it has become clear that the rules could be written in a way that allows each Rogue to choose a different combat ability in the place of the one they would be losing by foregoing Sneak Attack. If that were the case, then yes, I would prefer that option.What I would not prefer is a set of rules, at least in the PHB without any warning as to its consequences, that allows a Rogue to forgo their main combat ability and replace it with a non-combat one. At least not in D&amp;D, which is a game that leans on combat. It doesn't have to, please don't assume I'm saying that. But I'm assuming most D&amp;D players have at least one significant combat per session, sometimes more. It's a significant enough portion of the default rules that characters need to be able to contribute... unless you're an experienced enough player to understand what a tradeoff entails, and making tradeoffs like that involves a set of rules that I think belongs outside the PHB.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cmbarona, post: 6178503, member: 71281"] It's hard for me to draw conclusions from this poll, because I think the questions aren't asked in a specific enough way. I changed my answer from A to C, but I had a specific caveat in mind. When asking if Sneak Attack should be mandatory, I first considered that as their main, and only, method of holding their own in combat. If that is the case, then yes, I do think the rules should prevent a new player from falling into a trap of non-combat-proficiency. However, it has become clear that the rules [I]could[/I] be written in a way that allows each Rogue to choose a different combat ability in the place of the one they would be losing by foregoing Sneak Attack. If that were the case, then yes, I would prefer that option. What I would not prefer is a set of rules, at least in the PHB without any warning as to its consequences, that allows a Rogue to forgo their main combat ability and replace it with a non-combat one. At least not in D&D, which is a game that leans on combat. It doesn't have to, please don't assume I'm saying that. But I'm assuming most D&D players have at least one significant combat per session, sometimes more. It's a significant enough portion of the default rules that characters need to be able to contribute... unless you're an experienced enough player to understand what a tradeoff entails, and making tradeoffs like that involves a set of rules that I think belongs outside the PHB. [/QUOTE]

Verification