Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6178735" data-attributes="member: 2525">Uh, all of them?If you think any module requires a certain tactic to resolve the party goals, you've opted for a one-true-way system without even realizing it.&nbsp; Pretty much any adventure can be resolved without a lot of combat, if that's the approach the party decides to take.I get it, you love combat in your D&amp;D.&nbsp; Sometimes I do too.&nbsp; Now, do you get some people do things different, and it's a role playing game? Wargames are intended for 100% combat.&nbsp; This is not a wargame.&nbsp; It's a role playing game, where the party decides how to approach each situation, and some use combat as a conflict resolver, and others use other methods.&nbsp; We once &quot;beat&quot; the hall of the giant kings without using any combat abilities, and we had a blast.Which raises a related point.&nbsp; N'raac, did you ever play a TSR version of the game, for any extended period of time? Or are you coming at this just from a WOTC-era perspective?Substantiate your claim that removing sneak attack from the rogue equates fairly with having no combat abilities competitive with the other characters such that the rogue is a non-issue in combat.&nbsp; That seems to be a patently false exaggeration given my experience, but I am listening to your evidence.&nbsp; So make a 5th level (average level - most games last from first to tenth level according to survey data) group using the playtest pre-gens and fairly balanced/normal equipment and challenges, remove sneak attack and replace it with nothing, and show me how that converts the rogue to a non-issue in combat.&nbsp; I am guessing they're not nearly as non-issue as you think, and you will find sneak-attack isn't the critical factor in the rogue being viable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6178735, member: 2525"] Uh, all of them? If you think any module requires a certain tactic to resolve the party goals, you've opted for a one-true-way system without even realizing it. Pretty much any adventure can be resolved without a lot of combat, if that's the approach the party decides to take. I get it, you love combat in your D&D. Sometimes I do too. Now, do you get some people do things different, and it's a role playing game? Wargames are intended for 100% combat. This is not a wargame. It's a role playing game, where the party decides how to approach each situation, and some use combat as a conflict resolver, and others use other methods. We once "beat" the hall of the giant kings without using any combat abilities, and we had a blast. Which raises a related point. N'raac, did you ever play a TSR version of the game, for any extended period of time? Or are you coming at this just from a WOTC-era perspective? Substantiate your claim that removing sneak attack from the rogue equates fairly with having no combat abilities competitive with the other characters such that the rogue is a non-issue in combat. That seems to be a patently false exaggeration given my experience, but I am listening to your evidence. So make a 5th level (average level - most games last from first to tenth level according to survey data) group using the playtest pre-gens and fairly balanced/normal equipment and challenges, remove sneak attack and replace it with nothing, and show me how that converts the rogue to a non-issue in combat. I am guessing they're not nearly as non-issue as you think, and you will find sneak-attack isn't the critical factor in the rogue being viable. [/QUOTE]

Verification