Is Sneak Attack with non-finesse really that bad?

[Oramac]

Help me out here. Normally, you have to use finesse weapons to sneak attack. Which means rapiers are the highest damage weapon.

But really, would a sneak attack with a greatsword (or any other non-finesse weapon) be all that bad?

Forgetting the actual SA damage for a moment (since it wouldn't change):

Rapier: 1d8, average 4.5 damage, 9 on crit.

Greatsword: 2d6, average 7 damage, 14 on crit.

The difference is 2.5 damage on a normal hit and 5 damage on a crit. That hardly seems game-breaking to me.

What am I missing here?

[Desamir]

It's a design decision primarily made for flavor reasons, not balance reasons. If greatsword becomes the best weapon for Rogues, then the majority of Rogues will go Strength and use greatswords, which conflicts with the designers' idea of a Rogue.

[JellyPooga]

Short answer; No.

Long(er) answer; Not really, but consider the implication. Rogue grabs GWM and PAM, goes and steals himself a Belt of Storm Giant Strength and becomes (pretty much) the top damage dealer with weapons that should be more associated with Classes like Fighter and Barbarian. It's nothing to do with game-balance, really, not from a numbers point of view, but rather one of theme and Class niche-protection.

[Oramac]

It's a design decision primarily made for flavor reasons, not balance reasons. If greatsword becomes the best weapon for Rogues, then the majority of Rogues will go Strength and use greatswords, which conflicts with the designers' idea of a Rogue.


Short answer; No.

Long(er) answer; Not really, but consider the implication. Rogue grabs GWM and PAM, goes and steals himself a Belt of Storm Giant Strength and becomes (pretty much) the top damage dealer with weapons that should be more associated with Classes like Fighter and Barbarian. It's nothing to do with game-balance, really, not from a numbers point of view, but rather one of theme and Class niche-protection.


Got it. Yea, that makes sense. Thematically, it fits. Thanks!

[N810]

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm269/the5thvoice/motivator3621857.jpg





... It's an old joke.
Google the video it's really funny.

[DragonSorcererX]

Well, this is stupid because if you are a Barbarian 2/Rogue 18, you can still Sneak Attack with that Shortsword while using your monstruous strenght... if they had limited it to, you can only Sneak Attack when using Dexterity to attack it would make more sense...

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm269/the5thvoice/motivator3621857.jpg

Technically a ballista is a ranged weapon, so a rouge who had advantage and ballista Proficiency would get to add Sneak attack damage to the roll


Also the Deathstar is a ranged weapon so if you get one, have a rouge to pull the trigger to get 1000D100 damage + 4d6 sneak attack damage.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Well, this is stupid because if you are a Barbarian 2/Rogue 18, you can still Sneak Attack with that Shortsword while using your monstruous strenght... if they had limited it to, you can only Sneak Attack when using Dexterity to attack it would make more sense...

That adds a extra layer to the rules that goes against the streamlined design of 5e. After all the only weapons that can use Dex are finesse and ranged weapons, so why make somebody go reference the rules on what can use Dex and instead tell them what weapons work with the feature.

Also you would have monk 3 rouge 17 and you would have the same problem of every weapon qualifies again ( using that UA that gives you 3 martial weapons as monk weapons)

[ClearlyTough69]

Technically a ballista is a ranged weapon, so a rouge who had...

Technically a rouge is a kind of...

I'll get my coat.

[War_lord]

Well, this is stupid because if you are a Barbarian 2/Rogue 18, you can still Sneak Attack with that Shortsword while using your monstruous strenght... if they had limited it to, you can only Sneak Attack when using Dexterity to attack it would make more sense...

But then that would totally kill any kind of Strength Rogue build.

[Knaight]

Well, this is stupid because if you are a Barbarian 2/Rogue 18, you can still Sneak Attack with that Shortsword while using your monstruous strenght... if they had limited it to, you can only Sneak Attack when using Dexterity to attack it would make more sense...

The design isn't there to block more unconventional rogues entirely, it's to prevent them from becoming the default.

[Desamir]

The design isn't there to block more unconventional rogues entirely, it's to prevent them from becoming the default.

Bingo.


Short answer; No.

Long(er) answer; Not really, but consider the implication. Rogue grabs GWM and PAM, goes and steals himself a Belt of Storm Giant Strength and becomes (pretty much) the top damage dealer with weapons that should be more associated with Classes like Fighter and Barbarian. It's nothing to do with game-balance, really, not from a numbers point of view, but rather one of theme and Class niche-protection.

GWM isn't a concern since it's bad for characters that deal lots of damage on a single hit, like Rogues. As an example, an 11th level Greatsword Rogue (+9 attack bonus, 2d6+5+6d6 damage) would deal less damage per round using GWM unless the target had AC <= 8. In a world where Rogues can sneak attack with Greatswords, GWM would be a trap option.

PAM, on the other hand, would be really good. Bonus action attacks are great for giving you an extra chance to land Sneak Attack, and reaction attacks are fantastic since Sneak Attack is limited to once per turn, not once per round.

So you would expect to see polearm rogues become the default build.

[DragonSorcererX]

Bingo.



GWM isn't a concern since it's bad for characters that deal lots of damage on a single hit, like Rogues. As an example, an 11th level Greatsword Rogue (+9 attack bonus, 2d6+5+6d6 damage) would deal less damage per round using GWM unless the target had AC <= 8. In a world where Rogues can sneak attack with Greatswords, GWM would be a trap option.

PAM, on the other hand, would be really good. Bonus action attacks are great for giving you an extra chance to land Sneak Attack, and reaction attacks are fantastic since Sneak Attack is limited to once per turn, not once per round.

So you would expect to see polearm rogues become the default build.

You know what would be cool... a Legendary Creature with Sneak Attack...

[Jaycon356]

I mean, If you want to make rogue-barian MORE powerful...

[Deleted]

Help me out here. Normally, you have to use finesse weapons to sneak attack. Which means rapiers are the highest damage weapon.

But really, would a sneak attack with a greatsword (or any other non-finesse weapon) be all that bad?

Forgetting the actual SA damage for a moment (since it wouldn't change):

Rapier: 1d8, average 4.5 damage, 9 on crit.

Greatsword: 2d6, average 7 damage, 14 on crit.

The difference is 2.5 damage on a normal hit and 5 damage on a crit. That hardly seems game-breaking to me.

What am I missing here?

Feats

But my group just made sneak attack with any non-heavy weapon and called it a day.

You could also say that "extra damage" from class features and feats don't stack. Smite, Sneak Attack, +10 (from feat), and other random sources like that just don't work on the same attack. If you have 2 attacks you could sneak attack with one and smite with the other.

[Mellack]

I think letting Rogue's use non-finesse might be a balance issue. One of the worse combos would be with PAM. They get a sneak when an opponent closes on the enemy's turn, then on their own turn they get another and can move away freely. This can double their damage output.

[Maxilian]

Bingo.



GWM isn't a concern since it's bad for characters that deal lots of damage on a single hit, like Rogues. As an example, an 11th level Greatsword Rogue (+9 attack bonus, 2d6+5+6d6 damage) would deal less damage per round using GWM unless the target had AC <= 8. In a world where Rogues can sneak attack with Greatswords, GWM would be a trap option.

PAM, on the other hand, would be really good. Bonus action attacks are great for giving you an extra chance to land Sneak Attack, and reaction attacks are fantastic since Sneak Attack is limited to once per turn, not once per round.

So you would expect to see polearm rogues become the default build.


I wouldn't say it would be a trap, in the end, you don't have to use that much the -5 to Hit and +10 Damage, you could take advantage on the on a Crit you get another attack (Ermm... Assasin Rogue with Great Sword?), giving the rogue less reason to even thinking on going with Off-hand weapons (2 weapon fighting even more meh)

Note: IMHO if you want to let a player Sneak Attack with a weapon that is not normally Finesse, just make a magic item, use the Moonblade as a base for this (The moonblade have the option to have the finesse propierty) -For balance reason make that its only propierty (that way it will work as it should... an Upgrade for the character)

[Desamir]

It's a design decision primarily made for flavor reasons, not balance reasons. If greatsword becomes the best weapon for Rogues, then the majority of Rogues will go Strength and use greatswords, which conflicts with the designers' idea of a Rogue.

So yeah, let me revise this statement. It's not a balance issue except with PAM. Reliable reaction attacks are very strong with Sneak Attack.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't say it would be a trap, in the end, you don't have to use that much the -5 to Hit and +10 Damage, you could take advantage on the on a Crit you get another attack (Ermm... Assasin Rogue with Great Sword?), giving the rogue less reason to even thinking on going with Off-hand weapons (2 weapon fighting even more meh)

Note: IMHO if you want to let a player Sneak Attack with a weapon that is not normally Finesse, just make a magic item, use the Moonblade as a base for this (The moonblade have the option to have the finesse propierty) -For balance reason make that its only propierty (that way it will work as it should... an Upgrade for the character)

So, one must use "magic" to explain why a rogue can sneak attack with a non-finesse weapon now?

That's so far out there I don't... I just...

Wow, this forums really loves the "martials can't have nice things" and takes it to the extreme.

[Asmotherion]

Help me out here. Normally, you have to use finesse weapons to sneak attack. Which means rapiers are the highest damage weapon.

But really, would a sneak attack with a greatsword (or any other non-finesse weapon) be all that bad?

Forgetting the actual SA damage for a moment (since it wouldn't change):

Rapier: 1d8, average 4.5 damage, 9 on crit.

Greatsword: 2d6, average 7 damage, 14 on crit.

The difference is 2.5 damage on a normal hit and 5 damage on a crit. That hardly seems game-breaking to me.

What am I missing here?

What you are mostly missing is the fact that a Greatsword is not the most discrete weapon in the world, and definitelly not the most precice one either. The intention is that sneack attack is supponsed to hit on a vulnerable point, which needs dexterity to do so in the heat of battle. It's design/fluff/lore/flavor wise more corect, and enforced by a mechanical rule, to prevent rogues wielding greatswords and axes to sneak attack with.

[Deleted]

What you are mostly missing is the fact that a Greatsword is not the most discrete weapon in the world, and definitelly not the most precice one either. The intention is that sneack attack is supponsed to hit on a vulnerable point, which needs dexterity to do so in the heat of battle. It's design/fluff/lore/flavor wise more corect, and enforced by a mechanical rule, to prevent rogues wielding greatswords and axes to sneak attack with.

If only we were playing a fantasy game... Damn!

[Foxhound438]

If only we were playing a fantasy game... Damn!

Yep... Well, I might as well go back to what I normally do in real life: shooting fire out of my fingers to kill people and take their pocket change.

[Desamir]

If only we were playing a fantasy game... Damn!

I played Avenger almost exclusively in 4e. I'm 100% on board with a fast stealthy assassin-type character using a giant anime sword. Just not the Rogue. I like the niche it currently occupies (and so do the designers evidently).

It's too bad that Avenger got rolled into Paladin in this edition, it was such a cool unique class with a lot of tactical depth in combat.

[Knaight]

What you are mostly missing is the fact that a Greatsword is not the most discrete weapon in the world, and definitelly not the most precice one either. The intention is that sneack attack is supponsed to hit on a vulnerable point, which needs dexterity to do so in the heat of battle. It's design/fluff/lore/flavor wise more corect, and enforced by a mechanical rule, to prevent rogues wielding greatswords and axes to sneak attack with.

There's all sorts of precision available with a greatsword, and the idea that they're just big bulky weapons swung clumsily is ludicrous. The restriction also prevents you from using (as one of many good examples) a spear, and if you can't stab precisely with a spear you need to get out of the stabbing with a spear business. The argument that the weapon restrictions protect the archetypical rogue is valid, the idea that they're a simulationist effort to reflect how one can't attack precisely with larger weapons is absurd - unless the idea is that it was bad and misinformed design, but that's how it happened.

[Sariel Vailo]

Its up to you to decide

[War_lord]

It's to protect the Rogue archetype and to balance it out verses the Martial characters. If the Rogue could sneak attack with Warhammers, Spears, Halberds, Greatswords and so on, the classes who do actually center around swinging big weapons around would be eclipsed by the one hit damage potential of a rogue. The Rogue gets Sneak attack, that's balanced out by their poorer weapon selection.

[Provo]

There's all sorts of precision available with a greatsword, and the idea that they're just big bulky weapons swung clumsily is ludicrous. The restriction also prevents you from using (as one of many good examples) a spear, and if you can't stab precisely with a spear you need to get out of the stabbing with a spear business. The argument that the weapon restrictions protect the archetypical rogue is valid, the idea that they're a simulationist effort to reflect how one can't attack precisely with larger weapons is absurd - unless the idea is that it was bad and misinformed design, but that's how it happened.

Ugh, spear... the problem with using spear as an example is that the spear was designed poorly completely independent of wether SA was designed poorly.

The spear SHOULD be finesse. Additionally, the spear SHOULD work with PAM. There are mechanical concerns with allowing both of those to be true, but at least one of them should be true.

[Knaight]

Ugh, spear... the problem with using spear as an example is that the spear was designed poorly completely independent of wether SA was designed poorly.

The spear SHOULD be finesse. Additionally, the spear SHOULD work with PAM. There are mechanical concerns with allowing both of those to be true, but at least one of them should be true.

You're not necessarily wrong here*, so I'll just point out that the long sword also works as an example, as do the various explicitly light weapons that aren't finesse (club, hand axe, sickle). There's enough there that from a simulationist perspective it's a questionable decision. From a niche protection and archetype encouragement perspective, it makes a lot of sense. I'd argue that the designers are competent enough to suggest the latter.

*I'm not a fan of any of the spear's design, other than versatile showing up; the one consolation is that it's at least better than the mess that is the pike.

[War_lord]

The club is bludgeoning damage and the hand axe and sickle are slashing. There seems to have been a concentrated effort to limit the Rogue to piercing weapons as much as possible.

[Desamir]

The club is bludgeoning damage and the hand axe and sickle are slashing. There seems to have been a concentrated effort to limit the Rogue to piercing weapons as much as possible.

Makes sense, thematically.

[Morty]

After all, no rogue or brigand has ever used a blunt instrument to hit people over the head when they're not looking.

[Asmotherion]

Makes sense, thematically.

quite ironic for a cut-throat though :smallcool:

[Cybren]

What you are mostly missing is the fact that a Greatsword is not the most discrete weapon in the world, and definitelly not the most precice one either. The intention is that sneack attack is supponsed to hit on a vulnerable point, which needs dexterity to do so in the heat of battle. It's design/fluff/lore/flavor wise more corect, and enforced by a mechanical rule, to prevent rogues wielding greatswords and axes to sneak attack with.

You appear to be demonstrating a lack of knowledge over how real world medieval combat operated, because for the most part, this is exactly how you used a sword.



"Most medieval treatises show armoured combat as consisting primarily of fighting at the half-sword; the best options against an armoured man being a strong thrust into less-protected areas such as the armpits or throat or, even better, the same against a man who has already been cast to the ground."

It's bizarre to me that there's no Finesse Bludgeoning weapons in the PHB, bet it a sap, or a singletick, or the bamboo 'whip' used by bruce lee in Game of Death

[Theodoxus]

Ah yes, when the necessity of crunch runs roughshod over the desires of fluff...

It's a game - and I know people like to try to be as simulationist with it as they can - probably specifically because so much can't be simulated in reality - that those areas where there are real world examples get extra scrutiny and any nay-saying is met with "you just hate martials!".

Instead of asking banal questions like the OP, perhaps playtest your hypothesis and come back to report that "hey, it ain't that bad", or "omg, doing this and all rogues everywhere become pole arm experts! Don't do it!!!" Or probably something in between.

It's all theorycraft anyway, until you sit down and game... and even then, that's a tiny sample.

I think it's silly that rogue gets prof in longsword with zero mechanical bonuses to using it. I had hoped it would be a halfling/gnome answer to the greatsword - but it doesn't play that way... not that it couldn't... I'd let my players sneak with a longsword - it's really not that bad! :smallwink:

[Arkhios]

It wouldn't hurt if rogues had a sap (a.k.a. club) to knock their targets out, would it?

I was going to suggest that any non-heavy weapon could be fine for sneak attack, but then I realised that quarterstaff is a non-heavy and considered a polearm, which would still cause a broken scenario with PAM (...ALTHOUGH...a standard rogue could just take Sentinel).

Maybe it wouldn't be that bad from power perspective to let sneak attack work with all light and finesse weapons?

[Desamir]

It wouldn't hurt if rogues had a sap (a.k.a. club) to knock their targets out, would it?

I was going to suggest that any non-heavy weapon could be fine for sneak attack, but then I realised that quarterstaff is a non-heavy and considered a polearm, which would still cause a broken scenario with PAM (...ALTHOUGH...a standard rogue could just take Sentinel).

Maybe it wouldn't be that bad from power perspective to let sneak attack work with all light and finesse weapons?

From a power perspective, that would be perfectly fine. The only light, non-finesse weapons are the club (1d6), handaxe (1d6), light hammer (1d4), and sickle (1d4). None of them are above the curve.

[Arkhios]

From a power perspective, that would be perfectly fine. The only light, non-finesse weapons are the club (1d6), handaxe (1d6), light hammer (1d4), and sickle (1d4). None of them are above the curve.

Indeed. Still, I have to admit I find it slightly odd that rogues have proficiency with weapons that are neither light nor finesse (such as longsword). Sure, I understand that longsword isn't particularly suitable for "precise" strikes, but the proficiency vs sneak attack incompatibility strikes me as very arbitrary decision (or an oversight).

[djreynolds]

If only we were playing a fantasy game... Damn!

Yes!!!!!!!!! I love it. Finally some sense and sarcasm

Now for the thread

Who cares, do what you want or will.

Just remember though there is a balance, especially with multiple attacks.

Is there a reason why a barbarian/rogue cannot sneak around a corner with a dagger in one hand and a maul strapped to his back. He stabs one guard with a dagger and gets his sneak attack (leaves the dagger where it is) and then draws the maul and crushes the head of the other guard with GWM

The problem is combining all of these goodies like smite, GWM, PAM, and sneak attack... devalues other classes and players, and then opinions arise that one class is superior to another (which could be true, because not all classes are equal)

Just remember that. I allow dwarven rogues to sneak attack with axes and hammers, and elves to use long swords since they are not connect to GWM

Give me a good reason in game, and I might allow it

[Zalabim]

PAM, on the other hand, would be really good. Bonus action attacks are great for giving you an extra chance to land Sneak Attack, and reaction attacks are fantastic since Sneak Attack is limited to once per turn, not once per round.

So you would expect to see polearm rogues become the default build.


I think letting Rogue's use non-finesse might be a balance issue. One of the worse combos would be with PAM. They get a sneak when an opponent closes on the enemy's turn, then on their own turn they get another and can move away freely. This can double their damage output.

In PAM's case, that only works if an enemy enters your reach in a way such that they're eligible for sneak attacks. That's not impossible, but it doesn't seem like it would be terribly common either.

[Theodoxus]

In PAM's case, that only works if an enemy enters your reach in a way such that they're eligible for sneak attacks. That's not impossible, but it doesn't seem like it would be terribly common either.

Swashbucklers would excel at it... standing in the front, waiting for the first guy to move into their reach... (it actually plays right into their Dex+Chr initiative bonus, and if you grab a single level of revised ranger, well... advantage on a 6+ initiative mod? grabbing Alert boosts that anywhere from 11-15... pretty guaranteed that PAM swashy will always be alone in the middle of the road...

Thinking on this more, I think I'd allow any weapon to be used for sneak, provided the rogue was either striking from hiding or was flanking (as per the DMG, though without the god-awful Advantage part). Basically, you can "backstab" some fool with anything, but otherwise need a "rogue" weapon for any other situation.

[Logosloki]

Any non-heavy sounds good for sneak attack. Maybe heavy if you were large sized but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Monavic]

From a power perspective, that would be perfectly fine. The only light, non-finesse weapons are the club (1d6), handaxe (1d6), light hammer (1d4), and sickle (1d4). None of them are above the curve.
I also think adding light weapons is fine, surprised that it isn't that way in the first place.

[DanyBallon]

In our home game, we just added a light finesse bludgeoning weapon that deals 1d4 damage. We call it either a sap or a baton, depending on the fluff the character want. We didn't want to add d6 bludgeoning weapon to the finesse weapon partly for fluff and partly for perceived balance issue.

[solidork]

In my game, we're experimenting with a magic item that you can attach to any weapon and gives that weapon finesse while taking away the heavy property if it has it.

[Deleted]

Yes!!!!!!!!! I love it. Finally some sense and sarcasm


I have one more "sense" actually, I forgot to put this before..

Do you know the difference between getting stabbed with a tiny knife in the kidney (sneak attack) and getting a huge slash across the chest?

Nothing.

Sneak Attack is just any other attack.

Plus the fact that HP damage, including sneak attack, isn't just "meat". It could be luck or just make the enemy afraid and cause them to come closer to death.

You can sneak attack someone to death and never touch them.

Because wotc is very very very vague about HP. Which is fine... But then don't tell me I can't sneak attack with a club or a longsword... You are sending mixed messages.


====


In my game, we're experimenting with a magic item that you can attach to any weapon and gives that weapon finesse while taking away the heavy property if it has it.

Why in thr 9 hells is that even a magic item? Not only are you perpetuating that martials can't have nice things but you are adding an item into the game when a simple rule change fixes the issue...

"Sneak attack = non-heavy weapon" or "sneak attack doesnt work with PAM".

[DanyBallon]

Why in thr 9 hells is that even a magic item? Not only are you perpetuating that martials can't have nice things but you are adding an item into the game when a simple rule change fixes the issue...


Martials using a magic item is not saying that martial can't have nice things. That's some kind of absurd inferiority complex that may have it's place in tthe 3.P era, but is not in 5e.

It's true that spellcasters can theoritically be more versatile than non spellcasters but martials are doing pretty good and are more versatile than ever. We are not talking about 3.P Tier 1 spellcaster vs tier 4 martials, 5e classes all belongs between tier 2&3 of the old classification.
Please get over that mentality, you'll enjoy the game much more

That aside, some table may decide not to use any houserule, but a DM may create custom magic items for their players, in which case, a magic item that allow every weapon to become finessable is a great addition to martials.

[Deleted]

Martials using a magic item is not saying that martial can't have nice things. That's some kind of absurd inferiority complex that may have it's place in tthe 3.P era, but is not in 5e.

It's true that spellcasters can theoritically be more versatile than non spellcasters but martials are doing pretty good and are more versatile than ever. We are not talking about 3.P Tier 1 spellcaster vs tier 4 martials, 5e classes all belongs between tier 2&3 of the old classification.
Please get over that mentality, you'll enjoy the game much more

That aside, some table may decide not to use any houserule, but a DM may create custom magic items for their players, in which case, a magic item that allow every weapon to become finessable is a great addition to martials.

Yes it is.

The only way that martial can do something is with a crutch. Instead of "she's just that damn good" you have to default to "because magic crutch".

This is just another way to push the ideology that Martials can't have nice things.

Defaulting to spell casting and magic is just another way of saying that martials should be mundane.

[Cybren]

"martials" should be mundane, because every D&D class is martial. They all fight. They're all great at fighting. "martial" is a silly nonsense term.

ANYWAY having a magic item that makes them better isn't saying they suck. It's saying everyone likes cool magic stuff. "Martials" can already do lots of cool things in the game, and arguing that they're so helpless and impotent in the face of magic is absurd

[Deleted]

"martials" should be mundane, because every D&D class is martial. They all fight. They're all great at fighting. "martial" is a silly nonsense term.

ANYWAY having a magic item that makes them better isn't saying they suck. It's saying everyone likes cool magic stuff. "Martials" can already do lots of cool things in the game, and arguing that they're so helpless and impotent in the face of magic is absurd

Screw being boring.

I want extraordinary martials, classes worth playing.

You might as well just remove all non-magical options. What's the point of playing a commoner who can hit things with a stick?

Hey, why don't we just make magic-users follow real world physics and make them all rogues? I mean, if we are going to make the game boring as all hell for some classes, might as well share the love.

Actually, let's just make it where to do anything you have to be able to do it in real life.

There you go. New rule 0 right there.

I have never seen such an aversion to martials as I've found on this forum. It is absolutely baffling. I thought my friend was joking!

[Cybren]

In what sense is my post advocating for restricting what a "martial" character is capable of doing? How is not being able to sneak attack with a greatsword crippling the poor little rogue and making a magic item that circumvents that proof of "martials are bad and should feel bad"?


My saying "martials should be mundane" was, if you had actually read the post, a pedantic observation that "martial" means "of or appropriate to war; warlike.", a definition that fits every class in this and most editions of Dungeons and Dragons, because a large fraction of game time deals with combat. The term "martial" is nonsensical- everyone is fighting, the entire reason the term exists at all is out of necessity for a term to use to discuss people who aren't magic. Know what's a great term for "not magic"? Mundane, or "of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one." (rather than using it to mean "lacking interest or excitement; dull.", another but not the only definition of the term).

Also, in what universe are non-magical characters disadvantaged in 5E?

[solidork]

I am multiclassing into Rogue for non-combat reasons, and was prepared to just not benefit from Sneak Attack at all, but we had the opportunity to create a magic item for our characters and I decided on this(it also makes attacks magical, for bypassing resistance to non-magical damage).

Could I have convinced my GM to let me Sneak Attack with a heavy weapon without it? Maybe. This feels more honest, and taking away the heavy property was both a check for potential power with GWM as well as giving it another in universe reason to exist: small characters who want to use big weapons.

[Knaight]

Also, in what universe are non-magical characters disadvantaged in 5E?

This one. The balance has been drastically improved relative to 3.x, but spells are still incredibly capable compared to just about anything else.

[Cybren]

This one. The balance has been drastically improved relative to 3.x, but spells are still incredibly capable compared to just about anything else.

you are, to be crass, full of bologna.

[DanyBallon]

Screw being boring.

I want extraordinary martials, classes worth playing.

You might as well just remove all non-magical options. What's the point of playing a commoner who can hit things with a stick?

Hey, why don't we just make magic-users follow real world physics and make them all rogues? I mean, if we are going to make the game boring as all hell for some classes, might as well share the love.

Actually, let's just make it where to do anything you have to be able to do it in real life.

There you go. New rule 0 right there.

I have never seen such an aversion to martials as I've found on this forum. It is absolutely baffling. I thought my friend was joking!

What are you expecting from mundane (as Cybren said, Martials isn't the best term to use as all the classes are somehow martially oriented in the context of D&D)? Are you expecting them to be able to fly, or to wield a two-handed sword with one hand, achieve ridiculous feat without any assistance?

Mundane class all originate, to some extent, form historical tropes and archetype. Hence why they are more often compared to real life physics. Magic on the other hand doesn't exist in our world and is limited by our imagination. This is what can lead to disparencies in power between mundane and spell user. But there are (were) check and balance applied to spell users, but from to edition those limitations were ignored or removed. i.e. lower HD, limited spell slots, need material component, slower progression, no casting in armor, must not be disturb when resting, in more gritty system, magic is feared and showing any sign of magical abilities is spelling the caster doom, etc.

So if you fell like caster should be less powerful and versatile, you'd be better applying the existing limitations and bringing back some old ones, instead of allowing ridiculous stuff for mundane, as mundane will always be compared to real life, as it is what we know.

[War_lord]

Deleted's way of thinking sound likes a great way to end up back at 4th edition where classes with no apparent magical expertise are suddenly doing totally absurd anime moves once they hit a certain level. I'd like my 5e without Bloody Path thanks.

[Vogonjeltz]

It wouldn't hurt if rogues had a sap (a.k.a. club) to knock their targets out, would it?

First answer: It'd probably cause brain damage (concussion) at the least, if it didn't also fracture their skull and kill them outright.

Second answer: This is all a thought game, so it shouldn't hurt at all, if it does something is seriously wrong.


Indeed. Still, I have to admit I find it slightly odd that rogues have proficiency with weapons that are neither light nor finesse (such as longsword). Sure, I understand that longsword isn't particularly suitable for "precise" strikes, but the proficiency vs sneak attack incompatibility strikes me as very arbitrary decision (or an oversight).

I keep seeing people using that word, arbitrary, and it doesn't mean what they seem to think it means.

"arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Sneak Attack is using subtlety to exploit an enemy's distraction. Non-finesse weapons aren't subtle (light merely indicates it's easy to hold one in each hand). A Greatsword is a big obvious weapon, as are Longswords, Clubs, etcetera.

Daggers are small and easy to conceal. There's a fluff reason built-in to the concept of Sneak Attack, and limiting it to only weapons with the finesse or ranged properties fulfills that concept well and in a systematic way.

None of that is random, none of it is personal choice, it's systematic and for conceptual reasons. i.e. decidedly non-arbitrary.

Can we all agree to stop using that word in the wrong context?

[Deleted]

Deleted's way of thinking sound likes a great way to end up back at 4th edition where classes with no apparent magical expertise are suddenly doing totally absurd anime moves once they hit a certain level. I'd like my 5e without Bloody Path thanks.

So... Having fantasy characters in a fantasy game?

Much like in 3e where a nomagical dude could throw a rock and kill the moon?

Yeah, your wanna be edition war-ing is cute and all but the king of Extraordinary stuff is in 3.5.

But hey, who the hell wants to play a fantasy game on this sub forum? That's just ridiculous.

How about the next time you play 5e, the only thing your wizard, fighter, or cleric can do is things you can prove you can do in real life? See how far that gets you :).

[Arkhios]

First answer: It'd probably cause brain damage (concussion) at the least, if it didn't also fracture their skull and kill them outright.

Second answer: This is all a thought game, so it shouldn't hurt at all, if it does something is seriously wrong.



I keep seeing people using that word, arbitrary, and it doesn't mean what they seem to think it means.

"arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Sneak Attack is using subtlety to exploit an enemy's distraction. Non-finesse weapons aren't subtle (light merely indicates it's easy to hold one in each hand). A Greatsword is a big obvious weapon, as are Longswords, Clubs, etcetera.

Daggers are small and easy to conceal. There's a fluff reason built-in to the concept of Sneak Attack, and limiting it to only weapons with the finesse or ranged properties fulfills that concept well and in a systematic way.

None of that is random, none of it is personal choice, it's systematic and for conceptual reasons. i.e. decidedly non-arbitrary.

Can we all agree to stop using that word in the wrong context?

I know quite well what arbitrary means, thank you very much for assuming the opposite because I'm from finland. Having longsword proficiency as a rogue seems VERY random (in my opinion) because it really isn't a roguish weapon.

[DanyBallon]

So... Having fantasy characters in a fantasy game?

Much like in 3e where a nomagical dude could throw a rock and kill the moon?

Yeah, your wanna be edition war-ing is cute and all but the king of Extraordinary stuff is in 3.5.

But hey, who the hell wants to play a fantasy game on this sub forum? That's just ridiculous.

How about the next time you play 5e, the only thing your wizard, fighter, or cleric can do is things you can prove you can do in real life? See how far that gets you :).

You need to remember that D&D at is foundation was inspirered by historical wargames upon which a touch of fantasy, largely inspired by LotR, was added. Of all time, mundanes in D&D were designed from historical (sometime idiolized) stereotypes. When they had access, it was often through minor perks or magic items. On the other hand, spell users never had real life counterparts and were less subjected to comparison with real life situation. Like I posted earlier, there was other means to keep them in check.

So it's just normal for people to keep comparing mundanes abilities to what should possible to do in real life. And it's not having a thing against them to find normal that they get extraordinary abilities through magic (races, potions, magical item, etc.). Also it should be noted that 5e did well to bring mundanes almost on par with magic users without needing to resort on magic items and/or giving them extraordinary abilities that breaks too much the law of physics.

Finally, what a person think a fantasy character is, vary greatly from one to another. As for myself, I prefer a more realistic setting were magic exist but is not overpresent, where character need to check how much they can carry, etc. vs a setting akin to FF7 where a character lime Cloud wield easily a sword as broad a himself. This is just a matter of preference.

For many people, and it appears to be the case of the D&D designers as well, a sneak attack should be made with a furtive and precise weapon. You may disagree and you have the right to, but if you have too much disagreement with the game design, then maybe that edition is just not what you seek.

[Deleted]

You need to remember that D&D at is foundation was inspirered by historical wargames upon which a touch of fantasy, largely inspired by LotR, was added. Of all time, mundanes in D&D were designed from historical (sometime idiolized) stereotypes. When they had access, it was often through minor perks or magic items. On the other hand, spell users never had real life counterparts and were less subjected to comparison with real life situation. Like I posted earlier, there was other means to keep them in check.

So it's just normal for people to keep comparing mundanes abilities to what should possible to do in real life. And it's not having a thing against them to find normal that they get extraordinary abilities through magic (races, potions, magical item, etc.). Also it should be noted that 5e did well to bring mundanes almost on par with magic users without needing to resort on magic items and/or giving them extraordinary abilities that breaks too much the law of physics.

Finally, what a person think a fantasy character is, vary greatly from one to another. As for myself, I prefer a more realistic setting were magic exist but is not overpresent, where character need to check how much they can carry, etc. vs a setting akin to FF7 where a character lime Cloud wield easily a sword as broad a himself. This is just a matter of preference.

For many people, and it appears to be the case of the D&D designers as well, a sneak attack should be made with a furtive and precise weapon. You may disagree and you have the right to, but if you have too much disagreement with the game design, then maybe that edition is just not what you seek.

Yeah, lets stick with realism then.

All magic users are rogues with sleight of hand and cantrips at most.

The game is about fun, if something is fun and doesnt break balance then I see no problem with it.

But trying to edition war when everyone's sacred cow breaks the mundane to a higher extreme is hilarious.

D&D may have a base in a specific type of fantasy but it has always broken away from that time and time again.

Again, 3.5's Hulking Hurler being able yo kill the moon with a rock.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah, lets stick with realism then.

All magic users are rogues with sleight of hand and cantrips at most.

The game is about fun, if something is fun and doesnt break balance then I see no problem with it.

But trying to edition war when everyone's sacred cow breaks the mundane to a higher extreme is hilarious.

D&D may have a base in a specific type of fantasy but it has always broken away from that time and time again.

Again, 3.5's Hulking Hurler being able yo kill the moon with a rock.

I agree with you, the game is about fun, and in my preference, a fantasy setting where mundane abides by the law of physics is fun. And physics breaking magic users coexisting with mundanes is equally fun. It happen that many people and 5e D&D designers seems to feel the same to some extent. And before you call me a mundane hater, I'm currently playing and played mostly mundane characters since 2e, so I'm well aware of the disparities between mundanes and magic users, and yet I still have fun playing mundanes in such an environment.

P.S. rest assure, absurdity like Hulking Hurler didn't fly at our table since it wasn't our preferred play style. Yet it was designed for those who favor a more fantastic game play where characters are able to achieve deeds beyond what you can expect from normal beings. And it's just fine as there's a crowd asking for it.

What your seeing as edition warring is in fact me telling you that 5e design might not fit your expectation and preferred play style, and if it's the case, there's other editions or RPGs out there that may be better suited for you, nothing more.

[Morty]

I know quite well what arbitrary means, thank you very much for assuming the opposite because I'm from finland. Having longsword proficiency as a rogue seems VERY random (in my opinion) because it really isn't a roguish weapon.

Rogues have longsword proficiency because they've always had. It's not so much random as a legacy thing no one has spared any real thought.

[MeeposFire]

Rogues have longsword proficiency because they've always had. It's not so much random as a legacy thing no one has spared any real thought.

The odd part about this is that the entire time they had long sword prof they also had scimitar prof so I have wondered why long swords were brought back (long swords were removed as rogue weapons in 3e and that continued in 4e as well as a default) but scimitars have not and those are actually finesse weapons in 5e.

[Arkhios]

Rogues have longsword proficiency because they've always had. It's not so much random as a legacy thing no one has spared any real thought.
That's something I admittedly didn't consider at all. Sacred Cow then, though that's just a lazy excuse.


The odd part about this is that the entire time they had long sword prof they also had scimitar prof so I have wondered why long swords were brought back (long swords were removed as rogue weapons in 3e and that continued in 4e as well as a default) but scimitars have not and those are actually finesse weapons in 5e.
That's really weird, indeed. I've wondered this as well from time to time. Maybe it was meant to be the other way around, but somewhere they had a brainfart?

[MeeposFire]

That's something I admittedly didn't consider at all. Sacred Cow then, though that's just a lazy excuse.


That's really weird, indeed. I've wondered this as well from time to time. Maybe it was meant to be the other way around, but somewhere they had a brainfart?

I think the long sword was more iconic for older rogue players. Until the existence of a certain Drow Ranger scimitars were fairly niche. Long Swords were the most common primary melee weapon for rogue players from old D&D (such as seen in the Rules Cyclodedia) through AD&D. It was not until 3e with the introduction of weapon finesse and the lack of it working with long swords that this trend changed.

I am actually a fan of making long swords as a finesse weapon either straight up or if you prefer more variation only when used two handed.

[Desamir]

First answer: It'd probably cause brain damage (concussion) at the least, if it didn't also fracture their skull and kill them outright.

The realism of knockouts isn't really relevant, considering the game allows you to knock people out with any melee attack.

[War_lord]

Totally possible to knock someone out with a Rapier, even though its only attack is by stabbing.

[Knaight]

Sneak Attack is using subtlety to exploit an enemy's distraction. Non-finesse weapons aren't subtle (light merely indicates it's easy to hold one in each hand). A Greatsword is a big obvious weapon, as are Longswords, Clubs, etcetera.

Daggers are small and easy to conceal. There's a fluff reason built-in to the concept of Sneak Attack, and limiting it to only weapons with the finesse or ranged properties fulfills that concept well and in a systematic way.

The various non subtle weapons you listed can still be used in a subtle way, and I'd argue that more than a few of them are a lot better at exploiting a moment of distraction than daggers are (spears in particular are wonderful for this). On top of that, Sneak Attack explicitly works in the middle of combat as long as you have an ally there, which means that it clearly isn't just for concealed weapons. That fluff reason doesn't hold. Archetype support continues to hold fine.

[Cybren]

Totally possible to knock someone out with a Rapier, even though its only attack is by stabbing.

In fact, early rapiers were edged and a bit heavier than most people expect. The progreission from arming sword to small sword is a series of gradual steps as military use declined and civilian ascended

[Vogonjeltz]

I know quite well what arbitrary means, thank you very much for assuming the opposite because I'm from finland. Having longsword proficiency as a rogue seems VERY random (in my opinion) because it really isn't a roguish weapon.

I thought it because you used it wrong; didn't know (or care) about your origin.


The realism of knockouts isn't really relevant, considering the game allows you to knock people out with any melee attack.

Fair enough, however not with magic or ranged attacks, so even though there are exceptions, there are also restrictions.


Totally possible to knock someone out with a Rapier, even though its only attack is by stabbing.

Two things: first, hit points aren't meat, so it doesn't obtain that because damage occurred that the enemy was skewered. Second, imagine they swatted them with the hilt to knock them across the face (albeit this should be bludgeoning)


The various non subtle weapons you listed can still be used in a subtle way, and I'd argue that more than a few of them are a lot better at exploiting a moment of distraction than daggers are (spears in particular are wonderful for this). On top of that, Sneak Attack explicitly works in the middle of combat as long as you have an ally there, which means that it clearly isn't just for concealed weapons. That fluff reason doesn't hold. Archetype support continues to hold fine.

I'd argue the spear thrust is decidedly unsubtle. It's direct, and difficult to dodge, but incredibly obvious.

[Arkhios]

Tell me, how is it I "used it wrong" when with what I first took into consideration, having the longsword proficiency - despite the fact that it doesn't work with rogue's iconic ability - seems to be quite a random choice, a.k.a. arbitrary (as per definition) for designers to include it?

Note, afterwards I admitted I hadn't considered its Sacred Cow value, and in that light it does make some sense. Still, it's at the very least a weird option. Definitely not something I'd use instead of a finesse or ranged weapon.

[djreynolds]

Erevis Cale, from the novels, was rogue/cleric who used a longsword.

I don't like that a rogue has to be tied down to a particular weapon, but the minute I say you can sneak attack with a non-finesse weapon... players are adding in polearms, greatswords, etc

I see no issue with dwarven rogues be able to use warhammer and battle axes to SA with, because everyone in their society is proficient with them

Same as an elf with a long sword

But with the longsword, player says "I'm now dipping paladin for GWS and my DM is going to allow me to reroll all 1s and 2s, from the attack and sneak attack

Is your weapon tied to your concept, or just a way to milk damage.

off topic

Is a short sword or scimitar a really a finesse weapon for a Halfling?

[rollingForInit]

Erevis Cale, from the novels, was rogue/cleric who used a longsword.

I don't like that a rogue has to be tied down to a particular weapon, but the minute I say you can sneak attack with a non-finesse weapon... players are adding in polearms, greatswords, etc

I see no issue with dwarven rogues be able to use warhammer and battle axes to SA with, because everyone in their society is proficient with them

Same as an elf with a long sword

But with the longsword, player says "I'm now dipping paladin for GWS and my DM is going to allow me to reroll all 1s and 2s, from the attack and sneak attack

Is your weapon tied to your concept, or just a way to milk damage.


Yeah. Another idea if someone wants to use a non-rapier as a rogue weapon is to just say that they can take the rapier stats and reflavour it in whatever ways they want. Do they want a polearm? Sure, it can be a glaive that does 1d8 damage and is finesse, but doesn't qualify for PAM/GWM/etc. They get the flavour of using a polearm but not the mechanical extremes that would follow from combining real polearms with sneak attack.

[Cybren]

Yeah. Another idea if someone wants to use a non-rapier as a rogue weapon is to just say that they can take the rapier stats and reflavour it in whatever ways they want. Do they want a polearm? Sure, it can be a glaive that does 1d8 damage and is finesse, but doesn't qualify for PAM/GWM/etc. They get the flavour of using a polearm but not the mechanical extremes that would follow from combining real polearms with sneak attack.

This is not refluffing.

[rollingForInit]

This is not refluffing.

In what way is it not? There's no polearm weapon that can be used as finesse. You give the player one, but it uses the stats of a rapier, with all benefits and limitations. You're changing the look and feel of a rapier without altering any mechanics.

[Knaight]

I'd argue the spear thrust is decidedly unsubtle. It's direct, and difficult to dodge, but incredibly obvious.

No more so than a dagger strike once they already know you're an enemy.

[Woggle]

I'd argue the spear thrust is decidedly unsubtle. It's direct, and difficult to dodge, but incredibly obvious.

I disagree. In fact, a spear should be a superior to a dagger, or even a rapier, as it requires less body movement in order to offend a target. Fewer steps means less time for an enemy to react or see an attack coming. There's a reason fighting against a spear with any weapon that has less reach is very difficult.

Then again, DnD combat isn't at all realistic to begin with, so maybe it's irrelevant.

[Âmesang]

I'm reminded of Siegfried Schtauffen (http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/soulcalibur/images/2/25/Soul-Calibur-Lost-Swords-3.jpg), a two-handed "giant sword" wielder from SoulCalibur… and specifically, a victory quote of his from SoulCalibur III:


"I avoided your vitals. You'll live."

I'm glancing through the sneak attack section for the 3rd Edition rogue and I think I prefer that its sneak attacks could be with any weapon—so long as the target was denied a proper defense (which, for 5th, would translate as advantage or flanked on the rogue's part). With that said I agree with those that utilizing heavy weapons could be a bit of an immersion break… but that's why you've got the referee to look things over and decide what feels balanced or not. Although that does make me wonder… do ranged, non (cross)bow weapons only count for sneak attack if they're thrown? I.e. you must throw the light hammer in order to sneak attack with it?

…which also reminds me: did I miss something or are unarmed strikes not finesse weapons in this game? I've barely looked the monk over but it seems weird to me not to be able to use Dexterity in order to strike with a fingerpoke of doom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhS4ZDnRqJQ).


You could also say that "extra damage" from class features and feats don't stack. Smite, Sneak Attack, +10 (from feat), and other random sources like that just don't work on the same attack. If you have 2 attacks you could sneak attack with one and smite with the other.
My antipaladin/assassin would hate that. :smalltongue: Her sneak attack may not be as high as the full rogues in our current group, but I just like the idea of augmenting such a devastating attack with dark divine power (I was permitted to do necrotic damage instead of radiant with the bonus against celestials; made more sense for a servant of an evil god).


But with the longsword, player says "I'm now dipping paladin for GWS and my DM is going to allow me to reroll all 1s and 2s, from the attack and sneak attack
Or, in my case, the katana from the D&D Next Playtest. Er, I mean, "elven curve blade." Of course I'll be the first to mention that I've been quite fortunate to have the referee allow me to use that weapon (and, really, it was mainly because my figurine was modeled with such a blade—I can't stand not using the same weapon that the figurine uses. "I know it's holding a sword, but it's totally a mace you guys!"). Otherwise I would have used the rapier or scimitar and just re-flavored it as something else.

Granted, there have been times when I've wished I had chosen the Defensive fighting style, instead, considering the character's lack of a shield.

[Sicarius Victis]

Actually, I believe Sage Advice has clarified that GWF only affects the weapon's damage dice, not additional dice from Smite/SA.

[Woggle]

…which also reminds me: did I miss something or are unarmed strikes not finesse weapons in this game?
Monk unarmed strikes (or any unarmed strikes, for that matter) are not finesse weapons, despite being able to use dexterity for attack and damage. The same goes for any other monk weapons that are not by default finesse.

[solidork]

I disagree. In fact, a spear should be a superior to a dagger, or even a rapier, as it requires less body movement in order to offend a target. Fewer steps means less time for an enemy to react or see an attack coming. There's a reason fighting against a spear with any weapon that has less reach is very difficult.

Then again, DnD combat isn't at all realistic to begin with, so maybe it's irrelevant.

Like, I guess these guys probably have the martial arts class feature, but this is partly why I've always been in favor of spears with finesse.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grfg-ErJnF4

The other reason is the Aiel from the Wheel of Time series, who dumpster virtually everyone they fight with a skirmishing short spear + buckler combo.

[Âmesang]

Actually, I believe Sage Advice has clarified that GWF only affects the weapon's damage dice, not additional dice from Smite/SA.
Do you know when/where this might have been said? This was all I could find, from the Sage Advice Compendium version 1.14 (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf), September 2016:


GREAT WEAPON MASTER
With the Great Weapon Master feat, do you have to take the bonus action immediately, or could you move and then use it on the same turn? The intent is that you can move before taking the bonus action in the Great Weapon Master feat.
(As a side note I was looking over the column with regards to using familars as an ally to aid with sneak attack and began pondering my drow antipaladin/assassin using her giant spider mount as such an ally, allowing her to sneak attack whilst stop it. Something I'll have to bring up with the referee during our next game.)

[Desamir]

He is referring to this: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016


If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a feature like Divine Smite or a spell like hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the extra damage? The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite.

Note that by RAW, GWF rerolls affect any damage dice you roll as a result of the attack. The RAI is that only the weapon damage dice is supposed to benefit.

[Deadman97]

I don't think you get sneak attack with non-finesse weapons

[Misterwhisper]

I just wish rogues were proficient in bows... not sure why they are not.

[Zalabim]

They are proficient with bows, as long as they're simple weapons. Or Hand Crossbows. It still leaves something for elves to look forward to.

[Arkhios]

I just wish rogues were proficient in bows... not sure why they are not.

As Zalabim said, rogues are proficient with simple weapons, which means shortbow as well (maybe that's why you've missed it?)

[Âmesang]

Note that by RAW, GWF rerolls affect any damage dice you roll as a result of the attack. The RAI is that only the weapon damage dice is supposed to benefit.
Ah, there it is; in that case I might as well have taken the Defensive fighting style. :smalltongue: Granted I've got a fair amount of dice and use a makeshift "dice cup (http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-Clear-Can-2-in-x-4-in-Storage-Container-00382/100338091)," so I've never had a problem re-rolling quickly.

[Dalebert]

Well, this is stupid because if you are a Barbarian 2/Rogue 18, you can still Sneak Attack with that Shortsword while using your monstruous strenght... if they had limited it to, you can only Sneak Attack when using Dexterity to attack it would make more sense...

Wow, you just described my bugbearian rogue to a T. That's what he does.

[Arkhios]

I don't think you get sneak attack with non-finesse weapons

That's really not the question. The question is more about would it be so bad IF you could sneak attack with a non-finesse weapon.

[Oramac]

Oh man! This conversation has gone WAAAAAY further than I ever anticipated.

For some clarification, I'll explain why I originally asked the question.

In my effort to design a decent Psion Class (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ-Y7r3Tfx), I made the Psionic Martial, which is basically a melee attacker that uses a weapon summoned by his mental abilities. (kinda like Psylocke of the X-Men franchise, if you want a visual)

My intent was to allow them to use any weapon they had previously seen, and the weapon would be both Light and Finesse, regardless of its type (since it was created out of mental energy).

Naturally, this led to me questioning a Rogues Multiclassing a one-level Psion dip to Sneak Attack with any weapon, so I changed it to not be explicitly Light/Finesse, but rather to allow the player to choose Str/Dex for their attacks.

And thus, this thread was born. My, how it has grown!

[Arkhios]

And thus, this thread was born. My, how it has grown!

Children, they grow up so fast. Sooner than you realize, they have their own identity and are completely uncontrollable! :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

Tell me, how is it I "used it wrong"

I think you answered your own question.


No more so than a dagger strike once they already know you're an enemy.

It's a spike on a long pole, yeah, it's significantly easier to notice. Difficult to defend against thrusts, sure, but that's not what a sneak attack is.


Note that by RAW, GWF rerolls affect any damage dice you roll as a result of the attack.

Worth noting that Hex and Divine Smite aren't damage dice from the attack, they're riders from other effects, so RAW they couldn't be re-rolled anyway. The clarification wasn't actually needed.

[Desamir]

Worth noting that Hex and Divine Smite aren't damage dice from the attack, they're riders from other effects, so RAW they couldn't be re-rolled anyway. The clarification wasn't actually needed.

If they weren't damage dice from the attack, then they wouldn't be doubled on a crit. They are doubled on a crit, ergo they are damage dice from the attack.

[Arkhios]

I think you answered your own question.

You just don't get it, do you?

AT THE TIME I said it, I said it BECAUSE I didn't know/remember it has been like that since "forever", and BECAUSE I didn't know/remember it FELT (from my point of view) arbitrary choice from the designers to include the weapon proficiency.
In that light I used it correctly AT THE TIME, because to the best of my knowledge, it felt like random choice a.k.a. arbitrary as per definition.

Afterwards, yes, I understand it is not arbitrary. However, I'm quite sure I used the word properly - within context (which you seem to refuse to acknowledge).

[Nadlor]

For me (and sorry if this has already been mentioned) the main problem with allowing sneak with non-finesse would be polearm master. Sneak attack is once per round (not per turn), so being able to do an opportunity attack implying extra sneak attack damage every turn an opponent engages in melee would be very, very optimal for rogues (even non-melee rogues, because getting the most dangerous opportunity attack on the game that easily would make them much less attractive targets).

I think suddenly all rogues would be polearm users!

[Knaight]

It's a spike on a long pole, yeah, it's significantly easier to notice. Difficult to defend against thrusts, sure, but that's not what a sneak attack is.

Sneak attack explicitly works against enemies who are aware of you when you're fighting them with an ally. They know you're there, they know you're an enemy, and you can sneak attack anyways. It's pretty clear that the definition of a sneak attack isn't an attack from an unknown opponent, and while it does fit with an attack that isn't seen coming that sort of thing can be done with basically any weapon.

[Arkhios]

For me (and sorry if this has already been mentioned) the main problem with allowing sneak with non-finesse would be polearm master. Sneak attack is once per round (not per turn), so being able to do an opportunity attack implying extra sneak attack damage every turn an opponent engages in melee would be very, very optimal for rogues (even non-melee rogues, because getting the most dangerous opportunity attack on the game that easily would make them much less attractive targets).

I think suddenly all rogues would be polearm users!

It has come up a few times, yes, and I agree that Polearm Master would make non-finesse weapon allowance particularly broken. However, as I said previously, I could see allowing all light melee weapons, not just finesse weapons, to work with sneak attack. And if the group didn't mind a bit more specific rules (in the 3.PF way of thinking), I might let someone sneak attack with all weapons that are held in one hand (and in my table I would rule that to get all the benefits of Polearm Master, you would have to wield the weapons in two hands - Good riddance to "shield and one-handed quarterstaff butt-end attack" shenanigans!)

[djreynolds]

Oh man! This conversation has gone WAAAAAY further than I ever anticipated.

For some clarification, I'll explain why I originally asked the question.

In my effort to design a decent Psion Class (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ-Y7r3Tfx), I made the Psionic Martial, which is basically a melee attacker that uses a weapon summoned by his mental abilities. (kinda like Psylocke of the X-Men franchise, if you want a visual)

My intent was to allow them to use any weapon they had previously seen, and the weapon would be both Light and Finesse, regardless of its type (since it was created out of mental energy).

Naturally, this led to me questioning a Rogues Multiclassing a one-level Psion dip to Sneak Attack with any weapon, so I changed it to not be explicitly Light/Finesse, but rather to allow the player to choose Str/Dex for their attacks.

And thus, this thread was born. My, how it has grown!

If it is thematic and cool... yes.

If you are cheesing out damage... no. Big no.

I'm sorry, I don't wish to offend anyone.

I can see a dwarf rogue using a war hammer. Or maybe an orc is using a spear, etc... There is a history or legacy there

And I think, as evidenced by, the Hexblade (any non-twohander) and cursebringer (greatsword only), the designers are with me.

You have to strike a balance, otherwise everyone at your table will play this Psion.

In the AL, all I see are paladins of vengeance with halberds walking around. Every single one of them had their village burned down and parents killed, and they all had some warlock also for EB because some unknown diety, or watery wench threw a sword out of a pond

Now if you told me, I really want to sneak attack with a great club or pike... go for it. My guy casts minor illusion to look like a tree, and clubs unsuspecting people over the head.

[Desamir]

For me (and sorry if this has already been mentioned) the main problem with allowing sneak with non-finesse would be polearm master. Sneak attack is once per round (not per turn), so being able to do an opportunity attack implying extra sneak attack damage every turn an opponent engages in melee would be very, very optimal for rogues (even non-melee rogues, because getting the most dangerous opportunity attack on the game that easily would make them much less attractive targets).

I think suddenly all rogues would be polearm users!

I made this point earlier, and someone else pointed out that it's rather difficult to guarantee the conditions for sneak attack on an uncontrollable reaction.

[Oramac]

If it is thematic and cool... yes.

If you are cheesing out damage... no. Big no.

I'm sorry, I don't wish to offend anyone.

No offense taken. This discussion is (among other reasons) why I removed the finesse property from the psionic weapon in my 'brew.

[Arkhios]

One thing just occured to me about allowing club for sneak attack due to being light melee weapon: Shillelagh works on both quarterstaves and clubs.

While it wouldn't really be overpowered (being only 1d8 with shillelagh, which is on par with rapier) it would make quite interesting rogue with Magic Initiate (Druid)!

[MeeposFire]

Well to be honest a rogue who uses two weapon fighting and the sentinel feat gets most of the important benefits from what PAM gives a rogue if it was allowed (bonus action attack and a reaction attack that comes up more often) Since rogues do not naturally have shield use and great weapon fighting is not good for them it really just makes it an alternative to TWF+sentinel. I would give PAM a slight edge in damage potential but perhaps less utility. The major damage boost is from ability mod to damage.

[Kane0]

In case it hasn't been mentioned anywhere already, this (http://www.middlefingerofvecna.com/2016/08/enforcer.html) does it and seems to be doing fine.

[Vogonjeltz]

If they weren't damage dice from the attack, then they wouldn't be doubled on a crit. They are doubled on a crit, ergo they are damage dice from the attack.

Actually, no, that's not the case.

First the GWFS wording: "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon..."

Second the wording from Critical Hit, which makes it clear that other damage dice aren't strictly speaking part and parcel of the attack (key word bolded and italicized): "If the attack involves [i]other[i] damage dice, such as from a rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

So, by that wording we know that the other damage dice aren't attack damage dice, even though they're involved. Yes, they can crit, but they, by RAW, cannot benefit from GWFS.

It's an easy enough mistake to make, conflating the two.


You just don't get it, do you?

AT THE TIME I said it, I said it BECAUSE I didn't know/remember it has been like that since "forever", and BECAUSE I didn't know/remember it FELT (from my point of view) arbitrary choice from the designers to include the weapon proficiency.
In that light I used it correctly AT THE TIME, because to the best of my knowledge, it felt like random choice a.k.a. arbitrary as per definition.

Afterwards, yes, I understand it is not arbitrary. However, I'm quite sure I used the word properly - within context (which you seem to refuse to acknowledge).

I see.


Sneak attack explicitly works against enemies who are aware of you when you're fighting them with an ally. They know you're there, they know you're an enemy, and you can sneak attack anyways. It's pretty clear that the definition of a sneak attack isn't an attack from an unknown opponent, and while it does fit with an attack that isn't seen coming that sort of thing can be done with basically any weapon.

The ally provides a distraction; only a subtle weapon can take sufficient advantage of that distraction to not be seen coming. Big weapons (Spears, Longswords, Warhammers, etcetera) are not sufficiently subtle to go unnoticed.

The emphasis is on being sneaky about it.

The lack of finesse bludgeoning weapons would tend to make it overpowered. Actually the only bludgeoning weapon option is the sling, and that's ranged, so that's pretty much only in cases where an ally is within 5 feet and no disadvantage applies (enemy isn't prone), or if the enemy has a condition like paralyzed.

[Cybren]

The ally provides a distraction; only a subtle weapon can take sufficient advantage of that distraction to not be seen coming. Big weapons (Spears, Longswords, Warhammers, etcetera) are not sufficiently subtle to go unnoticed.

The emphasis is on being sneaky about it.

The lack of finesse bludgeoning weapons would tend to make it overpowered. Actually the only bludgeoning weapon option is the sling, and that's ranged, so that's pretty much only in cases where an ally is within 5 feet and no disadvantage applies (enemy isn't prone), or if the enemy has a condition like paralyzed.

You keep seeming to argue that sneak attack only working with finesse weapons as some property of the weapons when both the game designers have outright stated that not to be the case and the rules strongly imply it. Unless you can explain to me how you can deliver a precise, subtle strike with a scimitar. Sneak attack requiring ranged/finesse is a genre constraint and not anything else, or we'd return to the days of not being able to sneak attack undead


Second the wording from Critical Hit, which makes it clear that other damage dice aren't strictly speaking part and parcel of the attack (key word bolded and italicized): "If the attack involves [i]other[i] damage dice, such as from a rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

So, by that wording we know that the other damage dice aren't attack damage dice, even though they're involved. Yes, they can crit, but they, by RAW, cannot benefit from GWFS.


Also, to respond out of order to your post: this doesn't follow. The attack involves other damage die. THE ATTACK involves other damage die. The "other" is that they are damage dice in addition to the weapons damage dice. And they are involved with the attack. Your reading is nonsensical.

[Desamir]

Actually, no, that's not the case.

First the GWFS wording: "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon..."

Second the wording from Critical Hit, which makes it clear that other damage dice aren't strictly speaking part and parcel of the attack (key word bolded and italicized): "If the attack involves [i]other[i] damage dice, such as from a rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well."

So, by that wording we know that the other damage dice aren't attack damage dice, even though they're involved. Yes, they can crit, but they, by RAW, cannot benefit from GWFS.

It's an easy enough mistake to make, conflating the two.

You might want to read that more closely. The relevant quotes:

Roll all of the attack's damage twice and add them together.


For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue's Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.

Involve (v) (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+involve): to include (something) as a necessary part.

In this case, "other" is referring to the previous sentence and means "non-weapon." They are still very much involved in (part of) the attack, otherwise they would not fall under "all of the attack's damage" and would not get rolled twice. If they weren't part of the attack, the sentence would be worded totally differently.

Therefore, they benefit from GWF style by RAW. Jeremy Crawford knows this, which is why every single clarification of this interaction he makes uses the words "intent (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/22/does-great-wepon-fighting-let-you-reroll-all-of-the-attacks-damage-dice/)" or "meant (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016)." This is the wording he uses when the RAW doesn't support the RAI, like so (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/great-weapon-fighting-rerolling-smite-hex-and-hunters-mark/).

[Vogonjeltz]

You might want to read that more closely. The relevant quotes:




Involve (v) (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+involve): to include (something) as a necessary part.

In this case, "other" is referring to the previous sentence and means "non-weapon." They are still very much involved in (part of) the attack, otherwise they would not fall under "all of the attack's damage" and would not get rolled twice. If they weren't part of the attack, the sentence would be worded totally differently.

Therefore, they benefit from GWF style by RAW. Jeremy Crawford knows this, which is why every single clarification of this interaction he makes uses the words "intent (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/22/does-great-wepon-fighting-let-you-reroll-all-of-the-attacks-damage-dice/)" or "meant (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016)." This is the wording he uses when the RAW doesn't support the RAI, like so (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/great-weapon-fighting-rerolling-smite-hex-and-hunters-mark/).

The entry says roll the dice for the attack twice, and then in a separate statement, indicates other dice get re-rolled as well. The clear implication (verified as intent by SA) is that those dice are not part of the attack. We also know they are not because they are activated separately.

[Cybren]

It's clearly mentioned separately for clarification, and not to indicate Separateness... Edit: It's even part of a paragraph that begins "for example" indicating it's just trying to make the previous paragraph clear and not presenting a new rule

[Zalabim]

Worth noting that Hex and Divine Smite aren't damage dice from the attack, they're riders from other effects, so RAW they couldn't be re-rolled anyway. The clarification wasn't actually needed.
The clarification was needed because it was not clear. It is not clear. It is suggested. Implied. But obviously opinion can go either way.

I made this point earlier, and someone else pointed out that it's rather difficult to guarantee the conditions for sneak attack on an uncontrollable reaction.
A swashbuckler with polearm master and a quarterstaff can get it the most reliably. There's some spacial setups you can use to make it likely by standing directly behind someone else relative to a monster using a reach weapon too. Of course, sentinel is going to meet the requirements almost every time it comes up.

It's clearly mentioned separately for clarification, and not to indicate Separateness... Edit: It's even part of a paragraph that begins "for example" indicating it's just trying to make the previous paragraph clear and not presenting a new rule
It can hardly be called clear whether it's supposed to be a clarification or a rule. Knowing the rule in the most similarly worded edition denied doubling the dice from added damage, I would not have expected or known to double sneak attack's and smite's dice without that statement.

[Cybren]

That the paragraph begins with "for example" is about as 100% clear that it is a clarification as it can get

[Desamir]

The entry says roll the dice for the attack twice, and then in a separate statement, indicates other dice get re-rolled as well. The clear implication (verified as intent by SA) is that those dice are not part of the attack. We also know they are not because they are activated separately.

The entry says roll the dice for the attack twice, and then in a separate example (the paragraph literally starts with the words "for example"), provides an example of extra dice being part of the attack. The clear implication is that the dice are part of the attack, which is why it says "the attack involves" them. If it wasn't part of the attack, it would be a separate instance of damage and trigger two concentration checks.

Even JC is aware that the RAW doesn't match the RAI in this case, and he's usually pretty generous in interpreting his own book.


It can hardly be called clear whether it's supposed to be a clarification or a rule. Knowing the rule in the most similarly worded edition denied doubling the dice from added damage, I would not have expected or known to double sneak attack's and smite's dice without that statement.

That's what examples are for, they clarify the intent of a rule. The rule itself is "roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together."

[Vogonjeltz]

It's clearly mentioned separately for clarification, and not to indicate Separateness... Edit: It's even part of a paragraph that begins "for example" indicating it's just trying to make the previous paragraph clear and not presenting a new rule

The second sentence says those "other" dice are rolled "as well". It has to be clarified because those dice aren't part of the attack itself, they're in addition to it.


The clarification was needed because it was not clear. It is not clear. It is suggested. Implied. But obviously opinion can go either way.

You'll have to demonstrate that. The text doesn't leave room for either way, it divides up attack dice and other damage dice as being categorically distinct.


The entry says roll the dice for the attack twice, and then in a separate example (the paragraph literally starts with the words "for example"), provides an example of extra dice being part of the attack. The clear implication is that the dice are part of the attack, which is why it says "the attack involves" them. If it wasn't part of the attack, it would be a separate instance of damage and trigger two concentration checks.

Even JC is aware that the RAW doesn't match the RAI in this case, and he's usually pretty generous in interpreting his own book.

It gives an example, and then it follows that up by letting you know that other kinds of dice than the weapon attack get rolled again as well.

It's weird that anyone would be arguing against this point given that SA already makes it clear that's what that line means.

You say it could be clearer, but given that I wasn't misled in the first place, I'm having difficulty seeing how your claim is a sensible one.

Are you making the claim that it would have been anything but counterintuitive for an ability called "Great Weapon Fighting" that requires the use of a weapon with a specific set of properties being wielded in one specific way would apply to a spell-based ability? That doesn't scan even a little bit, it fails the sniff test right off the bat.

[Cybren]

The second sentence says those "other" dice are rolled "as well". It has to be clarified because those dice aren't part of the attack itself, they're in addition to it.


No, it has to be clarified because they aren't part of the given example so people might think they don't get doubled. It IS a clarification, it is NOT a modification.

[Mellack]

I made this point earlier, and someone else pointed out that it's rather difficult to guarantee the conditions for sneak attack on an uncontrollable reaction.

I do not think it would be that difficult to get sneak attack qualified. Both the swashbuckler and the inquisitive rogue could likely get it.

[Desamir]

The second sentence says those "other" dice are rolled "as well". It has to be clarified because those dice aren't part of the attack itself, they're in addition to it.

If they were in addition to the attack, they would trigger a second concentration check. They do not, ergo they are part of the attack.


You'll have to demonstrate that. The text doesn't leave room for either way, it divides up attack dice and other damage dice as being categorically distinct.

The text clearly states that extra damage dice are part of the attack.


It gives an example, and then it follows that up by letting you know that other kinds of dice than the weapon attack get rolled again as well.

The second sentence is part of the example.


It's weird that anyone would be arguing against this point given that SA already makes it clear that's what that line means.

It's particularly strange that you are arguing for that point, when the developers who write SA themselves know that the RAW does not reflect the RAI.