Quote from: RPGPundit;801496I have to admit I hate this, and hated it in 3e, because its very easy if a GM isn't stricter about it to end up with a situation where the Thief is better in combat than the Fighter.

It's not an error, it is has been one of the goals of the game at that time. It was very much the intention in 3e to soup up the combat role of the rogue/thief and make him a "squishy glass-cannon" that is better in damage output, at the expense of AC and hitpoints compared to the fighter "tank".

5e continues the sentiment of the stabby rogue who is better at constant backstabbing than the fighter, but needs to hide, move and disengage a lot rather than to have any reliable hardiness.

As for mitigating factors, Fighters get more attacks than anyone else, have a second wind that makes them even better at tanking, and depending on sub-type they either gain passive bonuses (Champion) or maneuvres that allow to actively shape the flow of the combat (Battlemaster). (I will leave the Eldritch Knight out, as rogues have a very similar sub-type with the Arcane Trickster.)
They also have more attribute points, resulting in better overall bonuses or in feats.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801497In fact, I can still live with it as long as there's still arguable reasons to choose between different weapon foci. That's why Sneak Attack draws my ire so much. It is this close ][ to being an ideal WotC D&D alternative, so why did they have to introduce MMO DPS shit like this into the process?

Because in classic D&D the Thief class get double damage (and more later) when he does a backstab.

If Sneak Attack is an issue for your campaign then house rule the conditions under which it can be used. Limit it to back attacks/flanking in melee or surprise only. If that not good enough then go all the way back to 1e and limit it to a surprise back attack. Although I feel that is too much of a nerf myself.

If you have a problem with it in Organized play, well not too much you can do there. Just play from where the ball lies.

I will say that in my Phandelver campaign the fact that Sidwin the Rogue had sneak attack didn't mean he outshined the fighter. It was nice but he did not have the staying power the fighters in the group had.

I will go on further and say that most of the difference between the different classes' fighting abilities is just flavor. Most not all, each class has something unique but for the most part when their best abilities were expended they contributed equal to the outcome of the various fights. Every single fight I ran the primary element that shaped the fight was the circumstances of where the fight was, how it started, and how well prepared the party was.

The biggest issues with 5e with combat is that I feel that the accounting for PC parties that have 8 or 10 characters is way off. The rules for accounting for the effectiveness of monster in larger group is basically correct but you also need a factor for the size of the party. The effectiveness of the party increasing geometrically as the numbers increase.

A 8 man party isn't twice as effective as a 4 man party it is 4 or 8 times as effective. I ran Phandelver for two groups a 5 man group and a 10 man group. Doubling the size of the encounters in Phandelver did not produce the same result for the larger group. It was only when i upped to four times the book numbers when the fights stared becoming similar to those in the 5 man group.

The differences between characters classes are insignificant compared to that issue. And after seeing 15 characters in action over multiple sessions my feeling that combat wise the difference between character is exactly the same as OD&D core books only. That there are differences but in the end everybody is pretty much doing similar damage at similar odds.

Quote from: Will;801498For what it's worth, I actually hate sneak attack. I'd much rather rogues be tricksters in combat, blinding or confusing enemies and setting them up to be massacred by the warriors.

I, alas, didn't get a vote.

Y'know, I actually do love Cunning Action. The no-stacking rule prevents Bonus Action abuse. I think you are on to something...

OK. I actually like the old school Backstab with all its restrictions. A highly conditional multiplier effect, especially with the quite awesome Knock Out rules, would be my ideal.

However, I do understand it is a major dip in damage output (which I could honestly care less about). And if I were to reintroduce Backstab it would be roughly around 2nd level. So I would want to replace that 1st lvl Sneak Attack feature with something.

Here's what you inspired me to create: Just as the Fighter gets Extra Attack, where he uses an action to Attack he gets additional Attacks, do the same for Rogues and Use an Object or Help. That way they can pull all those levers and switches in combat, create hazards with oil and caltrops and ball bearings, use Help (another major source of Advantage), etc.

QuoteHelp
[...]
Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with Advantage.

Let's see, I do want Help to be a part, but I don't want it used to hand out Advantage out like candy. So I want to restrict that to only one. Let it be a trigger, but not grant itself again, not be part of the conditional extra action.

I do really like adding Search to the function, as it is highly thematic and fun. Thieves spotting things in the middle of stress, and then rapidly acting upon it, is about the oldest trope they have. But again I don't want WIS being the next dump stat to spot everything in sight and tip the Stealth v. Perception contest in any particular favor completely.

Also, during investigative periods I don't want to Rogue blowing everyone else out of the water. He's the skill monkey, but other people can contribute. I want this feature to be combat only, so as to show the resourceful nature during adrenaline moments, but without making traps and escapes a one-man-show.

OK, here we go, replacement to 1st lvl Sneak Attack, for the combat support Rogue:

Resourceful
Whenever you take the Help, Search, or Use an Object action on your turn during combat, gain an additional Use an Object action for this turn.

Whaddya think?

(Really, check out those Knock a Creature Out rules in the end of the Combat Chapter: choose at the moment of downing an opponent to 0 HP with a melee attack whether to leave unconscious and stable or unconscious and dying. There's fabulous little tidbit ideas in 5e.)

Quote from: estar;801506Because in classic D&D the Thief class get double damage (and more later) when he does a backstab.

It's really, completely, absolutely not Backstab in actual play. You and I both know that. The threshold to trigger, and thus subsequent frequency, is nowhere near in comparison.

Skyrock got it in one.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801508It's really, completely, absolutely not Backstab in actual play. You and I both know that. The threshold to trigger, and thus subsequent frequency, is nowhere near in comparison.

Skyrock got it in one.

You asked why sneak attack is part of the thief class, I answered. If you think it is too frequent change it.

I do think folks making too much out of nothing on this issue.

Quote from: estar;801510You asked why sneak attack is part of the thief class, I answered. If you think it is too frequent change it.

I do think folks making too much out of nothing on this issue.

It really doesn't map to 1e Backstab like you think. It maps hard to 3e & 4e.

And if you think it is a nothing issue show how you can readily build around it. Show it in char-gen. Or show your house rule replacement. People in general, contribute something to back up your statements. It isn't that hard, I've been doing it repeatedly in this topic alone.

I have repeatedly shown how it is an issue to build basic Rogue archetypes without returning to "gotta land the Sneak Attack each turn" compel.

Where's the modular support if we hate certain powers?

(I think a return to 1e/2e Backstab is perfectly fine. I might loosen the weapon restriction to Simple non-Ammo Weapons, but not much more. Really, if you're not landing the Sneak Attack on each of your turns, let alone getting a few landed on your reactions, you're doing it wrong.)

If you dislike sneak attack and its frequency, just play a different class and pick up the Criminal background.

If you are in a more tinker-happy mood and want to keep most aspects of the Rogue class like cunning action, you can also look at some of the ACFs of the 3e era that took sneak attack away from the rogue and gave him other things.

Opa: I like it.

I'd also like other kits, perhaps, like caltrops, flasks of oil, and similar, though I guess those would fall under 'use an object.'

Skyrock: The problem is when you are talking about 'a trickster who confounds enemies and is quick on the battlefield helping out and doing stuff,' what class fits that BETTER than rogue?

But when you have sneak attack, in a combat you're kinda daft to avoid using it if you have the tool available.

Opa: I'm borrowing those for microlite 5e I'm working on...

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511And if you think it is a nothing issue show how you can readily build around it.

I don't have to build around it because it not a major factor. It just a factor among others.

As for "showing my work".  I extensively document one of my groups activities, a group that happens include a rogue.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search?q=Dnd+5e+majestic+Wilderlands

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511Show it in char-gen.

Sure at 4th level the fighter gains an extra attack over a rogue. At 6th level a fighter gains extra ability score improvements over a rogue. The combination of which means that the Rogue is never dramatically better than the fighter.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511Or show your house rule replacement.

I told you earlier. Change the conditions of the extra damage. Limit it to Melee Flank Attack, melee or ranged back attacks, or Surprise. What makes Sneak Attack awesome for the rouge is the ally with 5' of the foe condition. Simpliest thing you can do is change the conditions under which it is used if you think it is an issue.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511People in general, contribute something to back up your statements. It isn't that hard, I've been doing it repeatedly in this topic alone.

I have repeatedly shown how it is an issue to build basic Rogue archetypes without returning to "gotta land the Sneak Attack each turn" compel.

That because you are focusing on combat, you concern is combat. That not an issue for my campaigns because I run a game where the characters are part of the life of a larger world. In my OD&D + Majestic Wilderlands game Elves are a clear mechanical winner for combat and adventuring as well as Paladins and Clerics. But it is not a problem because how those three elements exist within the setting.

5e has backgrounds, feats, and skills which is more than sufficient to create any type of Rouge in the setting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511Where's the modular support if we hate certain powers?

5e is a simple game. It simple like B/X, and OD&D. It is simply not a hard thing to come up with new elements for the game including classes. If the default mix doesn't match your view on how a D&Dish setting works then change it for your campaigns.

As for Organized Play it will change depending on the specific campaign for the season. We will get to see what that like in the spring when the Handbook comes out.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511(I think a return to 1e/2e Backstab is perfectly fine. I might loosen the weapon restriction to Simple non-Ammo Weapons, but not much more. Really, if you're not landing the Sneak Attack on each of your turns, let alone getting a few landed on your reactions, you're doing it wrong.)

Unless you scattered the party with a horde of zombies. Or divided them in a series of cavern passages. Or got them on the run trying to escape an ambush. If a rogue is landing sneak attacks every turn then it because the referee is doing too much white featureless room type of encounter and not incorporating enough of the life of the setting.

Quote from: estar;801517Sure at 4th level the fighter gains an extra attack over a rogue. At 6th level a fighter gains extra ability score improvements over a rogue. The combination of which means that the Rogue is never dramatically better than the fighter.

My argument never had any relation to wanting the rogue to keep pace with the fighter in terms of damage.

My argument was all about the various Rogue archetypes lost to the overwhelming combat utility of the Sneak Attack feature. It is literally not ignorable in terms of building a RAW character; the swing it provides is too great.

Quote from: estar;801517I told you earlier. Change the conditions of the extra damage. Limit it to Melee Flank Attack, melee or ranged back attacks, or Surprise. What makes Sneak Attack awesome for the rouge is the ally with 5' of the foe condition. Simpliest thing you can do is change the conditions under which it is used if you think it is an issue.

Yes, I know that. And that is what I have been trying to do, as my above post shows.

The problem is when you play Adventure League as it is trying to adhere to RAW tighter and not use house rules, like any Organized Play. The end result is a very staid spread of Rogues, something I find anomalous compared to the rest of the out-of-character class builds elsewhere.

Quote from: estar;801517That because you are focusing on combat, you concern is combat. That not an issue for my campaigns because I run a game where the characters are part of the life of a larger world. In my OD&D + Majestic Wilderlands game Elves are a clear mechanical winner for combat and adventuring as well as Paladins and Clerics. But it is not a problem because how those three elements exist within the setting.

5e has backgrounds, feats, and skills which is more than sufficient to create any type of Rouge in the setting.

However the structure of this feature is insistent by its power level. Regardless of how you build your character you still have to have an eye towards what happens when you slip between the three aspects of a campaign's role play: combat, social, exploration. To ignore any campaign aspect completely is an unreasonable expectation ("my character doesn't do social interaction, ever" "no, he may do it poorly, but HOW does he still do it?"). Thee best you can do is mitigate its frequency.

Now if the best you can do is mitigate its frequency, then the question becomes what do you do in that campaign aspect space when you encounter it. And for combat that is predominantly handled via mechanics. Mechanically the SA feature grotesquely overshadows other offense options not using it.

And DEX grotesquely overshadows other defense options (and positioning options, due to acrobatics and stealth skill. and also fleeing options, due to ranged weapon distance being great positioning to flee). The combined effect leads to favoring DEX builds far too heavily.

Quote from: estar;8015175e is a simple game. It simple like B/X, and OD&D. It is simply not a hard thing to come up with new elements for the game including classes. If the default mix doesn't match your view on how a D&Dish setting works then change it for your campaigns.

As for Organized Play it will change depending on the specific campaign for the season. We will get to see what that like in the spring when the Handbook comes out.

Yes, I am already changing it for my own home campaigns. I am already getting some player flak, though, that "Rogues won't be able to keep up with higher level monsters and will fall behind the curve." Basically Organized Play is setting up expectations of what D&D will be like and already the resistance to change is beginning. We've already seen this song and dance before.

Quote from: estar;801517Unless you scattered the party with a horde of zombies. Or divided them in a series of cavern passages. Or got them on the run trying to escape an ambush. If a rogue is landing sneak attacks every turn then it because the referee is doing too much white featureless room type of encounter and not incorporating enough of the life of the setting.

Absolutely not. Darkness, prone, spells that add Conditions, and the ever popular ally w/in 5' is so prevalent that it really is not hard to get your SA attempts. To speak nothing of hiding (like Lightfoot Halflings behind party members), Sneak Attack is like the sine qua non of Rogue combat functions as it stands.

That narrowing of class focus is annoying.

OK, I've been searching the WotC D&D 5e Rules Boards, along with Sage Advice blog, and ENWorld, and found a text to Mike Mearls that may expand the pool of Sneak Attack weapons — by five weapons.

RAW: Every weapon is classified as melee or ranged. (Basic. p.45.) And Thrown weapons can be thrown to make a ranged attack, but keeps the melee property in determining atk/dmg mods, unless it has finesse. Just like how Mike Mearls was interviewed on how Net works, and that it only uses DEX for atk/dmg mod as it does not have finesse. Which should mean Thrown does not change weapon classification.

RAI: However the separation in the weapon's chart between Melee and Ranged is not relevant anymore. Mearls tweeted that Thrown weapons are intended to qualify as Ranged Weapons, when used as either melee or ranged.

post by obsid in "Sneak Attack with a Handaxe" on ENWorld:

QuoteLooks like he responded twitter.com/mikemearls/status/485910280254541824

ETallitnics: Good day Mr. Mearls! Does the Thrown property satisfy the Rogue's Sneak Attack requirement of Ranged Weapon? #Thanks

mikemearls: Yes, at least that is the intent, both for melee and ranged sneak attacks.

So it looks like you can even use the handaxe in melee and sneak attack with it (at least as the designers understood it, your DM may vary). This does change many potential rogue builds.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356527-Sneak-Attack-with-a-handaxe/page3#ixzz3KfuwxvYA

So that adds Throw Hammer, Handaxe, Javelin, Spear, and Trident to the Rogue repertoire.

But still no long sword or club... :rolleyes:

Anyhoo, I'm working on a Backstab replacement for Sneak Attack. I am thinking of AD&D highly conditional Backstab, and the "damage multiplier" increase based on Proficiency Bonus. That way it goes up every 4 levels. I think it should be:

"Roll the weapon's damage die (dice) a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus."

So a 1st lvl Half-Orc Rogue Critical Hit on a 1d6 would be: 2x crit ( (2x backstab (1d6 weapon)) + (1d6 Half-Orc savagery) ) = 6d6 dmg.

Which for a 5% chance, of one race, of a highly conditional feature is something I can live with. Now I need to decide on the weapon restrictions. Opinions?

I'm inclined to houserule sneak attack to be 'anything except big two-handed melee weapons.'

Anyone think that's likely to run into problems?

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699My argument never had any relation to wanting the rogue to keep pace with the fighter in terms of damage.

My argument was all about the various Rogue archetypes lost to the overwhelming combat utility of the Sneak Attack feature. It is literally not ignorable in terms of building a RAW character; the swing it provides is too great.

I see the distinction.  My opinion is that your point is a non-issue. It is my experience for over 30 years is that most gamers have an image of the character they want to play. If they get really nice ability, like 5e's Sneak attack, great! If not then they will play that character. If it turns out to be really sub optimal for the campaign or rules then uncharitable gamers will bitch how they are being gimped.

But understand they will play what they want to play and not comb the system for the best options. If players are not playing beggars or other types of rogues you mention it is because they don't want too. Not because of the presence of a really good combat ability.

And I would point to myself as a counter example. When I play, I play to play a specific character. I use the rules to implement that characters as closely as I can regardless of how optimal or sub optimal my choices are.

If I played a beggar in 5e it will be a beggar. I will be glad to have the sneak attack but it won't influence how I roleplay the character. I had players in organized play look at me like was bat shit crazy for roleplaying the way I do. Not because I was being disruptive but rather sometime my choices were so suboptimal to defy their belief. But when I ask, but is what I do consistent with what you know of my character. And invariably they answer yes.

For me as a PC it about interacting with my fellow players with interacting with the setting, winning combat, and figuring out the solution to the latest puzzle. I been at long enough that I been there done it a lot. What most interesting to me are the people at the table. And for me to do what I do it doesn't really matter what the rules focus on as it fall in the realm of roleplaying which is the same for all RPGs.

When I referee my goal is to get the players to forget about the rules first. Not necessarily to be a actor  or speak in funny voices but to get them to act as if they are there with the capabilities of their characters. That coupled with how I present the setting during the session means that over time my games become more about what the players want to do. With the benefit that combat now because just a means to an end rather than the focus. So things like the Rogue having a really good sneak attack pales compared to the background you setup or how you interact with the setting. Because those was gets to the really interesting and fun parts of my campaigns.

To put it another way there are adventures in my campaign where being able to slaughter everything living thing will not help you resolve the conflict your character finds himself in. Doesn't mean that combat unimportant or good combat abilities don't have. What it does mean that combat is just another option among many.

If you feel that sneak attack utility that overwhelming then I submit that combat probably plays too much of a role in your campaign. Causing the players to prize combat efficiency over the other aspects of the game.

With Organized Play there is little you can do as the adventures are designed with many elements to cater to most common denominator. And that is for many to treat D&D has a framework for a series of wargame scenarios. Having run LARPs, and participated in Organized Play it just the way it is. However I found there are good ways of handling that and poor ways. The trick is to remember is that combat is roleplaying too just more structured then a verbal interplay between referee and player.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699The problem is when you play Adventure League as it is trying to adhere to RAW tighter and not use house rules, like any Organized Play. The end result is a very staid spread of Rogues, something I find anomalous compared to the rest of the out-of-character class builds elsewhere.

Luckily the mechanic of roleplaying is part of RAW so while you can't control the actions of your players. You can control your own. If you are the referee then you need to emphasis the roleplaying element found in the organized play modules. Something I do when I run organized play. It won't initially effect anything but if you run games consistently then you will find your players loosing up in the characters they build. If you run it as one side of a wargame then all they will ever do is seek combat efficiency.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699However the structure of this feature is insistent by its power level. Regardless of how you build your character you still have to have an eye towards what happens when you slip between the three aspects of a campaign's role play: combat, social, exploration. To ignore any campaign aspect completely is an unreasonable expectation ("my character doesn't do social interaction, ever" "no, he may do it poorly, but HOW does he still do it?"). Thee best you can do is mitigate its frequency.

What if I as a player chose to ignore one of your three aspect? There nothing to stop me in Organized Play. It not like Counterstrike where they can vote you out of a round.

You need to quit worrying about what others are doing and worry about what you can do especially in Organized Play.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699Yes, I am already changing it for my own home campaigns. I am already getting some player flak, though, that "Rogues won't be able to keep up with higher level monsters and will fall behind the curve." Basically Organized Play is setting up expectations of what D&D will be like and already the resistance to change is beginning. We've already seen this song and dance before.

Yes I am not surprised because you dealt with the issue in a negative fashion by nerfing it. Players always despise that.

For example I always say fuck balance in using rules to implement a setting. The goal is for the rules to reflect the setting not the other way around. However the setup I published in my Majestic Wilderland in regards to humans and other races I found too unbalanced over time. Unbalanced that it didn't reflect the strength of humans in the setting. Finally a couple of years ago I decided to give humans a +15% bonus for all earned XP to reflect their ability to learn faster and their flexibility. That did the strict.

Now the point isn't the mechanic I used (+15%) but how i used it. Instead of nerfing the other races, I added a benefit to humans. My existing players did not complain and the game went on.

In your case, the solution I would recommend is to setup your campaigns to allow other types of rogues to shine. The mechanic is simple, act as part of the life the setting and you will get more opportunities for adventure, along with more lucrative options.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699Absolutely not. Darkness, prone, spells that add Conditions, and the ever popular ally w/in 5' is so prevalent that it really is not hard to get your SA attempts. To speak nothing of hiding (like Lightfoot Halflings behind party members), Sneak Attack is like the sine qua non of Rogue combat functions as it stands.

Well you clearly haven't read my actual play accounts or you will see the numerous times where the Rogue of the party got isolated to the point where there no ally to confer the sneak attack bonus.

Quote from: estar;801743I see the distinction.  My opinion is that your point is a non-issue. It is my experience for over 30 years is that most gamers have an image of the character they want to play. If they get really nice ability, like 5e's Sneak attack, great! If not then they will play that character. If it turns out to be really sub optimal for the campaign or rules then uncharitable gamers will bitch how they are being gimped.

I usually see the opposite — except for the uncharitable gamers whinging about someone 'griefing' the table by deliberately playing junk. That happens plenty. Sneak Attack is not one of those useful cornercase features either; it's core to the class, like fighters & extra attacks.

Quote from: estar;801743If you feel that sneak attack utility that overwhelming then I submit that combat probably plays too much of a role in your campaign. Causing the players to prize combat efficiency over the other aspects of the game.

With Organized Play there is little you can do as the adventures are designed with many elements to cater to most common denominator. And that is for many to treat D&D has a framework for a series of wargame scenarios. Having run LARPs, and participated in Organized Play it just the way it is. However I found there are good ways of handling that and poor ways. The trick is to remember is that combat is roleplaying too just more structured then a verbal interplay between referee and player.

Yes, Organized Play is Organized Play. There isn't much you can do given how modules are written. Tried the horror of an illusionist in it already. The adventure structures rarely work with that style, if at all.

The thing is, even the INT/WIS/CHA Rogues with forgery & disguise kits, they still have to flop into Organized Play combat with the group. And they do not have to be completely useless in combat — through certain narrow band of combat builds. And that's the point: that band is just not supportive to many of the basic thief archetypes anymore, because landing the Sneak Attack is such a priority.

Quote from: estar;801743Luckily the mechanic of roleplaying is part of RAW so while you can't control the actions of your players. You can control your own. If you are the referee then you need to emphasis the roleplaying element found in the organized play modules. Something I do when I run organized play. It won't initially effect anything but if you run games consistently then you will find your players loosing up in the characters they build. If you run it as one side of a wargame then all they will ever do is seek combat efficiency.

Being on both sides of the AL screen I see that. But again, there's little incentive to bother with STR & CON emphasis of thugs & beggars outside of combat. And with the SA feature now there is little incentive for combat either.

The "striker rogue" is annoying modern design. The striker rogue limited in weapon choice and stat ability because of a sine qua non feature is even more annoying design. And in a game where you can heavily break stereotype just about everywhere else, I see it as eye rolling laziness design.

Quote from: estar;801743What if I as a player chose to ignore one of your three aspect? There nothing to stop me in Organized Play. It not like Counterstrike where they can vote you out of a round.

You need to quit worrying about what others are doing and worry about what you can do especially in Organized Play.

You can actually call people on such behavior as per AL rules. Disrupting the table is an actual thing. It is not as formalized as statutes as PFS, and often is up to GM and coordinator discretion, but creating a wholly dysfunctional character to be deliberately incompatible is not welcome. You are assumed to be helping each other, and not actively hindering. Oblivious guy blithely running point and setting off all the traps, high level non-combat character upping the Average Party Level of combat situations and not being support, social reject repeatedly interjecting as the party face and flubbing things, etc. these are not encouraged anti-social behaviors.

Quote from: estar;801743Yes I am not surprised because you dealt with the issue in a negative fashion by nerfing it. Players always despise that. [...]

In your case, the solution I would recommend is to setup your campaigns to allow other types of rogues to shine. The mechanic is simple, act as part of the life the setting and you will get more opportunities for adventure, along with more lucrative options.

As I've learned from CCGs, the cleanest solution is the ban hammer. With laser like precision it removes the offending piece without trying to work around it. While it still exists it alters the play field, so any new solutions have to take it in consideration and thus power escalation occurs.

This same principle is why the game proposed to be modular in the first place. This is why multi-classing and feats are optional. This is why so much of the DMG material outright replaces certain functions than merely add until something more palatable foments.

There is a reason why erasure and clean slates work — less variables to account for during creation.

Quote from: estar;801743Well you clearly haven't read my actual play accounts or you will see the numerous times where the Rogue of the party got isolated to the point where there no ally to confer the sneak attack bonus.

Yes, I read them. My party ran through those same challenges in record time. Your Old Owl Well Keep with the 12 zombies & red wizard? Lasted about 2-4 rounds for our group, IIRC. We plotted out our party formations ahead of time for potential threats (what would we do if encounter a flying monster?) and would wipe things out ASAP. We had mostly military or martial backgrounds & enough nova casting to finish things quick.

The efficiency has only gotten worse as the characters leveled, sadly.

Half the party was green to rpgs, too. We just took to direction well when stakes were on the line. Oh and the veteran players actually played paranoiac or zealot backgrounds, which blended well with our over-preparation of utility items.

I've since retired that character at level 7, partially due to burning out and ennui at the encounters.