Worst case/Best case scenario: allowing the rogue to sneak attack with a longsword

[Witty Username]

In short, I am incredulous that a rogue being able to sneak attack with a longsword is an issue from a mechanical standpoint. I also find it weird that a weapon they cant sneak attack with is on a proficiency whitelist of martial weapons.

But I am curious, what is the peek performance of a rogue with a longsword if they could get sneak attack with it?


My big thoughts are that it opens strength rogues and potentially medium armor( I doubt heavy because of the value of stealth to a rogue), and gives a 1d10 melee weapon option to a rogue's damage. Also could get fun with half-orc assassin savage attacker crits.

What are your thoughts?

[dragoeniex]

A rapier can already be used with your strength score while still qualifying for sneak attack. Strogue builds aren't as common as the dex-y sort, but they definitely exist and have some fun combos with multiclasses like barbarian.

1d8 vs 1d10 for a single-attack class isn't a big difference. Outside of flavor, my guess is this wouldn't affect much outside of having one more team member arguing for their rights to a magic longsword the team finds.

[Biggstick]

Ask your DM if they're ok with a house rule.

When using a Longsword with two hands, the Longsword is considered a finesse weapon.

Personally, I don't see it breaking anything, but perhaps others can show me the error of such a house rule.

[jas61292]

The biggest potential unbalancing factor I could see would be if your DM likes to roll for treasure. Expanding the weapons that can be used with sneak attack would increase the odds of you getting a powerful weapon you could sneak attack with. Whether or not that is actually unbalancing would be on a case by case basis. And yeah, this is only an issue if your DM is not picking and choosing items for the group. And I don't see it being too powerful. Especially if you are not also changing rules to make it finesse.

[Draz74]

If you can sneak attack with a Versatile weapon wielded two-handed, then a one-level dip in Fighter will let you pick the Great Weapon Fighting Style and reroll all your Sneak Attack's 1s and 2s, boosting the average damage of each Sneak Attack die from 3.5 to 4.17.

I think that's the main potentially overpowered interaction ...

[LtPowers]

If you can sneak attack with a Versatile weapon wielded two-handed, then a one-level dip in Fighter will let you pick the Great Weapon Fighting Style and reroll all your Sneak Attack's 1s and 2s, boosting the average damage of each Sneak Attack die from 3.5 to 4.17.

I think that's the main potentially overpowered interaction ...

Great Weapon Fighting Style applies only to the weapon's damage, not to any riders like Smite or Sneak Attack.

My main objection to it is that it's not thematic. A longsword is not a sneaky, subtle, or finessable weapon. It's a tool of brute force. (In 5e, it's basically a bastard sword, in fact.) If you want 1d8 damage, use a rapier.


Powers &8^]

[iTreeby]

I'm convinced that the only reason they have longsword proficiency is the Sunblade which is a finesse weapon anyway.

[Biggstick]

If you can sneak attack with a Versatile weapon wielded two-handed, then a one-level dip in Fighter will let you pick the Great Weapon Fighting Style and reroll all your Sneak Attack's 1s and 2s, boosting the average damage of each Sneak Attack die from 3.5 to 4.17.

I think that's the main potentially overpowered interaction ...

This is falling under the assumption that a DM allows Players with GWF to reroll rider damage dice like Divine Smite as well. Per what I'm seeing from a 2016 Sage Advice, GWF "is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature."

If a DM is already allowing Players to reroll rider damage dice for those who take GWF, then they're likely already ok with Rogues slowing their Sneak Attack dice progression.

[Draz74]

Great Weapon Fighting Style applies only to the weapon's damage, not to any riders like Smite or Sneak Attack.

You got a source for that ruling? Because that's not what the wording of the ability sounds like to me.

EDIT: Shadow Monk'd. But I still say that Sage Advice goes against what the GWF rule actually says.

[Misterwhisper]

In short, I am incredulous that a rogue being able to sneak attack with a longsword is an issue from a mechanical standpoint. I also find it weird that a weapon they cant sneak attack with is on a proficiency whitelist of martial weapons.

But I am curious, what is the peek performance of a rogue with a longsword if they could get sneak attack with it?


My big thoughts are that it opens strength rogues and potentially medium armor( I doubt heavy because of the value of stealth to a rogue), and gives a 1d10 melee weapon option to a rogue's damage. Also could get fun with half-orc assassin savage attacker crits.

What are your thoughts?

My only thought is that other than a bigger chance of finding a magic longsword than a rapier, who cares.

Rogues should have gotten proficiency with all finesse weapons, like the whip.

Rogues are only going to be getting one swing with their weapon and most of their damage is from sneak attack, so being able to go from a 1d8 rapier to a 1d10 longsword in two hands is meh.

Trust me, I have played a rogue from level 1 - 16 as a swashbuckler, and 1 - 14 as an arcane trickster, as MEH as rogue damage is once everyone else has multiple attacks and a way to bonus action attack too, a melee based rogue needs every bit of help they can get.

[JackPhoenix]

There already are longswords with finesse, so it's not much of a change. I allow sneak attack with any one-handed weapon, and it does't break anything... the rogue is still encouraged to use Dex, which means finesse weapon, by its other class features, and ranged combat is still better option than melee.

[Witty Username]

Great Weapon Fighting Style applies only to the weapon's damage, not to any riders like Smite or Sneak Attack.

My main objection to it is that it's not thematic. A longsword is not a sneaky, subtle, or finessable weapon. It's a tool of brute force. (In 5e, it's basically a bastard sword, in fact.) If you want 1d8 damage, use a rapier.


Powers &8^]

On the thematic side of the argument, my opinion is mostly three things.
1. Rogues are not proficient in martial weapons, but they are proficient in short swords, rapiers, and long swords. short swords and rapiers make sense because they are finesse weapons(and therefore work with sneak attack). But longswords can't, and so it is weird that rogue's have specifically trained in a weapon they can't use for their most basic play pattern. I would be about as weird to me as if monks were proficient in armor.
2. There are bigger thematic breaks already in the rogue sneak attack rules, like how you cannot sneak attack with hand ax unless you throw it. So it feels more like a mechanics concern. (also related you can't sneak attack someone with a longsword but you can assassinate them with it)
3. My personal thoughts on sneak attack are that it is more about the enemy being unaware or distracted then anything to do with the weapon. You silently walk up to them, magic cloaking you with invisibility, and drive a blade into their exposed neck, and a dagger is better for that than a greatsword because ... magic?

But hey opinions, also some people have a thing for ascetics.

[JackPhoenix]

1. Rogues are not proficient in martial weapons, but they are proficient in short swords, rapiers, and long swords. short swords and rapiers make sense because they are finesse weapons(and therefore work with sneak attack). But longswords can't, and so it is weird that rogue's have specifically trained in a weapon they can't use for their most basic play pattern. I would be about as weird to me as if monks were proficient in armor.

Rogues were proficient with longswords for as long (or longer) as druids were proficient with scimitar. However, only 5e has a limitation on what weapons you can sneak attack with. And there *are* some finesse longswords (sun swords and some moonblades).


2. There are bigger thematic breaks already in the rogue sneak attack rules, like how you cannot sneak attack with hand ax unless you throw it. So it feels more like a mechanics concern.

You can't sneak attack with hand axe. Period. It doesn't matter if you chop with it or throw it, it's not a finesse or ranged weapon.

[Chronos]

Rogues are proficient in longswords because Fafhrd. I don't think there was any more thought than that given to it. Even though, in the present game, Fafhrd would probably be a valor bard and/or barbarian, not a rogue at all.

And they don't need longsword proficiency to use a sun sword, because despite being longsword-sized, those also count as shortswords for purposes of proficiency.

[da newt]

Take the XBE feat and a heavy crossbow and then you have a d10 dex based 2 handed heavy SA weapon you can use in melee with reach to make a glaive wielding bugbear jealous ... I've got a Gloomstalker/AT rogue who sometimes channels his inner Jon Wick while mixing it up in close quarters with a massive crossbow.

I agree with the others - house ruling a rogue can wield a long sword as if it had the fineness property won't unbalance anything. Magic long swords are much more common than scimitars, short swords, and rapiers.

[Quietus]

Rogues are proficient in longswords because Fafhrd. I don't think there was any more thought than that given to it. Even though, in the present game, Fafhrd would probably be a valor bard and/or barbarian, not a rogue at all.

And they don't need longsword proficiency to use a sun sword, because despite being longsword-sized, those also count as shortswords for purposes of proficiency.

I think this is primarily it. More generally, Rogues are proficient with longswords, because of historical precedent. They've always been proficient in previous editions, so they're proficient now, despite it mostly being a useless proficiency to them. I do like Misterwhisper's point that they should have simply gotten "all finesse weapons", but I think they opted not to do that to prevent mechanical interactions with later releases. Rogues definitely should have gotten whip proficiency instead of longsword, in my opinion.

[Morty]

I think this is primarily it. More generally, Rogues are proficient with longswords, because of historical precedent. They've always been proficient in previous editions, so they're proficient now, despite it mostly being a useless proficiency to them. I do like Misterwhisper's point that they should have simply gotten "all finesse weapons", but I think they opted not to do that to prevent mechanical interactions with later releases. Rogues definitely should have gotten whip proficiency instead of longsword, in my opinion.

I don't know about older editions, but they certainly aren't proficient with them in 3.5 or 4E.

Anyway, the only real change would be the possibility of dealing 1d10 damage with every attack. Which is marginal without multiclassing - rogues only get one attack, so the difference between a d8 and d10 is slight, especially given how most of their damage comes from Sneak Attack. And since it requires them to use strength and not dexterity, it's going to be more niche by default. I would personally allow rogues to sneak attack with every one-handed weapon.

[Keravath]

You got a source for that ruling? Because that's not what the wording of the ability sounds like to me.

EDIT: Shadow Monk'd. But I still say that Sage Advice goes against what the GWF rule actually says.

Sage Advice Compendium which is considered official rules clarifications (unlike all the rest of Sage Advice which are suggestions).

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

"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."

[Skylivedk]

Sage Advice Compendium which is considered official rules clarifications (unlike all the rest of Sage Advice which are suggestions).

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

"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."

Which is one of the classic examples of Sage Advice going against RAW. The reasoning is also weird: that rerolling requires too much effort. It isn't really more effort to roll 5 dice than 2 though... Anyway, no point discussing it more. Jeremy did his Jeremy thing

[loki_ragnarock]

One point of damage isn't a particularly compelling reason to prevent it, but I feel that way about pretty much every weapon with regards to sneak attack.

Provided it's a single class character. Multi-classing sort of throws some oddness with extra attack into the mix, as that kills the one big hit or miss dynamic.

But yeah, generally longswords aren't going to break the game.

[Sparky McDibben]

In short, I am incredulous that a rogue being able to sneak attack with a longsword is an issue from a mechanical standpoint. I also find it weird that a weapon they cant sneak attack with is on a proficiency whitelist of martial weapons.

But I am curious, what is the peek performance of a rogue with a longsword if they could get sneak attack with it?


My big thoughts are that it opens strength rogues and potentially medium armor( I doubt heavy because of the value of stealth to a rogue), and gives a 1d10 melee weapon option to a rogue's damage. Also could get fun with half-orc assassin savage attacker crits.

What are your thoughts?

Just give your rogue a custom (and therefore irreplaceable) longsword with the finesse property. If it turns out to be OP, just have the weapon get destroyed.

[Dienekes]

My main objection to it is that it's not thematic. A longsword is not a sneaky, subtle, or finessable weapon. It's a tool of brute force. (In 5e, it's basically a bastard sword, in fact.) If you want 1d8 damage, use a rapier.


Powers &8^]

Eh, speaking of thematics and the real world using a longsword in two hands is about as subtle and finessable as a rapier. Rapiers tend to acquire a bit more arm strength because you’re holding a little over 2 lbs in 1 hand as opposed to 3.5 lbs in two hands. But other than that, yeah, they’re both long sharp levers with most the weight by the hand.

But there both fairly agile weapons. The problem comes that for some reason when people hear rapier they think smallsword, and don’t pay much attention to historic fighting techniques.

Personally, I have nothing against using a longsword two-handed and finessable from the realism standpoint.* One-handed I’d say is pushing it.

*As much as Dex and Str weapons are at all realistic, anyway.

[Witty Username]

I don't know about older editions, but they certainly aren't proficient with them in 3.5 or 4E.

Anyway, the only real change would be the possibility of dealing 1d10 damage with every attack. Which is marginal without multiclassing - rogues only get one attack, so the difference between a d8 and d10 is slight, especially given how most of their damage comes from Sneak Attack. And since it requires them to use strength and not dexterity, it's going to be more niche by default. I would personally allow rogues to sneak attack with every one-handed weapon.

In 2e and prior rogues could be proficient in longswords. I may be wrong, but the rapier didn't mechanicly exist at the time, so in later editions the rapier effectively replaced the longsword for rogues.
5e brought it back, I am not sure the specific reason, although I suspect older editions(and possibly settings).

[micahaphone]

Eh, speaking of thematics and the real world using a longsword in two hands is about as subtle and finessable as a rapier. Rapiers tend to acquire a bit more arm strength because you’re holding a little over 2 lbs in 1 hand as opposed to 3.5 lbs in two hands. But other than that, yeah, they’re both long sharp levers with most the weight by the hand.

But there both fairly agile weapons. The problem comes that for some reason when people hear rapier they think smallsword, and don’t pay much attention to historic fighting techniques.

Personally, I have nothing against using a longsword two-handed and finessable from the realism standpoint.* One-handed I’d say is pushing it.

*As much as Dex and Str weapons are at all realistic, anyway.

To further agree with you, wikipedia lists the average blade length of a rapier at 41 inches /104 cm, and a longsword at 35-43 inches / 90-110 cm. Probably why my italian fighting nerd friend hates the concept of dual wielding rapiers.

[Luccan]

In 2e and prior rogues could be proficient in longswords. I may be wrong, but the rapier didn't mechanicly exist at the time, so in later editions the rapier effectively replaced the longsword for rogues.
5e brought it back, I am not sure the specific reason, although I suspect older editions(and possibly settings).

I think it's just because most magic weapons are longswords. Someone described it as "The Rogue gets all the Fighter's old junk", which seems like a pretty crappy deal since we're not longer in the age of playing Thieves because your stats are too low to be anything more useful.

[LudicSavant]

Which is one of the classic examples of Sage Advice going against RAW. The reasoning is also weird: that rerolling requires too much effort. It isn't really more effort to roll 5 dice than 2 though... Anyway, no point discussing it more. Jeremy did his Jeremy thing

Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If anything JC's rule could actually slow things down since it means you have to separate out your dice pools. And as you say, in this particular case the compendium is directly contradicting the rulebook, which seems like a job for errata rather than a Sage Compendium entry. Oh well.

[Witty Username]

I think it's just because most magic weapons are longswords. Someone described it as "The Rogue gets all the Fighter's old junk", which seems like a pretty crappy deal since we're not longer in the age of playing Thieves because your stats are too low to be anything more useful.

So, I suppose the big question is the worth of trading the use of sneak attack for the best magic longsword (that isn't a sunblade)?

I guess if you need the +X atk bonus to hit the thing, in exchange for Xd6 sneak attack damage, or some niche like fire damage if one is fighting a troll.

Sidenote: (joking tone) Why is the flashlight sword the easiest one to get the drop on someone with? I think someone is trying to trick rogues into being easier to spot.(/joking tone)

[Luccan]

Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If anything JC's rule could actually slow things down since it means you have to separate out your dice pools. And as you say, in this particular case the compendium is directly contradicting the rulebook, which seems like a job for errata rather than a Sage Compendium entry. Oh well.

Weren't they weirdly against errata at the beginning of this edition?

Either way, I can see an argument, even if it isn't strictly RAW: Great Weapon Fighting is about how good you are with the weapon itself, not about how good you are at using its magical properties or stabbing people when their guard is down.

[SLOTHRPG95]

In 2e and prior rogues could be proficient in longswords. I may be wrong, but the rapier didn't mechanicly exist at the time, so in later editions the rapier effectively replaced the longsword for rogues.
5e brought it back, I am not sure the specific reason, although I suspect older editions(and possibly settings).

In 2e they could be proficient with longswords or broad swords, but not bastard swords which hold the distinction of being the only sword in that edition with different damage when wielded in one vs. two hands. A longsword would do 1d8 (or 1d12 against Large creatures) whether wielded in one or two hands. In 3e, the rapier was introduced, and so the rogue essentially traded longsword proficiency for rapier proficiency. I guess in 5e they figured they'd err on the side of over-inclusion in proficiencies, even if the longsword in 5e isn't really the same longsword as that in the last edition in which rogues were previously proficient.

With that said, I don't think it'd be a big deal to allow rogues to sneak attack with a longsword. And if they're going to specifically gain proficiency in a non-simple weapon, they should be allowed to sneak attack with it. But then again, in my campaigns, I generally go one step further: you can sneak attack with any melee weapon with which you're proficient, save for those with the heavy property (or lances). Hasn't broken anything yet.

[Warlush]

Jeremy did his Jeremy thing

Yuuuuuuuup.

[LudicSavant]

In short, I am incredulous that a rogue being able to sneak attack with a longsword is an issue from a mechanical standpoint. I also find it weird that a weapon they cant sneak attack with is on a proficiency whitelist of martial weapons.

But I am curious, what is the peek performance of a rogue with a longsword if they could get sneak attack with it?


My big thoughts are that it opens strength rogues and potentially medium armor( I doubt heavy because of the value of stealth to a rogue), and gives a 1d10 melee weapon option to a rogue's damage. Also could get fun with half-orc assassin savage attacker crits.

What are your thoughts?

Mostly opens up Strength Rogues, like you said. Which means Reckless Attacking Barbarogues. Which... means Barbarians that look more like Conan the Cimmerian?

[Witty Username]

I ran the numbers on GWF w/ and w/out divine smite getting the benefit and the average damage increase was not very much either way. Each d8 represents a .625 .75 damage increase so a full smite(5d8) gets +3.125 +3.75 average damage if GWF applies.

If GWF works for sneak attack, you get approximately (assuming you have a weapon you can two hand with) .6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6666666666666666666666666666666666
or 2/3 points per d6 roll. so 3d6 would get a 2 point increase.

So the fighter 1/ rogue 19 would get +6.666(etc) damage from GWF. Which is +6.666(too infinity and beyond) more damage than +0.

Edit: classic case of got the division right but had a failure of basic addition.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Absolute worst case scenario: Rogue+GWF(as mentioned upthread)+Sword of answering so they get sneak attack 2/round and they reroll 1's and 2's on damage dice, this would make them actually effective in a fight. And has a huge opportunity cost in survivability since they can't uncanny dodge.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In short, I am incredulous that a rogue being able to sneak attack with a longsword is an issue from a mechanical standpoint. I also find it weird that a weapon they cant sneak attack with is on a proficiency whitelist of martial weapons.

But I am curious, what is the peek performance of a rogue with a longsword if they could get sneak attack with it?


My big thoughts are that it opens strength rogues and potentially medium armor( I doubt heavy because of the value of stealth to a rogue), and gives a 1d10 melee weapon option to a rogue's damage. Also could get fun with half-orc assassin savage attacker crits.

What are your thoughts?

A few extra points in damage ain't hurting anything. Not like a rogue can't take crossbow expert and pull a bow in melee and go to town.

[Luccan]

A few extra points in damage ain't hurting anything. Not like a rogue can't take crossbow expert and pull a bow in melee and go to town.

While this is true and 2d6 or 1d8+1d6 are both superior to 1d10, not only does it require your DM to accept you can reload the crossbow with both your hands full (which, while arguably RAW, is unarguably ridiculous looking if you think about it) for it to be consistent, it also requires a feat investment. I think a better argument is that rogues can already dual wield short swords for 2d6. And while that full 2d6 will potentially hit less often than 1d10, since it's two rolls it will probably hit 1d6 or 2d6 more often.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While this is true and 2d6 or 1d8+1d6 are both superior to 1d10, not only does it require your DM to accept you can reload the crossbow with both your hands full (which, while arguably RAW, is unarguably ridiculous looking if you think about it) for it to be consistent, it also requires a feat investment. I think a better argument is that rogues can already dual wield short swords for 2d6. And while that full 2d6 will potentially hit less often than 1d10, since it's two rolls it will probably hit 1d6 or 2d6 more often.

You got teeth.

You can use crossbow expert with a short or longbow when it comes to not having disadvantage in melee range. Sharpshooter can be used with the short or longbow. Sharpshooter is a bit much on this, but it's fun none the less.

I've seen plenty of Elf rogues run around melee shooting with a bow.

[Luccan]

You got teeth.

You can use crossbow expert with a short or longbow when it comes to not having disadvantage in melee range. Sharpshooter can be used with the short or longbow. Sharpshooter is a bit much on this, but it's fun none the less.

I've seen plenty of Elf rogues run around melee shooting with a bow.

I mean, that's two feat investments if you do it and I'm not following what "I can use a bow in melee at the cost of a feat" really has to do with longswords being usable with sneak attack. Because if it's the 1d8 damage in melee range, rapiers exist.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I mean, that's two feat investments if you do it and I'm not following what "I can use a bow in melee at the cost of a feat" really has to do with longswords being usable with sneak attack. Because if it's the 1d8 damage in melee range, rapiers exist.

Yes, but the point still stands: an average of one extra point of damage a round isn't going to drastically change anything.

[Luccan]

Yes, but the point still stands: an average of one extra point of damage a round isn't going to drastically change anything.

I wasn't debating that? I just said Crossbow Expert wasn't the best point of comparison because to get the extra damage you need to spend a feat, when higher damage without a feat (the same investment as using a longsword) already had an example.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I wasn't debating that? I just said Crossbow Expert wasn't the best point of comparison because to get the extra damage you need to spend a feat, when higher damage without a feat (the same investment as using a longsword) already had an example.

Upon re-reading, I realize the d8 rapier damage die comment was comparing this to using a bow. But yes, I agree that XBE isn't the best point of comparison. With that said, using two short swords is itself a tradeoff. If you're relying on the off-hand attack to increase your damage output, you're crowding out your other bonus action uses, and with Cunning Action that's a hard choice.

[kazaryu]

In short, I am incredulous that a rogue being able to sneak attack with a longsword is an issue from a mechanical standpoint. I also find it weird that a weapon they cant sneak attack with is on a proficiency whitelist of martial weapons.

But I am curious, what is the peek performance of a rogue with a longsword if they could get sneak attack with it?


My big thoughts are that it opens strength rogues and potentially medium armor( I doubt heavy because of the value of stealth to a rogue), and gives a 1d10 melee weapon option to a rogue's damage. Also could get fun with half-orc assassin savage attacker crits.

What are your thoughts?

best case scenario: your rogue player really freaking likes the imagery it evokes to use their longsword in that way. and it makes the character feel fun and new to them in spite of it not being anything more than a negligible benefit

worst case scenario: they realize that its not really any different doing that and shrug, because its w/e.

actual worst case scenario: if the player is bad at managing their own expectations it may actually dismay them to learn that its essentially just a narrative thing, and doesn't realistically boost their damage output. But, being the DM, you can certainly help them to manage their expectations.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I wasn't debating that? I just said Crossbow Expert wasn't the best point of comparison because to get the extra damage you need to spend a feat, when higher damage without a feat (the same investment as using a longsword) already had an example.

The point is that more damage doesn't matter, no matter the source of the damage.

Any half way competent DM can deal with a little bit more damage, direct damage is the absolute easiest thing to deal with as a DM.

The point of a DM is to challenge the players, adding +1 AC or a little bit of HP is the most basic (and lazy) way to challenge high damage characters.

[Chronos]

Well, more damage can matter.

But probably not when it's an average of 1 point a round.

Honestly, even if rogues were allowed to sneak attack with longswords, most probably still wouldn't use it, since most rogues have a higher dex than str.

[nickl_2000]

My DM made it so you could sneak attack with a long sword, but it was still a strength based weapon. No one has used the house rule though since dex is such a better stat than str.