If you defend the design choice to give most combat spells a casting time of 1 standard action because "it's no fun to not cast a spell every round", would you, by that logic, accept rogues adding Sneak Attack damage to all attacks against all creatures in all circumstances no matter what?
>>50293230
No, that's unrealistic.
I don't play D&D so that's not a problem I've come across.
>>50293230
yes
yes
t. 4e
>>50293230
No, I'd prefer a system where rogues have more fun things to do in a fight than just sneak attacking, because that's boring. But I'd let them do those fun things every round, yes.
>>50293230
>t. Virtposter
5e already takes this into account. So long as you have a close-combat fighter in your team you'll always be getting that sneak attack. Anything else requires effort on the Player, and is thus grounds for being a clever rogue. I mean, think about it, you're given a couple of broad circumstances and are given multiple options to cause them to occur. It's a puzzle for you to fulfill that circumstance within the confines of the rules and your GM’S scrutiny.
Make DnD Great Again by divorcing it from its combat simulation roots
>>50293483
4e SA needs combat advantage, and is 1/turn.
5e SA only needs someone standing next to the target, which is easy as shit.