Community

This is probably veeeery old news to everyone, but I would like to know if there was any reaction to this or any consensus in the community.

A friend of mine was creating a Rogue today in the Character Builder. And I just happen to notice that the Rogue can no longer Sneak Attack with any crossbow, just a "hand crossbow". This was apparently added in some errata - probably that big, "Class Compendium" one.

So, how did this went with the community? Was this just an unentended mistake by Wizards when revising the wording or did they really intend to eliminate any possibility of Sneak Attacking with all the other crossbows? Are there any feats that can allow a rogue to sneak attack with a Crossbow, a Repeating Crossbow or a Superior Crossbow?

I'm glad for any help you can offer! Thank you all!

Good lords... Did people even debate the issue? Seem like an unintended errata do the Classic Rogue. Perhaps such a definition of Sneak Attack applies easily for the Essential Rogue, but the new wording makes very little sense for the "Rogue (Scoundrel)" :P.

Did they? As my player was making his rogue, there were plenty of powers that required "crossbow, light blade or sling" to choose from. In fact, all of his choices were made from such powers.

In fact, rereading the Class Compendium article in Dragon 400, all of the "crossbow, light blade or sling" powers are still there. For gods sake, Classic Rogues do not even begin with proficiency with a shortbow :P. And all the powers I have read retained the "crossbow, light blade or sling" requirement :P.

Moreover, in page 96 of the Compiled Errata, the errata on sneak attack states:

"The feature now lets you deal extra damage one per turn instead of once per round", as if their intention was just that. Then, they give us the revised text - which uses the wording of Sneak Attack that appeared in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and makes much more sense for the Rogue (Thief), that begins with proficiency with shortbows.

Overall, it seems they created the "Essential Rogue", rewrote Sneak Attack for that new rogue, and when making the "Class Compendium" series of "retro-errata", attached the new wording of Sneak Attack for the "Classic Rogue", which does not fit very well.

Its such a blatant issue that I'm surprised I missed any debate on it (if there was ever a debate about this). Of course, the change could been very well intentional. But it does not seem so, specially in light of that information Mand12: they didn't rewrote every single power that requires "crossbow, light blade or sling", at least, not accordingly to the Character Builder :P. If what you said was true, then, yes, things would be more questionable. But the fact you presented is false, and the above facts remain.

Evidently, since I'm no insider to the designers thoughts, I could be wrong. The idea that the change as unintended is an hypothesis with several underling arguments for it, but an hypothesis nonetheless...

---

By the way, do any of you two know if the community debated this change in the past? As I said, I seem awfuly late for this discussion! :P

Hahahaha, it happens Mand12, it happens! ^^

Well, the update would at least make more sense if your previous thought was proven to be correct!

As it stands, however, it is a little "out of sync" with the Classic Rogue. That may note have been intentional.

Seriously though, this disturbs me.

I really, really remember this happening.  Absolutely certain, to the point where I made the post without checking because I knew it was the case.

wtf