Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sneak Attack: optional or mandatory?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6179035" data-attributes="member: 6681948"><p>That frequency would determine how costly it is to make a poor choice. If a Rogue who trades away Sneak Attack (or, for that matter, a Wizard who decides he picked the wrong specialty) is locked in for 2 or 3 levels, that's too long. Retraining, to the extent it has ever been allowed historically, has been slow, with pretty limited changes at each step.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>COMBAT reliability. I'd be fine with options that allow a rogue to use social skills to get a significant advantage in combat, but that means accepting rogues can use social skills not only on hostile, unwilling targets, but on targets actively attacking them. It also means, that PC and NPC rogues must be allowed to use the same skills - with binding results - on PC's. Just like a wizard casts Charm Person on a PC and, assuming he fails his save, the PC is bound by with the result.</p><p></p><p>Stealth and distraction? You mean like getting the opponent to momentarily drop his guard enabling a devastating blow to penetrate his defenses? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> In any case, we're back to combat uses. My point was simply that an expertise die for noncombat skills does not make the rogue combat-viable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By getting rid of the d4 (bumped to d6) for HD, and bumping all d6 to d8,Pathfinder got the first half. Three BAB progressions, each linked to a HD (6/8/10, with the Barbarian the unusual d12).</p><p></p><p>Note that I also believe the fighter should not be able to trade away his non-combat abilities for better combat skills. Setting the bar that the difference should be more or less the same, and both should have significant utility in both combat and non-combat (or all three pillars, or also ranged and melee combat, or whatever we consider a significant part of the game) would be an excellent goal.</p><p></p><p>Until and unless there are other equally viable combat abilities for the Rogue, and it sounds like there will be none in the core/default, I remain with the view the Rogue needs Sneak Attack. I would much rather he got a choice of a variety of combat abilities, but the designers do not appear to be pursuing that approach, unfortunately.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6179035, member: 6681948"] That frequency would determine how costly it is to make a poor choice. If a Rogue who trades away Sneak Attack (or, for that matter, a Wizard who decides he picked the wrong specialty) is locked in for 2 or 3 levels, that's too long. Retraining, to the extent it has ever been allowed historically, has been slow, with pretty limited changes at each step. COMBAT reliability. I'd be fine with options that allow a rogue to use social skills to get a significant advantage in combat, but that means accepting rogues can use social skills not only on hostile, unwilling targets, but on targets actively attacking them. It also means, that PC and NPC rogues must be allowed to use the same skills - with binding results - on PC's. Just like a wizard casts Charm Person on a PC and, assuming he fails his save, the PC is bound by with the result. Stealth and distraction? You mean like getting the opponent to momentarily drop his guard enabling a devastating blow to penetrate his defenses? ;) In any case, we're back to combat uses. My point was simply that an expertise die for noncombat skills does not make the rogue combat-viable. By getting rid of the d4 (bumped to d6) for HD, and bumping all d6 to d8,Pathfinder got the first half. Three BAB progressions, each linked to a HD (6/8/10, with the Barbarian the unusual d12). Note that I also believe the fighter should not be able to trade away his non-combat abilities for better combat skills. Setting the bar that the difference should be more or less the same, and both should have significant utility in both combat and non-combat (or all three pillars, or also ranged and melee combat, or whatever we consider a significant part of the game) would be an excellent goal. Until and unless there are other equally viable combat abilities for the Rogue, and it sounds like there will be none in the core/default, I remain with the view the Rogue needs Sneak Attack. I would much rather he got a choice of a variety of combat abilities, but the designers do not appear to be pursuing that approach, unfortunately. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sneak Attack: optional or mandatory?
Top