Actually, they say you can backstab with attack advantage.
No, they don't. It says, and I quote "When you have attack advantage against a creature, you can give up advantage to deal 1d6 extra damage on a hit."
This is exactly the same thing you propose but with the names changed.
Sneak attack would simply be more damage on top of it.
As it is in your proposal!
His proposal is this:
Sneak Attack: Whenever you backstab a creature, you deal 1d6 extra damage. Each time you gain this benefit, increase the extra damage by 1d6.
I'm saying it needs to be a lot more.
His proposal is that rogues get roguish combat maneuvers, one of which is the added damage of sneak attack. So he is promising to give them a lot more!! There is absolutely no difference between your proposal and his except nomenclature.
Not knowing what attack advantage is at this time, I only used a +2 for a reference to CA. Since the article is all about backstab and sneak attack and giving it to everyone, I'd say that is the default backstab.
Sneak attack as they present it is nothing more than more damage than what everyone else has the ability to do in the same situation.
The way I read it with maneuvers, it's either or. You either get maneuvers, or raise sneak attack. That would also be unacceptable. That's like giving up the current sneak attack for your powers. You can have a great sneak attack and play like a thief and do nothing but spam basic attacks, or you load up on powers and don't get sneak attack at all.
Color me unimpressed with this article overall. The idea of giving it to everyone rubs me in very much the wrong way. The fact that you keep dismissing my issue with it is also extremely annoying. Apparently, wanting the Rogue's ability to be completely seperate and a lot different from the default ability everyone gets is wrong. I'm done with this conversation.
Greatfrito, you summed it up nicely. "I'm very much of the opinion that a class whose entire "schtick" is "what everyone else can do - but with higher numbers!" isn't an effective - or desireable - class. It made for a poorly designed class in the 3e Fighter, and it would make for the same with a 5e Rogue."
What I'm saying is, make the choice of bonus to hit or 1d6 extra damage the default "attack advantage" condition. So it would look something like this:
Attack Advantage: When you have an enemy flanked or (insert more ways to gain AA), you can either gain a +2 to hit or deal 1d6 extra damage.
Now, make sneak attack something you can do on top of this, that has a lot more than the default. Not just more damage, but a whole host of options to do with it. That woud make it unique.
That's what the proposal is!!! Go back and read it!!! The only difference is they call it "Backstab" and you call it "Attack Advantage"! Gah!
Actually, they say you can backstab with attack advantage. Sneak attack would simply be more damage on top of it. I'm saying that's cheap and lame, and robs the rogue of a unique ability. Sneak Attack needs to be a lot more than just slightly better than what everyone can do. I'm asking for it to be VERY different from the default ability everyone gets.
His proposal is this:
Sneak Attack: Whenever you backstab a creature, you deal 1d6 extra damage. Each time you gain this benefit, increase the extra damage by 1d6.
I'm saying it needs to be a lot more.
Seriously why further complicate the rules by making it so everyone follows these rules in this situation and the rogue follows these completely different rules for the exact same situation? By this proposal the sneak attack progression stands to be the non complex and beginers version of the rogue. Know how everyone asked for every class to have complex and non complex options? Say hello to the rogue's non-complex option, it's called sneak attack. As such it should be as easy to understand as possible. The truly defining features of the 5e rogue will be his complex trick and combat maneuver options. Oh and the fact that he can still do more damage than everyone else when he can get the upper hand in a fight. Even if he is going the complex route picking up 3 dice of sneak attack damage would still be a good call. Giving my fighter the option to trade the +2 to attack (that I don't need) to a little extra damage is nothing but awesome. Your still going to do it better if you should chose to build your character that way.
If the classes are going to have no partially shared mechanics then you can't complain when you get 0 combat maneuvers as that is described as mainly a fighter feature, in fact it will be one of their defining features. Why should you get any of that if I am not allowed to have the choice of a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage when I have combat advantage against someone(or whatever they use for the mechanic in this edition).
Oh also who cares if this rule exists. If you really hate it that much ask your group if they will just ignore that rule. Then you can still be a unique snowflake, and my group can have this awesome little rule. I'm starting to get weary of the whole, "If this one rule even exists I'm not even going to try this edition out.", thing. Like they said a while ago there will be rules you ignore either in part or in full, and they want that to happen.
I don't want anything ignored. I want the rule enhanced. Who said anything about ignoring something?
I'm saying that I don't want sneak attack taken away from the rogue and given to everyone else. I want it to remain an exclusive rogue ability. If they give backstab to everyone, then sneak attack needs to look a lot different from backstab. More damage does not = a lot different, either.
As far as a simple core goes. That is already thrown out the window with Vancian magic being core.
If you want the bonus the rogue gets, play a rogue. Just like if you want wild shape, you play a druid. If you want rage, you play a barbarian. This is what a class based system is all about.
Okay then no combat maneuvers for you, and only one attack a round. If you need to have class exclusives to feel like a special snowflake all you get to do in combat is stab something real hard once per round, and only if you have met some in combat prerequisites too, enjoy that. I'd rather have some things that are shared between classes. Your mechanic working differently from everything else in the game would be needlessly complex when it accomplishes the exact same goal. Also yeah everyone has been crying on here that every class needs complex and non complex options. Guess what? They are doing it, they are actually listening to us, and sneak attack is the non complex option for rogues. It is simple and easy to understand for beginners. The combat maneuvers and tricks are the options the rogue is getting in order to have complex builds available. Although because you feel classes need exclusives you no longer get combat maneuvers or multiple attacks as that's for fighters. If you want to do something more complex and interesting than attacking once in melee or ranged combat play a fighter. I could keep going with this but at some point it just starts getting ridiculous.
The simple fact is that:
choose between a +2 to attack or +1d6 to damage
is distinctly and massively different from:
recieve a +2 to attack and +Xd6 to damage where X = 1+N, and N equals the number of times you choose the sneak attack class feature.
However if the first thing is the list of bonuses selectable for attacking with combat advantage the sneak attack class feature can say:
when you make an attack while you have combat advantage you need not choose between the bonuses, you recieve both. Each time you select this class feature you add another d6 to the damage delt when making an attack with combat advantage.
Heck some of your maneuvers may in fact add to the list of bonuses for attacking with combat advantage. I really fail to see what your problem is here.
Also yeah you will have to chose between the progressions, yall asked for compelling choices of equal value. Aren't you happy with exactly what you asked for?
What I'm saying is, make the choice of bonus to hit or 1d6 extra damage the default "attack advantage" condition. So it would look something like this:
Attack Advantage: When you have an enemy flanked or (insert more ways to gain AA), you can either gain a +2 to hit or deal 1d6 extra damage.
Now, make sneak attack something you can do on top of this, that has a lot more than the default. Not just more damage, but a whole host of options to do with it. That woud make it unique.
That's what the proposal is!!! Go back and read it!!! The only difference is they call it "Backstab" and you call it "Attack Advantage"! Gah!
Actually, they say you can backstab with attack advantage. Sneak attack would simply be more damage on top of it. I'm saying that's cheap and lame, and robs the rogue of a unique ability. Sneak Attack needs to be a lot more than just slightly better than what everyone can do. I'm asking for it to be VERY different from the default ability everyone gets.
His proposal is this:
Sneak Attack: Whenever you backstab a creature, you deal 1d6 extra damage. Each time you gain this benefit, increase the extra damage by 1d6.
I'm saying it needs to be a lot more.
Seriously why further complicate the rules by making it so everyone follows these rules in this situation and the rogue follows these completely different rules for the exact same situation? By this proposal the sneak attack progression stands to be the non complex and beginers version of the rogue. Know how everyone asked for every class to have complex and non complex options? Say hello to the rogue's non-complex option, it's called sneak attack. As such it should be as easy to understand as possible. The truly defining features of the 5e rogue will be his complex trick and combat maneuver options. Oh and the fact that he can still do more damage than everyone else when he can get the upper hand in a fight. Even if he is going the complex route picking up 3 dice of sneak attack damage would still be a good call. Giving my fighter the option to trade the +2 to attack (that I don't need) to a little extra damage is nothing but awesome. Your still going to do it better if you should chose to build your character that way.
If the classes are going to have no partially shared mechanics then you can't complain when you get 0 combat maneuvers as that is described as mainly a fighter feature, in fact it will be one of their defining features. Why should you get any of that if I am not allowed to have the choice of a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage when I have combat advantage against someone(or whatever they use for the mechanic in this edition).
Oh also who cares if this rule exists. If you really hate it that much ask your group if they will just ignore that rule. Then you can still be a unique snowflake, and my group can have this awesome little rule. I'm starting to get weary of the whole, "If this one rule even exists I'm not even going to try this edition out.", thing. Like they said a while ago there will be rules you ignore either in part or in full, and they want that to happen.
I don't want anything ignored. I want the rule enhanced. Who said anything about ignoring something?
I'm saying that I don't want sneak attack taken away from the rogue and given to everyone else. I want it to remain an exclusive rogue ability. If they give backstab to everyone, then sneak attack needs to look a lot different from backstab. More damage does not = a lot different, either.
As far as a simple core goes. That is already thrown out the window with Vancian magic being core.
If you want the bonus the rogue gets, play a rogue. Just like if you want wild shape, you play a druid. If you want rage, you play a barbarian. This is what a class based system is all about.
Okay then no combat maneuvers for you, and only one attack a round. If you need to have class exclusives to feel like a special snowflake all you get to do in combat is stab something real hard once per round, and only if you have met some in combat prerequisites too, enjoy that. I'd rather have some things that are shared between classes. Your mechanic working differently from everything else in the game would be needlessly complex when it accomplishes the exact same goal. Also yeah everyone has been crying on here that every class needs complex and non complex options. Guess what? They are doing it, they are actually listening to us, and sneak attack is the non complex option for rogues. It is simple and easy to understand for beginners. The combat maneuvers and tricks are the options the rogue is getting in order to have complex builds available. Although because you feel classes need exclusives you no longer get combat maneuvers or multiple attacks as that's for fighters. If you want to do something more complex and interesting than attacking once in melee or ranged combat play a fighter. I could keep going with this but at some point it just starts getting ridiculous.
The simple fact is that:
choose between a +2 to attack or +1d6 to damage
is distinctly and massively different from:
recieve a +2 to attack and +Xd6 to damage where X = 1+N, and N equals the number of times you choose the sneak attack class feature.
However if the first thing is the list of bonuses selectable for attacking with combat advantage the sneak attack class feature can say:
when you make an attack while you have combat advantage you need not choose between the bonuses, you recieve both. Each time you select this class feature you add another d6 to the damage delt when making an attack with combat advantage.
Heck some of your maneuvers may in fact add to the list of bonuses for attacking with combat advantage. I really fail to see what your problem is here.
Also yeah you will have to chose between the progressions, yall asked for compelling choices of equal value. Aren't you happy with exactly what you asked for?
Yeah, it sounds awesome to me. I'm looking forward to trying it out.
What I'm saying is, make the choice of bonus to hit or 1d6 extra damage the default "attack advantage" condition. So it would look something like this:
Attack Advantage: When you have an enemy flanked or (insert more ways to gain AA), you can either gain a +2 to hit or deal 1d6 extra damage.
Now, make sneak attack something you can do on top of this, that has a lot more than the default. Not just more damage, but a whole host of options to do with it. That woud make it unique.
That's what the proposal is!!! Go back and read it!!! The only difference is they call it "Backstab" and you call it "Attack Advantage"! Gah!
Actually, they say you can backstab with attack advantage. Sneak attack would simply be more damage on top of it. I'm saying that's cheap and lame, and robs the rogue of a unique ability. Sneak Attack needs to be a lot more than just slightly better than what everyone can do. I'm asking for it to be VERY different from the default ability everyone gets.
His proposal is this:
Sneak Attack: Whenever you backstab a creature, you deal 1d6 extra damage. Each time you gain this benefit, increase the extra damage by 1d6.
I'm saying it needs to be a lot more.
Seriously why further complicate the rules by making it so everyone follows these rules in this situation and the rogue follows these completely different rules for the exact same situation? By this proposal the sneak attack progression stands to be the non complex and beginers version of the rogue. Know how everyone asked for every class to have complex and non complex options? Say hello to the rogue's non-complex option, it's called sneak attack. As such it should be as easy to understand as possible. The truly defining features of the 5e rogue will be his complex trick and combat maneuver options. Oh and the fact that he can still do more damage than everyone else when he can get the upper hand in a fight. Even if he is going the complex route picking up 3 dice of sneak attack damage would still be a good call. Giving my fighter the option to trade the +2 to attack (that I don't need) to a little extra damage is nothing but awesome. Your still going to do it better if you should chose to build your character that way.
If the classes are going to have no partially shared mechanics then you can't complain when you get 0 combat maneuvers as that is described as mainly a fighter feature, in fact it will be one of their defining features. Why should you get any of that if I am not allowed to have the choice of a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage when I have combat advantage against someone(or whatever they use for the mechanic in this edition).
Oh also who cares if this rule exists. If you really hate it that much ask your group if they will just ignore that rule. Then you can still be a unique snowflake, and my group can have this awesome little rule. I'm starting to get weary of the whole, "If this one rule even exists I'm not even going to try this edition out.", thing. Like they said a while ago there will be rules you ignore either in part or in full, and they want that to happen.
I don't want anything ignored. I want the rule enhanced. Who said anything about ignoring something?
I'm saying that I don't want sneak attack taken away from the rogue and given to everyone else. I want it to remain an exclusive rogue ability. If they give backstab to everyone, then sneak attack needs to look a lot different from backstab. More damage does not = a lot different, either.
As far as a simple core goes. That is already thrown out the window with Vancian magic being core.
If you want the bonus the rogue gets, play a rogue. Just like if you want wild shape, you play a druid. If you want rage, you play a barbarian. This is what a class based system is all about.
Okay then no combat maneuvers for you, and only one attack a round. If you need to have class exclusives to feel like a special snowflake all you get to do in combat is stab something real hard once per round, and only if you have met some in combat prerequisites too, enjoy that. I'd rather have some things that are shared between classes. Your mechanic working differently from everything else in the game would be needlessly complex when it accomplishes the exact same goal. Also yeah everyone has been crying on here that every class needs complex and non complex options. Guess what? They are doing it, they are actually listening to us, and sneak attack is the non complex option for rogues. It is simple and easy to understand for beginners. The combat maneuvers and tricks are the options the rogue is getting in order to have complex builds available. Although because you feel classes need exclusives you no longer get combat maneuvers or multiple attacks as that's for fighters. If you want to do something more complex and interesting than attacking once in melee or ranged combat play a fighter. I could keep going with this but at some point it just starts getting ridiculous.
The simple fact is that:
choose between a +2 to attack or +1d6 to damage
is distinctly and massively different from:
recieve a +2 to attack and +Xd6 to damage where X = 1+N, and N equals the number of times you choose the sneak attack class feature.
However if the first thing is the list of bonuses selectable for attacking with combat advantage the sneak attack class feature can say:
when you make an attack while you have combat advantage you need not choose between the bonuses, you recieve both. Each time you select this class feature you add another d6 to the damage delt when making an attack with combat advantage.
Heck some of your maneuvers may in fact add to the list of bonuses for attacking with combat advantage. I really fail to see what your problem is here.
Also yeah you will have to chose between the progressions, yall asked for compelling choices of equal value. Aren't you happy with exactly what you asked for?
Some things shared between classes is fine. Not class features, though.
We have what we asked for in 4e already, too. If we have to choose between interesting abilities or sneak attack, that is actually a step backwards. If martial classes end up having to choose between something that should be a default class feature, or a "power", that is a deal breaker.
The way they described it is that everyone gets backstab, but rogues get sneak attack. Sneak attack being nothing more than backstab with extra damage. This is what I find unacceptable. No matter how many times I say it, though, people like to completely ignore what my concern is with it and misquote me. This forum is for stating our concerns and criticisms with this kind of stuff. This is mine.
Having to choose with what should be an automatic class feature, or a "power", is a deal breaker. Having what was previously a default class feature given to everyone, then being given it back as nothing more than a tweaked version of that, is a deal breaker.
Not knowing how things look, it is speculation. This is how it reads, though. If they were planning on taking it in the direction I see this article going, I want to state my case.
I can't really see a wizard knowing hardly enough about any weapon to "do more damage' i.e. to know at all where to strike fo a vital hit.
Statistically +1d6 is approximate to the +2 to hit. They tend to increase the expected damage result equally. All this means is when fighting a low AC target, you choose to do more damage and you choose the added attack bonus when fighting heavily armored opponents. As far as I can tell, this makes flanking low-AC opponents still worthwhile, which actually helps rogues, who often need a flanking buddy in order to "unlock" all their special abilities.
Now, the fighter who need a 4 to hit doesn't feel like an idiot getting a +2 bonus. He can instead do more damage, while still giving his rogue all those yummy special attacks via flanking bonus.
Oh I agree to weapon based fighters, Barbs, Rogues, Rangers and the like getting this kind of thing. It just doesn't make sense to give it to everyone.
Heck I can even see Sorcerers and Bards getting in on the action, for example.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
Oh I agree to weapon based fighters, Barbs, Rogues, Rangers and the like getting this kind of thing. It just doesn't make sense to give it to everyone.
It makes perfect sense from a writing persepctive. Saying, "Everyone gets +2 to attack or +1d6 damage with advantage" is a lot more elegant than saying "Bards, fighters, paladins, rangers, rogues, sorcerers, and warlords, but not clerics, druids, psions, warlocks, and wizards, get +2 to attack or +1d6 damage with advantage." There's not reaosn to overcomplicate the rule this way. Give the bonus to everyone by making it a general rule.
