Sneak Attack and Finesse: Pointless?

[Easy_Lee]

Rogues may only sneak attack with finesse weapons. This is a new change from previous editions, and I question whether it helps the game in any way. It prevents a variety of builds for, seemingly, no benefit:

Sneak attack with poles (thief acrobat, common archetype in previous editions and also D&D online)
Sneak attack with Fists or natural weapons (animal with rogue levels, polymorphed rogue)
Blunt sneak attacks (hit em in the head with a mace, but no blunt weapons have finesse)
"Thug" and "bandit" rogues (limited weapon choice, no longswords or axes or similar)

And so on. I don't see much reason for this. If a rogue picked up a greatsword and weilded it proficiently, he would gain a mere 2.5DPR over using a rapier. A polearm, while it may allow for some reaction attacks via polearm mastery, is little different from simply using a whip, damage-wise, in the hands of a rogue who can only attack once per turn (or twice with bonus, which is also possible via two weapon fighting or crossbow expert). A monk-rogue or fighter-rogue may still use many finesse weapons for attacks, but is needlessly limited.

Does this really accomplish anything? I suspect it's enforced fluff, and nothing more. What are your thoughts, playground?

[Hyena]

It's an artifact of an older era, I guess. Just look at the longsword - it doesn't have any (meaningful) differences from a rapier, yet it's not finesse. Or are you telling me that a spear can't be wielded with finesse? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2IYyywZMs)

[Ralanr]

It's an artifact of an older era, I guess. Just look at the longsword - it doesn't have any (meaningful) differences from a rapier, yet it's not finesse. Or are you telling me that a spear can't be wielded with finesse? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2IYyywZMs)

It should be. Just like it should qualify for polearm master. Why it doesn't and the quarter staff does is a mystery.

Though it could be because of fighting styles (not the mechanics). Martial arts from monks allow Dex damage with a staff and a spear.

Spear should still qualify for polearm master.

[pwykersotz]

You'll notice that finesse weapons are all d8 or lower (and only the rapier goes that high). I believe this was the balance point. I recall some sort of discussion on it where Crawford or Mearls mentioned it, but I can't find the source at the moment.

In general, I find "But it only does X more DPR!" arguments to be very weak, as procedural building techniques open many unexpected abuses. I don't have any in mind at the moment, but I'm sure there's something somewhere that could be capitalized. Maybe something in relation to the weapon feats?

Thematically however, I am in agreement about Unarmed Strike at the very least. I think that would be a very appropriate Sneak Attack.

[Naanomi]

Thematically however, I am in agreement about Unarmed Strike at the very least. I think that would be a very appropriate Sneak Attack.
For monks I agree, but in general I would say no. The idea of having to 'sneak in a weapon' is too 'classic rogue' to just let them do the bulk of their damage whenever they feel like it completely unarmed

[Demonic Spoon]

A couple potential issues (I don't know if these are actually problems):

1. Rogues don't get shields, so 2H or versatile weapons are overtly superior for them. Though, this would require pumping strength instead of Dex, but it would end up being way more damage.

2. Polearm master becomes a no-brainer.

3. Grappling. A straight rogue getting athletics expertise could be very potent in the right circumstance.



I'm not convinced this is a huge problem, though. They likely do end up with more damage, but consider that they sacrifice AC as, by default, they don't get heavy armor (minus feats or multiclassing).

[ChubbyRain]

A couple potential issues (I don't know if these are actually problems):

1. Rogues don't get shields, so 2H or versatile weapons are overtly superior for them. Though, this would require pumping strength instead of Dex, but it would end up being way more damage.

2. Polearm master becomes a no-brainer.

3. Grappling. A straight rogue getting athletics expertise could be very potent in the right circumstance.



I'm not convinced this is a huge problem, though. They likely do end up with more damage, but consider that they sacrifice AC as, by default, they don't get heavy armor (minus feats or multiclassing).


1: Strength based rogue is already a fantastic option since all you need is a feat (for medium Armor + shields).

2: Just like for other classes like paladin... Two chances to smite after all.

3: How is this an issue? They are already the kingn of grapples.

Choosing Str over Dex works fine already so it really only boils down to DPR.

Cunning Knight ha an AC at level 1 ish (you need gp) of 18 easily. 14 (+2) Dex, 2 shield, 14 Armor.

Allowing for a great sword for sneak attack would promote me not taking up a shield and having a lower AC.

[Theodoxus]

When I first encountered the finesse requirement for sneak, I thought it rather odd and particularly niche for a system heralded as being simplified and less 'niche-y'.

As the system in whole has grown on me, I simply accept finesse to be the currency to buy sneak. It's not 'necessary' or 'realistic', it just is.

We know the weapon rules/chart is easily manipulated to create weapon types that aren't currently on record. A finesse blunt is easy enough to imagine - a meteor hammer, for instance, using Dex to generate leverage to increase its damage. Alternately, I don't see a reason to not include the flail as a finesse weapon.

Heck, I'd make a meteor hammer a finesse versatile weapon, possibly reach, doing 1d6/1d8 bludgeoning. Kinda like the dwarven dorn dergar from Pathfinder.

But just base game, I have no issues with finesse being required. I would like a feat removing the need - a feat tax to use a long sword or morning star seems fine.

For a feat, I'd limit it to one handed and versatile weapons only.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, sneak attack with non finesse weapons should not exist in a world with polearm mastery feat.

Unarmed attacks should also be out - the d8 cap on weapon size gets hit too easily by monk.

I would require at least that the weapon do piercing damage for finesse.

[ChubbyRain]

Yeah, sneak attack with non finesse weapons should not exist in a world with polearm mastery feat.

Unarmed attacks should also be out - the d8 cap on weapon size gets hit too easily by monk.

I would require at least that the weapon do piercing damage for finesse.

There is no real reason, fluff wise, except to try and restrict people for the sake of restricting.

Sneak attack equals extra attack of the fighter and equals smiting ability + extra attack of the paladin.

The fighter and paladin can get those DPRs so why not the rogue?

[MrStabby]

There is no real reason, fluff wise, except to try and restrict people for the sake of restricting.

Sneak attack equals extra attack of the fighter and equals smiting ability + extra attack of the paladin.

The fighter and paladin can get those DPRs so why not the rogue?

Restricting people for the sake of restricting wouldnt be fluff anyway.

But yes. The main reason is to avoid particularly powerful combinations that stop other party memebers having fun.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I get the feeling it's pretty much purely fluff based. I also find it irritating that the only slash finesse weapon is the scimitar. Weird that pierce damage is apparently the only way for precision strikes to be made. I mean, sure, pierce is precise, but I could certainly see ways that precise strikes could be made with other weapon types.

As far as balance goes, it is a small issue with polearm mastery and more damage from two handed weapons. Honestly, though, I'd probably just let people use your Weapon Logic stuff to reduce a weapon's damage to give it finesse. Keeps the balance pretty good, but allows for more freedom of expression in character concepts.

[ChubbyRain]

Restricting people for the sake of restricting wouldnt be fluff anyway.

But yes. The main reason is to avoid particularly powerful combinations that stop other party memebers having fun.


My point is that you aren't doing any of that.

Pole Arm Master in the hands on a rogue is just as powerful in the hands of anfighter or paladin.

Also, if the only way you can have fun is if you have to have other classes weaker than yous, then that is messed up.

Giving the Rogue the bonus to DPR oesnt make it any more OP thannin the hands of the fighter or paladin. And if all you get is HP damage it really isn't that OP within the confines of the game.

[DanyBallon]

There is no real reason, fluff wise, except to try and restrict people for the sake of restricting.

Sneak attack equals extra attack of the fighter and equals smiting ability + extra attack of the paladin.

The fighter and paladin can get those DPRs so why not the rogue?

Maybe because D&D as a table top RPG is not about having equivalent DPR for everyone. Some classes are good at fighting, others are more skilled, and versatile. Rogues with SA are decent in fight but their strength in combat is not in pure damage, but mostly into being agile to avoid damage and pulling a deadly strike on an unaware target.

3.P and 4e were more geared toward figthing encounter after encounter, but 5e is trying to get back to bring balance between fight, roleplaying and exploration.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, regarding damage, rogues don't have proficiency with anything above a D8, so that's not really a problem. They do have longsword prof which could be a D10, but can't use one effectively due to not getting sneak attack.

I just don't see much point to to it. Thief acrobats and longsword rogues are classic archetypes. It seems to me that they ought not be restricted. Polearm mastery would be strong in the hands of a rogue, but no stronger than in the hands of a monk (stunning strike can interrupt the coming attack), warlock (take war caster and turn it into EB), or paladin (smite with it). Fighters have non-scaling reaction attacks, but I believe this is an oversight on WotC's part.

[Jamesps]

As far as balance goes, it is a small issue with polearm mastery and more damage from two handed weapons. Honestly, though, I'd probably just let people use your Weapon Logic stuff to reduce a weapon's damage to give it finesse. Keeps the balance pretty good, but allows for more freedom of expression in character concepts.

The reason that pole arm master is a problem is actually the reaction attack it gives for anyone approaching. Rogue's can sneak attack with reactions, so this could with proper tactical application, double their damage output.

[ChubbyRain]

Maybe because D&D as a table top RPG is not about having equivalent DPR for everyone. Some classes are good at fighting, others are more skilled, and versatile. Rogues with SA are decent in fight but their strength in combat is not in pure damage, but mostly into being agile to avoid damage and pulling a deadly strike on an unaware target.

3.P and 4e were more geared toward figthing encounter after encounter, but 5e is trying to get back to bring balance between fight, roleplaying and exploration.

Funny enough restricting the Rogue hurts roleplaying more than helps it.

What if I want to be a Rogue (Thug) Half Orc who uses his family heirloom weapon great club? I get punished for making a roleplaying decision. This punishment is that I don't get to use my class features even though it isn't unbalanced.

It isn't helpful to punish/restrict options based on fluff because fluff is variable and ever changing.

[Easy_Lee]

The reason that pole arm master is a problem is actually the reaction attack it gives for anyone approaching. Rogue's can sneak attack with reactions, so this could with proper tactical application, double their damage output.

Double is an extraordinarily generous guess. The rogue would have to have an enemy approach him every round, have an ally adjacent at all times, never have disadvantage, and never have any other source of reaction attacks or use for his reaction.

In addition, sentinel would be an even easier way to accomplish what you mentioned.

[Jamesps]

Double is an extraordinarily generous guess. The rogue would have to have an enemy approach him every round, have an ally adjacent at all times, never have disadvantage, and never have any other source of reaction attacks or use for his reaction.

In addition, sentinel would be an even easier way to accomplish what you mentioned.

Or the rogue could have greater invisibility put on him. Then the enemy has no idea where he is, and he always has advantage. Or they could play a swashbuckler.

Sentinel's decent, but it's not as open to abuse because you can't actually force the issue. The best way is actually haste where you make an attack and then ready an action to attack again. But that's a lot harder to finagle than just playing a swashbuckler.

[Demonic Spoon]

Alright, I'm actually convinced. I think I'll add this to my houserules

[-Jynx-]

It's an artifact of an older era, I guess. Just look at the longsword - it doesn't have any (meaningful) differences from a rapier, yet it's not finesse. Or are you telling me that a spear can't be wielded with finesse?[/URL]

Quoting this specifically, but to make a larger point on the topic. A longsword in actual practice is very different than a rapier. A rapier is one handed, longswords are traditionally held with two, but when you hold it in one hand it is not nearly as agile as the rapier counterpart. The reasoning behind that has to do with how the weapon itself is weighted but that's getting into a whole different tangent.

In my mind sneak attack represents a rouge's ability to exploit weak points. I don't mean hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat as that doesn't take any kind of finesse just an object, apply some force, and hit. Rather a sneak attack would refer to slipping a weapon past weak points in armor, into joints on a creature, under/around scaling on hide things of that nature. It combines a level of nimbleness and dexterity to place a weapons point just-so as to exploit injuring something.

That being said finesse weapons like a short-sword, dagger, scimitar, rapier and the like all are much easier weapons to accomplish this task with. They are weighted and constructed to allow a larger amount of control in their use to help place its point or edge very specifically. You could argue that perhaps a spear could as well, but due to its size it is relatively hard to pin point certain spots depending on the angle you must achieve to exploit said weakness. Unfortunately that is a point that is harder for me to detail in a post... but imagine scales on a humanoid like creature. Say to achieve sneak attack damage in this example you need to run the tip of your blade upward thrusting underneath the overlain scales to do this damage, because of the pole length of the spear you will find it very difficult to run your spear tip directly upward on small scales because of the nature of the weapon. Hopefully that makes sense.

A Quarterstaff on the other hand lacks that point that the spear has, lessening its ability to strike between joints, or striking around hide/scales. don't get me wrong it's still a heavy f-in stick that hurts like hell when you smack someone with it however it's not like its eviscerating organs or puncturing small junctions in joints. Instead it is bruising/breaking bones.

Everyone's interpretation of sneak attack may be slightly different and from the sounds of this thread so far I'm a very small minority that agrees with how finesse works with sneak attack, and with the finesse-able weaponry.

At the end of the day this is a fantasy game and I know characters can accomplish things normies in the real world cannot but there has to be a basis for how things function in DnD and I think those certain weapons chosen for finesse specifically highlight weapons in history that were more nimble and capable of landing exact striking on a fairly regular basis. While other weapons certainly are formidable in their own way I think the finesse weapons at hand are better suited for sneak attack than the latter.

[DanyBallon]

Funny enough restricting the Rogue hurts roleplaying more than helps it.

What if I want to be a Rogue (Thug) Half Orc who uses his family heirloom weapon great club? I get punished for making a roleplaying decision. This punishment is that I don't get to use my class features even though it isn't unbalanced.

It isn't helpful to punish/restrict options based on fluff because fluff is variable and ever changing.

Nothing prevents you from using a club if whats you want, it's just that club aren't effective weapon to find weakness in someones defense, finesse weapon are.

The same goes for the longsword wielding thief acrobat archetype. They are effectively common in D&D lore, but in such lore they aren't using their sword for anything similar to sneak attack, they use it as a fighter would.

Prior to 3rd edition, rogues didn't have anything close to sneak attack. They had backstab that would allow them to multiple the damage (and not as much as SA does) if they could catch an enemy off guard, but this didn't happen as often as SA. The later was introduce so rogue won't be left doing nothing in the new gameplay where fighting was pretty much all that matter of 3.P and 4e.

So yes thugs and longsword wielding thief acrobat exist in D&D history, but it doesn't mean that they must absolutely be able to SA with anything else than finesse weapons. Rogues as plenty of other features that are useful for these archetypes.

[Easy_Lee]

Nothing prevents you from using a club if whats you want, it's just that club aren't effective weapon to find weakness in someones defense, finesse weapon are.

That means you'd be punished for using a club, thus it effectively is not a choice. My contention is that the game and player choice are pointlessly restricted by the finesse rule.

[djreynolds]

That "Cunning Knight" is the real deal. It's a fantastic build. I wish though rouges could use sleight of hand or deception with sneak attack. Like moving a knife around in your hand, its mesmerizing. Like flash powder or cantrip, sleight hand could add an advantage. Can anyone use great weapon master feat, for the cleave portion? Or only two handers. A demoralizing feat for killing someone swiftly and scares the other bad guys?

[DanyBallon]

That means you'd be punished for using a club, thus it effectively is not a choice. My contention is that the game and player choice are pointlessly restricted by the finesse rule.

I don't see how you're punished as the thug archetype is not know for doing sneaky damage. He is more known for using brute force, ganging up against weaker target and intimidation. Yet he is still sly enough to backstab you with a dagger if thing turn sour for him. That's exactly what the use of sneak attack is for and why finesse weapons are required to do so.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't see how you're punished as the thug archetype is not know for doing sneaky damage. He is more known for using brute force, ganging up against weaker target and intimidation. Yet he is still sly enough to backstab you with a dagger if thing turn sour for him. That's exactly what the use of sneak attack is for and why finesse weapons are required to do so.

Let us take an example. I will assume that you wish to play a fighter. I tell you that if you use a greataxe, you may attack four times per round, but if you use a greatsword, you may only ever attack once per round.

Does that seem fair to you? Can you imagine an advantage to my arbitrary limitation? If you answered yes to either question, then I suspect you and I will not be able to reach an agreement.

[Ralanr]

Let us take an example. I will assume that you wish to play a fighter. I tell you that if you use a greataxe, you may attack four times per round, but if you use a greatsword, you may only ever attack once per round.

Does that seem fair to you? Can you imagine an advantage to my arbitrary limitation? If you answered yes to either question, then I suspect you and I will not be able to reach an agreement.

Thus my feelings on barbarians and greataxes.

[-Jynx-]

Let us take an example. I will assume that you wish to play a fighter. I tell you that if you use a greataxe, you may attack four times per round, but if you use a greatsword, you may only ever attack once per round.

Does that seem fair to you? Can you imagine an advantage to my arbitrary limitation? If you answered yes to either question, then I suspect you and I will not be able to reach an agreement.

I'd defer you to my larger earlier post, but dexterity based weapons are as such because they are more nimble and allow the user to pin-point weaknesses whilst in combat. Your greatsword and Great ax function much differently than you rapier or short sword do. Your G.Axe/G.sword rely more on crushing your foe and because of their weight/construction are not ideal candidates for exploiting minute weaknesses.

Not all weapons are made/shaped/function the same. Take your earlier example of the G.sword and G.axe... It stands to reason that your great axe is a better candidate for cleaving a door down, or chopping wood than say, your shortsword would. Or will you let all weapons function the same in all situations? It's maybe not IDEAL that all weapons don't function for sneak attack but realistically when is something IDEAL all the time?

[DanyBallon]

Let us take an example. I will assume that you wish to play a fighter. I tell you that if you use a greataxe, you may attack four times per round, but if you use a greatsword, you may only ever attack once per round.

Does that seem fair to you? Can you imagine an advantage to my arbitrary limitation? If you answered yes to either question, then I suspect you and I will not be able to reach an agreement.

In fact your argument is nonsense, it's like you believe rogues are a martial class that is suppose to be fighting is way through obstacles like a fighter or paladin is. Rogues are a sneaky and skillful class that happens to have a way to deal a significant amount of damage under certain conditions, which are, having advantage, once per turn and using a finesse weapon. Fighters only get better at swinging weapons, rogues on the other hand get features that let them reduce damage, and even avoid it completely.

If you want to be a thug, you can either be a fighter with a criminal background, or be a rogue, and not be as effective to deal damage as long as you don't use a finesse weapon.

[Steampunkette]

Ditch the finesse requirement.

The increased damage from polearm mastery is minor at best, since the only applicable weapon for Rogues would be quarterstaff, unless they multiclassed or sought out the weapon proficiency feat, in which case: They paid for the d10 and d4 offhand.

Personally I'd love to play a Thief Acrobat with a Quarterstaff and Sneak Attack, again.

[Theodoxus]

Quoting this specifically, but to make a larger point on the topic. A longsword in actual practice is very different than a rapier. A rapier is one handed, longswords are traditionally held with two, but when you hold it in one hand it is not nearly as agile as the rapier counterpart. The reasoning behind that has to do with how the weapon itself is weighted but that's getting into a whole different tangent.

In my mind sneak attack represents a rouge's ability to exploit weak points. I don't mean hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat as that doesn't take any kind of finesse just an object, apply some force, and hit. Rather a sneak attack would refer to slipping a weapon past weak points in armor, into joints on a creature, under/around scaling on hide things of that nature. It combines a level of nimbleness and dexterity to place a weapons point just-so as to exploit injuring something.

That being said finesse weapons like a short-sword, dagger, scimitar, rapier and the like all are much easier weapons to accomplish this task with. They are weighted and constructed to allow a larger amount of control in their use to help place its point or edge very specifically. You could argue that perhaps a spear could as well, but due to its size it is relatively hard to pin point certain spots depending on the angle you must achieve to exploit said weakness. Unfortunately that is a point that is harder for me to detail in a post... but imagine scales on a humanoid like creature. Say to achieve sneak attack damage in this example you need to run the tip of your blade upward thrusting underneath the overlain scales to do this damage, because of the pole length of the spear you will find it very difficult to run your spear tip directly upward on small scales because of the nature of the weapon. Hopefully that makes sense.

A Quarterstaff on the other hand lacks that point that the spear has, lessening its ability to strike between joints, or striking around hide/scales. don't get me wrong it's still a heavy f-in stick that hurts like hell when you smack someone with it however it's not like its eviscerating organs or puncturing small junctions in joints. Instead it is bruising/breaking bones.

Everyone's interpretation of sneak attack may be slightly different and from the sounds of this thread so far I'm a very small minority that agrees with how finesse works with sneak attack, and with the finesse-able weaponry.

At the end of the day this is a fantasy game and I know characters can accomplish things normies in the real world cannot but there has to be a basis for how things function in DnD and I think those certain weapons chosen for finesse specifically highlight weapons in history that were more nimble and capable of landing exact striking on a fairly regular basis. While other weapons certainly are formidable in their own way I think the finesse weapons at hand are better suited for sneak attack than the latter.

Your ultimate point would be spot on, if not for the fact that finesse weapons can use Str just as readily as Dex, and still do sneak damage.

If sneak were strictly relegated to only using dex to hit and damage, or finesse didn't allow for str to be used to hit and damage, the whole 'slip between the scales' idea works.

Unfortunately, the true problem with sneak is the crutch of the HPs are meat/HPs are vitality debate. How can you do a really awesome penetrative kidney piercing arterial spraying sneak attack of doom, and the guy limps off to fully recover with an 8 hour sleepy time.

Crunch and Fluff are in direct contention where sneak attacks (as imagined with pure dex precision strikes) and HPs meet.

Just based on that alone, sneak attack, as in prior iterations, should be usable with any weapon. Either the game is gamist and everything is ok, or the game is simulationist and HPs need to be reworked. Having this mishmash of half-assery isn't helpful.

[Easy_Lee]

Regarding the finesse = sneak attack argument, two points:

If you imagine sneak attack as striking at holes in armor, then only daggers and longswords (half-swording) make sense from a historical / realistic perspective. A weapon like a scimitar, used for long drawing cuts, would not make practical sense, and neither would a ranged weapon. Also, all weapons should get sneak attack all the time against unarmored foes.
If you imagine the rogue striking in a cunning way, using his intelligence and general dastardly-ness to strike opponents in unexpected ways (chiefly while they are unprepared or unaware), then any weapon makes sense.

Take your pick. The idea that a rogue is somehow dexterity-ing his weapon into holes in armor, that it would not be possible with a longsword but would work with a whip, is misguided. Dirty fighting is much more reasonable.

In addition, what one person thinks rogues should wield is not always the same as what another thanks. It is far better for everyone to play a rogue with their chosen weapon than for one person's sensibilities to limit another person's choices.

[Kryx]

The increased damage from polearm mastery is minor at best, since the only applicable weapon for Rogues would be quarterstaff
Being able to do the main bulk of your damage twice per turn is not "minor". It is likely around 30-40% more damage than a TWF.

Sneak attack twice a round isn't "minor".


what one person thinks rogues should wield is not always the same as what another thanks. It is far better for everyone to play a rogue with their chosen weapon than for one person's sensibilities to limit another person's choices.
This argument applies to every class and every proficiency. By that same argument you should ditch weapon proficiencies entirely.

Unfortunately thematics and math would say that's a bad idea.

[Steampunkette]

You can only sneak attack once per round, regardless of whether or not you're dual wielding (which is nearly mandatory for rogues anyhow).

And spending a feat to add your Dex Mod on an Off Hand dagger attack is pretty minor compared to it's cost.

Spending 2 feats (or a feat and multiclassing) to add dex mod to off hand and increase main hand by 2 points (on average) is again, pretty minor.

[ChubbyRain]

You can only sneak attack once per round, regardless of whether or not you're dual wielding (which is nearly mandatory for rogues anyhow).

And spending a feat to add your Dex Mod on an Off Hand dagger attack is pretty minor compared to it's cost.

Spending 2 feats (or a feat and multiclassing) to add dex mod to off hand and increase main hand by 2 points (on average) is again, pretty minor.

NO

Once per turn.

Even Jeremy Crawford has tweeted about this.

[Kryx]

TWF increases the chance of sneak attack which is why an additional sneak attack as a reaction is only about 30-40% more DPR.

[Giant2005]

At the very least I'd like to see the Sneak Attack requirements amended to "The attack must use a finesse, or a ranged weapon, or be an attack made using Dexterity".
That way at least certain natural attacks would be okay and Monk multiclass options would be more viable (Which in itself would open up a lot more weapon options). Even if you think that adding Monk weapons to the mix is OP, you can at least respect the opportunity cost of having to multiclass in order to receive that benefit.

[LordVonDerp]

R

Take your pick. The idea that a rogue is somehow dexterity-ing his weapon into holes in armor, that it would not be possible with a longsword but would work with a whip, is misguided. Dirty fighting is much more reasonable.


Unless it's dwarf fortress.

[Steampunkette]

So you can sneak attack on your turn and as a reaction. Cool. I didn't know that. I suppose I should have. You'd still require all the requisites for sneak attacking, of course, like the target being next to an ally or having advantage on the attack.

But yeah. My point still stands. Any rogue who cares about DPS is already going to be dual wielding using a shortsword or dagger in their offhand. So Polearm Mastery's d4+dex mod is similar, but allows them to use quarterstaves for sneak attacks. If the rogue wants to keep going into other weapon proficiencies, then so be it.

The biggest benefit it could give is an opportunity attack sneak attack, but because of the situational requirements of the sneak attack and the fact that they can -already- do sneak attacks as a reaction I still don't feel like it's OP.

[Person_Man]

As others have mentioned, it was done to keep the damage output carefully balanced, and prevent unintended synergies from multi-classing and Feats.

Also, in 1E/2E a Thief or Rogue didn't had pretty limited Weapon Proficiencies, and had a pretty limited selection of magical weapons they could use. You could multi-class, but that was a life long commitment, not something you could dip in. So weapons were similarly limited, as they are now, just though a different method. (Though I think you might have been able to pull it off through duel classing or some kits. I'll have to reread my old books to be sure. Its been a while).

In 3.X the damage scaling was absolutely ridiculous and terrible and deserved to die.

I can't remember the rules for it in 4E, but I do know for sure that strikers had the best damage, so its sort of a moot point.

Having said all of the above, I think you could house rule it without it being that big of a deal, as long as the player doesn't go crazy with the damage optimization otherwise.

[-Jynx-]

Your ultimate point would be spot on, if not for the fact that finesse weapons can use Str just as readily as Dex, and still do sneak damage.

If sneak were strictly relegated to only using dex to hit and damage, or finesse didn't allow for str to be used to hit and damage, the whole 'slip between the scales' idea works.

Unfortunately, the true problem with sneak is the crutch of the HPs are meat/HPs are vitality debate. How can you do a really awesome penetrative kidney piercing arterial spraying sneak attack of doom, and the guy limps off to fully recover with an 8 hour sleepy time.

Crunch and Fluff are in direct contention where sneak attacks (as imagined with pure dex precision strikes) and HPs meet.

Just based on that alone, sneak attack, as in prior iterations, should be usable with any weapon. Either the game is gamist and everything is ok, or the game is simulationist and HPs need to be reworked. Having this mishmash of half-assery isn't helpful.

That's a good point, but here's my thoughts: Sneak Attack requires a finesse weapon as based on my earlier points those are the type of weapons that would be capable of such consistently. While yes you could use your STR on a finesse weapon and still count for sneak attack it ends up being a trap either way because if they made a dagger for example only usable with dex what sense would that make? You can use a dagger with brute force only or with agility/finesse. So they have to leave the dagger and other finesse weapons capable of both Dex or Str and have sneak attack usable by those same weapons they allow dex as its damage stat due to the nature of the weapon. It's not perfect but it makes more sense than letting every weapon access sneak attack in my opinion.


Regarding the finesse = sneak attack argument, two points:

If you imagine sneak attack as striking at holes in armor, then only daggers and longswords (half-swording) make sense from a historical / realistic perspective. A weapon like a scimitar, used for long drawing cuts, would not make practical sense, and neither would a ranged weapon. Also, all weapons should get sneak attack all the time against unarmored foes.

We aren't talking about just holes in armor however, but slipping a point under/between scales, catching an organ, in the vast variety of creatures in DnD "weak spots" can present themselves in MANY different ways. Most of which I would argue requires a precise strike to land efficiently hence sneak attack with a DEX weapon. Again we may disagree this is just how I see it.



If you imagine the rogue striking in a cunning way, using his intelligence and general dastardly-ness to strike opponents in unexpected ways (chiefly while they are unprepared or unaware), then any weapon makes sense.


It's not necessary striking in unexpected ways. Striking an enemy unexpectedly is what would trigger a surprise round, or give advantage due to the situation. Not illicit sneak attack for a weapon like a club.



In addition, what one person thinks rogues should wield is not always the same as what another thanks. It is far better for everyone to play a rogue with their chosen weapon than for one person's sensibilities to limit another person's choices.

That's a weak point considering the same could be said for any class, with any weapon, or any save, or any skill.

[Kryx]

But yeah. My point still stands. Any rogue who cares about DPS is already going to be dual wielding using a shortsword or dagger in their offhand. So Polearm Mastery's d4+dex mod is similar, but allows them to use quarterstaves for sneak attacks.
Your point is still mathematically incorrect. Having a 84-91% chance to hit at least once for a sneak attack is significantly worse than having two attacks that each have a 60-70% chance to hit and sneak attack.

[Easy_Lee]

This argument applies to every class and every proficiency. By that same argument you should ditch weapon proficiencies entirely.

Unfortunately thematics and math would say that's a bad idea.

How so? It's easy to say "Math supports X" or "X is more thematic." It's much harder to actually prove those things.

Here's the math of sneak attack. Rogues attack once per round, two times maximum. They need a feat to even gain attribute damage on the bonus attack at all, should they use their bonus action to attack. But even in a perfect round with a great weapon and great weapon mastery, the strongest possible round, the difference between that damage and the damage of crossbow expert is only 7 damage average. And crossbow expert is more consistent and has range, so would probably be the better choice on a rogue anyway. And by the way, while great weapon mastery allows for the +5 / -10 thing, so does Archery.

What happens if rogues are allowed to use any weapon they like? That's pretty much it. Rogues can pick up whatever they are proficient with and use it for sneak attacking, gaining or losing an inconsequential amount of damage depending on choice.

And thematically, as in the rogue "theme," there's absolutely no reason why longswords, quarterstaves, and spears aren't just as thematic to a swashbuckling, acrobatic, or brigand rogue respectively, as a dagger or rapier is to a Renaissance-era city rogue. That's really the point; WotC only supports Renaissance-inspired rogues right now. They've shut out all other possibilities via a valueless mechanic.

And to hopefully close the polearm mastery discussion: one does not use a feat to dictate class balance. There is a reason feats and magic items are optional, and that is because they should not be considered when balancing a class.

[Kryx]

And thematically, as in the rogue "theme," there's absolutely no reason why longswords, quarterstaves, and spears aren't just as thematic to a swashbuckling, acrobatic, or brigand rogue respectively, as a dagger or rapier is to a Renaissance-era city rogue. That's really the point; WotC only supports Renaissance-inspired rogues right now. They've shut out all other possibilities via a valueless mechanic.
I see no problem for you choosing to houserule those items to work with a rogue. I know you're big on the thief-acrobat.

As long as you can't use Polearm Master as a Rogue then it's mostly the same as the normal - though I suggest following the earlier guidance of limiting it to d8 weapons.

[ChubbyRain]

As others have mentioned, it was done to keep the damage output carefully balanced, and prevent unintended synergies from multi-classing and Feats.

Also, in 1E/2E a Thief or Rogue didn't had pretty limited Weapon Proficiencies, and had a pretty limited selection of magical weapons they could use. You could multi-class, but that was a life long commitment, not something you could dip in. So weapons were similarly limited, as they are now, just though a different method. (Though I think you might have been able to pull it off through duel classing or some kits. I'll have to reread my old books to be sure. Its been a while).

In 3.X the damage scaling was absolutely ridiculous and terrible and deserved to die.

I can't remember the rules for it in 4E, but I do know for sure that strikers had the best damage, so its sort of a moot point.

Having said all of the above, I think you could house rule it without it being that big of a deal, as long as the player doesn't go crazy with the damage optimization otherwise.

Damn you Rick Springfield!

You could sneak attack with proficient weapons I think but you really wanted to use daggers since being a dagger rogue was really really really nice.

[Easy_Lee]

I see no problem for you choosing to houserule those items to work with a rogue. I know you're big on the thief-acrobat.

As long as you can't use Polearm Master as a Rogue then it's mostly the same as the normal - though I suggest following the earlier guidance of limiting it to d8 weapons.

You know, I'd be perfectly happy with a polearm mastery feat that, instead of the reaction attack, allows the wielder to treat polearms with finesse. It's not because I feel the reaction attack is necessarily imbalanced; it isn't when considered against some of the other potent reaction attacks one can build for. It's just because I wouldn't want any DM to think I was trying to munchkin him. I'm much happier performing below the DM's expectations than above them, which is why I generally go with simple character selections and fun rather than broken characters (I play short races often). But now I'm digressing.

[Steampunkette]

Your point is still mathematically incorrect. Having a 84-91% chance to hit at least once for a sneak attack is significantly worse than having two attacks that each have a 60-70% chance to hit and sneak attack.

Where the heck are you getting 85-91% for a single weapon versus 60-70% for 2 attacks? There's no dual wielding attack penalty.

Are you suggesting that the person with the Quarterstaff will be using Strength rather than Dexterity and have a lower stat? Okay. Cool.

Dual Wielding Rogue with a Shortsword (Light Finesse Weapon) in each hand has 2 attacks with an 84-91% chance to hit (and thus get a sneak attack) while the polearm master has a 60=70% chance to hit (and get a sneak attack) but a higher average damage based on their off-hand strength bonus for their quarterstaff. Though that will only be accurate if the strength mod is 2 or greater. Otherwise it is a higher minimum damage, equal average, and lower maximum on the d4 PAM strike.

Point still stands that using a quarterstaff with polearm mastery is not OP for rogues.

[Giant2005]

Where the heck are you getting 85-91% for a single weapon versus 60-70% for 2 attacks? There's no dual wielding attack penalty.

Are you suggesting that the person with the Quarterstaff will be using Strength rather than Dexterity and have a lower stat? Okay. Cool.

Dual Wielding Rogue with a Shortsword (Light Finesse Weapon) in each hand has 2 attacks with an 84-91% chance to hit (and thus get a sneak attack) while the polearm master has a 60=70% chance to hit (and get a sneak attack) but a higher average damage based on their off-hand strength bonus for their quarterstaff. Though that will only be accurate if the strength mod is 2 or greater. Otherwise it is a higher minimum damage, equal average, and lower maximum on the d4 PAM strike.

Point still stands that using a quarterstaff with polearm mastery is not OP for rogues.

He is saying that by dual-wielding, you have two chances for a single sneak attack and he placed the chance of that sneak attack triggering at a higher 85-91% due to the extra chance at triggering it. While using a Staff and Polearm Mastery, you lose the extra attempt at a sneak attack via dual-wielding but you gain the opportunity to inflict a second sneak attack via your reaction. By dual-wielding and having two chances at a single sneak, you have a 85-91% chance of landing a single sneak but by using a Polearm with Polearm Mastery, you have two chances to hit, each of which would proc a sneak attack but only have a 60-70% chance to hit.
Although it isn't really true either because he is neglecting the fact that Polearm Master comes with a bonus action attack too. So Polearm Master would effectively be a 85-91% chance to land the first sneak attack and then a 60-70% chance to land a second.

[Susano-wo]

Just gotta say that, in addition to the nonsensical SA options listed among finesse weapons already, shortswords are primarily chopping weapons. Especially against armor and shields, you torque your own body in a spiral(cue Gurren Laggan jokes here) to add force to the blade as you chop at the opponent. So yeah, those aren't really finesse weapons either.

Or you can just allow SA with weapons they are proficient with. Tada! If things start to get to OP, max damage at 1d8 or something, but it doesn't look like even that is a problem.

[Kryx]

Although it isn't really true either because he is neglecting the fact that Polearm Master comes with a bonus action attack too. So Polearm Master would effectively be a 85-91% chance to land the first sneak attack and then a 60-70% chance to land a second.
True, I forgot that. So the increase is higher than I said earlier.


Just gotta say that, in addition to the nonsensical SA options listed among finesse weapons already, shortswords are primarily chopping weapons. Especially against armor and shields, you torque your own body in a spiral(cue Gurren Laggan jokes here) to add force to the blade as you chop at the opponent. So yeah, those aren't really finesse weapons either.
Shortswords in D&D 5e are piercing weapons, not slashing. Though it isn't really relevant either way as a scimitar is slashing and is finesse.

[SharkForce]

speculatively, it might be related to multiclassing concerns.

consider if you had a fighter 11/rogue 9 character. they would have, practically speaking, ~4/5 of the damage of a level 20 fighter plus they'd add 5d6 onto that with an extremely high chance of that 5d6 going through (thus making it higher value than a regular attack that deals an average of 17.5 damage). plus you could have battlemaster maneuvers to increase your chance to sneak attack on someone else's turn (or landing your last attack if your others miss).

or, as another example, a monk 5/rogue 15. 4 attacks per round for 5 rounds per short rest, plus 8d6 sneak attack, makes your sneak attack almost certain to land if you can use your unarmed strike to land it. though of course, it gains less than the fighter build in straight DPR (but has other benefits too).

now, i dunno that i would consider this to be a problem, per se. but it might have seemed like a problem to the devs that a fighter would get more DPR out of ignoring the last 9 fighter levels entirely when fighters are almost entirely built around doing DPR (personally, i feel like the better solution is to give the fighter something more to look forward to in the next 9 levels, but based on prior experience it seems like many people disagree with me).

[coredump]

I think the restriction makes perfect sense and I am glad it exists.

I view a Sneak Attack as something different than just bashing one someone. I just can't see using a Maul to get a "Sneak Attack". I think a finesse weapon makes much more sense being utilized for a Sneak Attack.

I realize some folks look at the game as only mechanics with a veneer of 'fluff' covering it, but I think of it as a game representing how 'the world works'. (granted, a medieval fantasy version of the world) Giving a Dagger Reach doesn't break the game either.... but it also doesn't make any sense and I would be against it.

I can understand that some folks think using a mace for a "sneak attack" makes perfect sense, but I disagree....and luckily for me WotC agrees.

[Easy_Lee]

I think the restriction makes perfect sense and I am glad it exists.

You can say this, and I read you saying it, but I didn't read the part where you said why. You don't see bashing someone as a sneak attack. Okay. Well then what is?

A sneak attack, sneak as in stealthy and attack as in violence, in real life is a blow one does not see coming. A suckerpunch is by far the most common type of real world "sneak attack." WotC actually does agree with this interpretation of sneak attack, since the most iconic way to gain sneak attack is to "sneak" up on an unwary foe (advantage).

So what part of sneaking up on someone and beating them over the head doesn't make sense to you, as far as sneak attack goes? I can guarantee you that every bit of pinpoint finesse possible with a rapier is equally possible with half-swording and spears. I can also guarantee you that it isn't practically possible with a whip, and would be dubious with a sling. Yet those things can sneak attack.

In short, I have no idea how you see sneak attack working, beyond "this is the way WotC wrote it so it must be right."

[silveralen]

Considering a rapier is on par with the best one handed weapons, there is no balance reason one couldn't rule that any one handed weapon allows sneak attacking.

Two handed is a bit trickier as you have a small but notable benefit over the previous weapon choices. That being said, for a rogue who typically attacks one per round it isn't a big deal.

[Steampunkette]

He is saying that by dual-wielding, you have two chances for a single sneak attack and he placed the chance of that sneak attack triggering at a higher 85-91% due to the extra chance at triggering it. While using a Staff and Polearm Mastery, you lose the extra attempt at a sneak attack via dual-wielding but you gain the opportunity to inflict a second sneak attack via your reaction. By dual-wielding and having two chances at a single sneak, you have a 85-91% chance of landing a single sneak but by using a Polearm with Polearm Mastery, you have two chances to hit, each of which would proc a sneak attack but only have a 60-70% chance to hit.
Although it isn't really true either because he is neglecting the fact that Polearm Master comes with a bonus action attack too. So Polearm Master would effectively be a 85-91% chance to land the first sneak attack and then a 60-70% chance to land a second.

I'm confused as to how someone with Polearm Mastery has a 60-70% chance to land a second sneak attack. How exactly are we getting that figure?

Any rogue can sneak attack with a reaction, whether granted by class ability, feat, or ally granting it. Polearm Mastery gives you an additional way to GAIN reactions (enemies closing with you) but how the heck does that equate to a 60% increased chance of sneak attacking? Do enemies in your games charge the rogue 60% of the time, ignoring all other targets?

As for the argument on fighter 11 Rogue 9... That's nonsense. A Fighter 11 can take Two Weapon Fighting to gain the off-hand strength mod, use the Dual Wielding feat, and swing d8s with both hands. If she's using rapiers then she's got just as much chance to sneak attack on a reaction as any other rogue, for less damage admittedly. And if she's a Battle Master use Riposte on a miss against her to react for a sneak attack +1d8-1d12 of Superiority damage. No need for Polearm Mastery for a dual-rapier wielding rogue that sneak attacks with extra reaction options.

[Kidbuu51]

Just said this To a friend who wanted to be a rogue with a greataxe who is playing ESO.So here's how I see it to work, a rogue can sneak attack with the weapons the rogue class is proficient with and any added by the weapon master feat.
But not those added by multiclassing I.e. taking a fighter level

[Giant2005]

I'm confused as to how someone with Polearm Mastery has a 60-70% chance to land a second sneak attack. How exactly are we getting that figure?

Any rogue can sneak attack with a reaction, whether granted by class ability, feat, or ally granting it. Polearm Mastery gives you an additional way to GAIN reactions (enemies closing with you) but how the heck does that equate to a 60% increased chance of sneak attacking? Do enemies in your games charge the rogue 60% of the time, ignoring all other targets?

The 60-70% is Kryx's estimation of a chance to hit. If the opportunity attack misses (A chance that Kryx estimated at 30-40% chance) then there is no second sneak attack.

[Kryx]

I'm confused as to how someone with Polearm Mastery has a 60-70% chance to land a second sneak attack. How exactly are we getting that figure?
60-70% chance to hit with the reaction. 84-91% for the main attack as you have the normal attack and the bonus.

The numbers come from my DPR of Classes google doc. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1330347154) For rogue I currently only show the dpr assuming twf and a buff of twf giving a second bonus attack at 11 (it still falls behind in dmg which is ok based on utility). I could add one to show how much higher a rogue with a polearm would be over a rogue without.


Any rogue can sneak attack with a reaction, whether granted by class ability, feat, or ally granting it. Polearm Mastery gives you an additional way to GAIN reactions (enemies closing with you) but how the heck does that equate to a 60% increased chance of sneak attacking? Do enemies in your games charge the rogue 60% of the time, ignoring all other targets?
Polearm master gives you a reaction that is far more likely to occur than other reactions. The normal rate of reactions depends on DM style, but at minimum it definitely increases your likelihood of getting a reaction.
The chance of the polearm reaction is debatable. On the barbarian sheet I put the polearm provoke chance at around 30%. So 30%*60%*normal damage = additional dpr. Very rough math is that it is around a 25.3% increase in DPR over the normal twf rogue.

[Knaight]

I can understand that some folks think using a mace for a "sneak attack" makes perfect sense, but I disagree....and luckily for me WotC agrees.
Having actually handled some maces, the idea that you can't get a sneak attach in with them seems bizarre to me. A huge amount of it comes down to a sense of timing, and if it's light enough to handle in a duel (which maces are), it's light enough to attack precisely with. Something like a sledgehammer wouldn't work so well, but those fit solidly into the improvised weapon category to begin with.

[MeeposFire]

There are lots of weapons that were sneak attack/backstab enabled weapons that are no longer usable. Clubs were very prominent in AD&D (it was used in art and were specifically mentioned in the back stab rules) and are not usable in 5e. Another big omission is the long sword which is oddly given as a weapon prof in 5e but not allowed to SA with it.


Personally I am not seeing any real value in lore, realism, or balance in these weapons or a bunch of others.

[SharkForce]

I'm confused as to how someone with Polearm Mastery has a 60-70% chance to land a second sneak attack. How exactly are we getting that figure?

Any rogue can sneak attack with a reaction, whether granted by class ability, feat, or ally granting it. Polearm Mastery gives you an additional way to GAIN reactions (enemies closing with you) but how the heck does that equate to a 60% increased chance of sneak attacking? Do enemies in your games charge the rogue 60% of the time, ignoring all other targets?

As for the argument on fighter 11 Rogue 9... That's nonsense. A Fighter 11 can take Two Weapon Fighting to gain the off-hand strength mod, use the Dual Wielding feat, and swing d8s with both hands. If she's using rapiers then she's got just as much chance to sneak attack on a reaction as any other rogue, for less damage admittedly. And if she's a Battle Master use Riposte on a miss against her to react for a sneak attack +1d8-1d12 of Superiority damage. No need for Polearm Mastery for a dual-rapier wielding rogue that sneak attacks with extra reaction options.

if two-weapon fighting were equal in damage to a polearm mastery build in the first place, that might be true. but the polearm mastery build will be getting GWM as well, and a chance to get a full-strength attack.

going TWF instead of polearm mastery costs the fighter a significant chunk of DPR to pick up the sneak attack DPR. when you're swinging a weapon 4 times per turn, you're still very likely to land sneak attack; normally it isn't really worth the lost accuracy for a rogue to take a penalty to hit for +10 damage, but with 4 attacks per round it should work out fine.

but again, in my opinion the real problem here is that fighter offers relatively little over the last 9 levels. it certainly isn't nothing, but i'd never propose to mechanically optimize a wizard or bard or monk by ignoring the higher levels; doing so would be purely for flavour reasons (for example, the ever-popular ninja build with rogue levels and/or warlock levels on a monk).

[Steampunkette]

60-70% chance to hit with the reaction. 84-91% for the main attack as you have the normal attack and the bonus.

The numbers come from my DPR of Classes google doc. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1330347154) For rogue I currently only show the dpr assuming twf and a buff of twf giving a second bonus attack at 11 (it still falls behind in dmg which is ok based on utility). I could add one to show how much higher a rogue with a polearm would be over a rogue without.


Polearm master gives you a reaction that is far more likely to occur than other reactions. The normal rate of reactions depends on DM style, but at minimum it definitely increases your likelihood of getting a reaction.
60% chance to hit on a reaction. The chance of the reaction is debatable. On the barbarian sheet I put the polearm provoke chance at around 30%. So 30%*60%*normal damage = additional dpr. Very rough math is that it is around a 25.3% increase in DPR over the normal twf rogue.

That makes sense, but it's still situational enough that I think you're overestimating the damage increase. Partially since the rogue who uses a bonus action to PAM can't Bonus Action to disengage/escape and will be sitting in the face of the thing that might otherwise chase them down.

But mostly because Sneak Attack, itself, is situational. And it takes more than "React!" to get one.

[Giant2005]

That makes sense, but it's still situational enough that I think you're overestimating the damage increase. Partially since the rogue who uses a bonus action to PAM can't Bonus Action to disengage/escape and will be sitting in the face of the thing that might otherwise chase them down.

But mostly because Sneak Attack, itself, is situational. And it takes more than "React!" to get one.

They can get sneak attacks very easily as a Swashbuckler and with Polearm Master, reactions are easily obtained against melee opponents too - all it takes is attack your opponent, step back (Can use Cunning Action or Mobility to do so safely) and then wait for your opponent to come to you. It either comes and eats a second sneak attack, or it stands there and twiddles its thumbs while you joust it without it ever attempting to defend itself.
The truth is that placing the provoking chance at only 30% is very, very conservative. It should be so close to 100% that it is indistinguishable from 100%.

[Steampunkette]

Sticky Enemies, Ranged Attacks, Party Members, Closed Quarters, Spellcasting, Mobile Enemies, Reach...

It's only as close to 100% as the DM decides.

[coredump]

Having actually handled some maces, the idea that you can't get a sneak attach in with them seems bizarre to me. A huge amount of it comes down to a sense of timing, and if it's light enough to handle in a duel (which maces are), it's light enough to attack precisely with. Something like a sledgehammer wouldn't work so well, but those fit solidly into the improvised weapon category to begin with.

Now compare that mace to a dagger, or rapier..... which allows you to be more precise?

Granted, 5E is simplified, so there will be some finesse weapons that don't really make sense (whip) and some non-finesse weapons that could make sense (sickle). But I don't see how a warpick or greatclub or flail is going to work for a Sneak Attack.

[Knaight]

Now compare that mace to a dagger, or rapier..... which allows you to be more precise?

It depends on the situation. A lot of times it actually is the mace, particularly compared to the rapier. There are a lot of cases where once you get up close you can get in position to make a strike that won't be interfered with as much, whereas rapier stabs frequently get at least partially deflected or dodged even when they hit, largely because of usage. This is with one of the more intuitively off-seeming weapons at that; with something like a spear I'm way more confident about precise tip control than just about anything labeled "finesse".

[Ashrym]

I think the thug archetype fits under the fighter now looking at the class fluff descriptions. Fighters include bandit kings while rogues specifically stress cunning over brute strength.

The archetype is a champion or fighter with a criminal background that specialized in either enforcer or highway robber. That gives the fluff, appropriate skills, appropriate weapons, and high damage potential.

I think it's a mistake to think the archetype requires sneak attack or the rogue in the first place given the 5e separation of skills from classes by way of subclass and this is just a paradigm shift.

[Steampunkette]

Also worth noting: Swashbucklers are not official. You can't play them in Adventurer's League and you can't play them at a lot of tables.

They're not quite homebrew, but they're only a step or so above homebrew. It's an untested outline of a subclass they might, eventually, release after testing if it works like they hope and they don't come up with something better in the interim.

So using Swashbucklers as an example of why a separate optional ruleset shouldn't be used is questionable logic.

[djreynolds]

I know you guys and gals are more experienced gamers than I am. Hence the pixie. But there are ideas. Make a minimum score for dexterity to use sneak attacks, if you have say a 15 dex and an 18 strength you can sneak attack without finesse. Make it MAD. The old AD&D acrobat had to have high strength and dexterity. Make a skill or feat tree so that characters can't have it all. You could have polearm master feat with quarterstaff but you need the actor feat in addition and or performance skill. Thus symbolizing you have skills necessary to feint with the quarterstaff to land sneak attacks.

I can understand that we don't want to unbalance the game, but this would allow the player to have what he wants but at a steep cost. Especially if she uses the adventurer league ability scores. Have ability score minimums for feats, which there is for skulker, its a 13.

As stated I'm not an experienced gamer, but the feat trees and ability score minimums would force a cost. High strength and high dexterity, minimum charisma of 13.

You guys can work out the details. But someone beating you senseless with a staff is strong and nimble and has panache.

[Giant2005]

I know you guys and gals are more experienced gamers than I am. Hence the pixie. But there are ideas. Make a minimum score for dexterity to use sneak attacks, if you have say a 15 dex and an 18 strength you can sneak attack without finesse. Make it MAD. The old AD&D acrobat had to have high strength and dexterity. Make a skill or feat tree so that characters can't have it all. You could have polearm master feat with quarterstaff but you need the actor feat in addition and or performance skill. Thus symbolizing you have skills necessary to feint with the quarterstaff to land sneak attacks.

I can understand that we don't want to unbalance the game, but this would allow the player to have what he wants but at a steep cost. Especially if she uses the adventurer league ability scores. Have ability score minimums for feats, which there is for skulker, its a 13.

As stated I'm not an experienced gamer, but the feat trees and ability score minimums would force a cost. High strength and high dexterity, minimum charisma of 13.

You guys can work out the details. But someone beating you senseless with a staff is strong and nimble and has panache.

Most people tend to hate feat trees. They don't like having to spend their resources on things that they don't even want, purely just so they can have the things they do want.
That is essentially why 5e combined feats together to make more powerful feats than 3.5 had.

[djreynolds]

You are 100% correct, they're 3 feats combined. I would think a monk rouge should be able to use a staff to land sneak attacks, homebrew of course, without upsetting the game play too much. But you are right with the feat trees, they were costly in 3.5.

[coredump]

It depends on the situation. A lot of times it actually is the mace, particularly compared to the rapier. There are a lot of cases where once you get up close you can get in position to make a strike that won't be interfered with as much, whereas rapier stabs frequently get at least partially deflected or dodged even when they hit, largely because of usage. This is with one of the more intuitively off-seeming weapons at that; with something like a spear I'm way more confident about precise tip control than just about anything labeled "finesse".
The issue isn't if one particular weapon should be allowed, the 'proposal' is that all weapons should be allowed.
I just don't see any way that a mace is going to be a 'sneak attack' weapon using precision etc to deal a devastating blow. Yes there are better and worse places to hit with a mace, and you can even do 'double damage' if you find just the right spot. But still not the same as a shortsword etc. And that doesn't even touch things like a maul, greatclub, warpike, etc.

Now, if you want to argue a case for one or two specific weapons, like the spear or sickle, I can see an argument to be made. But that is not what the thread was about.

[ChubbyRain]

The issue isn't if one particular weapon should be allowed, the 'proposal' is that all weapons should be allowed.
I just don't see any way that a mace is going to be a 'sneak attack' weapon using precision etc to deal a devastating blow. Yes there are better and worse places to hit with a mace, and you can even do 'double damage' if you find just the right spot. But still not the same as a shortsword etc. And that doesn't even touch things like a maul, greatclub, warpike, etc.

Now, if you want to argue a case for one or two specific weapons, like the spear or sickle, I can see an argument to be made. But that is not what the thread was about.

That's your problem, not mine. Stick to your own character and don't try to impose your lack of imagination based on fluff onto others.

Just because you can't wrap your head around how my rogue can use mace to bash a person in the kedneys doesn't mean I can't.

It also doesnt mean I should be punished for something mehcnaically balanced due to a fluff difference. I like to to roleplay interesting and different characters and shouldn't be punished for using imagination in a table top fantasy rpg game.

Edit

If my rogue's fluff is that he uses a great axe with great precision to get sneak attack, well he is just that damn good. As long as he isn't OP (and face it, HP damage is still not the most OP thing in the game) the fluff shouldn't matter.

Repeat after me...

She/He is just that damn good.

[Morty]

It always amuses me to see people contort logic in order to justify pointless rules relics. Sneak attack is a class feature that allows one to deal damage by effectively exploiting holes and openings in the enemies' defences. That's it. That's all there is to it. Anyone who isn't ignorant about melee combat knows that it can be done with any weapon.

[-Jynx-]

It always amuses me to see people contort logic in order to justify pointless rules relics. Sneak attack is a class feature that allows one to deal damage by effectively exploiting holes and openings in the enemies' defences. That's it. That's all there is to it. Anyone who isn't ignorant about melee combat knows that it can be done with any weapon.

Yes you can technically exploit weaknesses with any weapon if you've trained and are familiar with it. The argument being made is that certain weapons are more tailored to the job of maneuvering into said points with general ease. This combines real world weapon knowledge with an over-exaggeration of physics that is DnD.

Take the guy at the gym fallacy, DnD characters can do far more than average people do in our world, their abilities are stretched and exaggerated into physical truths in the fantasy world. The same kind of holds true for weapons. Your rapiers are more nimble, your maces are enormous and weigh that of a buster sword, your greatsword is weighted like sack of lead ingots but f- it because this is fantasy and you do what you want!

That exaggeration of physics doesn't necessarily make things existent from nothing, a greatsword still isn't as maneuverable as a rapier or dagger. You can overcome a lot of its disadvantages through brute strength don't get me wrong, but it still isn't as quick and nimble as a dagger/shortsword/rapier. Which is why I believe those weapons in particular are suited for sneak attacks requirement because of the nature of the weapon. I go back to my earlier example of the wooden door. A great Axe, or any axe is more tailored to chopping it down than say a rapier is. But you still technically CAN EVENTUALLY chop a door down with a rapier... Which weapon makes more sense in receiving a bonus for chopping down the door though? The Axe.

Grant it I'm applying an awful lot of real world knowledge and experience into a world that is neither real nor follows the same rules. I've used a variety of weapons, and my opinions on why these finesse weapons make sense for sneak attack reasons is based off that. In a world of magic and dragons and super saiyan athletes I can see the argument being made that any character with enough training and bravado/strength could accomplish the same feat your fencing counterpart could. I think the finesse weapon only version of sneak attack gives an undertone or realism in an unrealistic world which I fancy and some people don't care for that.

[Kryx]

In a world of magic and dragons and super saiyan athletes I can see the argument being made that any character with enough training and bravado/strength could accomplish the same feat your fencing counterpart could. I think the finesse weapon only version of sneak attack gives an undertone or realism in an unrealistic world which I fancy and some people don't care for that.
Some people play with the super saiyan mindset that heroes can do anything, but that isn't the default by any means.

I agree that sneak attack works on nimble(finesse) weapons. What is being described as hitting key points on big weapons is a critical hit.

Some smaller weapons make a fair amount of fluff sense, but again I'd caution to limit it to the d8 sweet spot.

[ChubbyRain]

Some people play with the super saiyan mindset that heroes can do anything, but that isn't the default by any means.

I agree that sneak attack works on nimble(finesse) weapons. What is being described as hitting key points on big weapons is a critical hit.

Some smaller weapons make a fair amount of fluff sense, but again I'd caution to limit it to the d8 sweet spot.


Here is the thing though. Allowing any weapon to sneak attack doesn't break the game. If you strike down the fluff rules that dictate mechanics you can have your character or your game the way you like your character or your game AND and I have mine (half orc sneak attack w/ pike). How can that be bad?

And if a player has a rogue at the table you aren't running that is playing differently than you like, well, get over it.

In a fantasy game it shouldn't be odd to hear about a half orc who sneak attacks with a tree branch (and later a tree). A blow to the head is good enough to be a sneak attack, be it with a dagger or a tree branch.

Fantasy, Uh... Finds a way

[Kryx]

Here is the thing though. Allowing any weapon to sneak attack doesn't break the game. If you strike down the fluff rules that dictate mechanics you can have your character or your game the way you like your character or your game AND and I have mine (half orc sneak attack w/ pike). How can that be bad?
It doesn't break the game, but anything more than d8 increases rogue DPR. Increasing reactions increases it by a significant amount more.
Pike is d10. Slightly better than a d8. In reality it is likely fine. My biggest concern would be the extra reaction which is a large jump in damage.



My comment was just about the "OMG WE'RE SUPER HEROES" mindset. That mindset is usually the stated reason for why a PC thinks he can jump super high or climb a slippery slope without a roll. I detest that mindset. PCs are just like any other creature in the world and they follow guidelines - they don't ignore rules just because they are PCs.

[pwykersotz]

Here is the thing though. Allowing any weapon to sneak attack doesn't break the game. If you strike down the fluff rules that dictate mechanics you can have your character or your game the way you like your character or your game AND and I have mine (half orc sneak attack w/ pike). How can that be bad?

And if a player has a rogue at the table you aren't running that is playing differently than you like, well, get over it.

In a fantasy game it shouldn't be odd to hear about a half orc who sneak attacks with a tree branch (and later a tree). A blow to the head is good enough to be a sneak attack, be it with a dagger or a tree branch.

Fantasy, Uh... Finds a way

Some people have higher standards than simply not breaking the game. In different types of fantasy, certain things are appropriate and certain are not.

[Morty]

There's no point at which realism and "register of fantasy" - that is to say, whether it's high-powered and cinematic or down to earth - enter into it. There's nothing unusual or unrealistic about a rogue who fights dirty, flanks and confounds enemies to deal wicked blows with an axe, arming sword, mace, club or even a two-handed sword. It's that simple.

[ChubbyRain]

Some people have higher standards than simply not breaking the game. In different types of fantasy, certain things are appropriate and certain are not.

That's the whole entire point!

It isn't breaking the game at all.

The only thing a great club sneak attack breaks is fluff.

It isn't mechanically unbalanced one bit to allow sneak attacks with non-finesse weapons so all that is happening is a punishing fantasy players for using their imagination.

It would be like punishing baseball players for using gloves. If the catcher has a glove on then 3 strikes and the batter is out but if the catcher doesn't have a glove on then its two strikes and the batter is out.

[Kryx]

There's no point at which realism and "register of fantasy" - that is to say, whether it's high-powered and cinematic or down to earth - enter into it. There's nothing unusual or unrealistic about a rogue who fights dirty, flanks and confounds enemies to deal wicked blows with an axe, arming sword, mace, club or even a two-handed sword. It's that simple.
https://31.media.tumblr.com/55d170c898b240783dc332124bbd197d/tumblr_inline_n4foafra0C1sew80h.jpg

[-Jynx-]

There's no point at which realism and "register of fantasy" - that is to say, whether it's high-powered and cinematic or down to earth - enter into it. There's nothing unusual or unrealistic about a rogue who fights dirty, flanks and confounds enemies to deal wicked blows with an axe, arming sword, mace, club or even a two-handed sword. It's that simple.

Realism is what gives basis to fantasy. It's why those weapons exist in DnD in the first place because they to at a very basic degree mirror their real life counterpart. As such they should be displayed to some degree. While fantasy is by for more grandeur, it doesn't change the fact that the basics of the weapons and their use are very real.

Advantage gives way to the idea of fighting dirty, teaming up, or otherwise capitalizing on an opening otherwise not present with any weapon.

Critical hits similarly give way to landing a blow in the "sweet spot", crashing the ax, mace, sword in the head or otherwise devastating an opponent in that moment. Crits of which are accomplish-able with any weapon.

Yet you're discounted these in place of not being able to sneak attack with any weapon? Sneak attack is embodied by its subtlety of which an ax, mace, or larger sword is many things but seldom subtle.

[Easy_Lee]

Yet you're discounted these in place of not being able to sneak attack with any weapon? Sneak attack is embodied by its subtlety of which an ax, mace, or larger sword is many things but seldom subtle.

If the name "sneak attack" means anything, the primary reason why sneak attacks work is because the foe is unaware of them. The book calls it "exploit(ing) a foe's distraction." I don't see why that isn't just as possible with any weapon.

[Morty]

Realism is what gives basis to fantasy. It's why those weapons exist in DnD in the first place because they to at a very basic degree mirror their real life counterpart. As such they should be displayed to some degree. While fantasy is by for more grandeur, it doesn't change the fact that the basics of the weapons and their use are very real.

Yes, and a rogue who sneaks up on an enemy, flanks them or throws them off-balance before smashing their skull open with an axe is entirely realistic.


Advantage gives way to the idea of fighting dirty, teaming up, or otherwise capitalizing on an opening otherwise not present with any weapon.

Critical hits similarly give way to landing a blow in the "sweet spot", crashing the ax, mace, sword in the head or otherwise devastating an opponent in that moment. Crits of which are accomplish-able with any weapon.

Yet you're discounted these in place of not being able to sneak attack with any weapon? Sneak attack is embodied by its subtlety of which an ax, mace, or larger sword is many things but seldom subtle.

You appear to have missed the part where you explain why it's possible to fight dirty (flanking and advantage) and strike with precision and efficiency (critical hits) using non-finesse weapons, but somehow not possible to sneak attack with them. Again, sneak attacks require the enemy to be unaware of the rogue, or otherwise incapable of devoting their full attention to them. That's it. At which point the rogue hits there it hurts. Why is it somehow impossible with an axe or arming sword?

[Paeleus]

Can anyone truly be sneaky when attacking with a large, heavy weapon? Granted if the target or allies can't see the attack coming, something as large as an ancient red dragon could pull off a sneaky attack. What is the speed difference between swinging a g.sword to get the weapons 2d6 damage roll and flicking a rapier for its 1d8 damage roll?

My argument is this: does it take the weight of the weapon to deal damage? As in an axe being swung a certain arc length to fulfill its chopping role successfully because an axe is not a razor and takes more force applied to cleave/cut. Cannot be sneaky.

Or does the weapon require much less energy to properly deal damage? As in a forward thrust/wrist flick. (I know scimitars are swung, but ignore that for a sec) Sounds sneaky because it can be done quickly before the target can react (ignoring shield spell and riposte on purpose)

If the finesse only requirement were lifted, a swash9/fighter11 with dual wielder feat would be rolling (w/2 long swords) 20d6+ 4d8 + 20. Every turn. Effectively making a straight fighter more or less obsolete. Granted that's lvl 20. Bottom line, lifting the restriction would cause a poopstorm for the DM trying to challenge players and decrease party fun overall.

[ChubbyRain]

Can anyone truly be sneaky when attacking with a large, heavy weapon? Granted if the target or allies can't see the attack coming, something as large as an ancient red dragon could pull off a sneaky attack. What is the speed difference between swinging a g.sword to get the weapons 2d6 damage roll and flicking a rapier for its 1d8 damage roll?

My argument is this: does it take the weight of the weapon to deal damage? As in an axe being swung a certain arc length to fulfill its chopping role successfully because an axe is not a razor and takes more force applied to cleave/cut. Cannot be sneaky.

Or does the weapon require much less energy to properly deal damage? As in a forward thrust/wrist flick. (I know scimitars are swung, but ignore that for a sec) Sounds sneaky because it can be done quickly before the target can react (ignoring shield spell and riposte on purpose)

If the finesse only requirement were lifted, a swash9/fighter11 with dual wielder feat would be rolling (w/2 long swords) 20d6+ 4d8 + 20. Every turn. Effectively making a straight fighter more or less obsolete. Granted that's lvl 20. Bottom line, lifting the restriction would cause a poopstorm for the DM trying to challenge players and decrease party fun overall.

First off, straight fighter is already obsolete once you get to mid to higher levels.

Secondly if I have an axe, I spit in your eye (using my inspiration to gain advantage), and then hit you in the head with said axe... How is that NOT a sneak attack?

It isn't the size of the weapon that matters, its what you do with it that counts. My half orc rogue wielding a tree branch is just that damn good.

[Demonic Spoon]

Can anyone truly be sneaky when attacking with a large, heavy weapon? Granted if the target or allies can't see the attack coming, something as large as an ancient red dragon could pull off a sneaky attack. What is the speed difference between swinging a g.sword to get the weapons 2d6 damage roll and flicking a rapier for its 1d8 damage roll?

My argument is this: does it take the weight of the weapon to deal damage? As in an axe being swung a certain arc length to fulfill its chopping role successfully because an axe is not a razor and takes more force applied to cleave/cut. Cannot be sneaky.

Or does the weapon require much less energy to properly deal damage? As in a forward thrust/wrist flick. (I know scimitars are swung, but ignore that for a sec) Sounds sneaky because it can be done quickly before the target can react (ignoring shield spell and riposte on purpose)

If the finesse only requirement were lifted, a swash9/fighter11 with dual wielder feat would be rolling (w/2 long swords) 20d6+ 4d8 + 20. Every turn. Effectively making a straight fighter more or less obsolete. Granted that's lvl 20. Bottom line, lifting the restriction would cause a poopstorm for the DM trying to challenge players and decrease party fun overall.

Swashbuckler is not an official subclass. It's some playtest-at-best material from UA.

[-Jynx-]

If the name "sneak attack" means anything, the primary reason why sneak attacks work is because the foe is unaware of them. The book calls it "exploit(ing) a foe's distraction." I don't see why that isn't just as possible with any weapon.

Have you ever tried feinting with an ax? Have you ever thrusted around a strike with a greatsword? Those weapons lack the very subtlety that I'm referring to that sneak attack is based around. If you want to call off fluff in favor of 4 extra damage so you can be the big kid on campus with the largest numbers be my guest. But if you're trying to make a case for why weapons don't all function similarly I'd implore you to actually test your theory outside your house before claiming all things should be the same.


Yes, and a rogue who sneaks up on an enemy, flanks them or throws them off-balance before smashing their skull open with an axe is entirely realistic.

And I would consider smashing the skull open to be a critical hit not a sneak attack. With advantage because you got the drop on it no less.


You appear to have missed the part where you explain why it's possible to fight dirty (flanking and advantage) and strike with precision and efficiency (critical hits) using non-finesse weapons, but somehow not possible to sneak attack with them. Again, sneak attacks require the enemy to be unaware of the rogue, or otherwise incapable of devoting their full attention to them. That's it. At which point the rogue hits there it hurts. Why is it somehow impossible with an axe or arming sword?

When you swing a weapon with the intent to hurt something/someone you're always TRYING to hit the head, vital organs, or what have you. No matter the weapon, no matter the weak spot. You're contesting against the other creatures desire to well, not let that happen. Finesse weapons in particular though are nimble enough to strike quicker and with a bit more accuracy than the latter weaponry hence the sneak attack. I'm segregating critical hits, advantage, and sneak attack rigidly. You instead are blending them together in a "I'ma swingin' mai sword and hittin them in the squishies!" stew that encompasses all three.

[coredump]

That's your problem, not mine. Stick to your own character and don't try to impose your lack of imagination based on fluff onto others. Actually it is your problem, since the designers agree with me and have written the rules accordingly.



It also doesnt mean I should be punished for something mehcnaically balanced due to a fluff difference. I like to to roleplay interesting and different characters and shouldn't be punished for using imagination in a table top fantasy rpg game.

I like to roleplay that my guy gets Reach from his dagger

I like to roleplay that my guy can use a pillow two handed for 1D12 damage

I like to roleplay that my guys have a sattelite phone

I like to roleplay that my guy can have a space ship and go to different planets

I like to roleplay that my my guy has the Light cantrip, just because

I like to roleplay that my guy can add proficiency to damage

I like to roleplay that my guy can change his skin color at will

I like to roleplay that my guy can use a glaive as a monk weapon

etc
etc

None of these will break the games mechanics

And why does my guy get to do these things.....


Repeat after me...

She/He is just that damn good.



You act as if Fluff is not part of the game. To me, Fluff *is* the game. The mechanics are what let you play the fluff. The reason we have castles and not skyscrappers is the fluff, the reason we have carriages and not spaceships is the fluff. The reason we walk around buildings instead of jumping over them, is the fluff.

The fluff is a typical earth-based medieval fantasy setting. The mechanics are designed to let you play in that setting.
The reason dual handbows are not allowed isnt' because it breaks the mechanics; but because of how a handbow works in a typical earth-based medieval fantasy setting. The mechanics are designed to mimic the fluff... the fluff is important.

[coredump]

If the name "sneak attack" means anything, the primary reason why sneak attacks work is because the foe is unaware of them. The book calls it "exploit(ing) a foe's distraction." I don't see why that isn't just as possible with any weapon.

Because *anyone* can just hit you when you are not paying attention. There is nothing special about that, a fighter or cleric can do that just fine. Therefore the Rogue must be doing something different than that.... they must be exploiting that distraction in some unique way. Maybe even in a ..... "Sneaky" way.... When I think of a rogue doing something special and sneaky, I think of things like slipping a dagger into a weak spot, or using a scimitar to cut the back of their leg, or achilles. Maybe using a Rapier to hit a nerve cluster....

If it were something simple as "Thog Smash" then it would not be a Rogue Feature.... anyone can 'Thog smash"...

[Paeleus]

First off, straight fighter is already obsolete once you get to mid to higher levels.

Secondly if I have an axe, I spit in your eye (using my inspiration to gain advantage), and then hit you in the head with said axe... How is that NOT a sneak attack?

It isn't the size of the weapon that matters, its what you do with it that counts. My half orc rogue wielding a tree branch is just that damn good.

First off, you are correct there.

Secondly, would your DM rule that spit as an action? If not, I guess you're golden for gaining advantage on the attack opening up SA rolls. Seems broken to me, because that would allow anyone to spit in a target's eye and then "sneak attacking" thus allowing a straight barbarian to sneak attack.


Swashbuckler is not an official subclass. It's some playtest-at-best material from UA.

Very true, but I believe a majority of tables would allow Swashbuckler for a multitude of reason. It's a classic archetype, WotC released and sanctions it, so a DM doesn't have to worry about it not being balanced (which is an argument in and of itself), etc.

[pwykersotz]

That's the whole entire point!

It isn't breaking the game at all.

The only thing a great club sneak attack breaks is fluff.

It isn't mechanically unbalanced one bit to allow sneak attacks with non-finesse weapons so all that is happening is a punishing fantasy players for using their imagination.

It would be like punishing baseball players for using gloves. If the catcher has a glove on then 3 strikes and the batter is out but if the catcher doesn't have a glove on then its two strikes and the batter is out.

It's also not game breaking to have all weapons deal 2d6 damage across the board or to eliminate half the skills, or to give everyone an automatic 20 in a starting stat. That isn't a strong argument for defaulting the game to those parameters though. Usually mechanical changes are based around a need, not a whim. Fluff is far easier to alter and have everyone stay in the same page. Not that there's anything wrong with doing it, it's just less necessary than you imagine in my opinion.

[Paeleus]

Because *anyone* can just hit you when you are not paying attention. There is nothing special about that, a fighter or cleric can do that just fine. Therefore the Rogue must be doing something different than that.... they must be exploiting that distraction in some unique way. Maybe even in a ..... "Sneaky" way.... When I think of a rogue doing something special and sneaky, I think of things like slipping a dagger into a weak spot, or using a scimitar to cut the back of their leg, or achilles. Maybe using a Rapier to hit a nerve cluster....

If it were something simple as "Thog Smash" then it would not be a Rogue Feature.... anyone can 'Thog smash"...

Nailed it.

[Easy_Lee]

Have you ever tried feinting with an ax? Have you ever thrusted around a strike with a greatsword?

I have. Have you?

[Demonic Spoon]

Very true, but I believe a majority of tables would allow Swashbuckler for a multitude of reason. It's a classic archetype, WotC released and sanctions it, so a DM doesn't have to worry about it not being balanced (which is an argument in and of itself), etc.

No, they don't. They provide giant disclaimers next to every UA thing they release that state that they aren't playtested and aren't polished. For my part, I think the subclass as written is awful and wouldn't allow it in my games for a multitude of reasons (one of which being that it causes balance problems regardless of sneak attack homebrews).

Allowing UA classes is homebrew. Which is fine if you're going to do that at your table, but irrelevant a general discussion about the way the base game works by allowing rogues to use sneak attack with strength weapons.

[Cybren]

I have. Have you?

To be honest I doubt that any game mechanics in 5E were arrived at via reality-checking. That's not a design goal of the system and people trying to use it as a reason to enforce Finesse-Only Sneak Attacks are being disingenuous in their reasoning (and wrong in their reasoning).

Honestly i'd far more readily believe that they just made that decision to enforce the genre-ness of "rogues you light weapons". D&D combat is not particularly high-fidelity. In systems like GURPS, a thief character might use a dagger or a shortsword because they're light, concealable, and cheap. In D&D, the price of mundane weapons isn't relevant (even at first level, you usually can start play with any weapon you want to use), and people don't usually run games where you regularly change your equipment to suit changing social situations. The only way left to enforce genre-appropriate weapons for fantasy archetypes is to just make that a stipulation in the game mechanics.

[ChubbyRain]

Actually it is your problem, since the designers agree with me and have written the rules accordingly.




I like to roleplay that my guy gets Reach from his dagger

I like to roleplay that my guy can use a pillow two handed for 1D12 damage

I like to roleplay that my guys have a sattelite phone

I like to roleplay that my guy can have a space ship and go to different planets

I like to roleplay that my my guy has the Light cantrip, just because

I like to roleplay that my guy can add proficiency to damage

I like to roleplay that my guy can change his skin color at will

I like to roleplay that my guy can use a glaive as a monk weapon

etc
etc

None of these will break the games mechanics

And why does my guy get to do these things.....




You act as if Fluff is not part of the game. To me, Fluff *is* the game. The mechanics are what let you play the fluff. The reason we have castles and not skyscrappers is the fluff, the reason we have carriages and not spaceships is the fluff. The reason we walk around buildings instead of jumping over them, is the fluff.

The fluff is a typical earth-based medieval fantasy setting. The mechanics are designed to let you play in that setting.
The reason dual handbows are not allowed isnt' because it breaks the mechanics; but because of how a handbow works in a typical earth-based medieval fantasy setting. The mechanics are designed to mimic the fluff... the fluff is important.

You are confusing fluff rules with mechanic rules.

Reach with a dagger is a ruling based on mechanics.

Sneak attack only with specific weapons is a ruling based on fluff.

When you start talking about the same thing I do I'll continue to discussion with you. You say fluff is the game to you but everything you described is a result of mechanics not a result of fluff.

Oh, yeah a monk should totally have some sort of reach weapon outside the spear, I've even seen pictures of fantasy monks with giant harpoon weapons (think Ward's weapon from FF8).




First off, you are correct there.

Secondly, would your DM rule that spit as an action? If not, I guess you're golden for gaining advantage on the attack opening up SA rolls. Seems broken to me, because that would allow anyone to spit in a target's eye and then "sneak attacking" thus allowing a straight barbarian to sneak attack.



Very true, but I believe a majority of tables would allow Swashbuckler for a multitude of reason. It's a classic archetype, WotC released and sanctions it, so a DM doesn't have to worry about it not being balanced (which is an argument in and of itself), etc.

Why would you need to use an action in order to use your inspiration? That is a really harsh.

The spit is fluff, pure and simple. Technically I don't even need to do that, I just say "i'm using my inspiration" and be done with it.

But because i love to roleplay, I fluff my inspiration as spitting in my enemies eyes or perhaps down their mouth for my inspiration use.

I could say that for my inspiration usage that I throw my weapon way up in the air as I'm about to attack, I then jump up and grab my weapon (with an athletic display) before crashing down onto my enemy with my maul. Because it is fluff, and very very variable, it doesn't really matter. The mechanics stay the same, I just put my own flair to it.

[Mjolnirbear]

The point to roleplaying is to have fun and to play a concept. Not to be equal, because nothing as messy as life or imagination can be perfectly equal.

I play a halfling dexadin/bard. I knew going in that id be restricted with polearms, great weapon master, heavy weapons, longbows, and heavy armour. That's fine. It made the character more interesting. The paladin is fun in spite of, or perhaps even because of those limitations.

On the other hand, having to use stst buy to get that 13 in strength when dex is a viable build? That irked me greatly. My constitution and wisdom both suffered. That felt like an artificial limitation. But it's there, in the rules.

Someone with a cool character concept not currently possible RAW might ask the dm for an exception. My DM is brand new and he didnt feel comfortsble messing with the system before hed had a chance to learn it. I still went for it. It was the price of my cool concept.

As for finesse being only fluff, it's not. At least not entirely. Skeletons help protect against bludgeoning damage. Skin protects from cuts. But nothing protects your squishy squishy organs from a deep piercing wound. While an axe or club or staff can be weilded with some dexterity (or a lot, really) it is strength that pushes past the skull or the rib or the spine to do damage. Arguably you don't need strength for a windpipe blow but one out of hundreds of targets is hardly a good sample size for comparison

[-Jynx-]

I have. Have you?

Yes I have, I've the weapons to prove it. You on the other hand I seriously doubt considering the novice understanding you demonstrate in your other "Interchangable Dexterity and Strength" thread. If you think feinting with an ax is as easy as a rapier, a shortsword, or a dagger you clearly are out of your element.

We can debate on "who's this or that in real life" but the point remains that your position favors a very "Heavy fantasy/little to no realism" approach and mine favors a more balanced middle ground.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes I have, I've the weapons to prove it. You on the other hand I seriously doubt considering the novice understanding you demonstrate in your other "Interchangable Dexterity and Strength" thread. If you think feinting with an ax is as easy as a rapier, a shortsword, or a dagger you clearly are out of your element.

We can debate on "who's this or that in real life" but the point remains that your position favors a very "Heavy fantasy/little to no realism" approach and mine favors a more balanced middle ground.

You sure about that, Jynx? Pick up the chair you're sitting in right now, hold it in one hand, and pretend to swing it. Don't actually swing it, just make it look like you did.

Congratulations, you just feinted with a chair. And if you had trouble lifting your chair:

You're not me
That's to be expected, since a chair is far less wieldy than a weapon

Weapons are designed for people to wield. One's physical strength is not a factor in whether one is able to use a weapon. And on that note, there are different kinds of strength. You have strongman strength, acrobat strength, and a mix of the two like we might see in a football player. Those are just different muscles. But there's no doubt that, in the D&D system, the acrobat would be high DEX, the strongman would be high STR, and the football player would be a mix.

Do you suppose that any of them would have trouble with a battleaxe, or a maul? I didn't think so. A sickly wizard, might, but no athlete, male or female, would have trouble with any human weapon.

[coredump]

When you start talking about the same thing I do I'll continue to discussion with you. t.
You act like that is some big benefit I should be grateful for.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Boy, there's a lot of venom in this topic.

I'm still on the side of opening up sneak attack to other weapons. The way I see it, the weapon chart is the source of so many problems that this board discusses. Also, the opposing viewpoints of "mechanics are mechanics, make fluff to suit it" and "Mechanics are meant to communicate fluff, make mechanics to create realism/simulationism/verisimilitude".

[Steampunkette]

Very true, but I believe a majority of tables would allow Swashbuckler for a multitude of reason. It's a classic archetype, WotC released and sanctions it, so a DM doesn't have to worry about it not being balanced (which is an argument in and of itself), etc.

As it stands the fighter swashbuckler you described can dual-wield Rapiers for the same damage values. How does it being a d8 Longsword make it deal more damage than a d8 Rapier or otherwise seem more powerful? Just swap Strength for Dex and have at it.

And there are DMs that might allow Swashbuckler, sure. But it's still homebrew, essentially. And a terrible argument against the homebrew being suggested.

[Mostly DM]

Someone correct me if I missed where this was pointed out already, but...

I'm pretty sure that there's only one real reason why 5e requires a finesse weapon to sneak attack. It's because they felt that was simpler and more intuitive/elegant than saying "you can't use a versatile or two-handed weapon to sneak attack."

And of course, they kinda had to do that. Because otherwise, Fighter 1/Rogue 19 would get to reroll 1s and 2s on their 12d6 damage attacks, each and every turn. That's lightyears better than rerolling 1s and 2s on the extra d8s from Smite, or any other legal exploit.

There's a lot of really powerful multiclass combos in 5e, but most of them involve clear sacrifices in exchange for their gains. This one would be a no-brainer.

Everything else is just fluff. Easy to houserule away, no big deal one way or the other. But, please, don't just remove the restriction and call it a day. If you houserule away the restriction, make an addendum that the great weapon fighting style doesn't count for sneak attack.

[Easy_Lee]

Someone correct me if I missed where this was pointed out already, but...

I'm pretty sure that there's only one real reason why 5e requires a finesse weapon to sneak attack. It's because they felt that was simpler and more intuitive/elegant than saying "you can't use a versatile or two-handed weapon to sneak attack."

And of course, they kinda had to do that. Because otherwise, Fighter 1/Rogue 19 would get to reroll 1s and 2s on their 12d6 damage attacks, each and every turn. That's lightyears better than rerolling 1s and 2s on the extra d8s from Smite, or any other legal exploit.

That style works with the attack's damage die, and so arguably only applies to the weapon die. You said it yourself, this would be a "legal exploit" by a very specific reading of the rules that I suspect no DM would go along with. If nothing else, it would take too much extra time to reroll all the 1's and 2's on 9d6.

[-Jynx-]

You sure about that, Jynx? Pick up the chair you're sitting in right now, hold it in one hand, and pretend to swing it. Don't actually swing it, just make it look like you did.

Congratulations, you just feinted with a chair. And if you had trouble lifting your chair:

You're not me
That's to be expected, since a chair is far less wieldy than a weapon


That's cute, I see what you did there.



Weapons are designed for people to wield. One's physical strength is not a factor in whether one is able to use a weapon.

Again this is why I keep saying you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You are some kind of special to think that using a foil is the same as using a falchion is the same as using a messer is the same as using a halberd is the same as using gladius. Ones physical strength matters a whole lot in the use of a weapon. A long sword being used by two hands is much easier to use than an arming sword with one hand. A gladius requires far less strength in its use than a falchion does. The weapon makes a HUGE difference in your advantages, disadvantages and the kind of physical strength/agility you require to use the weapon efficiently. Fencing requires far more agility and nimbleness for example. Your traditional fencer are going to be smaller than greatsword fighters.



And on that note, there are different kinds of strength. You have strongman strength, acrobat strength, and a mix of the two like we might see in a football player. Those are just different muscles. But there's no doubt that, in the D&D system, the acrobat would be high DEX, the strongman would be high STR, and the football player would be a mix.


I agree with this. Strength comes in many forms but that's irrelevant to the way in which weapons are used. You can be the strongest man alive but your great ax still won't be as nimble and quick as an average fencer. Unless we're you apparently



Do you suppose that any of them would have trouble with a battleaxe, or a maul? I didn't think so. A sickly wizard, might, but no athlete, male or female, would have trouble with any human weapon.

Just because you're an athlete in your particular sport or craft doesn't make you an expert at everything. By your same generalization is a chef just as qualified to preform surgery because of how often he uses a knife? Do you expect your surgeon to be able to compete with a chef in slicing fish? They may be able to pick up and use said weapon better than average joe, but their muscles aren't conditioned for swordsmanship. They are using muscles in a different way and it does take time to condition ones self to any sport. You take a football player and make him fight in MMA. Is he automatically good because he's an athletic football player? Do you not think he has to recondition his body for a brawl?

What a world you must live in oh mighty chair-wielder.

[Mostly DM]

That style works with the attack's damage die, and so arguably only applies to the weapon die. You said it yourself, this would be a "legal exploit" by a very specific reading of the rules that I suspect no DM would go along with. If nothing else, it would take too much extra time to reroll all the 1's and 2's on 9d6.

Well, it's not a legal exploit currently, because the rules were written to exclude this exploit.

The great weapon style very specifically does not apply only to the weapon damage dice. It works with e.g. the bonus damage die from half-orc crits. That's intended. And it works with paladin smite damage and Fighter superiority dice; I'd argue that's also intended. It provides a nice damage boost to those classes.

But in those situations the ability being used with bonus d8s or d12s, no more than about 6 of either and typically less. And the bonus dice are themselves a limited resource. That's all very different than a bonus of 10d6, which can be delivered reliably each turn. Rerolling 1s and 2s is better the smaller the die type and the greater the number of dice.

Using great weapon style with superiority dice or smite damage isn't an exploit in a bad sense of the word. It's clever synergy within the same class, using the rules as intended to the fullest extent you can.

Opening up sneak attack to be used with great weapon style would be implementing a house rule that is dramatically more powerful than the existing uses of the ability. That was my point.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, it's not a legal exploit currently, because the rules were written to exclude this exploit.

The great weapon style very specifically does not apply only to the weapon damage dice. It works with e.g. the bonus damage die from half-orc crits. That's intended. And it works with paladin smite damage and Fighter superiority dice; I'd argue that's also intended. It provides a nice damage boost to those classes.

But in those situations the ability being used with bonus d8s or d12s, no more than about 6 of either and typically less. And the bonus dice are themselves a limited resource. That's all very different than a bonus of 10d6, which can be delivered reliably each turn. Rerolling 1s and 2s is better the smaller the die type and the greater the number of dice.

Using great weapon style with superiority dice or smite damage isn't an exploit in a bad sense of the word. It's clever synergy within the same class, using the rules as intended to the fullest extent you can.

Opening up sneak attack to be used with great weapon style would be implementing a house rule that is dramatically more powerful than the existing uses of the ability. That was my point.

I bolded a few phrases in there to highlight a double standard on your part. It's "clevery synergy," a "nice damage boost" when fighters and paladins do it, and should be allowed. But you're not okay with rogues doing it.

Frankly, I think the ability is designed to work with weapon dice. Weapon die and their crits are the only thing it should work on, else any form of bonus die is better with a great weapon. That's not only imbalanced; it craps on every other weapon type if we just allow it willy nilly with all die even tangentially associated with an attack. Elemental damage? The spell elemental weapon? Yeah, I'm pretty damn sure it shouldn't have any effect on that. I see no reason why it should affect smites or sneak attack either.

And rather than just say, "hey, it works with the weapon die but that's it," which makes sense, you believe the only possible way to prevent rogues from doing it is if they're not allowed to use a wide swath of weapon types. Sorry bub, I'm not buying your logic.

[Mostly DM]

I bolded a few phrases in there to highlight a double standard on your part. It's "clevery synergy," a "nice damage boost" when fighters and paladins do it, and should be allowed. But you're not okay with rogues doing it.

Frankly, I think the ability is designed to work with weapon dice. Weapon die and their crits are the only thing it should work on, else any form of bonus die is better with a great weapon. That's not only imbalanced; it craps on every other weapon type if we just allow it willy nilly with all die even tangentially associated with an attack. Elemental damage? The spell elemental weapon? Yeah, I'm pretty damn sure it shouldn't have any effect on that. I see no reason why it should affect smites or sneak attack either.

And rather than just say, "hey, it works with the weapon die but that's it," which makes sense, you believe the only possible way to prevent rogues from doing it is if they're not allowed to use a wide swath of weapon types. Sorry bub, I'm not buying your logic.

It's not a double standard. I explained why I think it's probably okay with Fighter and Paladin bonus damage dice, but would be much more powerful with Rogue bonus damage dice.

Edit: You seem to disagree that it would disproportionately buff rogues, but haven't provided an argument, as far as I can tell.

If you limit great weapon style to weapon only (why allow it with bonus crit dice? Or do you just mean the doubled weapon dice?) then the issue is resolved. That's fine. I think it's a nerf for Fighters and Paladins, but... whatever. That's a different argument.

[Sindeloke]

Guys, it's weapon dice only, this has been clarified via Twitter. There's no debate about it. Rerollong smite damage is a rules violation by RAI and pretty reasonably RAW. Sneak attack dice would be no different. If I weren't on my phone I could link it to you. Search the sage advice blog.

(Incidentally this makes great weapon notably inferior to dueling even on a greatsword. To bring it up to par, I suggest changing it to "roll one extra die drop lowest", which averages out to almost exactly dueling's +2. But that's neither here nor there. )

[Mostly DM]

Guys, it's weapon dice only, this has been clarified via Twitter. There's no debate about it. Rerollong smite damage is a rules violation by RAI and pretty reasonably RAW. Sneak attack dice would be no different. If I weren't on my phone I could link it to you. Search the sage advice blog.

(Incidentally this makes great weapon notably inferior to dueling even on a greatsword. To bring it up to par, I suggest changing it to "roll one extra die drop lowest", which averages out to almost exactly dueling's +2. But that's neither here nor there. )

Fair enough. I don't follow Twitter.

Didn't seem RAI to me (but that's no surprise, intent is open to interpretation). RAW I think there's no real question; it specifically does not refer to the weapon's damage die, unlike other examples (e.g. Savage Attacker). Instead it just refers to "damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon..." Just calling it a "damage die" is more akin to the terminology used under critical hits: "Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice..." So without the Twitter clarification, RAW straightforwardly supports rerolling smite damage, or any other damage die riders.

From what I've seen on the forums there have been cases where assertions via Twitter were then overruled by the recent errata. Shrug. This particular issue wasn't addressed in the errata so we can assume Twitter's correct for now. I think that's silly, personally, but it is what it is.

Well, if that's a settled issue, I'd say I'm with the OP; I don't see any particularly good reason to restrict sneak attacks to finesse weapons.

[Mellack]

I saw a bunch of people saying that you need finesse to sneak attack as it is hitting weak spots in armor or vital points. That is not true. Sneak attack works on things without any weak points such as a shadow, ghost or elemental, and even works on things with no discernible anatomy such as a gelatinous cube. When attacking a giant blob of Jello why would it matter if the rogue has a longsword or a rapier?

[coredump]

I saw a bunch of people saying that you need finesse to sneak attack as it is hitting weak spots in armor or vital points. That is not true. Sneak attack works on things without any weak points such as a shadow, ghost or elemental, and even works on things with no discernible anatomy such as a gelatinous cube. When attacking a giant blob of Jello why would it matter if the rogue has a longsword or a rapier?Because the rules have been simplified.... otherwise they would not be susceptible to SA. After all, how do you distract an ooze?

[Sindeloke]

This particular issue wasn't addressed in the errata so we can assume Twitter's correct for now. I think that's silly, personally, but it is what it is.

Honestly I wouldn't have interpreted it that way either but I can see it in the text if I squint. It's one of the reasons I'm not even a little convinced that WotC did any careful objective balance between options. It seems like an underthought last-minute replacement for the original damage-on-a-miss mechanic that they didn't even check the math on.

Which is to say that I don't think there's any real reason behind the weapon restrictions on sneak attack either. I think someone just thought it felt right.

(Increased reactions from polearms does seem a little potent, but I suppose it's not noticeably more powerful than a BM spending superiority dice on you.)

[Osrogue]

I don't know if this is an unacceptable idea or not, but why don't you just give a rapier bludgeoning damage instead of piercing damage, make it out of wood, and call it a war club/hatchet/morningstar or whatever one-handed, non-versatile, non-polearm, non-thrown weapon you want?

[Cybren]

I don't know if this is an unacceptable idea or not, but why don't you just give a rapier bludgeoning damage instead of piercing damage, make it out of wood, and call it a war club/hatchet/morningstar or whatever one-handed, non-versatile, non-polearm, non-thrown weapon you want?

I usually try to convince my DMs that i should be able to use (or make) a scabbard as a fines-sable baton. A lot of stick fighting is basically fencing

[Knaight]

Can anyone truly be sneaky when attacking with a large, heavy weapon? Granted if the target or allies can't see the attack coming, something as large as an ancient red dragon could pull off a sneaky attack. What is the speed difference between swinging a g.sword to get the weapons 2d6 damage roll and flicking a rapier for its 1d8 damage roll?
Yes. Moreover, using a two handed sword of all things as an example of something slow is ridiculous. You've got a wide grip, the length translates relatively small hand movements to pretty large tip movements, and there's a ton of ways to use leverage effectively. Two handed swords are extremely fast, extremely nimble weapons.

More than that, there's a limit to how heavy weapons can actually get and remain useful at all. They need to be fast enough that you aren't vulnerable immediately after attacking. They need to be fast enough that you can defend yourself with them (particularly with two handed weapons, as you're not going to have a different weapon or shield in your other hand to defend yourself with). There are a handful of formation fighting specific weapons which break this rule to some extent, none make any sense in the context of really small skirmishes.

Now, if you take the model of ridiculously heavy "sharpened clubs" swords and the like that gained popularity among the uninformed, then the inability to use something like sneak attack makes sense. That's not true of actual melee weapons though. Even bigger ones were generally made as well balanced as possible, and aren't all that heavy.


Have you ever tried feinting with an ax? Have you ever thrusted around a strike with a greatsword? Those weapons lack the very subtlety that I'm referring to that sneak attack is based around. If you want to call off fluff in favor of 4 extra damage so you can be the big kid on campus with the largest numbers be my guest. But if you're trying to make a case for why weapons don't all function similarly I'd implore you to actually test your theory outside your house before claiming all things should be the same..
Yes. It's not just a matter of "have I ever tried it" either. Feints are absolutely critical to fighting with an ax the same way they are for anything else, and while you don't need them to do something like hit someone in the back and exploit situational awareness flaws in them, you do need them to fight a half competent opponent. As for the greatsword, a lot of two handed swords were used heavily as thrusting weapons, and there are a lot of ways that they get around strikes.

There's also a distinct skill that sneak attack does model. I know a number of people who are generally very good fighters, who are absolutely terrifying to be up against in a duel, and who are honestly not that great at taking advantage of what an ally is doing - some up to the point where they actually get in the way of said ally a bit. I know other people who aren't necessarily all that great at other fighting skills, but who are really, really good at taking advantage of what an ally is doing. These aren't particularly weapon dependant, though being fairly good at whatever weapon you're using is absolutely critical. To use myself as an example, this is a skill I can take advantage of with a smallsword, and often take better advantage of with a two handed sword or spear, but where I rarely can do that much with a flexible weapon. That doesn't mean that flexible weapons are bad at it, it's just an indication that I'm not particularly great with flexible weapons and lack the skill to use them. In D&D terms, it's a lack of Proficiency.

Then there are other skills that sneak attack somewhat models. There's a knack for knowing where you are most useful, where people are likely to be distracted, who is liable to be a good target for a surprise attack in the near future, so on and so forth. A lot of this isn't actually dependent on weapon skill at all, being more tied into mobility, battlefield awareness, etc. The big exception is just having a sense for where you're more useful, in that you're just generally more useful when you're better with a weapon.

I don't consider this a matter of "arbitrary fluff restrictions" or preventing characters from "just being that good". I consider the restriction of sneak attack to the selection of weapons it's allowed with a bizarre balance artifact that has a fair amount to do with largely incorrect and uninformed perceptions of weapons, that outright contradicts all the sparring I've done.

[coredump]

Yes. Moreover, using a two handed sword of all things as an example of something slow is ridiculous. You've got a wide grip, the length translates relatively small hand movements to pretty large tip movements, and there's a ton of ways to use leverage effectively. Two handed swords are extremely fast, extremely nimble weapons.

More than that, there's a limit to how heavy weapons can actually get and remain useful at all. They need to be fast enough that you aren't vulnerable immediately after attacking. They need to be fast enough that you can defend yourself with them (particularly with two handed weapons, as you're not going to have a different weapon or shield in your other hand to defend yourself with). There are a handful of formation fighting specific weapons which break this rule to some extent, none make any sense in the context of really small skirmishes.

Now, if you take the model of ridiculously heavy "sharpened clubs" swords and the like that gained popularity among the uninformed, then the inability to use something like sneak attack makes sense. That's not true of actual melee weapons though. Even bigger ones were generally made as well balanced as possible, and aren't all that heavy.
.
Sorry, but no. I very much disagree. I will agree that greatswords are not the mind-numblingly slow monstrosities as they are sometimes portrayed, but to try and make it sound like they are just as fast as a rapier is just patently absurd. Pitting someone with greatsword against someone with a rapier is a foregone conclusion as far as speed and precision.
The advantage of the GS is being big and heavy, so the rapier has a very hard time parrying it

Yes the wide grip can take advantage of leverage, but it also makes it hard to make changes in mid attack, and it limits what changes are even possible; while a rapier can seemingly have a mind of its own as it travels around and past defensive obstacles.
There is a reason tennis players use a one handed forehand and not two. Using two inherrently slows it down and removes precision. The only reason it is sometimes used for the backhand is to compensate for an otherwise weak swing with power, not speed and precision.

A GS is an effective weapon because of its mass.... it is harder to block and harder to parry, you really need to commit to either of those. If all you had to do was 'touch' a GS to prevent the attack, then it would be a horrible weapon, but if all you do is a touch, or a light parry...it will blow right past your defenses. A rapier *will* be stopped by a touch..... its success lies in the fact that it is lighter, faster, and more nimble...thus can get in attacks that the greatsword just can't. You may even refer to those attacks as.... Sneaky....

[LordVonDerp]

No, they don't. They provide giant disclaimers next to every UA thing they release that state that they aren't playtested and aren't polished. For my part, I think the subclass as written is awful and wouldn't allow it in my games for a multitude of reasons (one of which being that it causes balance problems regardless of sneak attack homebrews).

Yeah, swashbuckler is rather weak.

[Easy_Lee]

Sorry, but no. I very much disagree. I will agree that greatswords are not the mind-numblingly slow monstrosities as they are sometimes portrayed, but to try and make it sound like they are just as fast as a rapier is just patently absurd. Pitting someone with greatsword against someone with a rapier is a foregone conclusion as far as speed and precision.
The advantage of the GS is being big and heavy, so the rapier has a very hard time parrying it

Yes the wide grip can take advantage of leverage, but it also makes it hard to make changes in mid attack, and it limits what changes are even possible; while a rapier can seemingly have a mind of its own as it travels around and past defensive obstacles.
There is a reason tennis players use a one handed forehand and not two. Using two inherrently slows it down and removes precision. The only reason it is sometimes used for the backhand is to compensate for an otherwise weak swing with power, not speed and precision.

A GS is an effective weapon because of its mass.... it is harder to block and harder to parry, you really need to commit to either of those. If all you had to do was 'touch' a GS to prevent the attack, then it would be a horrible weapon, but if all you do is a touch, or a light parry...it will blow right past your defenses. A rapier *will* be stopped by a touch..... its success lies in the fact that it is lighter, faster, and more nimble...thus can get in attacks that the greatsword just can't. You may even refer to those attacks as.... Sneaky....

Large weapons, such as a claymore, are advantageous for their reach. Because you put two hands on them, they are quite easy to wield when compared with something like a flail or tower shield, or one-handing a longsword. In real life, someone with a rapier is at a huge disadvantage when fighting against a spear or claymore or any similar weapon of war specifically due to reach.

The reasons why rapiers were so popular are:

Stylish and socially acceptable to wear
Good for dueling unarmored opponents who don't have war weapons
Easy to carry, as opposed to a big, awkward, accidentally bumping unto everything claymore / greatsword.
Same approximate range as a longsword.

It's nice that d&d lets rapier wielders in light armor fight on equal footing with a plate wearing polearm or great weapon user. But it's silly to pretend thats realistic.

[LordVonDerp]

Sorry, but no. I very much disagree. I will agree that greatswords are not the mind-numblingly slow monstrosities as they are sometimes portrayed, but to try and make it sound like they are just as fast as a rapier is just patently absurd. Pitting someone with greatsword against someone with a rapier is a foregone conclusion as far as speed and precision.
The advantage of the GS is being big and heavy, so the rapier has a very hard time parrying it

Yes the wide grip can take advantage of leverage, but it also makes it hard to make changes in mid attack, and it limits what changes are even possible; while a rapier can seemingly have a mind of its own as it travels around and past defensive obstacles.
There is a reason tennis players use a one handed forehand and not two. Using two inherrently slows it down and removes precision. The only reason it is sometimes used for the backhand is to compensate for an otherwise weak swing with power, not speed and precision.

A GS is an effective weapon because of its mass.... it is harder to block and harder to parry, you really need to commit to either of those. If all you had to do was 'touch' a GS to prevent the attack, then it would be a horrible weapon, but if all you do is a touch, or a light parry...it will blow right past your defenses. A rapier *will* be stopped by a touch..... its success lies in the fact that it is lighter, faster, and more nimble...thus can get in attacks that the greatsword just can't. You may even refer to those attacks as.... Sneaky....

You have decisively proven that you don't even know the basics of fencing.

[Knaight]

Sorry, but no. I very much disagree. I will agree that greatswords are not the mind-numblingly slow monstrosities as they are sometimes portrayed, but to try and make it sound like they are just as fast as a rapier is just patently absurd. Pitting someone with greatsword against someone with a rapier is a foregone conclusion as far as speed and precision.
The advantage of the GS is being big and heavy, so the rapier has a very hard time parrying it.
They really aren't all that heavy. Battlefield weapons do tend to be significantly heavier than civilian dueling weapons, as can be seen in the differences even between different rapiers (some of which are significantly better for battlefield use than others), but that doesn't necessarily make them slower.

As far as the advantages go, the two handed sword being pretty hard to parry with a rapier is one of them. Another is the significant reach advantage, the huge advantage in leverage that comes up whenever winding it around a weapon (which is way easier to do with a two handed weapon), and kind of a lot of other things, of which mass is way down the list.

This crops up in the historical record every so often as well. There have been multiple occasions where civilian fighters in a city got out of hand, usually using some combination of small swords, rapiers, and bucklers, which was then responded to with mercenaries with military equipment. This inevitably ends really, really poorly for said civilian fighters. A lot of that is in stuff like unit cohesion and fighting skill, a lot of that comes down to who has armor, but the weapons involved is another component.

Large weapons, such as a claymore, are advantageous for their reach. Because you put two hands on them, they are quite easy to wield when compared with something like a flail or tower shield, or one-handing a longsword. In real life, someone with a rapier is at a huge disadvantage when fighting against a spear or claymore or any similar weapon of war specifically due to reach.
As someone who primarily fights with a spear, I'm just going to say that I absolutely love it when I get in a situation where it's me and my spear against someone with one one handed sword and no shield. Heck, two people with just one one handed sword aren't necessarily that big of a problem. Between the pretty massive reach advantage, spears being extremely fast weapons, and it being much easier to strike at targets like the lower leg without overextending with a spear and most things there's a pretty titanic weapon advantage there.

Particularly against multiple people, there's also an absolutely critical feint component, as you really don't want the person you're not in the process of stabbing to have any idea ahead of time when you're going to commit further to a stab. There's a lot of precise maneuvering around weapons, as there's often a bit of a leverage disadvantage just because of where on the weapons contact is likely to be made. One might even describe this sort of attack as...sneaky.

[coredump]

@Easy Lee, The issue is not which is a more effective weapon, nor which would win on a 1vs1 fight. The issue is if the greatsword can be used with the same speed and precision as a rapier or shortsword. Which is just not happening.
Of course the GS has other advantages, range, leverage, mass.... all help out to compensate for their lack of speed and maneuvarabilty. (compared to a rapier, shortsword, etc.)
But the claim was that a person would weild the GS with the same speed, precision, and maneuvarability as a greatsword.

@ Derp, Thanks for another one of your content free posts that contributes nothing towards the discussion. At least you are consistent and predictable.



They really aren't all that heavy. Compared to a shortsword or rapier...?? Which is the comparison being made here.
as can be seen in the differences even between different rapiers (some of which are significantly better for battlefield use than others), but that doesn't necessarily make them slower. Yes, it does. A heavier rapier will be slower.... it provides different advantages, but it will be overall slower.


As far as the advantages go, the two handed sword being pretty hard to parry with a rapier is one of them. Another is the significant reach advantage, the huge advantage in leverage that comes up whenever winding it around a weapon (which is way easier to do with a two handed weapon), and kind of a lot of other things, of which mass is way down the list.
As with EL, *of course* there are other advantages. And they stem from the same characteristics that make the weapon slower and less maneuverable.
And mass is a significant part of that, it is *why* they are harder to parry and block.
Being two handed also makes it harder to parry, and it helps boost speed.... but only in certain directions, while limiting movement in others. Try playing ping-pong (or tennis) while always using both hands.
I am not saying that a shortsword is as deadly, or a better weapon, or would win in a fight, compared to a greatsword.
You are saying that a greatsword is just as fast, just as precise, just as maneuvarable, and can do the same attacks that a shortsword can do... and that just isn't true.



As someone who primarily fights with a spear, I'm just going to say that I absolutely love it when I get in a situation where it's me and my spear against someone with one one handed sword and no shield. Heck, two people with just one one handed sword aren't necessarily that big of a problem. Between the pretty massive reach advantage, spears being extremely fast weapons, and it being much easier to strike at targets like the lower leg without overextending with a spear and most things there's a pretty titanic weapon advantage there. Two on one with single sword vs spear...?? I'll take that challenge. :smallsmile: Not a guarantee, but I figure the more likely outcome is a dispatched spearman. (Also depends on spear length...)





There's a lot of precise maneuvering around weapons, as there's often a bit of a leverage disadvantage just because of where on the weapons contact is likely to be made. One might even describe this sort of attack as...sneaky.First, touche...
Second, feinting and weapon maneuvering is part of any fight using any weapon. This would be at least as true with a Champion or Battlemaster or War Cleric as with a Rogue. It would be just as true with a Rogue by himself as with a Rogue with an ally.
Yet only the Rogue with Ally gets to perform a Sneak Attack. Thus there *has* to be something more with their training than just 'how to feint'. (In some ways, feints would work better without an ally... the opposite of SA)
That 'something different' relies on different....something that requires speed, precision, and maneuverability. Yes, the rogue can feint with a greatsword... but so can a fighter. The rogue also knows how to take advantage of a distracted opponent in ways the fighter has not trained. (The fighter was too busy learning how to get so many Extra Attacks instead) Perhaps he can slip a dagger into a small opening, or use the scimitar to hamstring, or use the rapier on a nerve cluster....
The rules don't specify precisely what these attacks entail, but they obviously rely on quick, precise, and likely intricate maneuvers. Things you just can't do with a Greatsword...

[Steampunkette]

Average Weight of a shortsword: 2.5 pounds.

Average Weight of a rapier: 3.25 pounds.

Average Weight of a hand and a half sword: 4.5 pounds.


The idea that larger swords weigh more is accurate. It's almost twice the weight. But twice the weight of "Very Light" is still "Pretty Light". And whether you're using a 2.5 pound blade or a 4.5 pound blade you're going to be facing about the same amount of fatigue from use.

There's also the fact to consider that the balance of a "Longsword" was close to the hand, not out at the tip. Meaning that the angling of the wrist was just as easy with a longsword as a shortsword, since the counterweight in the grip balanced the blade.

So maneuvering a longsword to get between armor plates is not significantly different than using a shortsword, and almost no different whatsoever from a rapier.

[Easy_Lee]

A seven pound greatsword in real life is pretty standard. A 3.5 pound rapier is reasonable. You put two hands on a greatsword, increasing leverage, and one on a rapier. I don't know where any of you get the idea that a greatsword is more difficult to wield.

And I really don't know where any of you get the idea that a rapier is somehow capable of some extreme precision that a spear, for example, isn't.

[Morty]

The rules don't specify precisely what these attacks entail, but they obviously rely on quick, precise, and likely intricate maneuvers. Things you just can't do with a Greatsword...

They don't specify precisely... and yet it's obvious what they rely on. Something here doesn't add up.

[Easy_Lee]

They don't specify precisely... and yet it's obvious what they rely on. Something here doesn't add up.

"You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction." That's the relevant text from the free PDF which describes what a sneak attack is. The implication is that only ranged and finesse weapons are capable of being subtle. Anyone with real weapon experience ought to know better than that.

[pwykersotz]

"You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction." That's the relevant text from the free PDF which describes what a sneak attack is. The implication is that only ranged and finesse weapons are capable of being subtle. Anyone with real weapon experience ought to know better than that.

Out of curiosity, if you feel the weapons can be handled so similarly that there is no meaningful difference between them when implementing a sneak attack, what (if any) differences do you think ought to exist? Is there even any reason to have them do different dice of damage? Because I can see arguments for increasing the abstraction and opening it up, and also for making the system more detailed, closed, and intricate, and I'd like to know how far you'd prefer to go.

[georgie_leech]

Out of curiosity, if you feel the weapons can be handled so similarly that there is no meaningful difference between them when implementing a sneak attack, what (if any) differences do you think ought to exist? Is there even any reason to have them do different dice of damage? Because I can see arguments for increasing the abstraction and opening it up, and also for making the system more detailed, closed, and intricate, and I'd like to know how far you'd prefer to go.

Personally, I could see a system where both can be used for sneak attacks, but the lighter, less damaging weapons do more. Then there's a trade off between slightly more reliable damage and slightly higher spike damage. It seems obvious to me that if you were equally skilled with both rapier and greatswords, a rapier is easier to take advantage of brief windows of opportunity with, but it also seems clear that 'easier' doesn't mean 'impossible without.' More or less how demon souls and the like did it: everything could backstab, but some weapons were better.

Incidentally, to the brief mention of 4th up thread, there's actually only a few weapons you can natively sneak attack with, but there are feats or class options that expand it to most any weapon in the game, with a side benefit to sweeten the deal.

[Easy_Lee]

Out of curiosity, if you feel the weapons can be handled so similarly that there is no meaningful difference between them when implementing a sneak attack, what (if any) differences do you think ought to exist? Is there even any reason to have them do different dice of damage? Because I can see arguments for increasing the abstraction and opening it up, and also for making the system more detailed, closed, and intricate, and I'd like to know how far you'd prefer to go.

I'd prefer a system where weapons are valued based on their features, rather than what we think they ought to do. And I'd prefer a much more flexible and simple system than the overly complex, poorly thought out weapons table we got.

But weapon used has nothing to do with sneak attack, as far as I'm concerned. It's like a sucker punch, a cheap shot. It really doesn't matter what you use, because the opponent wasn't expecting it, or was busy with someone else and could not defend himself. Over time, the rogue gets better and better at making those kinds of subtle, dirty, "sneaky" attacks. That's really all I see it as.

And frankly, I see little reason for telling players that they have to play a class a certain way. People should be able to play whatever concept they want to as long as they follow the same rules as everyone else. If the rules are well-written, then we don't need to worry about breaking anything.

[Anlashok]

3.P and 4e were more geared toward figthing encounter after encounter, but 5e is trying to get back to bring balance between fight, roleplaying and exploration.

And the only thing not letting a rogue use a spear or a longsword does is negatively impact the second of those three.

So I'm not seeing a point here.

[Giant2005]

I'd like to see Sneak Attack come with a natural to-hit bonus of +2 (Or whatever is balanced) and then make sneak attacking possible with any weapon but each weapon has a penalty to sneak attack ranging from -1 to -4. So the weapons that are most likely to land would do so with a +1 bonus to the current system and those least likely to land would do so with a -3 penalty compared to the current system.

[Morty]

There's already very little difference between weapons in 5e. I don't see how forbidding some of them from being used with Sneak Attack helps with anything. 5e has this strange approach to weapons and armour in that it simplifies their rules considerably - which is a valid approach - but then it plants some weird arbitrary restrictions.

[LordVonDerp]

@Easy Lee, The issue is not which is a more effective weapon, nor which would win on a 1vs1 fight. The issue is if the greatsword can be used with the same speed and precision as a rapier or shortsword. Which is just not happening.
Of course the GS has other advantages, range, leverage, mass.... all help out to compensate for their lack of speed and maneuvarabilty. (compared to a rapier, shortsword, etc.)
But the claim was that a person would weild the GS with the same speed, precision, and maneuvarability as a greatsword.

@ Derp, Thanks for another one of your content free posts that contributes nothing towards the discussion. At least you are consistent and predictable.
...

Always happy to help people understand that a five pound bar wielded in two hands takes less force than a four pound bar of comparable length wielded in one.

[pwykersotz]

I'd prefer a system where weapons are valued based on their features, rather than what we think they ought to do. And I'd prefer a much more flexible and simple system than the overly complex, poorly thought out weapons table we got.

But weapon used has nothing to do with sneak attack, as far as I'm concerned. It's like a sucker punch, a cheap shot. It really doesn't matter what you use, because the opponent wasn't expecting it, or was busy with someone else and could not defend himself. Over time, the rogue gets better and better at making those kinds of subtle, dirty, "sneaky" attacks. That's really all I see it as.

And frankly, I see little reason for telling players that they have to play a class a certain way. People should be able to play whatever concept they want to as long as they follow the same rules as everyone else. If the rules are well-written, then we don't need to worry about breaking anything.

I think I'm still failing to understand. How do you define what features a weapon has if we don't apply what we think they ought to do?

I do understand your point about sneak attacks as a whole, and how a sufficient amount of "I did NOT see that coming!" should proc them. I'm just trying to reconcile these points with each other.

[Easy_Lee]

I think I'm still failing to understand. How do you define what features a weapon has if we don't apply what we think they ought to do?

In my weapon logic post, I proposed that each weapon feature, such as reach, was worth one die rank. So if you gave a 1d12 weapon reach, it became 1d10. Making it one-handed would lower it to 1d8. And so on. One-handed weapons were troublesome because they theoretically would go up to 1d10, but some of them were 1d8 with a feature (rapiers and finesse) while others were 1d8 with either no feature or versatile which isn't really a benefit. But it worked out for the most part. I'd rather have a system like that.

I've also seen suggested that each one-handed weapon should deal 1d8, each two-handed weapon deal 2d6, and each weapon get one or two features (such as reach, light, thrown, etc.) to work with. That would give each weapon a distinct character and people would choose weapons for the features. I could see a system like that working too.

The system we have...well, just look at spears vs tridents, glaives vs halberds, or the mighty blowgun and you may see why I'm not too fond of it.

[pwykersotz]

In my weapon logic post, I proposed that each weapon feature, such as reach, was worth one die rank. So if you gave a 1d12 weapon reach, it became 1d10. Making it one-handed would lower it to 1d8. And so on. One-handed weapons were troublesome because they theoretically would go up to 1d10, but some of them were 1d8 with a feature (rapiers and finesse) while others were 1d8 with either no feature or versatile which isn't really a benefit. But it worked out for the most part. I'd rather have a system like that.

I've also seen suggested that each one-handed weapon should deal 1d8, each two-handed weapon deal 2d6, and each weapon get one or two features (such as reach, light, thrown, etc.) to work with. That would give each weapon a distinct character and people would choose weapons for the features. I could see a system like that working too.

The system we have...well, just look at spears vs tridents, glaives vs halberds, or the mighty blowgun and you may see why I'm not too fond of it.

Ah, got it. I appreciate the clarity. :smallsmile:

[coredump]

Always happy to help people understand that a five pound bar wielded in two hands takes less force than a four pound bar of comparable length wielded in one.

A) That is physics, not fencing, as you claimed
B) I never stated otherwise
C) You are not using those terms correctly.... maybe you want to try a third time...??

[Easy_Lee]

A) That is physics, not fencing, as you claimed


All fighting relies on or is made more effective by correct application of physics. Case in point, swords cut by being drawn or pushed across a surface, not by chopping at it. You would not swing your dinner knife at a steak, you would press and drag it along the steak to cut it. Understanding of this basic principle is the difference between hitting your foe with a metal stick and actually killing him.

And yet, I bet money that most d&d folks would try to baseball swing a sword and expect that to work.

[coredump]

They don't specify precisely... and yet it's obvious what they rely on. Something here doesn't add up.

Of course...because the rules tells us what it relies on.

There is a big difference in the types of attacks and maneuvers that are possible with a shortsword/rapier compared to a greatsword/warpick. The rules tell us that you can Sneak attack with a shortsword and not with a warpick. Therefore....it becomes clear what types of attacks and maneuvers are required.




All fighting relies on or is made more effective by correct application of physics. Case in point, swords cut by being drawn or pushed across a surface, not by chopping at it. You would not swing your dinner knife at a steak, you would press and drag it along the steak to cut it. Understanding of this basic principle is the difference between hitting your foe with a metal stick and actually killing him.

And yet, I bet money that most d&d folks would try to baseball swing a sword and expect that to work.
First, that has nothing to do with what Derp was theoretically claiming. (though to be fair, its often hard to tell what he is claiming)

Second, your claims are incorrect. Or rather, not fully correct. How you use a sword depends on the type of sword, and type of armor you are fighting. There are many swords where a 'baseball swing' is the correct technique.

[Easy_Lee]

First, that has nothing to do with what Derp was theoretically claiming. (though to be fair, its often hard to tell what he is claiming)

Second, your claims are incorrect. Or rather, not fully correct. How you use a sword depends on the type of sword, and type of armor you are fighting. There are many swords where a 'baseball swing' is the correct technique.

If you're fighting an armored foe, you should be either stabbing, half-swording, or using a different weapon. Using a longsword like a lever to force an opponent to the ground is also acceptable, at which point you ask your friend Bill, the one with the poleax, to finish the guy off.

But you sure as hell wouldn't use a rapier. Those are for piercing people and clothing, not armor.

Weapons are all about context.

[LordVonDerp]

A) That is physics, not fencing, as you claimed
B) I never stated otherwise
C) You are not using those terms correctly.... maybe you want to try a third time...??
A) sword dueling is called physics now?weird.
B) actually, you most certainly did claim that a rapier was faster than a great sword.

Do go on.

[LordVonDerp]

First, that has nothing to do with what Derp was theoretically claiming. (though to be fair, its often hard to tell what he is claiming)

Coherent thoughts are so very difficult to understand, after all.

Second, your claims are incorrect. Or rather, not fully correct. How you use a sword depends on the type of sword, and type of armor you are fighting. There are many swords where a 'baseball swing' is the correct technique.
And a greatsword is not one f those swords. It's usually used for small, quick cuts while focusing mainly on blocking.
Well that and disrupting formations.

[LordVonDerp]

If you're fighting an armored foe, you should be either stabbing, half-swording, or using a different weapon. Using a longsword like a lever to force an opponent to the ground is also acceptable, at which point you ask your friend Bill, the one with the poleax, to finish the guy off.

But you sure as hell wouldn't use a rapier. Those are for piercing people and clothing, not armor.

Weapons are all about context.

Fairly accurate, though you forgot the murder strike.

[Steampunkette]

For the record: Most swords can be used in a baseball swing style with immense effectiveness.

You don't swing a steak knife at a steak because it's a small, cooked, target without enough mass to retain momentum to a degree that the knife goes through it rather than just flings it across the room. Also your steak knife is serrated to make sawing easier.

For a human being averaging 120lbs a longsword (or greatsword or shortsword) swung in a baseball, or even one-handed sidearm, swing is going to beat the 4lbs psi threshhold to rip through skin and into muscle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc

Even a Rapier is capable of that sort of thing, albeit probably not straight through like the head-weighted kilij, so long as you don't turn your wrist and flatblade your target, bending the weapon against flesh rather than cutting it. Though it won't work on an opponent in full plate armor, most people don't wear 1,500gp worth of carefully constructed metal. And a rapier slash across the wrist, neck, armpit, thigh, or throat is just as deadly as one slipped between the plates of banded mail, so long as those areas are less armored. Rapiers were used in a military context for several hundred years, after all.

[Steampunkette]

Skip to 3 minutes and 39 seconds to watch a man thrust, one-handed, with a claymore. He drives the blade right through a ballistic gel torso with next to no effort.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ledM32E4A

Also a great video to look at for just hoe ridiculously destructive swords actually -are- to a human body.

[Easy_Lee]

@Steam regarding swords in general and something like a Kilij in particular, it's very difficult to make a swing without some drawing or pushing going on. Regardless of sword, it's either that kind of motion or a stab that does the job. Thrusts work for different, but not unrelated, reasons.

And regarding the claymore thrust, yes, that's one way to use a claymore. Any straight sword with a point is going to be at least moderately good for thrusting.

But let's not get too far off topic. The point of all of this is that swords don't require that much strength to use effectively, and any weapon is capable of subtle, unexpected attacks.

[LordVonDerp]

For the record: Most swords can be used in a baseball swing style with immense effectiveness.

l.

Against a defenseless opponent maybe. In a real fight you're just leaving yourself open.

[Steampunkette]

Well of course it depends on the opponent's skill, positioning, what kind of armor they have, what position their weapon is in, and whether or not they've got a shield. Generally speaking you're not going to make a powerful swing unless leaving yourself open is not a serious consideration due to circumstance.

But if a large or wide arc swing connects it is going to do ridiculous amounts of damage to your target is the point I was attempting to make.

[Easy_Lee]

Well of course it depends on the opponent's skill, positioning, what kind of armor they have, what position their weapon is in, and whether or not they've got a shield. Generally speaking you're not going to make a powerful swing unless leaving yourself open is not a serious consideration due to circumstance.

But if a large or wide arc swing connects it is going to do ridiculous amounts of damage to your target is the point I was attempting to make.

Everything I've seen, read, and experienced is that this type of swing leaves one open and doesn't accomplish much. Cutting is more about technique than power. If you just want to put a lot of power into something, pick up a big mace. Even then, technique is more important.

[Steampunkette]

Lee, when a man is on his knees with a broken sword arm, no shield, and his neck exposed, that's when you go for the head-lopping baseball swing.

When his footing, weapon, shield, armor, and other defenses are essentially null and void. THAT is when you take the baseball swing.

Or, y'know, before the jerkwad sees you because this is a discussion about freaking SNEAK ATTACKS and you're generally not gonna be SUPER CONCERNED about leaving yourself wide open from someone who has no clue you're about to slice him up a treat.

And I'm glad you have issues straight-cutting through a hunk of humanlike meat with a 3 foot long hunk of sharpened metal. If you didn't have issues doing it I'd be a little concerned.

Though now I wonder how you got the experience of sawing through human flesh with a 3 foot long hunk of sharpened metal... and am a little concerned!

:smallwink: