Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ryltar" data-source="post: 2244381" data-attributes="member: 19393">In my opinion, it becomes what it's supposed to be: an extremely powerful attack, but one that cannot be made every turn. For an explanation, please see below <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.Snapdragyn: I think the problem is not with the facing rules, but rather with a different understanding of what sneak attacks are supposed to be. For me, there is nothing, and I repeat: nothing more unrealistic than a rogue that is sneak attacking at every turn just because he's flanking. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that an enemy is now able to actually avoid being sneak attacked at every turn ... think about it. You get attacked by two guys. One does 10 damage to you every round, the other 30. Yet, because facing is abstract in the RAW, you cannot turn toward the one attacker that is obviously exploiting weaknesses in your armor or defense - you have to take his attacks, no matter what, the only option is killing one flanker before they kill you or moving away, thus drawing AoO. By the UA rules, you may now turn towards the enemy that - obviously! - is putting more hurtin' on you, and deny him that opportunity. I think that it doesn't invalidate sneak attacks, in fact, it makes them perfectly viable in the way I envision them. YMMV, of course <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.and re: Glassjaw: By the definition I have put forth, sneak attacks become more difficult to employ, but not less powerful - they just don't happen as much. If your understanding of sneaking is different, of course, you might argue that it takes away some of the options the rogue class currently has. I say it's for the better, because the rogue now has to actually think about his movement instead of just doing the old "well, we'll flank him" thing. If you feel that it is too difficult to employ, or too harsh on the rogue, you might consider upping the sneak attack damage, maybe to 1d8 per "level".Yep, same problem here. Also, hexes are so ... old-school <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /></blockquote>

Verification