Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6183555" data-attributes="member: 42582">If this is true, I think it's a bit of an indictment of the mechanics. Rogues should be better than other PCs at achieving their goals via subterfuge - so better at establishing ambushes, better at leading foes astray, better at tricking them into abandoning their posts, etc.Nothing is wrong with those goals, in my view. But I don't see why sneak attack is crucial to achieving them. A PC who can reliably produce ambushes, or misdirection, is contributing to the party's combat goals.Part of D&Dnext's claim to fame is meant to be it's difference from 4e. 4e combat has a particular dynamic, both in respect of GM control over scene-framing and the pacing of resolution; and the rogue in 4e is a striker rather than a multi-target controller; and the upshot of these two design features is that sneak attack is a core ability for rogues. Furthermore, the difficulties in interfacing skill challenge mechanics and combat mechanics in 4e make it hard to build a martial, multi-target controller, because one the situation has been framed as a combat it is difficult for a skill-based PC to engage the situation in skill challenge terms.If D&Dnext is abandoning 4e's approach to combat, but still can't support a multi-target martial controller of the sort that a rogue could be, then what is it actually bringing in terms of mechanical innovation?</blockquote>