PDA

View Full Version : Rogues and longswords



Inevitability
2014-07-07, 09:54 AM
Something that has been bothering me; Rogues gain proficiency with longswords now.

I can't see where that is coming from. In neither 3.5 nor 4e were rogues able to use longswords (don't know about earlier editions), and even if you'd wield one you can't sneak attack with it. Why did they even gave the rogue proficiency in them?

Callin
2014-07-07, 09:57 AM
yea that does seem pretty odd now that you mention it

Jon D
2014-07-07, 09:59 AM
Something that has been bothering me; Rogues gain proficiency with longswords now.

I can't see where that is coming from. In neither 3.5 nor 4e were rogues able to use longswords (don't know about earlier editions), and even if you'd wield one you can't sneak attack with it. Why did they even gave the rogue proficiency in them?

There was a rogue that used a longsword back in 2nd.

His name was Cyric.

Morty
2014-07-07, 10:01 AM
It does seem weird that they get proficiency in a weapon they can't use a major class feature with. It'd be best to let them sneak attack with longswords. It might open up the way for some more sorely needed variety.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-07, 11:33 AM
Two weapon fighting. You can use strength on finesse weapons, get a dagger and you can sneak attack with the dagger.

1d8+Str
1d4+xd6 (sneak attack)

This gives strength based rogues an option.

Plus I'm sure we will see a thug rogue can use non-finesse for sneak attacks.

Edit:

1d8+3 + 1d4 + 1d6 = Average 13.5 damage in one round at level one.

Callin
2014-07-07, 11:36 AM
Except you cant TWF with a Longsword and Dagger.

You can only get the second attack if the first attack is with a Light weapon then you can attack with a second separate Light weapon.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-07, 11:43 AM
Except you cant TWF with a Longsword and Dagger.

You can only get the second attack if the first attack is with a Light weapon then you can attack with a second separate Light weapon.

Huh, DM running the starter said only one weapon must be light.

I need to check the PDF.

Joe the Rat
2014-07-07, 12:05 PM
There was the two-weapon style feat that let you fight with any 1-h and a light weapon off-hand, but that's yet another "if it made it to the PHB" explanation.

obryn
2014-07-07, 12:06 PM
Except you cant TWF with a Longsword and Dagger.
99% chance there's a feat that allows it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-07, 12:09 PM
99% chance there's a feat that allows it.

Or optional rule or subclass/path.

Palegreenpants
2014-07-07, 01:45 PM
Yeah, I'd bet fifty cakes that there'll be a feat that allows DWFing of one light and one heavy weapon. Like, how else could we use a rapier and dirk?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-07, 02:11 PM
Yeah, I'd bet fifty cakes that there'll be a feat that allows DWFing of one light and one heavy weapon. Like, how else could we use a rapier and dirk?

Nah. It will emulate the ranger from 4e... 2 one handed weapons.

Whip + Longsword all day long :D

da_chicken
2014-07-07, 03:47 PM
It's the most common weapon type in the game, along with shortsword, mace, and dagger. This ensures that the Rogue can use a magic weapon if he needs to, even if it's the Fighter's hand me down.

Yorrin
2014-07-07, 03:51 PM
It's the most common weapon type in the game, along with shortsword, mace, and dagger. This ensures that the Rogue can use a magic weapon if he needs to, even if it's the Fighter's hand me down.

This.... is sadly probably the best justification we're going to hear...

TheOOB
2014-07-07, 03:51 PM
I would be shocked if there isn't a rogish archtpe that makes the character more of a tough fighter type rogue who uses bigger weapons and armor.

Callin
2014-07-07, 03:55 PM
You can say "Feat for this and that" all ya'll want but so far Feats are an Option from what I hear. So its not going to be at every table, and cant be assumed to be allowed in character design for CharOp. So as it stands now a Rogue using a Long Sword is pretty worthless in my opinion. One handed he is goin going to be rocking a d8+str or 1d10+str two handed. That dont hold a candle to 1d8+dex+1d6 sneak attack from a Rapier (provided the rogue gets his sneak attack off more often than not :) )

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-07, 03:59 PM
They should take a page out of the 4e way of doing things.

They made all magic thrown items have the returning property... Let's take this a step further.

All magic thrown items have the returning property.
All magic items have the transforming property.

Transforming Property (Magic Item)

You may, as a bonus action (outside of battle it can be free) , cause your weapon to increase or decrease in size. This changes the type of weapon it is along the following lines.

(Totally need to word that better...)

Dagger <> Short Sword <> Long Sword <> Great sword

Hand Axe <> Battle Axe <> Greatest Axe

Club <> Great Club

Short Bow <> Long Bow <> Great bow

You still need prof in the new weapon to weild it correctly.


Make the properties go usually...

Finesse Throwable <> Finesse <> 1 Handed <> 2 handed <> 2 handed Heavy

Some chains won't have one or more of the types... But we can make new weapons to fit in :p

da_chicken
2014-07-07, 03:59 PM
Not every option needs to be equally viable, guys. That's not a bug.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-07, 04:03 PM
Not every option needs to be equally viable, guys. That's not a bug.

I don't think people think its a bug more of...

Why did the rogue get proficiency in a weapon that they can not use with their main style of fighting. It would be like giving them proficiency with thieves tools even if they had no way of using them (for example if you couldn't make checks untrained and didn't have sleight of hand trained).

The rogue trained in using a Longsword but then can't use said longsword effectively. It is a bit weird.

BRC
2014-07-07, 04:11 PM
I don't think people think its a bug more of...

Why did the rogue get proficiency in a weapon that they can not use with their main style of fighting. It would be like giving them proficiency with thieves tools even if they had no way of using them (for example if you couldn't make checks untrained and didn't have sleight of hand trained).

The rogue trained in using a Longsword but then can't use said longsword effectively. It is a bit weird.
Why would an Archer bother training with a sword?
I can see it as being a situational boost.
A Rogue will primarily fight with a dagger, shortsword, or other sneak-attack weapon. However, if for some reason they cannot sneak attack, they can have a Longsword to deal a bit more damage than they would with their daggers or shortsword.

It could also be a logic thing.
A rogue knows how to fight with a shortsword. A Shortsword is a different weapon than a longsword, somebody could easily be skilled with one but not with the other. However, I could see basic proficiency carrying over. Once you know the basics of swinging a sword around, you don't suddenly become incapable of doing so because there is a little bit more sword.

Sartharina
2014-07-07, 04:28 PM
Why did the rogue get proficiency in a weapon that they can not use with their main style of fighting. It would be like giving them proficiency with thieves tools even if they had no way of using them (for example if you couldn't make checks untrained and didn't have sleight of hand trained).This doesn't follow, unless the game screwed something up seriously.

You don't need Thieves' Tools to make Sleight of Hand checks, nor Sleight of Hand checks to use Thieves' Tools. You use Thieves Tools to make Dexterity or Int(Thieves' Tools) checks to disarm locks and open traps.

... I wish they'd done a better job of decoupling skill proficiency from abilities than just the one Variant section, though.

Particle_Man
2014-07-07, 05:19 PM
Maybe it is to allow the rogue to pretend to be some other profession that regularly uses a longsword, without blowing their cover by betraying a lack of proficiency with the longsword?

da_chicken
2014-07-07, 06:06 PM
I don't think people think its a bug more of...

Why did the rogue get proficiency in a weapon that they can not use with their main style of fighting. It would be like giving them proficiency with thieves tools even if they had no way of using them (for example if you couldn't make checks untrained and didn't have sleight of hand trained).

The rogue trained in using a Longsword but then can't use said longsword effectively. It is a bit weird.

You realize I said, "Not every option needs to be viable." And then you responded, "Yes, but why isn't every option viable?"

Why are they proficient with all simple weapons instead of just dagger and crossbows? They can't Sneak Attack with a mace or spear or greatclub, so why give it to them? Because it gives them a reasonable weapon selection. Stop overthinking it. Sometimes a longsword is just a longsword. At the very least it gives them a 1d10 weapon when they can't overcome a foe's disadvantage, and they can use it better than a Cleric or Wizard. It doesn't have to be an archetype.

If it rustles your jimmies, change it to scimitar or get rid of it.

Haberdashery
2014-07-07, 07:21 PM
It's a legacy thing. Thieves in 1st and 2nd edition could use longswords. I'm not sure why sneak attack doesn't work with longswords, though. AD&D thieves could backstab just fine with longswords.

Particle_Man
2014-07-07, 07:50 PM
I wonder if a feat will appear in the phb that allows rogues to ignore the finesse/ranged requirement on weapons to sneak attack with them (or perhaps one of the rogue archtypes, the assassin perhaps?)

Sartharina
2014-07-07, 07:51 PM
Yeah... that rule I hope gets erratta'd out quickly, to allow dwarves to benefit from their Weapon Training, and Rogues to actually be able to use their longswords if they're Strength (Dirty Fighting+Thuggery) instead of Dex(Defense and resilience) based.

I want to be able to use my Hammer of Kneecapping, dammit!

Arzanyos
2014-07-07, 08:57 PM
Eh, I think it's probably likely that there will be a roguish archetype that is sneak attack focused, and would let you sneak attack with anything. Probably "assassin" or something.

HunterOfJello
2014-07-07, 09:44 PM
Artemis Entreri uses a longsword.

Artemis Entreri is a character who is specifically cited in the Basic Ruleset. They probably wanted you to be able to make Artemis Entreri as a Rogue (even though he is cited as a rogue/fighter) character and able to use his normal weapons without sucking at it automatically.

Sartharina
2014-07-07, 09:57 PM
Eh, I think it's probably likely that there will be a roguish archetype that is sneak attack focused, and would let you sneak attack with anything. Probably "assassin" or something.

Hopefully this is the case, with Dex-based rogues favoring the limited-weapon-selection but crazy-bonus-action Thief class, and Strength-based rogues favoring a combat-focused archetype that allows them to sneak attack with all weapons and have advantages in fighting dirty.

rlc
2014-07-10, 04:50 PM
Yeah, I'd bet fifty cakes that there'll be a feat that allows DWFing of one light and one heavy weapon. Like, how else could we use a rapier and dirk?

What kind of cake? This is important.

And if you say lie cake...

akaddk
2014-07-10, 06:22 PM
I think people forget that Basic & Starter are not the full game and yet they're making judgements of these sources as if they are. I'd be willing to bet that there's a strength rogue variant that allows them to attack with it. Not only that, but it's not a terrible option either when you consider that you can only make one Sneak Attack per turn, so having an off-hand finesse weapon, you can deal MH damage with your Strength bonus, and use your OH for the sneak attack.

Morty
2014-07-11, 11:36 AM
If you ask me, it really shouldn't take a sub-class for the rogue to be able to effectively use all the weapons on its proficiency list.

akaddk
2014-07-11, 04:28 PM
If you ask me, it really shouldn't take a sub-class for the rogue to be able to effectively use all the weapons on its proficiency list.
The variant idea I mentioned above doesn't require a sub-class, merely points in Strength.


Not only that, but it's not a terrible option either when you consider that you can only make one Sneak Attack per turn, so having an off-hand finesse weapon, you can deal MH damage with your Strength bonus, and use your OH for the sneak attack.

TheOOB
2014-07-11, 07:01 PM
If you ask me, it really shouldn't take a sub-class for the rogue to be able to effectively use all the weapons on its proficiency list.

From what I understand, proficiencies need to be added by the class not an ability to make multiclassing work.

I don't get what the big deal is, the wizard is also proficient in several weapons they are unable to effectively use.

Particle_Man
2014-07-11, 08:56 PM
I think people forget that Basic & Starter are not the full game and yet they're making judgements of these sources as if they are. I'd be willing to bet that there's a strength rogue variant that allows them to attack with it. Not only that, but it's not a terrible option either when you consider that you can only make one Sneak Attack per turn, so having an off-hand finesse weapon, you can deal MH damage with your Strength bonus, and use your OH for the sneak attack.

I don't think that works because you can't do TWF if either weapon is not light, and longswords are not light.

Mind you, I suppose you could hold the longsword in readiness, so that, if you know you can't sneak attack that round, swing with the longsword.

akaddk
2014-07-11, 09:42 PM
I don't think that works because you can't do TWF if either weapon is not light, and longswords are not light.

God I hate people like you. Using reason, logic & fact-based evidence in your counter-arguments. It's disgusting! How am I meant to argue this now? I have to find something else to rage about now :(

Inevitability
2014-07-12, 12:53 AM
I don't get what the big deal is, the wizard is also proficient in several weapons they are unable to effectively use.

Yes, but they are already expected only to use these weapons as a last resort. Rogues are expected to use these weapons as their primary source of attack, and have a major class feature that restricts their weapon choice.

A wizard who picks up darts will be about as useful as one who uses a crossbow. After all, he's going to use spells most of the time anyways.

A rogue with a longsword will be far less effective than one who wields a rapier. After all, he can't sneak attack with it.

Morty
2014-07-12, 05:46 AM
The variant idea I mentioned above doesn't require a sub-class, merely points in Strength.


I don't think that works because you can't do TWF if either weapon is not light, and longswords are not light.


I was about to concede that point, but I guess not.


From what I understand, proficiencies need to be added by the class not an ability to make multiclassing work.

I don't get what the big deal is, the wizard is also proficient in several weapons they are unable to effectively use.


Yes, but they are already expected only to use these weapons as a last resort. Rogues are expected to use these weapons as their primary source of attack, and have a major class feature that restricts their weapon choice.

A wizard who picks up darts will be about as useful as one who uses a crossbow. After all, he's going to use spells most of the time anyways.

A rogue with a longsword will be far less effective than one who wields a rapier. After all, he can't sneak attack with it.

What he said. A wizard's proficiencies are more or less cosmetic. But for a rogue, weapons are the main tools of the trade in combat. Giving them a proficiency with a weapon they can't use properly anyway is sloppy and pointlessly restrictive - would the game break if a rogue could focus on strength more than on dexterity? Mind you, it's less about the rogue class in particular and more about the weapons table being fossilized.

Particle_Man
2014-07-12, 10:10 AM
I am going to wait for the PHB to see all the rogue variants and all the feats that it contains, before making a judgement. I do remember that in 1st edition thieves were limited in weapons, but assassins, a thief sub-class, were not. It occurs to me that 5e, which is AFAICT making an effort to draw on all previous editions, might give an assassin sub-class the ability to sneak attack with a wider variety of weaponry. Or perhaps there will be a feat that covers this.

At present, the long sword (and obvious proficiency with that long sword) could be part of a rogue's long-term disguise if masquerading as a soldier. Then at the right time the rogue whips out a dagger and stabs someone. ;)

Warskull
2014-07-12, 11:40 AM
You used to be able to sneak attack with any weapon in the next playtests. One of the following probably happened:

#1) They decided to limit the rogues sneak attack options to prevent things like great axe sneak attacks. They then forgot to remove the longsword proficiency.

#2) There is a feat that expands your sneak attack options in the PHB.

Callin
2014-07-12, 11:55 AM
Why are a Wizards weapon profs Cosmetic? Not every instance will call for a spell to be cast and there will also be Wizards who have 0 damaging spells prepared. Yes even Cantrips. In the Basic alone there are 5 non damaging Cantrips that are quite useful to have and 8 first levels. So yea a Wizard using Weapons is not out of the equation. Not to mention that if you are trying to be silent then casting a spell is right out (for any V component spell).

Tholomyes
2014-07-12, 03:23 PM
I have to dissent, here, and say I don't mind the rogue Having longsword proficiency. It's not going to be all that useful for most characters, but certain characters (like a Str focused thug-rogue that I'm guessing will be a third subclass, or at the very least, one from an early splatbook) could use it (depending on the rules for that subclass) as either a main or backup weapon. It doesn't need to be effective for every build, but it's nice for the option to be there, if you decide to go for a more outside the box type of build.

rlc
2014-07-12, 03:49 PM
Maybe there will eventually be a strength focused rogue of some kind.
Maybe there will be a feat.
Maybe it's so rogues can disguise themselves as fighters.
Maybe there will be a large-sized race that can treat more weapons as light, making the longsword-dagger two-weapon rogue viable for that race.
Maybe there's a rogue that throws things and proficiency means more damage.
Maybe they just wanted rogues to be able to use longswords, even if they can't sneak attack with them.

There are a lot of different possible reasons.

Morty
2014-07-12, 04:25 PM
I have to dissent, here, and say I don't mind the rogue Having longsword proficiency. It's not going to be all that useful for most characters, but certain characters (like a Str focused thug-rogue that I'm guessing will be a third subclass, or at the very least, one from an early splatbook) could use it (depending on the rules for that subclass) as either a main or backup weapon. It doesn't need to be effective for every build, but it's nice for the option to be there, if you decide to go for a more outside the box type of build.

The problem isn't that they have the proficiency. The problem is that it's somewhat pointless, as they can't sneak attack with them. And it's not like letting them do it would cause any problems.

da_chicken
2014-07-12, 05:09 PM
The problem isn't that they have the proficiency. The problem is that it's somewhat pointless, as they can't sneak attack with them. And it's not like letting them do it would cause any problems.

My guess is that the reason the game requires Finesse and Light weapons for SA is because of how one of the Rogue's paths worked in playtest combined with how one of the feats for Heavy weapons worked combined with how crits used to work. You could deal 50 damage pretty easily at level 5.

In exchange, Sneak Attack now scales to 10d6 damage (roughly level/2) which is higher than it did in playtest.

Tholomyes
2014-07-12, 05:11 PM
While expanding it to include longswords wouldn't be gamebreaking, it'd be hard to do so in a way that doesn't open the opportunity for Greatsword Sneak attacks. I'd rather just reflavor a Rapier or Scimitar as a longsword, if it were important to my concept, and just keep sneak attacks the way they are.

Morty
2014-07-12, 06:24 PM
True, a rapier described as a longsword is effectively identical to an actual longsword. Which leads us back to the weapons table being an illusion of choice.

As far as sneak-attacking with a greatsword goes, I'm honestly not sure if it would be so bad. A rogue who acquires greatsword proficiency somehow probably deserves to use it with sneak attack. Can it even be done through means other than multi-classing? I suppose there will probably be feats for it, but they're a scarce resource in 5e.

Kuulvheysoon
2014-07-13, 01:12 AM
Artemis Entreri uses a longsword.

Artemis Entreri is a character who is specifically cited in the Basic Ruleset. They probably wanted you to be able to make Artemis Entreri as a Rogue (even though he is cited as a rogue/fighter) character and able to use his normal weapons without sucking at it automatically.

Actually, from page 33 on, Artemis is cited as a Fighter (in comparison to Tika Waylon).

Just saying.:smalltongue:

Morty
2014-07-13, 09:52 AM
Of course, poor Artemis wouldn't work either, since a longsword can't be finessed. :smalltongue:

Warskull
2014-07-14, 12:55 AM
As far as sneak-attacking with a greatsword goes, I'm honestly not sure if it would be so bad. A rogue who acquires greatsword proficiency somehow probably deserves to use it with sneak attack. Can it even be done through means other than multi-classing? I suppose there will probably be feats for it, but they're a scarce resource in 5e.

Unless they've changed the multiclass rules in the PHB, acquiring proficiencies is pretty cheap. A single level in fighter could get you martial weapon proficiency.

Tholomyes
2014-07-14, 01:17 AM
It's also possible a race will get them, right off the bat. Half orc is a possibility, but really anything they release in the future is a possibility. Essentially, the thing they need to consider is that it doesn't even need to be easy in core, it just needs to be easily be a possibility in the future. Some things are more difficult to anticipate, but a race getting a greatsword as a proficiency isn't unlikely.

TheOOB
2014-07-14, 02:37 AM
Just a thought experiment, lets see how relevant weapon damage is to a rogue. For the following math, we'll assume, a +5 bonus to damage, 1d8 weapon damage(rapier), and 1d6(level 1), 5d6(level 10), and 10d6(level 20) damage. We'll assume the rogue hits 75% of the time, and 75% of those hits are sneak attacks.

Damage bonus: 3.75
Weapon Damage: 3.375
1d6 Sneak Attack: 1.96875
5d6 Sneak Attack: 9.84375
10d6 Sneak Attack: 19.6875

1d6 Sneak Attack Total = 9.1 dmg per turn
5d6 Sneak Attack Total = 17 dmg per turn
10d6 Sneak Attack = 26.8 dmg per turn

So a Rapier Weapon damage is about 15% of your total damage at level 20, a relevant, but not huge amount. This does mean that getting higher damage weapons will be relevant(though a greatsword only adds like 2.5 extra damage on a hit over a rapier), and the rogue may be balanced assuming smaller weapons.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 03:09 AM
So a Rapier Weapon damage is about 15% of your total damage at level 20, a relevant, but not huge amount. This does mean that getting higher damage weapons will be relevant(though a greatsword only adds like 2.5 extra damage on a hit over a rapier), and the rogue may be balanced assuming smaller weapons.

TWF using two shortswords is a better deal for a rogue than a rapier anyway.

Personally, if anyone says to me, "I WANNA GREATSWORD WIELDING ROUGE WID SNEAK ATTACKS!" I'm throwing them out of my game.

Morty
2014-07-14, 06:47 AM
Unless they've changed the multiclass rules in the PHB, acquiring proficiencies is pretty cheap. A single level in fighter could get you martial weapon proficiency.

That's true, I suppose. A single-level fighter dip isn't that much of an investment. I'm still not convinced letting rogue sneak attack with whatever they want is such a huge deal, though. If we're really scared about greatsword sneak attacks, we could say it's only possible with one-handed weapons.



Personally, if anyone says to me, "I WANNA GREATSWORD WIELDING ROUGE WID SNEAK ATTACKS!" I'm throwing them out of my game.

What if they say "I want to play a rogue/fighter who uses tactical positioning combined with a powerful weapon to deal lethal blows"?

akaddk
2014-07-14, 06:49 AM
What if they say "I want to play a rogue/fighter who uses tactical positioning combined with a powerful weapon to deal lethal blows"?
I reply, "Cry me a river."

Morty
2014-07-14, 06:54 AM
I suppose original character concepts cannot be tolerated.

Merellis
2014-07-14, 06:55 AM
Not sure how a player wanting to be a rogue with a bigger weapon is a kickable offense. :smallconfused:

At most it's not much extra damage, and could be used in the fluff of a rather treacherous attacker that enjoys stabbing into the vitals or taking advantage of even a moments distraction but wanting to insure it's a devastating response to that moment of distraction.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 07:47 AM
I suppose original character concepts cannot be tolerated.

I'm tired of people being whiny and selfish and demanding. Everybody wants to be a special snowflake and everybody expects everyone else to bend over backwards to accommodate them. And it's always the people who complain about their freedoms and creativity and blah, blah, blah being infringed that always end up causing the most disruption at the table when their expectations are not met. And the more you capitulate to them, the more they demand until you get to a point where you may as well just give them whatever they want because if you don't, they throw a tantrum and somehow you end up the bad guy.

So no. Just no. Go play Pathfinder where your special snowflake status is catered to and you and all the other snowflakes can go make snow together.

Sneak attacking with a greatsword. FFS.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 08:50 AM
I'm tired of people being whiny and selfish and demanding. Everybody wants to be a special snowflake and everybody expects everyone else to bend over backwards to accommodate them. And it's always the people who complain about their freedoms and creativity and blah, blah, blah being infringed that always end up causing the most disruption at the table when their expectations are not met. And the more you capitulate to them, the more they demand until you get to a point where you may as well just give them whatever they want because if you don't, they throw a tantrum and somehow you end up the bad guy.

So no. Just no. Go play Pathfinder where your special snowflake status is catered to and you and all the other snowflakes can go make snow together.

Sneak attacking with a greatsword. FFS.

I think that you don't get what the snowflake is. Someone wanting to use a big weapon and be a rogue isn't asking to be a snowflake but asking to have a long standing archetype of rogue (Ruthless Ruffian for ease of words) to be part of the game. That isn't asking to be a snowflake at all.

The only person I hear crying is you, throwing a tantrum for what I guess is the sake of throwing a tantrum. Because people want more options to play a fantasy game their way, you seem to be freaking out and crying foul? Weird.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 09:04 AM
That isn't asking to be a snowflake at all.
Yes it is. They're asking for something outside of the rules that makes no sense and abuses the generosity of the DM. You can't sneak attack with a friggin great sword. It's a SNEAK attack. So you have to break everything just to accommodate them, making them feel special, like a snowflake.


Because people want more options to play a fantasy game their way, you seem to be freaking out and crying foul?
Game. Set. Match.

Merellis
2014-07-14, 09:14 AM
Yes it is. They're asking for something outside of the rules that makes no sense and abuses the generosity of the DM. You can't sneak attack with a friggin great sword. It's a SNEAK attack. So you have to break everything just to accommodate them, making them feel special, like a snowflake.


Game. Set. Match.

Why are you getting so upset over the idea of a rogue with a bigger weapon? It's not even a magical weapon we're talking about, or a crazy ability, it's just literally a larger lump of metal in the hands of a character that loves to take advantage of distraction. Whether it's a dagger or a full-blown buster sword, if the damn thing slams into your vitals or weak spot, there is gonna be extra damage.

Hehehe, Rogue that manages to go with unarmed combat, fluffing it as pressure points and the like. :smallbiggrin:

And you still haven't explained why asking to use a bigger sword is grounds for kicking from a game.

Morty
2014-07-14, 09:17 AM
Sneak attack means that you strike where it hurts through exploiting the enemy's weak points. Either because they're unaware of your presence, or because they're engaged in combat with another of your allies. Why can't it be done with a long, two-handed weapon if the rogue is trained in using it? Being stabbed right between the shoulder blades because you couldn't respond in time is not dependent on the length of the blade that does the stabbing. Nor does it stop working if it's an axe.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 09:24 AM
Yes it is. They're asking for something outside of the rules that makes no sense and abuses the generosity of the DM. You can't sneak attack with a friggin great sword. It's a SNEAK attack. So you have to break everything just to accommodate them, making them feel special, like a snowflake.


Game. Set. Match.

Not at all.

Their way happens to be hundreds of people who want to play the same type of build. How are each person who wants to play the same type of build being snowflakes?

If there was 1 or 2 people who wanted to be special then you may have a case but I personally have ran across this sort of rogue archetype in 2e (houserules), 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, Essentials, and now 5e. Plus the other games I've played in where the PC wanted to be a rogue with a BAW.

Saying all those people are snowflakes is like saying everyone that plays a two weapon fighter is a snowflake because they aren't going Sword and Board or THF.

Hell by your logic, because you only want to play a rogue with small weapons means YOU are a snowflake too.

obryn
2014-07-14, 09:42 AM
Sneak attack seems balanced around a 1d6 weapon, so I'd worry about using a longsword or greatsword for balance purposes.

OTOH, if the player wanted to use a pair of daggers (or something) mechanically but fluff it as a greatsword, that'd be fine.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 09:58 AM
Sneak attack seems balanced around a 1d6 weapon, so I'd worry about using a longsword or greatsword for balance purposes.

OTOH, if the player wanted to use a pair of daggers (or something) mechanically but fluff it as a greatsword, that'd be fine.

I would like to balance sneak attack another way.

Current rules: Advantage or another PC within 5ft of target = Sneak Attack with X weapon.

New Rules: Advantage or Flanking Target with ally = sneak attack with X weapons or Y weapons.

You can't always flank though the current rules are a bit easier to do so.

I think balancing the game around how much damage you aren't allowed to do erks to many people. My current game (not 5e) has a half-orc great club wielding rogue charger... He is having a blast (though he is the main damage dealer). Taking that archetype away would just be sad, even if you fluffed weapons differently to make it seem like it is still there.

Maybe the answer is to change the weapon system. Your damage dice can scale based on your level and class and not based on a weapon. Daggers kill just as easily as an Axe after all.

Inevitability
2014-07-14, 10:14 AM
Yes it is. They're asking for something outside of the rules that makes no sense and abuses the generosity of the DM. You can't sneak attack with a friggin great sword. It's a SNEAK attack. So you have to break everything just to accommodate them, making them feel special, like a snowflake.

You can't sneak attack with an, I quote: 'friggin great sword'? Ignoring the gramatical horror this phrase is, you know what you can't do either? Shooting fire from your hands. Or giving someone the ability to fly with a simple word. Or continuously healing your wounds while fighting. Or making people stronger by singing.

'You can't' is not a valid argument when the whole game is full of stuff that is not possible. And to quote Shakespeare, what's in a name? Sneak Attack could be named Pudding Ostrich and still have the same effect.

Finally, I hardly see how changing a single rule that maybe equals to 2.5 extra damage (not counting TWF'ing) is 'breaking everything'.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 10:19 AM
You can't sneak attack with an, I quote: 'friggin great sword'? Ignoring the gramatical horror this phrase is, you know what you can't do either? Shooting fire from your hands. Or giving someone the ability to fly with a simple word. Or continuously healing your wounds while fighting. Or making people stronger by singing.

'You can't' is not a valid argument when the whole game is full of stuff that is not possible. And to quote Shakespeare, what's in a name? Sneak Attack could be named Pudding Ostrich and still have the same effect.

Finally, I hardly see how changing a single rule that maybe equals to 2.5 extra damage (not counting TWF'ing) is 'breaking everything'.

I always have a good laugh when people couple "you can't" with a fantasy game. Mostly because fantasy is all about turning "can't" into "common occurrence ".

This " you can't" mindset is all through D&D and other fantasy games and I would love to eradicate it.

I mostly blame Tolkien and the blind loyalty/following that many fans have of his work. I actually heard someone say that his LotR was high fantasy :smallfrown:

1337 b4k4
2014-07-14, 10:48 AM
I always have a good laugh when people couple "you can't" with a fantasy game. Mostly because fantasy is all about turning "can't" into "common occurrence ".

Eh, every fantasy still has to maintain the audience's suspension of disbelief. And as has been pointed out, D&D has a certain meta setting that imports a whole lot of tropes and baggage that define the sorts of things you "can" and "can't" do. The reason that D&D has such huge battles over "fighters should be able to split mountains with sword strikes" is that the meta setting is a pseudo-medieval pseudo-european fudalist environment where magic is the driving force behind "breaking reality". In that case, it's perfectly logical to say that you "can't" split a mountain with a sword strike without magic even though D&D is a fantasy game.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-14, 11:28 AM
I always have a good laugh when people couple "you can't" with a fantasy game. Mostly because fantasy is all about turning "can't" into "common occurrence ".

This " you can't" mindset is all through D&D and other fantasy games and I would love to eradicate it.

I mostly blame Tolkien and the blind loyalty/following that many fans have of his work. I actually heard someone say that his LotR was high fantasy :smallfrown:
Note that the original high fantasy/low fantasy distinction had nothing to do with power level.
High fantasy was fiction set in an entirely invented world.
Low fantasy fiction set in our world and includes things like urban fantasy.

From Wikipedia if you don't trust me on this:

Genre overview
High fantasy is defined as fantasy fiction set in an alternative, entirely fictional ("secondary") world, rather than the real, or "primary" world. The secondary world is usually internally consistent, but its rules differ in some way(s) from those of the primary world. By contrast, low fantasy is characterized by being set in the primary, or "real" world, or a rational and familiar fictional world, with the inclusion of magical elements.

Tolkien is thus usually classed as High Fantasy since Middle Earth is an invented world despite being nominally our world in the distant past.

Now, Tolkien is EXTREMELY low powered fantasy for epic high fantasy. There are any number of urban fantasies that are low fantasy by this definition which are at a VASTLY higher power scale.

But high/low power isn't actually the same as high/low fantasy.

Tolkien is low power but high fantasy.

RustyArmor
2014-07-14, 11:37 AM
I always felt rogues should use much smaller weapons for precise striking. Aiming for a small opening in armor or artery is going to require a small weapon to pin point the spot. "Aiming for a vital spot with a bigger weapon works just as well with a smaller weapon" makes no sense because how come fighters and other martial types not getting the same sneak attack bonuses then?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 11:42 AM
Eh, every fantasy still has to maintain the audience's suspension of disbelief. And as has been pointed out, D&D has a certain meta setting that imports a whole lot of tropes and baggage that define the sorts of things you "can" and "can't" do. The reason that D&D has such huge battles over "fighters should be able to split mountains with sword strikes" is that the meta setting is a pseudo-medieval pseudo-european fudalist environment where magic is the driving force behind "breaking reality". In that case, it's perfectly logical to say that you "can't" split a mountain with a sword strike without magic even though D&D is a fantasy game.

Within a setting you can put limits to extreme cases, sure. However... Saying that there is no way you can have X within a fantasy setting it is just plain silly. You may not want X but saying that X could never happen is a huge restriction to the term fantasy. Due to how say... 3.5 works in that setting you can split a mountain inbhalf without magic, you just need the right build and the right rock...

And we weren't even talking about high fantasy extremes, we were talking about using a two handed weapon for s eak attack. If something so... Low fantasy can't be done within a fantasy setting then you have a huge problem.

Inevitability
2014-07-14, 11:50 AM
I always felt rogues should use much smaller weapons for precise striking. Aiming for a small opening in armor or artery is going to require a small weapon to pin point the spot. "Aiming for a vital spot with a bigger weapon works just as well with a smaller weapon" makes no sense because how come fighters and other martial types not getting the same sneak attack bonuses then?

That is what'd make sense. However, it has almost never been that way.

In 3.5, rogues could sneak attack with everything daggers, heavy picks, spiked chains, whips, bolas, spiked shields...

4e made this slightly saner by limiting it to certain weapon groups. However, dwarves were only one feat away from sneak attacking with gouges, mauls and execution axes.

I believe someone mentioned that back in 1st edition, sneak attacking was also possible with other weapons.

So, no matter how much sense it makes to restrict SA weapons, it almost never actually is restricted. The above comments on 'it makes sense' apply.

Tholomyes
2014-07-14, 11:58 AM
Note that the original high fantasy/low fantasy distinction had nothing to do with power level.
High fantasy was fiction set in an entirely invented world.
Low fantasy fiction set in our world and includes things like urban fantasy.That's not entirely true. It's more about how pervasive the magical elements are in the world. Middle Earth is High fantasy, because, even though it's lower power and lower magic than a lot of high fantasy settings you see, it still has fantastic elements that are very prevalent in the world. By contrast, even though it is not set in our world, GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire is set in a low fantasy world, as fantastical elements are very minimized. The gods' presences are very small, showing even any evidence of existence, only on rare occasions. Magic is minor, and largely a mystery even to those who use it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 12:03 PM
That is what'd make sense. However, it has almost never been that way.

In 3.5, rogues could sneak attack with everything daggers, heavy picks, spiked chains, whips, bolas, spiked shields...

4e made this slightly saner by limiting it to certain weapon groups. However, dwarves were only one feat away from sneak attacking with gouges, mauls and execution axes.

I believe someone mentioned that back in 1st edition, sneak attacking was also possible with other weapons.

So, no matter how much sense it makes to restrict SA weapons, it almost never actually is restricted. The above comments on 'it makes sense' apply.

I sneak attack with a ballista!

:smallbiggrin:

Particle_Man
2014-07-14, 12:10 PM
Folks, I recommend at last waiting for the PHB and DMG to come out before worrying too much about it. There might be a class archetype, or a feat, or even a magic item (maybe a sun blade?) for which a Rogue and longsword combo makes perfect sense.

rlc
2014-07-14, 12:11 PM
I see your ballista and sneak attack with an icbm.

Killer Angel
2014-07-14, 12:14 PM
Yes it is. They're asking for something outside of the rules that makes no sense and abuses the generosity of the DM. You can't sneak attack with a friggin great sword. It's a SNEAK attack. So you have to break everything just to accommodate them, making them feel special, like a snowflake.


I saw a rogue to make a backstab with a ballista. :smallwink:

edit: also ninjas, apparently... :smalltongue:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 12:16 PM
Folks, I recommend at last waiting for the PHB and DMG to come out before worrying too much about it. There might be a class archetype, or a feat, or even a magic item (maybe a sun blade?) for which a Rogue and longsword combo makes perfect sense.

Well yeah but screw you and your sensible thinking too! :smalltongue:


I see your ballista and sneak attack with an icbm.

Sorry, I was referencing "Gamers" or whatever the hell they call it. The rogue sneak attacks a big brute with a ballista and turns him into beef stroganoff.

Morty
2014-07-14, 12:22 PM
I always felt rogues should use much smaller weapons for precise striking. Aiming for a small opening in armor or artery is going to require a small weapon to pin point the spot. "Aiming for a vital spot with a bigger weapon works just as well with a smaller weapon" makes no sense because how come fighters and other martial types not getting the same sneak attack bonuses then?

That's a very good question, but rogues being the only ones allowed for any degree of finesse and precision by the rules is a whole other subject. :smalltongue:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 12:32 PM
That's a very good question, but rogues being the only ones allowed for any degree of finesse and precision by the rules is a whole other subject. :smalltongue:

Hey now, you are starting to sound a bit like a communist...

You know, get rid of the classes :smalltongue:

(Nothing against communist, I just wanted to use that joke)

rlc
2014-07-14, 01:01 PM
Sorry, I was referencing "Gamers" or whatever the hell they call it. The rogue sneak attacks a big brute with a ballista and turns him into beef stroganoff.

Oh, never heard of it. Guess that reference went over my head.

Person_Man
2014-07-14, 01:25 PM
In other Rogue news, there's a rumor going around the boards that Mearls is going to nerf the "Fast Hands" ability so that it can't be used with Magic Items. Gods forbid that the Rogue actually be able to do something useful that can't be better duplicated with a spell.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-14, 01:30 PM
In other Rogue news, there's a rumor going around the boards that Mearls is going to nerf the "Fast Hands" ability so that it can't be used with Magic Items. Gods forbid that the Rogue actually be able to do something useful that can't be better duplicated with a spell.

He tweeted that out last week or so... Sadly.

I get that a wand would make that ability super strong but the rogue should be able to use a potion with fast hands.

TheOOB
2014-07-14, 02:10 PM
Honestly, I would allow the rogue to sneak attack with any weapon, and just only give the finesse and ranged weapon proficiencies. They're still going to usually have a high dex as it is necessitated by light armor, and honestly, two shorts swords deals identical damage to a greatsword, with the added benefit of increasing your chance of landing your one sneak attack per round.

As I mentioned though, I would be shocked if there isn't a "thug" type rogue that can sneak attack with heavier weapons.

As for the nerd of "fast hands", it sucks that the ability isn't going to be as broad, but considering it's a roguish archtype ability and not a base rogue ability I feel it might make the other choices seem not as good, as it is an ability the effectively has no limit to it's power level. Use Magic Device is already really good.

Person_Man
2014-07-14, 02:35 PM
I hate the implementation of weapons in 5E, because I hate fiddly rules.

There is very little difference between Light+Finesse+TWF (2 rolls to deal up to 2d6 + Dex damage, consumes Bonus Action) vs. Heavy+Two Handed (1 roll to deal up to 2d6 + Str damage) vs One Handed+Shield weapons (1 roll to deal 1d8 damage +2 AC). Each option should be distinct and grant you a meaningful advantage.

And Reach weapons actually make you less likely to provoke an opportunity attack, since enemies provoke when they leave your threatened area (since threatened spaces don't exist), and using a reach weapon gives you a wider threatened area, and thus a larger area for enemies to move around in.


RE: Fast Hands

The 5E Rogue has three basic options during combat:

Move/Attack/Use Cunning Action
Move/use an item/Use Cunning Action
Move/Attack/Attack with TWF


There might be situations where a player is creative and/or the DM creates Eigen Plot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotTailoredToTheParty?from=Main.EigenPlot) combats for the Rogue by filling it with things specific to Skills he's good at. and yes, you can do those three things in different orders, and move both before and after your attacks and actions. But really, every round of almost every combat the Rogue is going to be doing one of those three routines. Allowing Fast Hands to be used with Magic Items would have opened up a ton of new choices, and could have created a real and meaningful positive reason to play the Rogue at mid-high levels when he is otherwise outclassed by magic users. I'm sad to see it go.

pwykersotz
2014-07-14, 02:37 PM
As for the nerd of "fast hands", it sucks that the ability isn't going to be as broad, but considering it's a roguish archtype ability and not a base rogue ability I feel it might make the other choices seem not as good, as it is an ability the effectively has no limit to it's power level. Use Magic Device is already really good.

I'm gonna go with the clean joke here and say that said nerd has proficiency with a deck of cards. :smalltongue:

Tholomyes
2014-07-14, 02:41 PM
You know I'm kind of coming around on allowing Greatsword sneak attacks, if only because akaddk was so convincing.

I think the fast hands nerf might have been necessary, but I'd like to see something else get boosted, for the rogue. While I see the concept of a wand-based rogue, there have been too many times where I see the only way a rogue can be effective is to be a wand-rogue. I'd like to see wand-rogue as a subclass, perhaps, but other rogues only use them if at all more than other classes, only slightly so.

Killer Angel
2014-07-14, 02:52 PM
Oh, never heard of it. Guess that reference went over my head.

Then, a link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yTccvj0gc58#t=196) is necessary! :smallbiggrin:

akaddk
2014-07-14, 05:37 PM
You know I'm kind of coming around on allowing Greatsword sneak attacks, if only because akaddk was so convincing.

https://i.imgur.com/EBv4hd4.gif


There is very little difference between Light+Finesse+TWF (2 rolls to deal up to 2d6 + Dex damage, consumes Bonus Action) vs. Heavy+Two Handed (1 roll to deal up to 2d6 + Str damage) vs One Handed+Shield weapons (1 roll to deal 1d8 damage +2 AC). Each option should be distinct and grant you a meaningful advantage.
Taking up the bonus action with TWF is actually a huge deal, especially for a rogue. Allowing one weapon to do the same damage as two weapons whilst freeing up their bonus action is a major power boost to the rogue player.

And I say again, it's a friggin SNEAK attack. FFS.

Morty
2014-07-14, 06:05 PM
You've certainly asserted that many times, but you haven't explained why it's so heinous for rogues to be able to use their talent for exploiting weak spots and tactical advantage while using a two-handed blade, provided they obtained training in its use.

For the record, I accept that there may be balance problems with sneak-attacking greatsword users, although in that case they're indicative of the whole damage model being out of whack. But thematically? Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

da_chicken
2014-07-14, 06:35 PM
You've certainly asserted that many times, but you haven't explained why it's so heinous for rogues to be able to use their talent for exploiting weak spots and tactical advantage while using a two-handed blade, provided they obtained training in its use.

For the record, I accept that there may be balance problems with sneak-attacking greatsword users, although in that case they're indicative of the whole damage model being out of whack. But thematically? Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

I don't have a problem with it, other than the Assassin path feature/Great Weapon Master feat interaction in playtest, and the fact that they buffed Sneak Attack progression from 1/3 level to 1/2 level when they locked it down to ranged and finesse weapons. The latter leads me to suspect they found a math issue with Rogues with 2H weapons.

akaddk
2014-07-14, 07:13 PM
You've certainly asserted that many times, but you haven't explained why it's so heinous for rogues to be able to use their talent for exploiting weak spots and tactical advantage while using a two-handed blade, provided they obtained training in its use.
Because ultimately it's using a more powerful option under the claim that "I WANNA!" Justifying something that breaks the rules for a more powerful benefit under the guise of freedom, creativity and individuality is disingenuous and manipulative.

In addition it's simply thematically silly.


For the record, I accept that there may be balance problems with sneak-attacking greatsword users, although in that case they're indicative of the whole damage model being out of whack. But thematically? Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.
You say out of whack, I say perfectly balanced. You say nothing thematically wrong, I say it's thematically problematic. By all means, don't play in the games I run.

Sartharina
2014-07-14, 10:54 PM
https://i.imgur.com/EBv4hd4.gif


Taking up the bonus action with TWF is actually a huge deal, especially for a rogue. Allowing one weapon to do the same damage as two weapons whilst freeing up their bonus action is a major power boost to the rogue player.

And I say again, it's a friggin SNEAK attack. FFS. It gives you an extra Sneak Attack die, essentially.

And in order to get it, you need to either multiclass, delaying rogue ability progression, or use a feat, possibly reducing your other effectiveness.

Killer Angel
2014-07-15, 12:09 AM
Justifying something that breaks the rules

nitpick: the debate is because now, it is in the rules.

Knaight
2014-07-15, 01:47 AM
Yes it is. They're asking for something outside of the rules that makes no sense and abuses the generosity of the DM. You can't sneak attack with a friggin great sword. It's a SNEAK attack. So you have to break everything just to accommodate them, making them feel special, like a snowflake.

Have you ever seen an actual two handed sword in use? They're fast, agile weapons. You can sneak attack with them just fine, in the literal sense, particularly given when it works. The actual rules for sneak attack require either:
1) Advantage on the attack
2) An ally within 5 feet

That seems entirely reasonable with a great sword. People being attacked by someone else tend to be much more open to attack, regardless of weapon. I've done enough mass sparring and stabbed enough people with a spear while they were distracted to know that very personally, along with ending up on the wrong end of way too many 2-1 or 3-1 fights in this same sparring. Advantage is similar, as it explicitly means that something is giving the rogue a better opportunity than normal.

In all honesty, I'd have trouble thinking of any melee weapon that actually saw major battlefield use which wouldn't be suitable, with the possible exception of very long pikes. Any melee weapon too cumbersome to exploit small opportunities generally didn't see deliberate battle field use, as they would have major issues in basic use. The one exception is longer pikes, wherein that gets compensated for by sheer volume.

Something like sneak attacking with a siege engine I'd have an issue with (other than the very small ones that actually were precise), but any functional sword? No.

Morty
2014-07-15, 05:57 AM
Because ultimately it's using a more powerful option under the claim that "I WANNA!" Justifying something that breaks the rules for a more powerful benefit under the guise of freedom, creativity and individuality is disingenuous and manipulative.

I could say something similar about the knee-jerk assumption that players are deceptive min-maxers if they want to play something mildly non-standard.


In addition it's simply thematically silly.

Knaight has already explained, more eloquently than I could, why it's not. Just because D&D has always shoehorned weapon-using characters into narrow categories doesn't mean not doing so is silly.


You say out of whack, I say perfectly balanced.

If a system breaks down if everyone doesn't use the narrow set of weapons the designers expected them to use, something is not right. We don't know for sure that it does, mind you.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-15, 06:26 AM
Have you ever seen an actual two handed sword in use? They're fast, agile weapons. You can sneak attack with them just fine, in the literal sense, particularly given when it works. The actual rules for sneak attack require either:
1) Advantage on the attack
2) An ally within 5 feet

That seems entirely reasonable with a great sword. People being attacked by someone else tend to be much more open to attack, regardless of weapon. I've done enough mass sparring and stabbed enough people with a spear while they were distracted to know that very personally, along with ending up on the wrong end of way too many 2-1 or 3-1 fights in this same sparring. Advantage is similar, as it explicitly means that something is giving the rogue a better opportunity than normal.

In all honesty, I'd have trouble thinking of any melee weapon that actually saw major battlefield use which wouldn't be suitable, with the possible exception of very long pikes. Any melee weapon too cumbersome to exploit small opportunities generally didn't see deliberate battle field use, as they would have major issues in basic use. The one exception is longer pikes, wherein that gets compensated for by sheer volume.

Something like sneak attacking with a siege engine I'd have an issue with (other than the very small ones that actually were precise), but any functional sword? No.

But that isn't how I think weapons should work, they are made of a heavy metal and thus can't be wielded that way!

:smalltongue:

da_chicken
2014-07-15, 09:47 AM
If a system breaks down if everyone doesn't use the narrow set of weapons the designers expected them to use, something is not right. We don't know for sure that it does, mind you.

On the other hand, if you choose break a rule and the game breaks because of it, I don't think it's the game designer's fault.

Leon
2014-07-20, 05:17 AM
I don't see how its a problem. You fight the merry day away with a Longsword in one hand and a finesse one in the other and when the opportunity arises you use that finesse weapon to deliver a nasty strike. Weapon and Dagger is a fighting style i quite like the imagery for.

rlc
2014-07-20, 07:19 AM
I don't see how its a problem. You fight the merry day away with a Longsword in one hand and a finesse one in the other and when the opportunity arises you use that finesse weapon to deliver a nasty strike. Weapon and Dagger is a fighting style i quite like the imagery for.
nope, it's already been established that you specifically can't do that. sixth post in the thread:

Except you cant TWF with a Longsword and Dagger.

You can only get the second attack if the first attack is with a Light weapon then you can attack with a second separate Light weapon.

there will probably be a feat, race or subclass that can do it eventually, but as it stands right now, it can't be done.

Inevitability
2014-07-20, 08:41 AM
nope, it's already been established that you specifically can't do that. sixth post in the thread

I think he meant to be just wielding the weapons without gaining any additional attacks, using the longsword when he can't SA and the dagger when he can.

rlc
2014-07-20, 08:44 AM
maybe, yeah. fair point.

Leon
2014-07-20, 09:32 AM
I think he meant to be just wielding the weapons without gaining any additional attacks, using the longsword when he can't SA and the dagger when he can.

Yes.

If I'd been talking about TWF I'd have mentioned it as such.

hawklost
2014-07-20, 11:37 AM
You could always see it this way. WotC chose to go with the more restrictive option of not allowing anything but a certain subset of weapons because they felt that it was easier for a DM to be lenient and allow it (especially if the player makes an argument that the DM accepts) then for the DM to have to restrict it.

The first option allows a DM to choose to give rogues the ability IF they feel it is justified.

The Second option requires them to argue with a player and the player to try and use 'but it allows it in the book!' when every new weapon comes out.

If a splat book came out with something stupid like 'Simple Weapon: "The Feather of Tickling", deals 1 damage' due to opponent hurting themselves laughing. Now the rogue would say. "I can sneak attack with this because I can sneak attack with All Simple and Martial weapons, it says so in the PHB!".

(Yes, the weapon is ridiculous, but have you seen some of the splat book weapons?)

rlc
2014-07-20, 01:05 PM
turn that feather around and it makes for a good stabbing weapon...
maybe not deadly, but i never thought that a carrot could be, either, until i saw that movie shoot em up.

Leon
2014-07-20, 02:35 PM
turn that feather around and it makes for a good stabbing weapon...

The Pen is mightier than the Sword...

Inevitability
2014-07-20, 02:46 PM
The Pen is mightier than the Sword...

Obligatory Link (http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2013/06/20/0492-yuna-has-the-atom-bomb/comment-page-2/)