|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 6:31AM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
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?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 6:34AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
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?
Well, to be fair, I wasn't talking to you. And look, you're still bating.
And yes, if you see Sneak Attack written that way, you've missed several updated.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 6:38AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 6:57AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
That is the latest. So that means you would be mistaken about the wording of the maneuver. It clearly includes, "or it is in the reach of a creature friendly to you".
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 7:01AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 7:06AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
That would be correct. Interesting. Now I really don't like it. As you stated earlier, the rogue can use this fighting next to the fighter. Where is the fun there? I liked back stab. It was hard to achieve but oh so useful in a fight. Maybe they intend to bring that back.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 7:09AM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 7:20AM
#68
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
So the complaint was that Snerak Attack had "restrictions" that Deadly Strike did not. And that those restrictions make Sneak Attack "terrible".
But now its too easy to trigger? Where's the fun or challenge?
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 7:39AM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 21, 2012 - 7:52AM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2010
|
My initial point was not that Sneak Attack was too hard, it was that deadly strike was too easy, if sneak attack was meant to be a rogues best maneuver because in my opinion, a rogue has restrictions so that he can make great attacks under certain conditions.
|
|
|
