Sneaky club

[kingheff1]

Would you allow rogues to sneak attack with clubs?
I've always thought it's a bit strange that rogues can't use a club as a blackjack for non a lethal sneak attack.
I personally rule that rogues can use either a club or quarterstaff for sneak attack, though I don't think any have used a quarterstaff very much!

[Coffee_Dragon]

I wouldn't since I try to avoid fluff-crunch feedback loops like "A mechanically works with B" -> "so A apparently represents quality C" -> "D should also be able to do C" -> "so A should also work with D" -> etc. If D isn't allowed to begin with that also means something about A, and you shouldn't try to turn the rules into a physics engine. That said, if you do allow it, nobody will explode probably.

Also note that in 5E all weapons are nonlethal when desired. Your dagger hilt becomes a backstabbing club! Magic!

[SharkForce]

strictly speaking i haven't been able to figure out any actual problems that would occur with allowing just about any weapon to sneak attack from a pure rogue perspective. they'll still all probably be a worse choice than a hand crossbow with feats, and without feats they'd be less good than dual-wielding one-handed weapons.

the only thing that might concern me is multiclass builds using great weapon mastery and polearm mastery (even then, it's competing with crossbow expert and sharpshooter, which isn't terribly far behind in damage).

so i might restrict heavy weapons from a balance perspective, but i don't think it's really necessary to restrict anything else.

[polymphus]

You could also just give your rogue a homebrew blackjack: "it's a club, but it's a finesse weapon that weighs slightly less."

Boom.

[SharkForce]

You could also just give your rogue a homebrew blackjack: "it's a club, but it's a finesse weapon that weighs slightly less."

Boom.

er, yeah, all those things supposedly good for knocking people out?

what they are is slightly less likely to kill a person. it would be like wrapping a regular club in leather, and then hitting someone over the head with it (mostly because that's exactly what some of those weapons are). sure, it's less bad than hitting someone with an unpadded club, but it really isn't that much less bad, and you're still pretty much using it the exact same way.

just let rogues sneak attack with clubs. there really isn't a compelling reason not to.

[imanidiot]

so i might restrict heavy weapons from a balance perspective, but i don't think it's really necessary to restrict anything else.

This is the best course of action. I wouldn't allow heavy weapons and probably not large weapons either. Other than that go nuts, it's not unbalancing anything.

Realism is not, at any level, the goal of the system. There are fundamental parts of the system that are wildly unrealistic and have nothing to do with the fantasy elements.

[Theodoxus]

I don't allow sharpshooter's -5/+10 to work with ranged sneaks, so I wouldn't allow GWM's -5 to trigger sneak; it's specifically a precise strike - hence the requirement for advantage or a flanking buddy. That takes care of any heavy weapon shenanigans. Go ahead and sneak with a greatsword or glave... Or better yet, the longsword you're actually proficient with, yet never use...

[Coidzor]

Yeah, we houseruled that after we realized that there's no bludgeoning sneak attack weapon about... 5 sessions into our first 5e game when we finally fought some Skeletons.

[polymphus]

er, yeah, all those things supposedly good for knocking people out?

what they are is slightly less likely to kill a person. it would be like wrapping a regular club in leather, and then hitting someone over the head with it (mostly because that's exactly what some of those weapons are). sure, it's less bad than hitting someone with an unpadded club, but it really isn't that much less bad, and you're still pretty much using it the exact same way.


...

Not seeing your point there. A finesse club would still deal lethal damage in the same way as any other weapon. I never said it was less dangerous, just that it's a way to let a rogue sneak attack with a club. You'd have the option to specify nonlethal and yeah that's a bit weird since head injuries are head injuries, but you can do it with a greatsword or a crossbow too and they make a lot less sense -- that's just the way the rules shake out.

[SharkForce]

...

Not seeing your point there. A finesse club would still deal lethal damage in the same way as any other weapon. I never said it was less dangerous, just that it's a way to let a rogue sneak attack with a club. You'd have the option to specify nonlethal and yeah that's a bit weird since head injuries are head injuries, but you can do it with a greatsword or a crossbow too and they make a lot less sense -- that's just the way the rules shake out.

to clarify: the main point on "finesse club" is that you use pretty much all clubs the same way, even if it's got a thin layer of mostly-ineffective padding to make it slightly less likely that your target will die. there is no kind of club that you finesse the way you could a dagger... if you make quick, light strikes with a club, you won't do damage. you need to bash things hard with it to accomplish pretty much anything at all.

[greenstone]

No, because "finesse" and "blunt object" do not go together.

[User_Undefined]

What about escrima kali sticks? I'd rule that they use finesse. At least as much as a shortsword or scimitar.

[Kane0]

So here's how you do yourself a proper weapon:

Start with a d10 damage die and a damage type of your choice.
Add at least one positive trait (light, finesse, reach, simple, versatile, thrown). Each trait decreases the die size one step.
Add your choice of negative traits (loading, two handed, heavy). Each trait increases the die size one step.

Bam, you have a balanced weapon. You can even check this against others in the PHB, you'll find that most follow this pattern (daggers are a die step too big, greatclubs too small, etc)

So for a sneak attackable blunt weapon make a simple, light, finesse 1d4 bludgeoning or a simple, finesse 1d6 bludgeoning. Tada!

[Coidzor]

So here's how you do yourself a proper weapon:

Start with a d10 damage die and a damage type of your choice.
Add at least one positive trait (light, finesse, reach, simple, versatile, thrown). Each trait decreases the die size one step.
Add your choice of negative traits (loading, two handed, heavy). Each trait increases the die size one step.

Bam, you have a balanced weapon. You can even check this against others in the PHB, you'll find that most follow this pattern (daggers are a die step too big, greatclubs too small, etc)

So for a sneak attackable blunt weapon make a simple, light, finesse 1d4 bludgeoning or a simple, finesse 1d6 bludgeoning. Tada!

Yeah, I'd be A-OK with that as the starting point for a modular weapon system. Although it does make it a bit wonky to make a non-Reach two-handed weapon as presented. Although I've played enough Crusader of Centy to see some appeal in a Claymore that you can throw at an enemy. :smallamused:

[Arkhios]

If it were for me, I'd allow all non-heavy, non-versatile one-handed melee weapons to work with sneak attack. I don't see how or why that would break (or explode) anything.

[Tanarii]

Add your choice of negative traits (loading, two handed, heavy). Each trait increases the die size one step.
Heavy is only a negative for small races. It's a positive for everyone else, because GWM. So it's really a no net change, or 'special' for die size. Bonus to have it if intended for Str non-small users, but not worth a full die size, because GWM must be selected. Bonus not to have it if the weapon is intended for Small creatures, but a minor one.

Which explains why the Greatclub is d10, and the Greataxe d12. Heavy doesn't modify the die size.

[Coidzor]

Heavy is only a negative for small races. It's a positive for everyone else, because GWM. So it's really a no net change, or 'special' for die size. Bonus to have it if intended for Str non-small users, but not worth a full die size, because GWM must be selected. Bonus not to have it if the weapon is intended for Small creatures, but a minor one.

Which explains why the Greatclub is d10, and the Greataxe d12. Heavy doesn't modify the die size.

Greatclubs are 1d8, not 1d10.

[Naanomi]

So here's how you do yourself a proper weapon:

Start with a d10 damage die and a damage type of your choice.
Add at least one positive trait (light, finesse, reach, simple, versatile, thrown). Each trait decreases the die size one step.
Add your choice of negative traits (loading, two handed, heavy). Each trait increases the die size one step.

Bam, you have a balanced weapon. You can even check this against others in the PHB, you'll find that most follow this pattern (daggers are a die step too big, greatclubs too small, etc)

So for a sneak attackable blunt weapon make a simple, light, finesse 1d4 bludgeoning or a simple, finesse 1d6 bludgeoning. Tada!
Whips are too small a die size by this... and why would you take versatile? Down a die size to... be able to increase a die size?

Also: one can already backstab with slings for bludgeoning

[Tanarii]

Greatclubs are 1d8, not 1d10.
Nonsense, they're .... surely ... they can't be ... okay, pardon my not double checking. :smallredface:

Looks like Two-handed is not worth anything, but Heavy is. I had it back to front.

Shortbow, d10 - 1 for simple, -1 for ranged, 0 for two-handed = d6
Heavy Light Crossbow, d10, -1 for simple, -1 for ranged, 0 for two-handed, +1 for loading = d8
Greatclub, d10, -1 for simple, 0 for two-handed = d8
Great axe/sword, d10, 0 for two-handed, +1 for Heavy = d12 or 2d6

Not sure why that is, in terms of design goal.