Why is the wording different between Inquisitive and Swashbuckler Rogues' Sneak Attack-related subclass...











up vote
11
down vote

favorite












Swashbuckler rogues' Rakish Audacity feature lets them attack a lone target with Sneak Attack, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 47):




You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.




Inquisitive rogues' Insightful Fighting Feature lets them gain insight on a target and use Sneak Attack against them as well, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 46):




As a bonus action, you can make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn't incapacitated, contested by the target's Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don't have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.




A player of mine raised a good point. Swashbucklers specifically say All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you, meaning you still need to use finesse/ranged weapons. The Inquisitive rogue doesn't say so. While I'm pretty sure they still require finesse/ranged weapons, I'm actually wondering whether I am correct.



Is there any reason for this wording difference? Or should we just assume the remainder of Sneak Attack conditions still apply?






dnd-5e class-feature rogue sneak-attack







share|improve this question
























  • While the question is phrased like a "designer reasons" question, what it's actually asking is basically just "Does the Inquisitive rogue's Insightful Fighting feature failing to mention that other Sneak Attack rules still apply mean Inquisitives can Sneak Attack without finesse/ranged weapons?" If this is the case, it might be better to edit the question to ask it that way directly in the title.
    – V2Blast
    21 hours ago















up vote
11
down vote

favorite












Swashbuckler rogues' Rakish Audacity feature lets them attack a lone target with Sneak Attack, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 47):




You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.




Inquisitive rogues' Insightful Fighting Feature lets them gain insight on a target and use Sneak Attack against them as well, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 46):




As a bonus action, you can make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn't incapacitated, contested by the target's Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don't have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.




A player of mine raised a good point. Swashbucklers specifically say All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you, meaning you still need to use finesse/ranged weapons. The Inquisitive rogue doesn't say so. While I'm pretty sure they still require finesse/ranged weapons, I'm actually wondering whether I am correct.



Is there any reason for this wording difference? Or should we just assume the remainder of Sneak Attack conditions still apply?






dnd-5e class-feature rogue sneak-attack







share|improve this question
























  • While the question is phrased like a "designer reasons" question, what it's actually asking is basically just "Does the Inquisitive rogue's Insightful Fighting feature failing to mention that other Sneak Attack rules still apply mean Inquisitives can Sneak Attack without finesse/ranged weapons?" If this is the case, it might be better to edit the question to ask it that way directly in the title.
    – V2Blast
    21 hours ago













up vote
11
down vote

favorite









up vote
11
down vote

favorite











Swashbuckler rogues' Rakish Audacity feature lets them attack a lone target with Sneak Attack, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 47):




You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.




Inquisitive rogues' Insightful Fighting Feature lets them gain insight on a target and use Sneak Attack against them as well, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 46):




As a bonus action, you can make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn't incapacitated, contested by the target's Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don't have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.




A player of mine raised a good point. Swashbucklers specifically say All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you, meaning you still need to use finesse/ranged weapons. The Inquisitive rogue doesn't say so. While I'm pretty sure they still require finesse/ranged weapons, I'm actually wondering whether I am correct.



Is there any reason for this wording difference? Or should we just assume the remainder of Sneak Attack conditions still apply?






dnd-5e class-feature rogue sneak-attack







share|improve this question















Swashbuckler rogues' Rakish Audacity feature lets them attack a lone target with Sneak Attack, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 47):




You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.




Inquisitive rogues' Insightful Fighting Feature lets them gain insight on a target and use Sneak Attack against them as well, as long as they don't have disadvantage (XGtE, p. 46):




As a bonus action, you can make a Wisdom (Insight) check against a creature you can see that isn't incapacitated, contested by the target's Charisma (Deception) check. If you succeed, you can use your Sneak Attack against that target even if you don't have advantage on the attack roll, but not if you have disadvantage on it.




A player of mine raised a good point. Swashbucklers specifically say All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you, meaning you still need to use finesse/ranged weapons. The Inquisitive rogue doesn't say so. While I'm pretty sure they still require finesse/ranged weapons, I'm actually wondering whether I am correct.



Is there any reason for this wording difference? Or should we just assume the remainder of Sneak Attack conditions still apply?






dnd-5e class-feature rogue sneak-attack




dnd-5e class-feature rogue sneak-attack






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 21 hours ago









V2Blast

18.6k250115




18.6k250115










asked yesterday









BlueMoon93

12.3k965131




12.3k965131












  • While the question is phrased like a "designer reasons" question, what it's actually asking is basically just "Does the Inquisitive rogue's Insightful Fighting feature failing to mention that other Sneak Attack rules still apply mean Inquisitives can Sneak Attack without finesse/ranged weapons?" If this is the case, it might be better to edit the question to ask it that way directly in the title.
    – V2Blast
    21 hours ago


















  • While the question is phrased like a "designer reasons" question, what it's actually asking is basically just "Does the Inquisitive rogue's Insightful Fighting feature failing to mention that other Sneak Attack rules still apply mean Inquisitives can Sneak Attack without finesse/ranged weapons?" If this is the case, it might be better to edit the question to ask it that way directly in the title.
    – V2Blast
    21 hours ago
















While the question is phrased like a "designer reasons" question, what it's actually asking is basically just "Does the Inquisitive rogue's Insightful Fighting feature failing to mention that other Sneak Attack rules still apply mean Inquisitives can Sneak Attack without finesse/ranged weapons?" If this is the case, it might be better to edit the question to ask it that way directly in the title.
– V2Blast
21 hours ago




While the question is phrased like a "designer reasons" question, what it's actually asking is basically just "Does the Inquisitive rogue's Insightful Fighting feature failing to mention that other Sneak Attack rules still apply mean Inquisitives can Sneak Attack without finesse/ranged weapons?" If this is the case, it might be better to edit the question to ask it that way directly in the title.
– V2Blast
21 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
16
down vote



accepted










Inquisitive rogues still follow all the other rules for Sneak Attack



Nothing in the class feature says they don't follow the other rules, so they still do.



Trying to figure out why the 5e designers used specific wording in a given location and not in others is an exercise in futility, but in this case I would wager it is because of the length of the exceptions to the rules present.



The Swashbuckler has a lengthy, multi-part condition to allow a completely new way to Sneak Attack (in addition to the 2 all Rogues start with), and by the end you could easily expect it to list all of the rules you need to follow; the bolded text explains that this isn't so and the other rules still apply.



The Inquisitive's exception is more straightforward; you replace the requirement "Need Advantage" with "Pass the check".
Since there are fewer words and rules mentioned, a reader is less likely to assume that all the other rules are overridden.






share|improve this answer























  • I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
    – Winterborne
    yesterday










  • @Winterborne How is it now?
    – GreySage
    yesterday










  • Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
    – Winterborne
    yesterday











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136958%2fwhy-is-the-wording-different-between-inquisitive-and-swashbuckler-rogues-sneak%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
16
down vote



accepted










Inquisitive rogues still follow all the other rules for Sneak Attack



Nothing in the class feature says they don't follow the other rules, so they still do.



Trying to figure out why the 5e designers used specific wording in a given location and not in others is an exercise in futility, but in this case I would wager it is because of the length of the exceptions to the rules present.



The Swashbuckler has a lengthy, multi-part condition to allow a completely new way to Sneak Attack (in addition to the 2 all Rogues start with), and by the end you could easily expect it to list all of the rules you need to follow; the bolded text explains that this isn't so and the other rules still apply.



The Inquisitive's exception is more straightforward; you replace the requirement "Need Advantage" with "Pass the check".
Since there are fewer words and rules mentioned, a reader is less likely to assume that all the other rules are overridden.






share|improve this answer























  • I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
    – Winterborne
    yesterday










  • @Winterborne How is it now?
    – GreySage
    yesterday










  • Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
    – Winterborne
    yesterday















up vote
16
down vote



accepted










Inquisitive rogues still follow all the other rules for Sneak Attack



Nothing in the class feature says they don't follow the other rules, so they still do.



Trying to figure out why the 5e designers used specific wording in a given location and not in others is an exercise in futility, but in this case I would wager it is because of the length of the exceptions to the rules present.



The Swashbuckler has a lengthy, multi-part condition to allow a completely new way to Sneak Attack (in addition to the 2 all Rogues start with), and by the end you could easily expect it to list all of the rules you need to follow; the bolded text explains that this isn't so and the other rules still apply.



The Inquisitive's exception is more straightforward; you replace the requirement "Need Advantage" with "Pass the check".
Since there are fewer words and rules mentioned, a reader is less likely to assume that all the other rules are overridden.






share|improve this answer























  • I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
    – Winterborne
    yesterday










  • @Winterborne How is it now?
    – GreySage
    yesterday










  • Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
    – Winterborne
    yesterday













up vote
16
down vote



accepted







up vote
16
down vote



accepted






Inquisitive rogues still follow all the other rules for Sneak Attack



Nothing in the class feature says they don't follow the other rules, so they still do.



Trying to figure out why the 5e designers used specific wording in a given location and not in others is an exercise in futility, but in this case I would wager it is because of the length of the exceptions to the rules present.



The Swashbuckler has a lengthy, multi-part condition to allow a completely new way to Sneak Attack (in addition to the 2 all Rogues start with), and by the end you could easily expect it to list all of the rules you need to follow; the bolded text explains that this isn't so and the other rules still apply.



The Inquisitive's exception is more straightforward; you replace the requirement "Need Advantage" with "Pass the check".
Since there are fewer words and rules mentioned, a reader is less likely to assume that all the other rules are overridden.






share|improve this answer














Inquisitive rogues still follow all the other rules for Sneak Attack



Nothing in the class feature says they don't follow the other rules, so they still do.



Trying to figure out why the 5e designers used specific wording in a given location and not in others is an exercise in futility, but in this case I would wager it is because of the length of the exceptions to the rules present.



The Swashbuckler has a lengthy, multi-part condition to allow a completely new way to Sneak Attack (in addition to the 2 all Rogues start with), and by the end you could easily expect it to list all of the rules you need to follow; the bolded text explains that this isn't so and the other rules still apply.



The Inquisitive's exception is more straightforward; you replace the requirement "Need Advantage" with "Pass the check".
Since there are fewer words and rules mentioned, a reader is less likely to assume that all the other rules are overridden.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









GreySage

13.6k44990




13.6k44990












  • I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
    – Winterborne
    yesterday










  • @Winterborne How is it now?
    – GreySage
    yesterday










  • Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
    – Winterborne
    yesterday


















  • I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
    – Winterborne
    yesterday










  • @Winterborne How is it now?
    – GreySage
    yesterday










  • Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
    – Winterborne
    yesterday
















I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
– Winterborne
yesterday




I think this answer could be improved by providing more explanation for what the Insight check allows the Inquisitive Rogue to do. i.e. Passed insight check =/= can sneak attack. But rather passed insight check = sneak attack no longer requires advantage.
– Winterborne
yesterday












@Winterborne How is it now?
– GreySage
yesterday




@Winterborne How is it now?
– GreySage
yesterday












Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
– Winterborne
yesterday




Perfect, thanks for taking the time to edit
– Winterborne
yesterday


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136958%2fwhy-is-the-wording-different-between-inquisitive-and-swashbuckler-rogues-sneak%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
Read more

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Image
0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
Read more

Mont Emei

Image
Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
Read more