Community

Ah. It seems my statement changed Chris Carlson's approach. Now you are debating this fairly without the condescending attacks. I, an fully aware of what DPR is and its purpose in combat. You may play differently and therefore have a different purpose for it in combat or perhaps a different perspective on it. My packet clearly states that sneak attack requires advantage. Have I missed an update?

Believe me, it want taken personally. I am fine thank you.

My packet is the one that upgraded to include up to level ten and added the monk. O was under the impression that was the latest.

Apologies for the misspells. My phone has a tendency to autocorrect inappropriately and often takes several passes to  get the right words. For instance, it keeps insisting in this statement on changing passes to possess. Even after correcting it. Strange considering I am not in the habit of using that word.

I guess I expected sneak attack to be like back stab. It seemed  to be the intention in 4e, despite it being watered down in power but easier to achieve.

No. You still misunderstand the essence of the complaint. I want a true sneak attack. Something the target never saw coming. To use your terms and indeed the attack's old name, I want back stab. Make it hard, but make it hurt more than a deadly strike. That makes combat for a rogue fun. The challenge of getting behind the enemy then sneaking up on then and thrusting a dagger in their kidneys is fun and makes the rogue occasionally worthwhile in a fight. It makes for a glorious moment well worth the challenge. It should be challenging but incredibly powerful. I agree to restrictions but want those restrictions to pay off in the end.