Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ellington" data-source="post: 5871222" data-attributes="member: 6692166">In a recent <a href="http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/03/28/sneak_attack_and_backstab" target="_blank">blog post</a>, it was hinted that the rogue's sneak attack or backstab would be mechanically similar to the one in the previous two editions. This means flanking will obviously be important to the rogue once more, which I guess is fine since it rewards teamwork and proper positioning. But should the rogue's bonus damage when flanking and the rogue's bonus damage when attacking the enemy from an advantage be the same? I began playing thieves in Baldur's Gate before I even knew D&D existed. Back then, it was all about the one crucial backstab. It dealt a LOT of damage, but chances were you would probably only use it once per battle, maybe more often if you had means of getting back into stealth such as the party wizard casting invisibility on you or whatever. Whenever the backstab was out of the way, you were pretty much left with a gimped fighter.When 3E came along and backstab turned into sneak attack, the rogue wasn't as limited when using its sneak attack. Now you could gain the bonus damage when flanking and whenever attacking a flat-footed opponent. This opened up a lot of possibilities and gave the rogue something to after exiting stealth. However, it came at a cost; that single crucial backstab vanished and became just as powerful as any of those countless attacks you'd get when flanking an enemy and dual wielding. That high damage, class defining feature the thief had was replaced by a more often used sneak attack that was incredibly dependent on other characters. I don't think that is the perfect progression of the class and I think it could have been handled better.See, to me the rogue is all about gaining an advantage over your opponent and then utilizing that advantage 100%. The rogue isn't as good in combat as the fighter, but what it lacks in power in makes up for in utilizing the weaknesses of others and gaining an advantage over them. Whether the advantage is gained by sneaking up on the enemy, making a clever feint in combat, tumbling past the opponent to catch it off guard or bluffing it into a false sense of security, it should be about that one crucial strike. That "Just as planned." moment. A high burst damage strike that turn the tide of battle after cleverly gaining an advantage over him and not a somewhat steady boost in attack you get from dual wielding and flanking an opponent over and over and over. That's what the rogue should be all about, to me anyways.That's not to say the bonus damage the rogue should get for flanking should disappear entirely. As I said earlier, it still rewards teamwork and clever positioning and I'm all for that. I just don't think it should be as powerful as that all-important strike, and instead a means for the rogue to be effective when that strike failed or isn't available. So yeah, that's my opinion on it in a nutshell. The rogue should have two "sneak attack" mechanics; one of which should deal a lot of damage and be available when you catch the opponent flat footed, and one should deal some bonus damage and be available when flanking your opponent or having him at a minor advantage (high ground, maybe?). Maybe it could even just be handled as the same mechanic by varying damage on "major advantage" (attacking from stealth or after feinting) and "minor advantage" (attacking when flanking or from high ground).I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but I just wanted to get this out there. This is also my first post here, so don't be too hard on me. Thanks for reading my ramblings!</blockquote>

Verification