You can't sneak attack in 3e if the target has concealment of any sort. This includes dark alleys, 2nd level spells (Blur), smoke and other conditions. Presumably the argument is that you can't see the target well enough to target their weak points.
D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad
You can't sneak attack in 3e if the target has concealment of any sort. This includes dark alleys, 2nd level spells (Blur), smoke and other conditions. Presumably the argument is that you can't see the target well enough to target their weak points.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I think as long as you are in the dark alley, and the target is in the light, it is doable (that would be my judgment anyways). It looks like the target having concealnment is the issue, not the rogue having concealement. But this is definitely a rule i wouldn't pay much attention to if it interefered with a character making a sneak attack from the darkness when that seems like it would reasonable. But like i said, for my preferred edition, it isn't a factor anyways.
We had always played 1e/2e "backstab" as that you had to both surprise the bad guy and be behind them. In 1e, I was strict enough as DM to where you had to be directly behind the bad guy.
I think you only needed flanking in 3e/4e to get sneak attack damage.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Plus, they're more fun for those who aren't that interested in having characters that are combatasauri.
In my ongoing LotR comparison, if we have Samwise as a D&D character who is in a dragon's fight, it might make sense for him to have a "basic contribution" that is some sort of healing or defensive effect ("Don't you give up on me, Mr. Frodo!" could trigger another character's Second Wind, or grant someone an extra one!). But since Samwise's player is choosing to be someone who sucks at combat, that's not going to be how they want to contribute to the challenge. Compared to a D&D-style combat cleric, for instance, his pep talk is mild (equal to the difference between the rogue's 1d8 damage from a bow and the fighter's 3d8+1d6 damage from his super greatsword, or whatever).
What WOULD be fun for Samwise's player (assuming that he's a guy who's aiming to be great at Interaction) would be to to break the effects of fear, to win the dragon over with his simple charm and courage (and maybe a grilled coney), to convince the dragon to leave him and his friends alone. The moment Gimli and Legolas and Aragorn (and the D&D Combat Cleric) start filling the thing full of holes, that becomes an untenable approach....unless there are parts of the fight (if it must last an hour) where the warriors aren't able to contribute as much. Perhaps at the start, when the Dragon's fear is crippling without a little Interaction pep-talk, and toward the midpoint when the dragon realizes these characters are a real threat and perches on a ledge out of reach to dialogue, and maybe near the end when the final blow is being considered, perhaps Sam can convince it to go out without losing its life.
I think that's a viable thing for the outlying critters that some folks might want to spend half a session or so fighting. It's something the rules can support perhaps a little like 4e tried to support solos vs. standards vs. minions: just as there are some monsters who are an entire encounter in and of themselves, there are also some monsters who are entire adventures in and of themselves, and like any adventure, they'll need a mix of Interaction, Exploration, and Combat to overcome.
Neonchameleon said:
Well, that's not true. It seems like you don't quite understand the ramifications of the three pillars for game design or the potential of a quick and easy rule-set to facilitate judgement calls. I can help elucidate you, if you'd like to understand.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
I read that and I see "What would be fun for Samwise's player is to prevent the combatants having their fun." Samwise's player is trying to prevent the combat - Gimli and Legolas are built for the combat. In order for Samwise's interaction pep talk to work you need to structure the fight in a way that probably isn't to the tastes of the warriors. You essentially need to make each boss into a video game multi-part boss behaving in a very very gamist manner. And then Sam needs to kill-steal.
With your suggestions, Sam is an inherently disruptive concept for the game. He's reducing the DM's fun because the DM has to move the monsters specifically to suit Sam. And he's reducing the other players' fun by stealing the spotlight in ways that make little sense and stealing the kill and not even claiming it. I'd therefore take a look at Sam's character sheet and ask the player to come up with a new one.
Or you could allow Samwise to be a 4e lazy warlord and so contribute to the combat. Of course that takes using hit points as 4e hit points which, I believe, is a non-starter for you.
I'm also not saying rogues aren't awesome. They are. Sam's just no rogue.
I disagree. If a monster is an entire adventure in itself it isn't a monster. It's an adventure about defeating that monster.
Oh, I understand the pillars for game design. I just do not understand in what world a dragon can have a fearsome fighter right in its face (and the fighter be fearsome enough for the dragon to respect it) and a (non-Kender - for Kender I'll make an exception) rogue can taunt it enough to ignore the genuinely fearsome warrior and charge after the rogue. Unless the rogue in question has some special taunt ability. And every single one of your examples fitted into one of two categories:
1: The monsters had to ignore the rest of the situation at hand.
2: The adventure had to be tailored for the party. And in particular tailored specifically to allow the rogue to be useful.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Neonchameleon said:
That's kind of like seeing enjoying combat as "what would be fun for combat-loving players is to prevent other players having their fun." It's kind of projecting a completely unnecessary hostility.
This is a collaborative effort, after all. If we're going to spend an hour resolving a challenge (which, I should say, still seems like a largely unnecessary amount of time to spend on just one challenge to me, but whatever), that challenge needs to be fun for everyone at the table, and if not everyone is really into combat (and is showing this by choosing characters who suck at combat but are great at other things), then you probably shouldn't spend an hour in pure combat. It'll tromp over the fun of everyone else! If you're a player who demands all combat all the time (or even 75% of the time), you probably shouldn't play with people who are interested in other things, because in enabling their fun, you are going to be unhappy. There's only a few hours you have to play this game, and combat does not automatically deserve a larger chunk of that time than other stuff.
I feel like this is a pretty basic social concept, though. It harkens back to generic food analogies about pizza toppings and lessons toddlers learn about playing well with others. If you have 5 people who each have their own unique characters that show what kinds of gameplay they are interested in, you're going to want to dedicate roughly equal time to all of their favored modes of gameplay.
Neonchameleon said:
More to the point, it requires Samwise's player to be interested in combat, which is a non-starter for him, because by voluntarily and knowingly creating a character who sucks at combat, he's telling you that he's not really interested in fighting things with this character. What you're suggesting is that he should just be interested in combat. He's not. No amount of lazylord attack-granting powers are going to make him interested in slaying the dragon. He's not playing a dragon-slayer, he's playing a gardener, a friend, an optimist. The challenges he wants to face aren't slaying dragons, they're defeating hopelessness and bringing light into the darkness of people's hearts. HP attrition and attack rolls aren't something they're going to want to worry about, because they're combat mechanics.
I mean, The One Ring has a separate morale mechanic for a reason!
Neonchameleon said:
I think you're describing a bunch of 4e powers, and I know you're describing a bunch of things that happened before those 4e powers came along (and after, in non-4e games), too. So if you can't imagine that, I'd start with imagining how those 4e powers would work.
Noeonchameleon said:
There's more than those two categories. Think, for instance, about how early D&D assumed a thief's usefulness based on a trap-filled dungeon, and then extend that to explicit DM adventure-making guidelines, and you'll have the beginnings of how you'd sandbox something like this.
Neonchameleon
Legend
The problem is that when you've set up Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli as your party running for the non-combat rogue is a Shadowrun Decker problem. That party did not have Samwise for a good reason - except in the section that was an escort mission. I'm not saying that either approach is right or wrong. I'm saying that they are good tastes that do not blend. The rogue has always had the problem that they want to split the party.
You're running off Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracisers are Evil there. Along with looking for the I in team.
Samwise simply does not fit with the rest of the party. If you don't have Samwise there is no need for 75% of the players to spend 25% of the time bored and doing things they don't want to. You've a group that's in tune with spending 90% of the time doing what they all want to.
Samwise simply is not interested in the sort of play the others are interested in. And they are only peripherally interested in the type of play he wants. If you have 22 people and 20 of them want to play soccer, 1 hockey, and 1 handball you end up playing soccer. You don't swap games.
What I'm suggesting is that Samwise should go and adventure with Frodo. I'm suggesting that there is no pact saying "We should accept all concepts from all players". And I'm suggesting that Samwise belongs in a different game, in a different part of the setting to the other three. Just the way it was in the books.
I'm not suggesting that Samwise's player is wrong for having those preferences. I'm suggesting that Samwise is the wrong PC for that party. He'd be just fine in another game. One where the party involved Samwise, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo. I'm suggesting that Samwise's player is being selfish by insisting that the three other players and the GM alter their game to suit him if he knows who else is turning up. (And if he doesn't I'd suggest different means of creating characters).
By creating a character who has no interest in combat to go alongside Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, Samwise's player is not just saying "I have no interest in combat" but "I don't want to play the same game as you three". To which the reply is "OK."
If D&D is about three pillars then all characters must have at least some competence at all three. Unless the player wants to be sitting out of the game at least a third of the time - and more if the other PCs have a strong focus on that pillar.
Oh, I can imagine it. It takes DM fiat. DM fiat to get the Dragon to act stupidly. (Which I consider bad DMing practice). DM fiat to change the treasure. DM fiat to re-write the world to suit the players. All of this I consider bad DMing practice.
It can be done. But if it needs doing the game is not fit for the purpose it is being put to.
Of course if you weren't playing D&D but Fate, and didn't have a game balanced round three pillars while having a player who refused to play the third of the game the rest of the party considers most important, you would be able to work things. But this approach, based on the Fate Fractal (every challenge can be statted either as an aspect or a character) and no divide at all between combat and out of combat skills has nothing to do with D&D.
There's more than one approach. But the context of this thread is D&D Next - and D&D in general. Very old editions of D&D also assumed a party including a dozen hirelings and no immersion at all - instead using pawn play.
If you are balancing a game round three pillars, and take a pillar away from any character then it's unstable and falls over. Combat more than any other pillar.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Neonchameleon said:
Hahaha, of course not. There's nothing evil about loving combat and wanting to play a game full of it. No one is calling anyone else badwrongevil, so don't be so jumpy!
It is true, though, that D&D hasn't really ever positioned itself as a game defined by combat(just claim that 4e is all about combat and see the responses!
), so I wonder why you'd insist that it must exclude those who don't want as much combat. D&D is a game of heroic fantasy, and heroic fantasy can and often does involve heroes who aren't very good at action-packed combat. It thus stands to reason that D&D should not be a game that automatically assumes that action-packed combat is what people are going to do all the time with it, and it should support characters who are good at things other than combat -- it's reasonable to assume from D&D's description of itself that it is comfortable with those kinds of characters.So if someone comes to the game wanting to play one of those characters like Samwise, a character who isn't very good at combat because the player isn't very into combat because they're trying to be a different kind of hero, and the game has hour-long combats, those players are going to tune the heck out. It's not a game they'll want to play, because it's not meeting their expectations, it's not what they want out of a heroic fantasy game. A combat game is fine, but when you sit down to play a game of heroic fantasy, you don't necessarily expect a game that's all about combat. It doesn't really matter if their character is good at that combat or not -- a warlord isn't going to meet their needs if their needs aren't related to slaying the dragon but rather in overcoming it in some other way.
But D&D in general should be a game that they can play, IMO, since D&D is not a combat game, but a heroic fantasy game, and heroic fantasy is more than fighting. It needn't be a requirement that everyone can and must contribute equally to combat. It needn't be a requirement that everyone can and must be even *interested* in contributing to combat. Combat can just be a supporting point of the heroic fantasy adventure, no more important or less important than having an indefatigable spirit or being a conniving rake or being able to find your way through a thick wood.
Which is why when I see this:
Neonchameleon said:
it gives me the impression that you want a very narrow and exclusive kind of D&D that is not actually a fantasy adventure game, but is more specifically a game mostly about combat. What you've just said is that the premier game of fantasy adventure shouldn't support a character who is one of the greatest heroes of one of the defining works of fantasy adventure, because it would mean that you might have to not spend an hour on pure roll-hit-damage action-economy combat if you played at a table with them.
It would seem odd to me for D&D to sell itself like that, as a fantasy combat game (with a bit of story on top). Mostly because that's never been what D&D is to me.
This left me scratching my head. Why would an illusionist suck in combat?
Oh sure, they might have low HP, lousy armour, and not be terribly good at sticking the pointy end of something into the other fellow, but the ability to alter the enemy's perception of the situation is a devastatingly effective combat ability.
Making the enemy see what you want them to see, while keeping them blind to the things you want hidden is a fundamental aspect of the art of war.
If I can make the enemy flee from an overwhelming force that doesn't exist, around obstacles that aren't there, into clear terrain that is actually the edge of a cliff … I'd say I'm pretty darn sensational at combat.
Combat is more than HP, to-hit, AC, damage dice and number of attacks. You can suck at all of those things and still be very effective in combat.
Similar Threads
D&D General
D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...
