Non-finesse sneak attack

[zinycor]

A player on my group is playing a dwarf rogue, and is very fond of using a warhammer since he is proficient with it. Would it be too overpowered to apply sneak attack on non-finesse weapons?

The other chracters are a bard, a tempest cleric, a paladin and a druid.

[djreynolds]

A player on my group is playing a dwarf rogue, and is very fond of using a warhammer since he is proficient with it. Would it be too overpowered to apply sneak attack on non-finesse weapons?

The other chracters are a bard, a tempest cleric, a paladin and a druid.

Unfortunately yes, it would be. It would have to be a homebrew solution.

[Klorox]

Considering there's another weapon that can do 1d8 damage and qualifies for sneak attack, I don't think it's too overpowered.

But be careful: if you allow this, you're opening Pandora's Box for another player to abuse this in the future.

[djreynolds]

Considering there's another weapon that can do 1d8 damage and qualifies for sneak attack, I don't think it's too overpowered.

But be careful: if you allow this, you're opening Pandora's Box for another player to abuse this in the future.

You are correct, it will be abused.

[RickAllison]

Take away the Versatile property and give it Finesse. You now have a bludgeoning rapier.

Argos follows an ancient, dwarven martial art called the Strike of the Swinging Stone. The user has learned to wield a warhammer with a modified hilt, one that is light enough to use far more deftly, but the lower heft means swinging two-handed accomplishes very little. Instead, the dwarf elegantly wields the warhammer, striking weak points and undermining the strong.

Should be fine at that point.

[MeeposFire]

Honestly the restriction on sneak attack weapons is more thematic than balance oriented.

As you level a rogues weapon choice becomes less and less important. If you have 6d6 sneak attack dice you average 21 damage you don't notice the difference between a dagger and a rapier which would increase your overall average before stat bonuses (which further decreases the importance of weapon die by the way) from 23.5 to 25.5. That just isn't that big of a deal.

Especially considering that there is already a d8 damage weapon and that the rogue class does not have heavier armor to allow them to use str based weapons very well I would say allow it.

[SharkForce]

i don't see it likely being a problem.

someone can make a rogue with 5 levels of fighter and crossbow master and abuse 3 attacks per round with sneak attack and the -5/+10 mechanics (and a better hit chance thanks to ranged combat style, and have action surge in the back pocket if they ever miss all 3 attacks).

i have a hard time imagining that becoming drastically worse even if you let someone do it with a glaive, really.

but, if you're feeling paranoid, you could restrict it to d8 maximum, only one-handed weapons, or no heavy weapons, or whatever.

but seriously, i'm pretty sure there's much more optimized things the person could do than sneak attack with a warhammer.

[djreynolds]

Fair enough.

You can also sneak attack with one handed hammers and axes?

1H battle axe, 1H warhammer, light hammer(melee or thrown) and hand axe(melee or thrown).

[Ninja_Grand]

but seriously, i'm pretty sure there's much more optimized things the person could do than sneak attack with a warhammer.

Yes but its real %!@$ing cool! Gracefully hiting weakpoints with a hammer is a awsome mental image. But then again, Im biased to the idea of a glavie using assassin.

[zinycor]

Take away the Versatile property and give it Finesse. You now have a bludgeoning rapier.

Argos follows an ancient, dwarven martial art called the Strike of the Swinging Stone. The user has learned to wield a warhammer with a modified hilt, one that is light enough to use far more deftly, but the lower heft means swinging two-handed accomplishes very little. Instead, the dwarf elegantly wields the warhammer, striking weak points and undermining the strong.

Should be fine at that point.

I like this solution, makes much sense since he has proficiency as a weaponmaker, he could very well make little modifications on his warhammer to allow him to use it on this way.

[MeeposFire]

They had this as a feat in 4e where weapon dice meant more than it does in 5e (granted more attacks meant more but still higher weapon dice mattered more when a single attack would have you deal 5+weapon dice on a hit) and even there it was too weak to be taken by anyone outside of flavor reasons and all the OP board guys would tell you to just reflavor your dagger because it was the better weapon.

This is actually a hold over from 4e that I wish they did not keep.

[Spacehamster]

Sneak attack should be possible with all weapons i.m.o would make the feat that gives you prof with 4 weapons more used
if nothing else.

[uraniumrooster]

As long as the Dwarf's name is Maxwell, and he uses a silver hammer, it should be fine.

[djreynolds]

You could make a choice, say for every odd level of rogue you obtain you can change out a finesse weapon with a non-finesse weapon.

You want to use say a war hammer, you would need 1 level of rogue and you would lose the dagger, etc.

[brainface]

If you allow this as is, with no modifications, and just the warhammer, you've given the rogue +1 damage if he uses two hands to wield the warhammer. Let him run with it, or potentially just say that sneak attacks can only be done with one-handed melee weapons instead of just finesse weapons simply to rule out future greatsword sneak attacks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

At worst, you're talking a +2.5 damage bonus (Dr's average of 4.5 to a greatsword's 7). And in exchange, you have to invest in an extra stat and/or dip for proficiencies, AND give up TWF or a potential shield. I think it's fine.

[Mr Adventurer]

Unfortunately yes, it would be. It would have to be a homebrew solution.

Why would it be overpowered?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why would it be overpowered?
Because 5e is a delicate web of perfect balance, and the slightest change will send the whole thing crashing down and ruin your game.

[BRC]

Because 5e is a delicate web of perfect balance, and the slightest change will send the whole thing crashing down and ruin your game.
PRAISE THE BALANCE! BALANCE IS LIFE!

Why would it be overpowered?

Okay but really, Sneak Attack is a tricky one. I'm AFB at the moment, but the main issue I see is an interaction with Reckless attack.

Reckless attack, gained by multiclassing to barbarian, lets you get advantage on any strength-based melee attack.

Sneak Attack applies on Ranged Attacks, or Melee attacks with finesse weapons when you have advantage or an ally within 5 ft.

The potential Cheese is a rogue/barbarian who uses reckless attack to get sneak attack dice on everything. You could argue that even that isn't especially unbalanced, but that's the main flaw I see.

But, as for your situation, you could make the warhammer finesse, or just rule that, if for some reason this particular character multiclasses to barbarian, they cant use reckless attack and sneak attack together.

[brainface]

You can already combine the two. Sneak attack with a rapier, using strength and reckless attacking. Sneak attack requires a finesse weapon but does not require you to use dexterity to attack.

[Joe the Rat]

Indeed. Dual Wielding Reckless Rage Rogue is a thing. Rapiers get all the love, but I do prefer the scimitar (which is a funny way to spell "Meat cleaver," but whatever) for these ideas.


As long as the Dwarf's name is Maxwell, and he uses a silver hammer, it should be fine.You know, you'd think it'd be that easy, but I couldn't get any takers. I even had one Majoring in Medicine, but no...

[Lollerabe]

Honestly it isn't a problem at all, and sneak attacking isn't always a delicate-in-between-the-ribs graceful stab - try getting sucker punched IRL (don't try that) that's very much a sneak attack.

What you absolutely shouldn't Allow is finesse heavy/polearm weapons, if you do the god stat dex will be best at everything.

But yeah sneak with warhammers, flails, battleaxes, hardly breaks anything - same dice as the rapier.

Or homebrew a 'thug' feat - +1 dex/str and chose 2-4 non heavy weapons, you can sneak attack with these weapons even if they don't have the finesse property.

Edit: sorry I'm a bit confused, does said player want to use dex as his attack stat while using the warhammer or does he wants to be a str based rogue ? Not that either options breaks anything IMO, just not sure.

[Ralanr]

Yes but its real %!@$ing cool! Gracefully hiting weakpoints with a hammer is a awsome mental image. But then again, Im biased to the idea of a glavie using assassin.

You say gracefully hitting, yet all I imagine is smacking a guy in the back of the head with a warhammer when he isn't looking.

[BRC]

You can already combine the two. Sneak attack with a rapier, using strength and reckless attacking. Sneak attack requires a finesse weapon but does not require you to use dexterity to attack.

Oh yeah, true.

In which case, screw it, go ahead. Be the Sneaky Hammerman!

[Socratov]

You say gracefully hitting, yet all I imagine is smacking a guy in the back of the head with a warhammer when he isn't looking.

well, those kneecaps aren't hitting themselves anytime soon...

[Ralanr]

well, those kneecaps aren't hitting themselves anytime soon...

Now you're thinking like a dwarf!

[zinycor]

Honestly it isn't a problem at all, and sneak attacking isn't always a delicate-in-between-the-ribs graceful stab - try getting sucker punched IRL (don't try that) that's very much a sneak attack.

What you absolutely shouldn't Allow is finesse heavy/polearm weapons, if you do the god stat dex will be best at everything.

But yeah sneak with warhammers, flails, battleaxes, hardly breaks anything - same dice as the rapier.

Or homebrew a 'thug' feat - +1 dex/str and chose 2-4 non heavy weapons, you can sneak attack with these weapons even if they don't have the finesse property.

Edit: sorry I'm a bit confused, does said player want to use dex as his attack stat while using the warhammer or does he wants to be a str based rogue ? Not that either options breaks anything IMO, just not sure.

He wants to be a str based rogue and He's thinking about multiclassing into barbarian.

[gkathellar]

Why would it be overpowered?

It wouldn't be. The restriction is arbitrary and pointless.

[Lollerabe]

RAF then my friend, RAF. I've wanted to make the same char albeit a half Orc.

It dosent break anything but I would as mentioned be very cautious with allowing any heavy or polearm to work with sneak, well actually just not finesse.

So yeah make your player happy and make him feel bad'ass. My personal experience is that the entire table gets an upgrade when players are allowed to make their concepts come true :)

[SharkForce]

RAF then my friend, RAF. I've wanted to make the same char albeit a half Orc.

It dosent break anything but I would as mentioned be very cautious with allowing any heavy or polearm to work with sneak, well actually just not finesse.

So yeah make your player happy and make him feel bad'ass. My personal experience is that the entire table gets an upgrade when players are allowed to make their concepts come true :)

why? is it going to be particularly more powerful than sharpshooter + crossbow expert, which the rogue can already do (but shouldn't, unless they've somehow got extra attack worked into their build as a bare minimum because the reduced hit chance really doesn't play nice with the big pile of extra damage they get to deal as a result of hitting with at least one attack). considering the rogue can stay dex-focused and use the exact same mechanics that make big, heavy weapons powerful (readily available bonus attacks that enjoy attribute modifiers on damage, -5 attack for +10 damage), i'd be relatively unconcerned.

[Theodoxus]

I was kinda sad when halflings got disad for heavy weapons. I was mad as heck when I saw rogues got longswords, but couldn't sneak with them - I loved my 3.P halfling rogue with his great sword sneak attacking like a mofo - at least a longsword two-handed could emulate it... but no...

Anyone play DAoC? One of my favorite characters was a kobold rogue - running around with a greatsword, backstabbing fools... an iconic image seared into my soul that has influenced my roguish characters in the intervening years...

Throw me into the crowd that throws "balance" out the window. Rule of Cool beats arbitrary RAW any day.

It's not like rogues are DPR kings. Even mixed with barbarian, going one-handed warhammer isn't going to be boosting his DPR to the point where you have to worry about him overshadowing the party, or wiping out your monsters too quickly. It's super iconic and cool - not optimized and borked.

Have a nut!

[djreynolds]

Why would it be overpowered?

That's a very good question.

As of now only finesse weapons can sneak attack, and you can use dexterity or strength, I'm guessing the idea is that you are precisely striking a vital spot. Right? In between the chinks in the armor, so how does a bludgeoning weapon do that, or powerful slash of a battle axe?

Honestly I would have no trouble with a dwarf using dwarven weapons and allowing sneak attacks with them. But once you do this, other questions, other whys will becoming.

Why can't I use a glaive and sneak attack?
Why can't I get a 10ft reach with the glaive and sneak attack?
And so on. Why can't a monk/rogue finessing a quarterstaff get a sneak attack?

What will happen is classes will cease to be classes, and become sort of muddled. And PCs will have characters that are just an accumulation of other class features that can do everything. In a sense that is what multiclassing allows, but with the thought of still making distinct characters, whether single or multiclass.

I like a dwarf rogue using a war hammer, and possibly getting sneak attacks. Do we also allow him to finesse the war hammer? Do we included hand axes and light hammers being thrown like a dagger? Is that dwarven thrower getting sneak attacks also?

Yes this dwarf rogue is unique and fresh, and distinctive. Its not OP, but it will lead to abuse. Next the elf rogue will want to use a long sword for sneak attacks, and then you let him use it finesse. Then he uses great weapon fighting style also with it, etc.

So I'm just saying homebrew it and see how it works out.

Personally a hammer strike to the head is hitting a vital spot, but I assume when that happens you've scored a critical hit and not necessarily a sneak attack.

[Lollerabe]

Yeah that's why you kind of gotta give a firm 'no' when it comes to finesse heavy/polearm weapons. As far as allowing sneak attack with heavy weapons and polearms ? Hmm it to early in the morning for math but I'd go with no or make it a feat as it bumps the DPR by quite a bit. (Most likely a no though)

Allowing standard non finesse d8 weapons - yeah not a problem (as long as they have prof in said weapon). Damage types aren't AS big of a thing as it used to be, so the fact that he deals 1d8 + sneak slashing/bludge instead of piercing isn't a big power spike unless he is only fighting undeads.

Shark force because doing so would make strength completely obsolete - if you can use GWM/PAM with a dex build, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't ever see a strength based anything save for barb.

Dex is arguably a way way better stat in 5e than strength in a vacuum, if you introduce finesse heavy weapons as a standard option you throw the already (IMO) badly balanced stats completely out of whack.

Again I'm a huge supporter of RAF if that's what the player is going for. 'Can I use GWM with a finesse great axe,be dex based, have a great stealth/initiative/reflex save etc' isn't a case of RAF though - that's a case of having your cake and eating it too.

I'm all for buffing weak options, making cool concepts come alive - not a great fan of 'super creeping' as we say in dota.

Theo we make versatile weapons (wielded in two hands) count as heavy weapons for all intents and purposes for small races at my table - maybe this rule could help you?

[Mr Adventurer]

That's a very good question.

Yes I know. The kind of question anyone should be answering before making a judgement about the topic.


As of now only finesse weapons can sneak attack, and you can use dexterity or strength, I'm guessing the idea is that you are precisely striking a vital spot. Right? In between the chinks in the armor,

The ability isn't called "Precision Strike". The only line of description in the PHB is:
you know how to strike subtly
and exploit a foe’s distraction.

So it doesn't mention precision or vital spots at all, so I think your guess is off.


so how does a bludgeoning weapon do that, or powerful slash of a battle axe?

Irrelevant even if it wasn't a nonsense suggestion that there's no skill or precision to wielding any melee weapon.


Honestly I would have no trouble with a dwarf using dwarven weapons and allowing sneak attacks with them. But once you do this, other questions, other whys will becoming.

That's dependent on the players, not the ruling. And it isn't itself a problem so I'm not sure why you present it as though it is.


Why can't I use a glaive and sneak attack?
Why can't I get a 10ft reach with the glaive and sneak attack?
And so on. Why can't a monk/rogue finessing a quarterstaff get a sneak attack?

These are all fine questions to ask in the right context. Again, you're presenting something that's not a problem.


What will happen is classes will cease to be classes, and become sort of muddled. And PCs will have characters that are just an accumulation of other class features that can do everything.

This in no way logically follows from anything that's been said.

Even if were we to accept for some odd reason, it's not a problem.


In a sense that is what multiclassing allows, but with the thought of still making distinct characters, whether single or multiclass.

Neither premise here is supported by any evidence.


I like a dwarf rogue using a war hammer, and possibly getting sneak attacks. Do we also allow him to finesse the war hammer? Do we included hand axes and light hammers being thrown like a dagger? Is that dwarven thrower getting sneak attacks also?

What is the point of this rhetorical line of questioning, because it seems to be driving at something which isn't supported by anything that's been said.


Yes this dwarf rogue is unique and fresh, and distinctive. Its not OP, but it will lead to abuse.

This isn't supported by any evidence.


Next the elf rogue will want to use a long sword for sneak attacks, and then you let him use it finesse. Then he uses great weapon fighting style also with it, etc.

This isn't supported by any evidence.

It makes statements about play that don't logically follow.

Even if we were to accept it for some odd reason, the house rules proposed here aren't actually problematic from a balance perspective.


So I'm just saying homebrew it and see how it works out.

That's not correct. You're also saying "this will be overpowered" and "this will lead to abuses" without any firm basis for doing so.


Personally a hammer strike to the head is hitting a vital spot, but I assume when that happens you've scored a critical hit and not necessarily a sneak attack.

Irrelevant.

[djreynolds]

I'm not here to discredit anybody and I do really value everyone's opinion, especially when they disagree with me because I learn stuff. Everyone here has valuable insights, and honestly 5E has some flaws.

But the game has it is rules. If someone want to change them, I'm all for it, especially if it is for a concept. I like the idea of dwarf rogue using a hammer. It is cool. I like the idea of the hammer, because it is a familiar tool used by dwarfs in every facet of life, from blacksmith work to mining.

Is allowing one player to sneak attack with a war hammer a big deal no.

Why can a scimitar which is slashing be used to sneak attack when, when a light hammer cannot be used? Or a war hammer? Why are there no finesse bludgeoning weapons available? I don't know.

But the game has rules. And so it is a homebrew solution. I'm just suggesting to try it out. And see what else comes up by doing it.

Such as a war hammer is a versatile weapon. Can the PC sneak attack while using the war hammer two-handed? And the user could benefit from other things, such as great weapon fighting style if they chose to multiclass. Would you allow the PC to reroll 1s and 2s, if he used the war hammer two handed?

Perhaps a solution could be a finesse light hammer. He can use it off hand and can throw it.

[Lombra]

It wouldn't change much to allow sneak attack on all weapons. Only thing you will have to worry about is that now all martials will be incentivated to dip rogue for the sneak attack on top of the other rogue goodies.

[djreynolds]

It wouldn't change much to allow sneak attack on all weapons. Only thing you will have to worry about is that now all martials will be incentivated to dip rogue for the sneak attack on top of the other rogue goodies.

Too true.

I really truly miss the having a blackguard, and smiting and sneak attacking with a greatsword. I want to make a big, nasty plate armor wearing rogue with a maul. I like this dwarven rogue and I would let you use any of the dwarf weapons to sneak attack with... and then you are grabbing GWM, etc

I'm just unsure if it would get out of hand. I play in the AL, and every build feels the same. Paladin/warlock or battle master/assassin, wizard with a level of cleric. And then everyone would have 2 levels of rogue.

But the OP could just come up with maybe an archetype like the barbarian has with a dwarven battlerager barbarian, but instead with rogue. And this guy is strength based type sneak attacker and trap springer, very dwarf feel. And then spread out the weapons used to sneak attack so players aren't inclined to just grab a few levels and go. Say at 3rd level you get the light hammer, 7th you get hand axe, 11th you get the war hammer, along those lines so players are encouraged to play a character. Maybe at 5th level you get the medium armor proficiency and at 9th level you get the heavy armor proficiency, but cannot use a shield. Throw in a second attack at 17th level or earlier.

You can even have the archetype lose weapons he can sneak attack with, or limit it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why can't I use a glaive and sneak attack?
Why can't I get a 10ft reach with the glaive and sneak attack?
And so on. Why can't a monk/rogue finessing a quarterstaff get a sneak attack?
To which I answer "why not?" It's not like you couldn't use a heavy crossbow to do a d10 (plus Sharpshooter!) sneak attack from across the room already. Sneak Attack is most sharply limited by the once/round nature of the beast, not by weapon choice.


What will happen is classes will cease to be classes, and become sort of muddled. And PCs will have characters that are just an accumulation of other class features that can do everything. In a sense that is what multiclassing allows, but with the thought of still making distinct characters, whether single or multiclass.
No. Firstly, this is the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Secondly, 5e generally has very good incentives to stick with single classes as it is.

I like a dwarf rogue using a war hammer, and possibly getting sneak attacks. Do we also allow him to finesse the war hammer?


Do we included hand axes and light hammers being thrown like a dagger? Is that dwarven thrower getting sneak attacks also?
When was the mentioned? The point was using non-finesse weapons, not converting all weapons to finesse. As I pointed out, that's LESS efficient for a rogue, and only a tiny damage boost over standard tactics, all at the cost of investment. See: slippery slope.

And Rogue dips? Low-level features already incentive that very strongly, and you don't see that much of it.

[Joe the Rat]

Why can't I get a 10ft reach with the glaive and sneak attack?You can get 10 feet of reach with a whip and sneak attack, so that's not an issue.
Also, you can sneak attack with a sling for bludgeoning.

The point behind finesse weapons is the idea of speed acceleration and precision. It's not that it's a fast swing, or that you can't pinpoint with a big weapon. They just take a bit of time to get up to speed. You're looking for that opening, and darting in before the target can compensate. Small, maneuverable, and energy-efficient strikes (a thrust is more efficient than a slash) get the job done. You only need that point of vulnerability, not an entire line, or hammer-sized soft bit. Larger weapons, particularly the mass-driven damage ones, telegraph more, giving you that fraction of a second to try and protect your voolnerables.

Dexterity is maneuverability, not power. Strength makes for faster strikes (which is how it defeats dex-based AC), Dexterity is about making the fast adjustments and quick shifts.

Remember, hit points are not necessarily meat points.

Combine the above to make your justification of choice.


Does that mean you can't do a non-finesse sneak attack system? No, you just need to set up a justification, and if balance is a concern, a tradeoff.
For example...
The Thug Archetype.
"Boop Subtlety."

[Flavor text that describes the rogue as one that relies more on muscle than finesse to get the job done]

Enforcer
You know how to hit people to make it hurt. You can use sneak attack with any one-handed melee weapon or versatile weapon wielded in one hand.
I don't see that being significantly "worse" than the Swashbuckler 3rd level benefits.

...and then the rest of the features. I'm liking a boost to strength-based B&E (you can use Theives tools expertise to break locks, etc.) among other things.

[ClintACK]

Making an exception for a dwarf wielding a war hammer one-handed is definitely not going to be overpowered. (It's just a blunt rapier...)

And there's nothing that says "targeting a weak point" quite like a hammer to the front of the knee.

I like it.

But opening to all weapons is abusable -- so I'd make it clear you're approving this one special case, not making a more general ruling.


At worst, you're talking a +2.5 damage bonus (Dr's average of 4.5 to a greatsword's 7). And in exchange, you have to invest in an extra stat and/or dip for proficiencies, AND give up TWF or a potential shield. I think it's fine.

Nah. It gets worse. Imagine stacking GWM's +10 with Sneak Attack dice and PAM for an extra shot at getting the sneak attack in. (4th-level Variant Human Strength-Rogue with Halberd. *shudder*)

[Grod_The_Giant]

It gets worse. Imagine stacking GWM's +10 with Sneak Attack dice and PAM for an extra shot at getting the sneak attack in. (4th-level Variant Human Strength-Rogue with Halberd. *shudder*)
No worse than Sharpshooter and a heavy crossbow. Barely worse than Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert and two hand crossbows

[RickAllison]

Making an exception for a dwarf wielding a war hammer one-handed is definitely not going to be overpowered. (It's just a blunt rapier...)

And there's nothing that says "targeting a weak point" quite like a hammer to the front of the knee.

I like it.

But opening to all weapons is abusable -- so I'd make it clear you're approving this one special case, not making a more general ruling.



Nah. It gets worse. Imagine stacking GWM's +10 with Sneak Attack dice and PAM for an extra shot at getting the sneak attack in. (4th-level Variant Human Strength-Rogue with Halberd. *shudder*)

Unless it was for disrupting concentration, I would see GWM as being a rather bad thing to combine with rogue. Their weakness is having one really big strike, and missing your chance to do that due to your fear would be awful.

It's PAM that I'd be concerned about. Not just the bonus action attack, but the increased chance to get double sneak attack dice through the opportunity attacks.

[D.U.P.A.]

Well, there is a magic longsword which has finesse property. Although I think is reserved to elves.

[Theodoxus]

Well, there is a magic longsword which has finesse property. Although I think is reserved to elves.

Sun blade is a finesse longsword... (usable by just about anyone).

Instead of making an one time exception, or building a subclass the player might not like (if he's looking at a specific benefit from a current subclass, for instance), I'd stick with the magic weapon route.

"Trap-springing Hammer" - this war hammers' head is mounted on a small, but very strong spring. Just the slightest pressure accelerates the head faster than would be normally expected, allowing the war hammer to be used with finesse. It radiates a weak magical aura and overcomes damage resistance to non-magical weapon attacks, but in all other ways, is considered a normal war hammer.

Make it Common in dwarven lands and Uncommon everywhere else, boom. Done. If it is deemed OP (I find that hard to imagine, but possible), have a scourge of rust monsters that find the spring an irresistible aphrodisiac and all the hammers in the world have been ruined overnight...

[WickerNipple]

It would not at all be broken to allow a single character the ability to use a d8 weapon to sneak attack.

It would absolutely be broken to open up all weapons categorically for sneak attack.

Make it clear this is a special character-specific exemption and you'll be fine.

[djreynolds]

First off I apologize, I didn't mean to turn this off the threads main point. I'm not here to say no. So i'm sorry.

That said, a brute archetype for rogue could be cool. And I'm surprised I haven't seen one made in a UA article.

I would think this could be, possibly, better and more balanced for the player. And I bring up the mountain dwarf because the race brings some weapons and medium armor proficiency, so it's easy to see how a brute archetype could progress.

[gkathellar]

It would absolutely be broken to open up all weapons categorically for sneak attack.

How? Why? As many people have pointed out, the actual mechanical options it opens up are little different than those that exist presently.

[Ralanr]

First off I apologize, I didn't mean to turn this off the threads main point. I'm not here to say no. So i'm sorry.

That said, a brute archetype for rogue could be cool. And I'm surprised I haven't seen one made in a UA article.

I would think this could be, possibly, better and more balanced for the player. And I bring up the mountain dwarf because the race brings some weapons and medium armor proficiency, so it's easy to see how a brute archetype could progress.

Not sure why there hasn't been a UA. I mean, they already did a Swashbuckler, so having subclasses enforce an archetype isn't a problem.

They could probably balance it by limiting it to one hand usage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Not sure why there hasn't been a UA. I mean, they already did a Swashbuckler, so having subclasses enforce an archetype isn't a problem.

They could probably balance it by limiting it to one hand usage.
Honestly, even if you don't buy the balance-through-MAD argument, putting it in a subclass ought to do the trick. All Rogue subclasses have some form of offensive boost at 3rd level-- Assassins get auto-crits, Swashbucklers get near-guaranteed Sneak Attack, Thieves and Arcane Tricksters get bonus-action pickpocketing, and the latter get the SCAG melee cantrips these days as well. A "Thug" archetype that gets, say, Medium Armor, Martial Weapon Proficiency, and removes the limit on what weapons can be used for sneak attacks ought to fit in fine.

(And maybe also some sort of bonus Intimidation, maybe doubling the duration or having it still apply the next time you meet; then at 9th an Intimidating Presence type ability; at 13th the ability to cause status afflictions with sneak attacks, and at 17th... maybe remove the once/round limit on sneak attack?)

[Ralanr]

Honestly, even if you don't buy the balance-through-MAD argument, putting it in a subclass ought to do the trick. All Rogue subclasses have some form of offensive boost at 3rd level-- Assassins get auto-crits, Swashbucklers get near-guaranteed Sneak Attack, Thieves and Arcane Tricksters get bonus-action pickpocketing, and the latter get the SCAG melee cantrips these days as well. A "Thug" archetype that gets, say, Medium Armor, Martial Weapon Proficiency, and removes the limit on what weapons can be used for sneak attacks ought to fit in fine.

(And maybe also some sort of bonus Intimidation, maybe doubling the duration or having it still apply the next time you meet; then at 9th an Intimidating Presence type ability; at 13th the ability to cause status afflictions with sneak attacks, and at 17th... maybe remove the once/round limit on sneak attack?)

Why would it be MAD? Sneak attack can still apply strength damage. You just have to use a finesse weapon, no actually finesse with it.

Basically just have at least +1 in dex and have expertise cover the dex based skills you need (and reliable talent) so you can pump strength.

[Theodoxus]

Hmm, thinking about it, I wouldn't allow the SS -5 To Hit to be used with sneak attack; it's essentially equivalent to disadvantage. This would carry through to GWM, if something allowed sneak to be used with great weapons.

This would, at least for me, remove the incentive for martial characters to dip rogue for the added SA damage while opening up the option for additional weapons, even great and reach, with a feat or subclass.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why would it be MAD? Sneak attack can still apply strength damage. You just have to use a finesse weapon, no actually finesse with it.

Basically just have at least +1 in dex and have expertise cover the dex based skills you need (and reliable talent) so you can pump strength.
I went into this earlier. Basically, you need full Str for your attacks, but you need to invest in Dex for AC. Or else you need to spend build resources to pick up heavy armor, which has its own costs. In both cases it becomes much harder to bonus action Hide, potentially lowering your DPR.

[Easy_Lee]

OP, the maximum amount of difference in damage between a rapier and any other weapon is 2.5 DPR. With a Warhammer, it's less.

The only potential abuse I've ever heard of is polearm + polearm mastery for extra SA. However, rogues are already able to get that sort of benefit from Mage Slayer or Sentinel.

[MeeposFire]

Making an exception for a dwarf wielding a war hammer one-handed is definitely not going to be overpowered. (It's just a blunt rapier...)

And there's nothing that says "targeting a weak point" quite like a hammer to the front of the knee.

I like it.

But opening to all weapons is abusable -- so I'd make it clear you're approving this one special case, not making a more general ruling.



Nah. It gets worse. Imagine stacking GWM's +10 with Sneak Attack dice and PAM for an extra shot at getting the sneak attack in. (4th-level Variant Human Strength-Rogue with Halberd. *shudder*)

Not just can you do this already but better with crossbows and related feats it is actually not that good for a rogue. Remember that with so much damage coming from sneak attack missing hurts DPR a LOT. You may be surprised to find the DPR benefits from using that +10 may not be worth the feat cost to get it.

[Theodoxus]

OP, the maximum amount of difference in damage between a rapier and any other weapon is 2.5 DPR. With a Warhammer, it's less.

The only potential abuse I've ever heard of is polearm + polearm mastery for extra SA. However, rogues are already able to get that sort of benefit from Mage Slayer or Sentinel.

Or three levels of fighter for riposte

[Easy_Lee]

Or three levels of fighter for riposte

Exactly. All of the "abuse," and I emphasize those quotes, that rogues can get from non-finesse weapons, they can get in other ways.

Extra SA from Polearm Mastery OA: Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Riposte (from fighter or feat)
Higher damage die: Heavy crossbow
Bonus attacks from PM: TWF, Crossbow Expert
GWM: Sharpshooter

The only thing rogues can't get, which some might try to get, is the Great Weapon Fighting Style. The reason would be to argue that its reroll 1's and 2's (which I think is a bad feature to begin with) would apply to SA. Even if you're worried about that, there's a simple solution. Instead of sneak attack requiring finesse, specify that it can't be done with heavy weapons. That actually makes some sense, as it's hard to be surgical with a heavy object.

[Plaguescarred]

If the player want only to use Sneak Attack with a more dwarven thematic weapon and is not doing it to abuse anything, I'd work with him by intorducing a new weapon, rather than modify Sneak Attack rules. So i'd give him a hammer that has the finesse property but not the versatile one, explaining that it's shorter and more balanced but less big and thus not usable with two hands. Like this the dwarf PC could now use Sneak Attack with a hammer like he want, but not transgressing rules too much by potentially using Sneak Attack with a 2H d10 weapon for exemple.

[Easy_Lee]

If the player want only to use Sneak Attack with a more dwarven thematic weapon and is not doing it to abuse anything, I'd work with him by intorducing a new weapon, rather than modify Sneak Attack rules. So i'd give him a hammer that has the finesse property but not the versatile one, explaining that it's shorter and more balanced but less big and thus not usable with two hands. Like this the dwarf PC could now use Sneak Attack with a hammer like he want, but not transgressing rules too much by potentially using Sneak Attack with a 2H d10 weapon for exemple.

Then the players happen upon some ancient dwarven warhammer, passed down through the clan. Too bad the rogue can't use it! What a shame that he can't do whatever it is he does with the other hammer...

[RickAllison]

Then the players happen upon some ancient dwarven warhammer, passed down through the clan. Too bad the rogue can't use it! What a shame that he can't do whatever it is he does with the other hammer...

So he goes on a quest to find the legendary dwarven smith hidden in the Forge of the First Fire, to request his aid in modifying the ancient warhammer to fit his style. However to do this, he needs...

And there is the plot hook to get the players back on the rails!

[ClintACK]

Not just can you do this already but better with crossbows and related feats it is actually not that good for a rogue. Remember that with so much damage coming from sneak attack missing hurts DPR a LOT. You may be surprised to find the DPR benefits from using that +10 may not be worth the feat cost to get it.

1) Yep. Using GWM/Sharpshooter often won't be worth the risk of missing the sneak attack -- but remember you've probably got advantage on the attack, so it often will be worth it. Especially if PAM or Crossbow Expert is giving you a second shot at the sneak attack. (Hitting with only one of the attacks but getting +10 and +Nd6 is strictly better than hitting with both attacks at just +Nd6 on one of the two attacks, until you hit 20 str/dex, and not even then for the hand crossbow. Of course, if you have Hunter's Mark or Hex or the like, the math changes again...)

2) Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Yep. Very, very powerful option for a ranged Rogue. No idea at all what WOTC were thinking here -- a world in which a hand crossbow (which was never more than an exotic toy in our world) is significantly superior to a longbow (which revolutionized warfare in our world) -- and is twice as good as a shortsword when fighting at melee range (which is ridiculously ahistorical -- traditionally archers were toast when melee troops closed to knife range). But I digress.

For me, saying, "This isn't any worse than what I can make with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter" is not a reasonable counter to the claim that something is very powerful. Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter are very powerful.

3) And most importantly... I'm not arguing that the OP *shouldn't* allow this. I'm just saying the OP needs to consider all of this as the natural consequences of opening Sneak Attack to all weapons. It's not *just* going to be the added damage dice of the better weapon.

Edit: Which is why my original suggestion was to narrowly rule one-handed use of Warhammers as acceptable for Sneak Attack, without opening up everything else.

[Sigreid]

I think your greatest danger would be winding up with a fighter/rogue with the great weapons fighting style that gets to re-roll 1's and 2's on his sneak attack dice. That could get a little wrong.

[SharkForce]

fighting style has been clarified to only work on the weapon's damage.

and while i would agree that "not worse than sharpshooter + crossbow mastery" doesn't mean something isn't powerful, that isn't the question that was asked. if you were to open up sneak attack to all weapons, it wouldn't be that much more powerful than the options that are already available.

(and on a side note, fighters already are incentivized to multiclass to something else at high levels... have you *looked* at that stretch between level 11 and level 17 where they get almost nothing at all?)

[Easy_Lee]

So he goes on a quest to find the legendary dwarven smith hidden in the Forge of the First Fire, to request his aid in modifying the ancient warhammer to fit his style. However to do this, he needs...

And there is the plot hook to get the players back on the rails!

Any dwarf who would actually do that to a legendary weapon is unworthy of his beard. Do you know nothing of Forgotten Realms Dwarven lore? You don't alter legendary dwarven weapons. You don't even wield them unless you're 100% worthy, or they were handed down to you, or you had to because it was the only weapon you had (in which case you ask the Gods' forgiveness afterwards). History is very important to dwarves. To so much as repair the notches in another's axe would be disrespectful, as each of those notches is part of a great story to be told over ale.


fighting style has been clarified to only work on the weapon's damage.

and while i would agree that "not worse than sharpshooter + crossbow mastery" doesn't mean something isn't powerful, that isn't the question that was asked. if you were to open up sneak attack to all weapons, it wouldn't be that much more powerful than the options that are already available.

(and on a side note, fighters already are incentivized to multiclass to something else at high levels... have you *looked* at that stretch between level 11 and level 17 where they get almost nothing at all?)

The main thing it does is open up different types of rogue, such as a raging brigand with a battleaxe, or a thief-acrobat with a quarterstaff. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

[RickAllison]

Any dwarf who would actually do that to a legendary weapon is unworthy of his beard. Do you know nothing of Forgotten Realms Dwarven lore? You don't alter legendary dwarven weapons. You don't even wield them unless you're 100% worthy, or they were handed down to you, or you had to because it was the only weapon you had (in which case you ask the Gods' forgiveness afterwards). History is very important to dwarves. To so much as repair the notches in another's axe would be disrespectful, as each of those notches is part of a great story to be told over ale.

I really do know nothing of FR lore :smalltongue: I have only ever played in DM-created worlds and never read the books, so my rank in FR Lore is zero. I think in terms of what would make a good general story, not what happens in a specific world, especially when discussing hypotheticals in a discussion that I don't think has established what world is in question.

[Easy_Lee]

I really do know nothing of FR lore :smalltongue: I have only ever played in DM-created worlds and never read the books, so my rank in FR Lore is zero. I think in terms of what would make a good general story, not what happens in a specific world, especially when discussing hypotheticals in a discussion that I don't think has established what world is in question.

Understandable and easily forgiven.

[ClintACK]

The main thing it does is open up different types of rogue, such as a raging brigand with a battleaxe, or a thief-acrobat with a quarterstaff. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

I want to totally agree with this bit. Both of those sound flavorful and cool.

It just starts to get cheesy when you're getting a reaction-sneak-attack at reach with a halberd when someone charges to try to attack you. And I want to head things off before I have to explain why the greataxe was okay but the halberd isn't...

Now I really want to write up a rogue-monk with mobility... although I think it might suffer from too many bonus action options.

Does a monk's unarmed strike count as a finesse weapon -- i.e. can you use it to Sneak Attack?

[Easy_Lee]

I want to totally agree with this bit. Both of those sound flavorful and cool.

It just starts to get cheesy when you're getting a reaction-sneak-attack at reach with a halberd when someone charges to try to attack you. And I want to head things off before I have to explain why the greataxe was okay but the halberd isn't...

Now I really want to write up a rogue-monk with mobility... although I think it might suffer from too many bonus action options.

Does a monk's unarmed strike count as a finesse weapon -- i.e. can you use it to Sneak Attack?

To your question, it should but it doesn't according to Crawford. A weapon having the finesse property, which means you can use Dex to attack with it, and a weapon which lets you use Dex to attack with it are, apparently, different things.

To your halberd point, why is sneak attack okay on the Sentinel, Mage Slayer, and Riposte OAs, but not okay on the the PM OA? Also, why is it fine for an Arcane Trickster with War Caster to use Greenflame Blade for both his action and reaction attack, gaining sneak attack + greenflame blade damage on both, but it's cheesy for a rogue to sneak attack with a polearm? (Even Crawford is, apparently, okay with this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/06/greenflame-blade-and-sneak-attack/).

There are more or equally cheesy versions of everything a non-finesse SA rogue can do.

[Cybren]

Yeah i'm not sure I buy the "rogues can only use finesse/ranged weapons for balance reasons" argument. A better weapon die is certainly an improvement for a rogue, but it does come with opportunity costs, and strength in general is a weaker ability score than dexterity. I assume the restrictions on sneak attack are mostly style reasons. A greatsword rogue might look weird, but so does every inane picture of art that shows people wearing greatswords on their back. Oh no, a doorway. Fightgar the Fighter has been foiled!

[ClintACK]

To your question, it should but it doesn't according to Crawford. A weapon having the finesse property, which means you can use Dex to attack with it, and a weapon which lets you use Dex to attack with it are, apparently, different things.

To your halberd point, why is sneak attack okay on the Sentinel, Mage Slayer, and Riposte OAs, but not okay on the the PM OA? Also, why is it fine for an Arcane Trickster with War Caster to use Greenflame Blade for both his action and reaction attack, gaining sneak attack + greenflame blade damage on both, but it's cheesy for a rogue to sneak attack with a polearm? (Even Crawford is, apparently, okay with this: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/06/greenflame-blade-and-sneak-attack/).

There are more or equally cheesy versions of everything a non-finesse SA rogue can do.

*sigh*

I can't draw you a solid line anywhere between here and Pun-pun. But I can still complain every time you push the line one step closer. :)

Why does the Halberd-10'-PAM-Sentinel-Reaction-OA-on-approach Sneak Attack bug me? Largely because the Halberd-10'-PAM-Sentinel-Reaction-OA-on-approach already bugs me. It means a guy with a sword charging at you on his turn instead gets hit by you and stops, unable to attack you. Adding out-of-turn Sneak Attack damage to that is like pouring acid in the wound to go with the salt you've already poured in there. :(

And, yeah, I think the Greenflame Blade Warcaster reaction Sneak Attack is also cheesy as hell.

[Cybren]

*sigh*

I can't draw you a solid line anywhere between here and Pun-pun. But I can still complain every time you push the line one step closer. :)

Well, no amount of damage optimization is going to get anyone to Pun-Pun. I mean, I tend to assume most people optimizing for damage are seeing diminishing returns for a lot of investment that they could have gotten better returns on with a more lateral development. But I also tend to play in campaigns where combat is less predictably recurring and non-combat solutions explicitly encouraged.



Why does the Halberd-10'-PAM-Sentinel-Reaction-OA-on-approach Sneak Attack bug me? Largely because the Halberd-10'-PAM-Sentinel-Reaction-OA-on-approach already bugs me. It means a guy with a sword charging at you on his turn instead gets hit by you and stops, unable to attack you. Adding out-of-turn Sneak Attack damage to that is like pouring acid in the wound to go with the salt you've already poured in there. :(

So, sneak attack isn't really the problem. "pouring acid in the wound" doesn't make much sense- the parts of that combo you don't like aren't based on its damage...


And, yeah, I think the Greenflame Blade Warcaster reaction Sneak Attack is also cheesy as hell.
...why?

[ClintACK]

...why?

(TL;WR: In this case it's not the Sneak Attack -- I'm 100% on board with getting a second Sneak Attack on OAs. It's letting Greenflame Blade work that feels cheesy -- it doesn't meet the RAW for Warcaster's OA.)


Warcaster lets you substitute a spell instead of an attack whenever you get an OA. This is already quite powerful -- a spell is usually balanced against an action, where OAs are usually only single attacks.

Then, Warcaster must trigger a spell that only targets the creature who triggered the OA. But Greenflame Blade lets you damage a second enemy at the same time -- so it shouldn't be eligible for the Warcaster OA.

So again, it's taking something that's already very powerful, stretching the rules to make it more powerful still, and then adding more.

So, consider a Fighter 20, a Warlock 17, and an Arcane Trickster 5 all getting OAs against the target. The 20th level fighter gets to make one attack (say, 1d12+15 damage). A 17th level warlock on an OA gets to make four attacks (say 4d10+20+repel the target 40'). A 5th level arcane trickster using GB and SA is getting say 1d6+3+3d6+1d8 *and* 1d8+3 damage to a second target. Make the arcane trickster 17th level and it's 1d6+5+9d6+3d8 *and* 3d8+5 damage to a second target.

That's:
Fighter 20: 21.5 damage
Warlock 17: 42 damage + 40' forced movement
Rogue 5: 21.5 damage + 7.5 to a second target
Rogue 17: 53.5 damage + 18.5 to a second target

(TL;DR: Warcaster's OA feature is already really strong -- stretching the rules to make it even stronger is cheesy.)

[Lollerabe]

Again letting sneak apply to every weapon isn't really a problem, applying the finesse feature to all weapons is.

While I understand E-lees train of thought, sometimes you just gotta recognize that certain things aren't consistent due to mech balance.

Finesse polearms + PAM + rogue, would be the biggest feat tax this game has seen. Again yes it isn't more 'cheesy' than warcaster GFB + sneak (which I wholeheartedly disagree with being cheesy, I just think that's awesome and a bad investment for any ET)

BUT from a mech perspective it's way way way more broken, I think Kryx and most others came to the conclusion that OAs are barely worth including in DPR calculations (besides PAM) so while GFB/BB OA's might seem cheesy/op - it's a horrible build in general. Don't try to optimize your OA damg. As OAs rarely happen, for some reason 5e is worded in a way that makes any actual fun feat synergy super rare. I'd LOVE to make a warcaster + sentinel + X combo that makes your fiery/thundery OAs proc all day everyday - but it ain't viable or plausible.

[Cybren]

Again letting sneak apply to every weapon isn't really a problem, applying the finesse feature to all weapons is.

I don't think anyone was advocating for letting rogues make dex attacks with a glaive

[djreynolds]

Brute archetype for the rogue. Its cool and stylish. You get some armor and weapon proficiencies and some intimidation stuff. Maybe something along the line they can get advantage on athletics and intimidation checks like the swashbuckler does and maybe even an initiative bonus.

And there is the case of "martial advantage" which hobgoblins do receive, 2d6 extra with allies in 5ft and they are chainmail, shield, and sword.

Again I'm surprised the UA hasn't come up with brute archetype.

[Lollerabe]

@Cybren fair point, I gotta stop posting while hungover :)

Yeah I really miss the thug/brute archetype as well, seems like a given but oh well

[Theodoxus]

(TL;WR: In this case it's not the Sneak Attack -- I'm 100% on board with getting a second Sneak Attack on OAs. It's letting Greenflame Blade work that feels cheesy -- it doesn't meet the RAW for Warcaster's OA.)


Warcaster lets you substitute a spell instead of an attack whenever you get an OA. This is already quite powerful -- a spell is usually balanced against an action, where OAs are usually only single attacks.

Then, Warcaster must trigger a spell that only targets the creature who triggered the OA. But Greenflame Blade lets you damage a second enemy at the same time -- so it shouldn't be eligible for the Warcaster OA.

So again, it's taking something that's already very powerful, stretching the rules to make it more powerful still, and then adding more.

So, consider a Fighter 20, a Warlock 17, and an Arcane Trickster 5 all getting OAs against the target. The 20th level fighter gets to make one attack (say, 1d12+15 damage). A 17th level warlock on an OA gets to make four attacks (say 4d10+20+repel the target 40'). A 5th level arcane trickster using GB and SA is getting say 1d6+3+3d6+1d8 *and* 1d8+3 damage to a second target. Make the arcane trickster 17th level and it's 1d6+5+9d6+3d8 *and* 3d8+5 damage to a second target.

That's:
Fighter 20: 21.5 damage
Warlock 17: 42 damage + 40' forced movement
Rogue 5: 21.5 damage + 7.5 to a second target
Rogue 17: 53.5 damage + 18.5 to a second target

(TL;DR: Warcaster's OA feature is already really strong -- stretching the rules to make it even stronger is cheesy.)

My interpretation of "must target only that creature" means, like Twinned, you can't use a cantrip that could potentially target a second (or third, or fourth). So, no GFB, no EB. I could see a case, since it specifies "that creature" vice "one creature" in Twinned, that they're different and your example would work, but that's not how I rule it at my table. YMOV :smallwink:

Homebrew Thug (http://richplayingitforward.blogspot.com/2015/01/5th-edition-builds-rogue-thug.html) I like most of this, though the capstone is pretty meh.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why does the Halberd-10'-PAM-Sentinel-Reaction-OA-on-approach Sneak Attack bug me?
I feel like you're going to have a lot of trouble actually qualifying for sneak attack at 10ft range. Swashbuckler won't help you there...

[Joe the Rat]

AFB, but does audacity specify adjacent/5 feet, or just that the target has noone else adjacent.

On special Weapons for Sneak Attack - Sounds like a good potential property for Mithril weapons...

As long as the Dwarf's name is Maxwell, and he uses a silver hammer, it should be fine.And we're back.

[Easy_Lee]

I feel like you're going to have a lot of trouble actually qualifying for sneak attack at 10ft range. Swashbuckler won't help you there...

Most likely, in addition to rogues not having that proficiency in the first place so they'd need to pick it up somehow. And regardless of the weapon, there's still generally an angle targets can approach from to prevent the PM from getting an opportunity attack while also qualifying for SA.

[Grod_The_Giant]

AFB, but does audacity specify adjacent/5 feet, or just that the target has noone else adjacent.
"You don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you."

[Joe the Rat]

Ah. Thanks.

Hmm... this could still work on a sneak-attack approved Quarterstaff, which pulls us entirely out of the big heavy dice issue.

[RickAllison]

"You don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you."

That doesn't seem like it actually forbids it. It just states that the ability doesn't go off because the target is next to the Swashbuckler. It is stating a condition for failure, not a requirement for success.

[Plaguescarred]

Then the players happen upon some ancient dwarven warhammer, passed down through the clan. Too bad the rogue can't use it! What a shame that he can't do whatever it is he does with the other hammer...Why could't he use it?

[Easy_Lee]

Why could't he use it?

If the player can only use special modified warhammers, that means most warhammers are no good. Sure, the DM could just hand him a legendary modified warhammer, but that would be odd. How many dwarf rogues who only use modified warhammer can exist in one world?

[MeeposFire]

Why could't he use it?

Lets not get into an argument with essentially semantics. He can literally use it (technically any class can use anything it is a question of how WELL they can use it) but we both know that in combat rogues rely primarily on sneak attack. Any round where they attack but do not get it is a round that was likely mostly wasted. A dwarf rogue who wanted to play using a hammer is shooting themselves in the foot (at least).

To use that hammer he loses AC (unless he can afford high str and high dex at the same time in which case he loses con that helps him stay alive) and he cannot use his sneak attack feature. That is a lot to lose just for a thematic weapon. Objectively that is a bad idea.

[Plaguescarred]

If the player can only use special modified warhammers, that means most warhammers are no good. Sure, the DM could just hand him a legendary modified warhammer, but that would be odd. How many dwarf rogues who only use modified warhammer can exist in one world?If you're the Dm and give a special warhammer to the rogue, the goal is for him to be able to use it i don't get your point.

[Theodoxus]

If you're the Dm and give a special warhammer to the rogue, the goal is for him to be able to use it i don't get your point.

What? What kind of pollyanna crap is that? If I'm the DM and give a special warhammer to the rogue, he gets to sit and cry like a little baby for trying to warp the rules in his favor. If he wants to do that, he can run me through his campaign! ;)

Just kidding... I'm the permissive DM who's looking for a game to play that caters to the same wish fulfillment I grant my players... but everyone I play with is pretty strict RAW followers...

[zinycor]

Thanks to everybody for their answers, in the end me and the players agreed on RickAllison's solution:


Take away the Versatile property and give it Finesse. You now have a bludgeoning rapier.

Argos follows an ancient, dwarven martial art called the Strike of the Swinging Stone. The user has learned to wield a warhammer with a modified hilt, one that is light enough to use far more deftly, but the lower heft means swinging two-handed accomplishes very little. Instead, the dwarf elegantly wields the warhammer, striking weak points and undermining the strong.

Should be fine at that point.

Since the Dwarf in question is a noble weapon-maker, we agreed that this is a ancient and secret weapon making technique passed down to the members of his clan. It made me and the player quite happy since it fleshed out his family.



If the player can only use special modified warhammers, that means most warhammers are no good. Sure, the DM could just hand him a legendary modified warhammer, but that would be odd. How many dwarf rogues who only use modified warhammer can exist in one world?

If he finds another warhammer (or waraxe) he will just be able to modify it so it becomes a finesse weapon.


Again, thanks all.


EDIT (just for fun):


Any dwarf who would actually do that to a legendary weapon is unworthy of his beard.

It's not the beard you deserve, is the one that you need.


Do you know nothing of Forgotten Realms Dwarven lore?

No, I don't.


You don't alter legendary dwarven weapons. You don't even wield them unless you're 100% worthy, or they were handed down to you, or you had to because it was the only weapon you had (in which case you ask the Gods' forgiveness afterwards). History is very important to dwarves. To so much as repair the notches in another's axe would be disrespectful, as each of those notches is part of a great story to be told over ale.

This particular dwarf is an ******* assasin, I don't think he will have a problem doing these disrespectfull things... as long as the other dwarves don't find out, he does care about his political position.

Having said all of those things, I will consider the idea of modifying legendary weapons to be disrespectful in dwarven society. Who knows? It could prove to be fun.

[RickAllison]

Thanks to everybody for their answers, in the end me and the players agreed on RickAllison's solution:



Since the Dwarf in question is a noble weapon-maker, we agreed that this is a ancient and secret weapon making technique passed down to the members of his clan. It made me and the player quite happy since it fleshed out his family.




If he finds another warhammer (or waraxe) he will just be able to modify it so it becomes a finesse weapon.


Again, thanks all.


EDIT (just for fun):



It's not the beard you deserve, is the one that you need.



No, I don't.



This particular dwarf is an ******* assasin, I don't think he will have a problem doing these disrespectfull things... as long as the other dwarves don't find out, he does care about his political position.

Having said all of those things, I will consider the idea of modifying legendary weapons to be disrespectful in dwarven society. Who knows? It could prove to be fun.

"Wait, is that the Oath of Moradin? How could you-"
The dwarf collapses from the modified Oath of Moradin sneak-attacking him in the side of the head. His friends casually gather up his unconscious form and quietly take their leave.

[zinycor]

"Wait, is that the Oath of Moradin? How could you-"
The dwarf collapses from the modified Oath of Moradin sneak-attacking him in the side of the head. His friends casually gather up his unconscious form and quietly take their leave.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: I laughed so hard just thinking about that :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: