Quote from: Opaopajr;801819I 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: Opaopajr;801819Yes, 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.



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: Opaopajr;801819You 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.

Well I can believe it not welcome, but the specifics of the Adventurer League guidelines solely address out of game behavior.

At first glance it the guidelines appear to quite open to abuse by organizers and DMs to enforce whatever they believe to be correct behavior both in-game and out of game.

http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/ADVLeague_PlayerGuide_TODv1_print.pdf

QuoteParticipants must not conduct themselves in a manner that is disruptive to the enjoyment or safety of others at the event.

But when you look over the example violations it is clearly focused on out of game behavior.

• Excessively vulgar or profane language
• Throwing or breaking objects in anger
• Leaving excessive trash in the play area
• Talking over other players excessively

Which is fine and needed.

After reading it bringing a useless character to a Adventure's League event or acting like a coward is not grounds for removal.

Nor it should be given the emphasis on factions and the various background elements found in the 5e PHB like bonds, etc. While it is possible for a Zhentarim to work with a Harper it is equally possible that the two would come into conflict, even PC on PC combat because the two organizations are polar opposite in their approach to issues.

If Wizard didn't want this possibility then they should have excluded the Zhentarim and limited it to the other four.

In the past there was a emphasis on everybody PC being a big cooperative family. That doesn't hold true for the Adventurer's League with faction and the PC roleplaying traits.

I am willing to bet that for now the first few season will focus on threats that apply equally to both Lawful Evil Zhentarim and Chaotic Good Harpers. Summoning back Tiamat was a bad things for all faction, whatever the Elemental Evil stuff is about will probably be as equally bad.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819You are assumed to be helping each other, and not actively hindering.

Again Zhentarim vs Harpers right in the Handbook. If there isn't conflict at some point then the players are not roleplaying their character honestly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819Oblivious 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.

Yes I seen the player who doesn't do anything out of game but deliberately and with malice fucks things up in game by setting off traps. But they are rare. Far more common is playing like that along with out of game behavior problems. They go hand in hand.

I am extremely skeptical about judging out of game, in-game behavior that clearly arises out of establishing characteristics and mannerism.  Doubly so when there a lack of out of game rudeness.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819As 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.

The two situations are not equivalent. Having played magic a lot myself the point is the game and fair competition so overpowered cards are a detriment to that goal.

Tabletop roleplaying games are not competitive wargame but rather pen & paper virtual realities designed to let the players to experience a setting and do interesting things. Something like Sneak Attack means it just a world with Rogue with a a really useful combat ability.

With that being said, it fine you don't like Sneak Attack. The rules are part of the package of preferences that allows a person to enjoy tabletop RPGs. If you dislike sneak attack remove it.

However removing it won't fix the problem you having with players not roleplaying other types of rogue. You are focusing on the wrong thing to fix that issue.

The only way you are going to do that is to make other types of rogues as interesting as the default rogue. Since the players are going for the combat oriented rogue and not the other rogue options I assume you are promoting all I can conclude that combat dominates your campaigns. This is because all the other options you mention shine in non-combat situations like the beggar.

If you want players to play other types of rogue then you need to deemphasis combat, and flesh out the life of your setting. In time this will make the non-combat portion of your campaign as compelling as the combat portion. Players will respond to that and design their character to take advantage of that.

However if most of your gaming is done through Organized Play, or with large groups of 7 or more players then your options will be more limited.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819This 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.

Which is fine, except removing sneak attack won't fix your problem with players playing other types of rogues.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819Yes, 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.

How many in your group?

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819The efficiency has only gotten worse as the characters leveled, sadly.

The more the referee makes the encounter like a white room fight then more effective preplanning becomes because it eliminates the extraneous factors that causes real world fights to be unpredictable.

Also I think I noticed with many people running phandelver is that they don't take in account that nearly every locale except for Wind Echo Cave is very small. A fight should trigger half of the map to converge on the disturbance. This is going by the RAW perception rules. If you go room by room it is way easier.

However the biggest factor with 5e is raw numbers which is why I am curious about how many was in your group.

Quote from: Will;801714I'm inclined to houserule sneak attack to be 'anything except big two-handed melee weapons.'

Anyone think that's likely to run into problems?

Pretty much what I'm going to to.

Quote from: tenbones;801897Pretty much what I'm going to to.

Let us know if it runs into problems! I'm unlikely to get a chance to play/run 5e for about 6 months.

Quote from: estar;801848Again Zhentarim vs Harpers right in the Handbook. If there isn't conflict at some point then the players are not roleplaying their character honestly.

No Undermining of Other Characters During
Adventures. Adventurers are brought together by
common cause, and during an adventure, they’re
expected to work together to overcome challenges.
Though certain factions might find others distasteful,
individuals will put that aside and become a team when
put in dangerous situations. In short, play nice with each
other when things get deadly.
(Adventure League Player Guide Tyranny of the Dragons. p.4. underlining mine.)

It is all good until deadly. That's always in combat, some in trap or natural disaster areas exploration, and rare in powerful personages/organizations social.

Quote from: estar;801848Yes I seen the player who doesn't do anything out of game but deliberately and with malice fucks things up in game by setting off traps. But they are rare. Far more common is playing like that along with out of game behavior problems. They go hand in hand.

I am extremely skeptical about judging out of game, in-game behavior that clearly arises out of establishing characteristics and mannerism.  Doubly so when there a lack of out of game rudeness.

Yes, it is a grey area. And I am loathe to call upon it myself as I often create and run non-optimized characters in general (including AL. My nigh-pacifist Paladin being a fun example.). However the AL issue is making a good faith effort to have a character blend well with the party's efforts.

Quote from: estar;801848The two situations are not equivalent. Having played magic a lot myself the point is the game and fair competition so overpowered cards are a detriment to that goal.

Tabletop roleplaying games are not competitive wargame but rather pen & paper virtual realities designed to let the players to experience a setting and do interesting things. Something like Sneak Attack means it just a world with Rogue with a a really useful combat ability.

They are equivalent because we are dealing with breadth of utility in the face of a feature with an overly large impact. The world's setting is actually shaped by that feature in a curious way, where it really wasn't before in AD&D. That is an issue.

It shapes my virtual realities with this system in ways I don't find useful, deviating from things I didn't find broken into things I find disjointed.

Quote from: estar;801848With that being said, it fine you don't like Sneak Attack. The rules are part of the package of preferences that allows a person to enjoy tabletop RPGs. If you dislike sneak attack remove it.

However removing it won't fix the problem you having with players not roleplaying other types of rogue. You are focusing on the wrong thing to fix that issue.

Naturally, I can remove it. But the point of this topic is to raise these questions and discuss it. This is a design I hated in 3e & 4e, was questioning before in the playtest, and had reservations in the Basic .pdf.

Now that I've played with it, I can say with confidence that I do not like it.

And further, you are misrepresenting my argument -- again -- that somehow my games devolve all into combat min/maxing. I am exactly focusing on the right thing to fix because its removal explicitly reinvigorates the debate between the small degrees of utility between various weapons. The debate within Rogue creation within the class becomes interesting again.

It only becomes a between classes issue if I remove it and offer nothing in return to the class. In comparison with other classes it would then be lacking a feature and thus in deficit. Again, from my previous posts you already see that is also not true.

You are overly concerned from a design perspective of something I already foresaw and have already addressed within this very topic. Your argument here is not very convincing in this light.

Quote from: estar;801848The only way you are going to do that is to make other types of rogues as interesting as the default rogue. Since the players are going for the combat oriented rogue and not the other rogue options I assume you are promoting all I can conclude that combat dominates your campaigns. This is because all the other options you mention shine in non-combat situations like the beggar.

If you want players to play other types of rogue then you need to deemphasis combat, and flesh out the life of your setting. In time this will make the non-combat portion of your campaign as compelling as the combat portion. Players will respond to that and design their character to take advantage of that.

However if most of your gaming is done through Organized Play, or with large groups of 7 or more players then your options will be more limited.

Organized Play I already concede is a lost cause. Sneak Attack DPS Rogue is here to stay. And running a STR variant is climbing an uphill battle v. the DEX standard. That ended debate saddens me, but no longer interests me. Creating new PCs within that class no longer excites me, the ennui has set in.

As for offering something in return for removing a feature, that is how I have already been going about it, as my previous posts in here show. However, design-wise it is easier to start with a cleaner space and replace it than retaining SA as it stands and trying to compensate around it.

And again, your assumptions on how I run my games is a) not correct, and b) not relevant. Your premise on what is going on is flawed. Let go, this line of argument has no bearing upon what I am arguing.

Quote from: estar;801848Which is fine, except removing sneak attack won't fix your problem with players playing other types of rogues.

Actually, I already showed in a previous post that this assumption is not correct in my analysis. Here, this is a breakdown of what I see as weapon cost-benefit utility. Note that in the center (which I will bold) that I can easily defend the selection of any of the weapons before SA; they allow different utility in the middle of combat. Even the Versatile property matters, as having an open hand to Use an Object or rapidly switching to Two-Hands for extra damage can matter.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800947So let's break down the weapons, and note this is "easy mode":

All of the versatile weapons are either 1H) +5 atk. 1d8+3 dmg. 2H) +5 atk. 1d10+3 dmg. But they are STR based, not finesse, therefore there is an opportunity cost dependent on what else STR v. DEX can give. You also can switch up mid-battle from 1H to 2H for "one free interaction with the environment" along with Use an Object (3rd lvl Thief Cunning Action Bonus) or extra damage.

Rapier is finesse, it is 1H) +5 atk. 1d8+3 dmg. However, it is one of few DEX melee weapons, and so that restriction to higher damage die weapons, for better AC, is the opportunity cost. You also retain "one free interaction with the environment" and Use an Object capacity with your extra hand free.

S. Swd & Dagger are light along with finesse, so they allow Two Weapon Fighting to trigger granting a conditional Bonus Action. That trick does also consume your single Bonus Action, so later powerful things like Cunning Action become an opportunity cost. You also lose out on a lot of "one free interaction with the environment" and Use an Object, a real cost.
S. Swd) +5 atk. 1d6+3 dmg.
Dagger) +5 atk. 1d4+3 dmg. plus optional range w/o improvisation.

So let's look at the damage averages before and after Sneak Attack!

Before
Versatile - 1H) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg, or 2H) 5.5+3=8.5 dmg. (lose distance as defense, but retain higher average damage & enviro interaction.)
Finesse - rapier) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg. (reserved for DEX builds w/ better AC & ranged weapons.)
Finesse & Light - s. swd) 3.5+3 + 3.5 = 10 dmg. (lose Opportunity for many "one free environment interaction" and Bonus flexibility.)
dagger) 2.5+3 + 2.5 = 8 dmg. (lose Opportunity for many "one free environment interaction" and Bonus flexibility. may throw & use distance as defense.)

As you can see these are quite close in cost benefit analysis. I could make arguments for any one of them as they are so similar in degrees.

After
Versatile - 1H) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg, or 2H) 5.5+3=8.5 dmg.
Finesse - rapier) 4.5+3 +3.5=11 dmg.
Finesse & Light -
s. swd) 3.5+3 +3.5 +3.5 = 14 dmg.
dagger) 2.5+3 +2.5 +3.5 = 11.5 dmg. plus optional distance as defense.

And every two levels add another 3.5 damage to Sneak Attack.

1st) 3.5 dmg. 3rd) 7 dmg. 5th) 10.5 dmg. 7th) 14 dmg. 9th) 17.5 dmg...

Afterwards SA delivers so much damage as to overshadow the previous degrees of advantage.

Remember, you are still arguing from the false premise that I somehow run combat-heavy home games and I am not letting Rogue social and exploration to shine. That's not the issue, that's not my argument. Adventure League is its own animal and I know my complaint means nothing there. Further, my home games in general do not favor combat by a long shot. Your advice is literally irrelevant to my situation at hand.

I am arguing that a feature is heavily favoring a combat state that shapes the Rogue in a narrow manner. Removing that feature actually opens up Rogue in-class design without doing anything else. As I have shown above, there are fine degrees of advantage between STR v. DEX v. CON Rogues and their different weapons. It is the inclusion of Sneak Attack feature that this play between archetypes and weapons gets heavily favored in one direction.

The peripheral complaint is this then weakens the Rogue's damage per round in the face of other classes and combat. This is an inter-class argument v. an intra-class argument. I understand that complaint, but don't feel it warrants retaining SA because there are better ways to mitigate that design space. By emptying that feature's space I have more to design space work with and still retain the flexibility of character conception.

Basically removing the feature and then replacing it is easier that retaining it and building around its influence.

Quote from: estar;801848How many in your group?

Around 4 to 5 on average. A rarity would be 6. Once we ran 7, but that was actually harder due to getting personalities to align. The 4 to 5 party ran swimmingly.

Quote from: estar;801848The more the referee makes the encounter like a white room fight then more effective preplanning becomes because it eliminates the extraneous factors that causes real world fights to be unpredictable.

Also I think I noticed with many people running phandelver is that they don't take in account that nearly every locale except for Wind Echo Cave is very small. A fight should trigger half of the map to converge on the disturbance. This is going by the RAW perception rules. If you go room by room it is way easier.

However the biggest factor with 5e is raw numbers which is why I am curious about how many was in your group.

Oh no, we would definitely and actively aggro everything as soon as possible, up-front and direct -- with 300' of thunder no less. It made killing things go faster. We essentially played the high aggro red-burn deck and the module just collapses in the face of it. Sure there were attempts to use circumstance and positioning benefits, but aggro-ing immediately led many to our beachhead position and we just slaughtered.
---------------------------

Now, before we waste more page count on counterpoint argumentation, look at the state I created and add value to my efforts:

I am removing Sneak Attack for my home games for a very specific reason --  to open up the stat and weapon space for other archetypal Rogues.

I am also removing Sneak Attack first before I design anything to add to it because it is cleaner in design development. It is easier to add in an empty space than add or subtract (or both) in an already occupied space.

I have already put up two features in which to replace that space. They need refinement.

Given that you do design, and I do respect your opinion, what are your thoughts of what I have already offered?

Quote from: Opaopajr;802060No Undermining of Other Characters During
Adventures. Adventurers are brought together by
common cause, and during an adventure, they're
expected to work together to overcome challenges.
Though certain factions might find others distasteful,
individuals will put that aside and become a team when
put in dangerous situations. In short, play nice with each
other when things get deadly.
(Adventure League Player Guide Tyranny of the Dragons. p.4. underlining mine.)

It is all good until deadly. That's always in combat, some in trap or natural disaster areas exploration, and rare in powerful personages/organizations social.



Yes, it is a grey area. And I am loathe to call upon it myself as I often create and run non-optimized characters in general (including AL. My nigh-pacifist Paladin being a fun example.). However the AL issue is making a good faith effort to have a character blend well with the party's efforts.



They are equivalent because we are dealing with breadth of utility in the face of a feature with an overly large impact. The world's setting is actually shaped by that feature in a curious way, where it really wasn't before in AD&D. That is an issue.

It shapes my virtual realities with this system in ways I don't find useful, deviating from things I didn't find broken into things I find disjointed.



Naturally, I can remove it. But the point of this topic is to raise these questions and discuss it. This is a design I hated in 3e & 4e, was questioning before in the playtest, and had reservations in the Basic .pdf.

Now that I've played with it, I can say with confidence that I do not like it.

And further, you are misrepresenting my argument -- again -- that somehow my games devolve all into combat min/maxing. I am exactly focusing on the right thing to fix because its removal explicitly reinvigorates the debate between the small degrees of utility between various weapons. The debate within Rogue creation within the class becomes interesting again.

It only becomes a between classes issue if I remove it and offer nothing in return to the class. In comparison with other classes it would then be lacking a feature and thus in deficit. Again, from my previous posts you already see that is also not true.

You are overly concerned from a design perspective of something I already foresaw and have already addressed within this very topic. Your argument here is not very convincing in this light.



Organized Play I already concede is a lost cause. Sneak Attack DPS Rogue is here to stay. And running a STR variant is climbing an uphill battle v. the DEX standard. That ended debate saddens me, but no longer interests me. Creating new PCs within that class no longer excites me, the ennui has set in.

As for offering something in return for removing a feature, that is how I have already been going about it, as my previous posts in here show. However, design-wise it is easier to start with a cleaner space and replace it than retaining SA as it stands and trying to compensate around it.

And again, your assumptions on how I run my games is a) not correct, and b) not relevant. Your premise on what is going on is flawed. Let go, this line of argument has no bearing upon what I am arguing.



Actually, I already showed in a previous post that this assumption is not correct in my analysis. Here, this is a breakdown of what I see as weapon cost-benefit utility. Note that in the center (which I will bold) that I can easily defend the selection of any of the weapons before SA; they allow different utility in the middle of combat. Even the Versatile property matters, as having an open hand to Use an Object or rapidly switching to Two-Hands for extra damage can matter.



Afterwards SA delivers so much damage as to overshadow the previous degrees of advantage.

Remember, you are still arguing from the false premise that I somehow run combat-heavy home games and I am not letting Rogue social and exploration to shine. That's not the issue, that's not my argument. Adventure League is its own animal and I know my complaint means nothing there. Further, my home games in general do not favor combat by a long shot. Your advice is literally irrelevant to my situation at hand.

I am arguing that a feature is heavily favoring a combat state that shapes the Rogue in a narrow manner. Removing that feature actually opens up Rogue in-class design without doing anything else. As I have shown above, there are fine degrees of advantage between STR v. DEX v. CON Rogues and their different weapons. It is the inclusion of Sneak Attack feature that this play between archetypes and weapons gets heavily favored in one direction.

The peripheral complaint is this then weakens the Rogue's damage per round in the face of other classes and combat. This is an inter-class argument v. an intra-class argument. I understand that complaint, but don't feel it warrants retaining SA because there are better ways to mitigate that design space. By emptying that feature's space I have more to design space work with and still retain the flexibility of character conception.

Basically removing the feature and then replacing it is easier that retaining it and building around its influence.



Around 4 to 5 on average. A rarity would be 6. Once we ran 7, but that was actually harder due to getting personalities to align. The 4 to 5 party ran swimmingly.



Oh no, we would definitely and actively aggro everything as soon as possible, up-front and direct -- with 300' of thunder no less. It made killing things go faster. We essentially played the high aggro red-burn deck and the module just collapses in the face of it. Sure there were attempts to use circumstance and positioning benefits, but aggro-ing immediately led many to our beachhead position and we just slaughtered.
---------------------------

Now, before we waste more page count on counterpoint argumentation, look at the state I created and add value to my efforts:

I am removing Sneak Attack for my home games for a very specific reason --  to open up the stat and weapon space for other archetypal Rogues.

I am also removing Sneak Attack first before I design anything to add to it because it is cleaner in design development. It is easier to add in an empty space than add or subtract (or both) in an already occupied space.

I have already put up two features in which to replace that space. They need refinement.

Given that you do design, and I do respect your opinion, what are your thoughts of what I have already offered?

So let me get this straight you want to remove SA entirely and basically run into the issue of why the Rogue has been hated by most players in 1-2e especially? Basically being just good enough to get in trouble and die because most times Rogues work alone you know?

Quote from: Will;801898Let us know if it runs into problems! I'm unlikely to get a chance to play/run 5e for about 6 months.

Because I'm tinkering with the martial arts system I mentioned earlier (I haven't posted it yet as I'm not done) - I *MIGHT* even let Thieves SA with any weapon they're proficient with... Yes I realize I might regret it - I'm aiming for my Pirates vs. Ninja game to be a little over-the-top. We'll see how it goes.

Quote from: tenbones;802075Because I'm tinkering with the martial arts system I mentioned earlier (I haven't posted it yet as I'm not done) - I *MIGHT* even let Thieves SA with any weapon they're proficient with... Yes I realize I might regret it - I'm aiming for my Pirates vs. Ninja game to be a little over-the-top. We'll see how it goes.

Thief backstabbing with a naginato from the back of a horse? Thief backstabbing with a cannon from the deck of a galleon?

My favourite sneak attack in a movie was in Hannibal where the good doctor cuts the Italian pickpocket's femoral artery as he brushes past him in the street. That was when I started enforcing rules that backstab had to be a surprise but came directly off wounds bypassing hit points but thieves lost the multiplier and instead got a bonus to surprise. Course that is hard in traditional d&d if you use a lot of monsters cost their hitpoints are supposed to be about hardiness and size nor skill so I never used wound for them.... but how does a sneak attack against a manticore actually work anyway?

Quote from: Marleycat;802061So let me get this straight you want to remove SA entirely and basically run into the issue of why the Rogue has been hated by most players in 1-2e especially? Basically being just good enough to get in trouble and die because most times Rogues work alone you know?

I don't think you needed to quote that whole thing, did you now?

And no, my 2e experience (and with other players) does not mirror yours. We instead had conflict about how to interpret Thief Skills, as often it was read as a singular roll not the safety net roll that Old Geezer said it was used. As for 1e/2e thieves "sucking" in combat v. the 3e DPS "striker," I think it wholly fine as I found absolutely everything that I initially liked about 3e utter shit in practice.

I also found it disingenuous argument as Rogues often were able to be capable combatants, within reason of higher armored PCs. Bards, thieves with kits, Guilders (Birthright), etc. were all quite viable through good play. (Any low level, thinly armored, dual wielder is obviously squishy; look at all the sad debates from back then about those who dual wield their low level rangers into their premature deaths.) And the Rogue archetype, with its sub-type expressions, didn't have to narrow down into one narrowly expressed combat form — which is the core of my complaint.

So at this point our tastes are going to be agree to disagree.

There is an argument to be made for every class having a role in combat. My problem with that is usually the REAL argument is that if you go that way, really, every class should have a role in EVERYTHING. (At which point I look at the fighter and wonder where their skills went, mmm?)


I ALSO find 'I do lots of damage but I'm less armored' to be incredibly dull and unimaginative as a role for rogues, compared to trickster stuff.

Just asking given you seemed shocked you're players are complaining. Hint for you count yourself lucky you're not physically injured... yeah don't mind the snickering in my corner over your awesome fix that never worked the first time it was done.

Honestly the Rogue shouldn't even be a standalone class but what can you do?

Quote from: jibbajibba;802113Thief backstabbing with a naginato from the back of a horse? Thief backstabbing with a cannon from the deck of a galleon?

Backstabbing with a griffon in a dive attack...

Quote from: Omega;802162Backstabbing with a griffon in a dive attack...

Sneaky....

Quote from: jibbajibba;802113Thief backstabbing with a naginato from the back of a horse? Thief backstabbing with a cannon from the deck of a galleon?

My favourite sneak attack in a movie was in Hannibal where the good doctor cuts the Italian pickpocket's femoral artery as he brushes past him in the street. That was when I started enforcing rules that backstab had to be a surprise but came directly off wounds bypassing hit points but thieves lost the multiplier and instead got a bonus to surprise. Course that is hard in traditional d&d if you use a lot of monsters cost their hitpoints are supposed to be about hardiness and size nor skill so I never used wound for them.... but how does a sneak attack against a manticore actually work anyway?

Oh sure - there's all kinds of jicks that allowing this will allow. My stipulations will be that it has to be from the hands of the Thief - or from a ranged weapon he's directly aiming (not a siege weapon - but that would be awesome to Sneak Attack with a Catapult like in the Gamers... LOL)

The Naginata backstab from Horseback - is not different than what I'm allowing regardless. The mounted condition doesn't impact say... a Thief mounted in melee, where the target is currently engaged with someone else. So if I'm willing to allow it with a Thief that is proficient with a Naginata (or whatever) - why does being mounted matter? But I get what you're saying, but I'm pretty flexible.

Quote from: Will;802125There is an argument to be made for every class having a role in combat. My problem with that is usually the REAL argument is that if you go that way, really, every class should have a role in EVERYTHING. (At which point I look at the fighter and wonder where their skills went, mmm?)

Ahhh my favorite topic of late with my players when we're just discussing the purpose of classes. It may sound like heresy... especially since it's my favorite class. I've come to this uneasy conclusion that the "Fighter" is a bullshit class.

Yes - I vomit a little every time I type/speak those words.

This was more true in 3.x/PF/4e than in 5e imo. But even still the implementation of the "Fighter" and definition of what he's supposed to represent is not indicative mechanically of what I believe it should represent in terms of fluff-to-crunch.

A "Fighter" should be, imo, defined as the equivalent of the Spec Ops soldier of the fantasy-world. I don't feel the Archetypes for the class do it justice. The Battlemaster gets close... but I feel this mixed unease that I think non-casters should have the ability to do most of these maneuvers too - but the Fighter should do them *better* or have faster acquisition options to get more of them.

I don't even like the vestigial term "Fighter" because from its inception the class has splintered as its various concepts have become their own seperate classes, or PrC's in other editions. I prefer the Fantasy Craft term Soldier (which I think they handle much cleaner than D&D - even the 5e version.) and rings closer to the concept of what a "Fighter" should be: a professional hand-to-hand combatant that is made for conflict both personal and on the battlefield, and everything that those things connotes.

 I'm working on a martial-system that's a modular thing for 5e that will exemplify this for Fighters. When I'm done with it I'll post it here for scrutiny/criticism/fine-tuning. It might not be everyone's cuppa, but I'm *wanting* non-casters to have a lot more options in combat that are utilitarian

Quote from: Will;802125I ALSO find 'I do lots of damage but I'm less armored' to be incredibly dull and unimaginative as a role for rogues, compared to trickster stuff.

I think this is a case where the the flavor is something both developed by the player and the conceits of the game. As a general rule - I'm a context whore. I want to know the reasons why these things exist. As an example - I'm a big fan of the Kensai class - which is exactly mechanically as you described. Yet in the hands of a the good player it can be a very deep experience nothing like a rogue, or swashbuckler or even a monk or barbarian - which also inhabits that same mechanical space. And even those can be given a lot of depth too - depends on the player.

Tenbones, I used to think that until I went back and reread, and replayed, AD&D 2e through with Complete Fighter Handbook. Those rules just rock. As long as you skip the Player Option madness, the Fighter really shines.

The large number of WPs, and the flexibility with all styles, along with being able to start with a Punch/Wrestle style atop Weapon Style, atop Weapon Specialization all at level one, makes the fighter dominant in his niche. Throw in called shots and rapid THAC0/BAB progression to take advantage of all those maneuvers and it's toys for days without having to reinvent the wheel. It really took me going back to those happy nostalgic games as a player and actually reading in full the rules and running them RAW to get an adult appreciation of how much never needed fixing in the first place in the transition from TSR to WotC.

A lot of what I wanted to achieve was already done, and modular too.