Why do Rogues get longsword proficiency?

[Saelethil]

It’s not what I would consider a roguish weapon and they can’t get sneak attack when they use one so what was the reason behind giving Rogues proficiency with longswords?

[RogueJK]

Because they always have?

And because it gives STR-based Rogues a better weapon option. (They're uncommon, but they do exist.)

[PhantomSoul]

Because they always have?

And because it gives STR-based Rogues a better weapon option. (They're uncommon, but they do exist.)

More the first bit than the second; given sneak attack, it's not really a better weapon regardless of whether you're using strength or not unless you're just never getting sneak attack! (You can sneak attack with strength just fine as long as the weapon is a finesse weapon.)

[Amnestic]

It's a historical artifact from previous editions.

Shoulda just made longswords finessable while wielded in one hand.

[Greywander]

Shoulda just made longswords finessable while wielded in one hand.
I actually have a houserule that makes them finesse weapons when wielded with two hands. The idea being that two hands gives you more control over the weapon and doesn't require as much strength to use.

This also makes it make more sense for elves to get longsword proficiency, since their default ASIs are in DEX. With Tasha's that doesn't matter as much anymore, but it still makes sense from a thematic standpoint (while you can build a STR elf, a DEX elf fits the flavor better).

I'll also put forward that you should be able to Sneak Attack with any weapon. I really don't know why they decided to limit it. I will say that it should perhaps be limited to weapons you're proficient with. But hitting someone on the back of the head with a club is like the second most cliche sneak attack, after only literally stabbing them in the back.

[Doug Lampert]

It's a historical artifact from previous editions.

Shoulda just made longswords finessable while wielded in one hand.

Given that two handed use is faster and requires less strength, if they were at all interested in realism, they should have just said that versatile weapons in two hands get finesse rather than a pitiful 1 extra damage.

[JLandan]

I actually have a houserule that makes them finesse weapons when wielded with two hands. The idea being that two hands gives you more control over the weapon and doesn't require as much strength to use.

This also makes it make more sense for elves to get longsword proficiency, since their default ASIs are in DEX. With Tasha's that doesn't matter as much anymore, but it still makes sense from a thematic standpoint (while you can build a STR elf, a DEX elf fits the flavor better).

I'll also put forward that you should be able to Sneak Attack with any weapon. I really don't know why they decided to limit it. I will say that it should perhaps be limited to weapons you're proficient with. But hitting someone on the back of the head with a club is like the second most cliche sneak attack, after only literally stabbing them in the back.

I've always thought there should be bludgeoning sneak attacks. Bonk on the head from behind. I have a cool Rogue character concept I cannot play without serious DM fiat, that uses a shovel.

Maybe just merge light and finesse?

[Gignere]

I've always thought there should be bludgeoning sneak attacks. Bonk on the head from behind. I have a cool Rogue character concept I cannot play without serious DM fiat, that uses a shovel.

Maybe just merge light and finesse?

Or even the quintessential rogue weapon a blackjack, 5e rogues cannot sneak attack with one.

[loki_ragnarock]

Very likely because of Fafhrd and The Gray Mouser.

[PhantomSoul]

I've always thought there should be bludgeoning sneak attacks. Bonk on the head from behind. I have a cool Rogue character concept I cannot play without serious DM fiat, that uses a shovel.

Maybe just merge light and finesse?

I think the distinction is a reasonable one to keep, e.g. typical use of a club really does seem less dex-based... so the alternative is to change what Rogues care about. Maybe Rogues should be restricted to light weapons, to non-heavy weapons, etc.

[JLandan]

Or even the quintessential rogue weapon a blackjack, 5e rogues cannot sneak attack with one.

Back in 3.x days, I had a house rule to knock someone out. Only on surprised humanoids, attack and roll damage with blunt weapon, may be improvised, no actual damage, Fort save DC equals damage or be rendered unconscious.

For 5e: Make attack on surprised humanoid with bludgeoning or improvised weapon. If successful, Con save DC equals theoretical damage. Sneak attack applies. Failure imposes the unconscious condition.

[Psyren]

I think the distinction is a reasonable one to keep, e.g. typical use of a club really does seem less dex-based... so the alternative is to change what Rogues care about. Maybe Rogues should be restricted to light weapons, to non-heavy weapons, etc.

Base of the skull is pretty soft and can knock somebody out just fine. A dex blackjack + sneak attack could be about accurately targeting that spot when the target is most susceptible.

(Yeah I miss it too)

[JLandan]

I think the distinction is a reasonable one to keep, e.g. typical use of a club really does seem less dex-based... so the alternative is to change what Rogues care about. Maybe Rogues should be restricted to light weapons, to non-heavy weapons, etc.

I always thought of sneak attack as sneaky rather than precision as 5e seems to imply.

[Greywander]

I think a sap or blackjack would just be a refluffed club. So yeah, it's especially weird they're not usable with Sneak Attack.

If you really want to Sneak Attack with a bludgeoning weapon, there is one option: the sling.

[PhantomSoul]

I always thought of sneak attack as sneaky rather than precision as 5e seems to imply.

I figure the precision-not-sneaky part is less likely to change in the edition haha

(Whereas I could see a "Variant Option" or a Subclass that expands the Sneak Attack options. In my mind there was a "Thug" Unearthed Arcana that might've done this, but maybe not...)

[Dienekes]

I always thought of sneak attack as sneaky rather than precision as 5e seems to imply.

I'm pretty sure in 5e, all Sneak Attack is, is a means of getting Rogue damage up to par. It's not really a good representation of anything else.

[Gurgeh]

I figure the precision-not-sneaky part is less likely to change in the edition haha

(Whereas I could see a "Variant Option" or a Subclass that expands the Sneak Attack options. In my mind there was a "Thug" Unearthed Arcana that might've done this, but maybe not...)
3.5 had a Thug Fighter variant that got Sneak Attack instead of bonus feats - you might be thinking of that?

EDIT: I've misremembered, whoops.

[Athan Artilliam]

3.5 had a Thug Fighter variant that got Sneak Attack instead of bonus feats - you might be thinking of that?

EDIT: I've misremembered, whoops.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Unearth Arcana had that

[Greywander]

I'm pretty sure in 5e, all Sneak Attack is, is a means of getting Rogue damage up to par. It's not really a good representation of anything else.
Oddly, in a mechanical sense, I feel like this is backwards. Rogues are the light and fast guys, fighters are the strong and heavy guys. So you'd think the fighter would get one high damage attack, while the rogue would get many weaker attacks. But nope, it's actually the other way around.

Part of why I'd expect it to be that way is due to how I'd expect armor to be implemented. If are gave damage reduction per hit (as with HAM), then many weak attacks would be disproportionately affected. Basically, rogues would be weak against fighters. But it's also a common trope that mages are easy to kill if you can surprise them. So rogues are strong against mages. And it would be easy to imagine how magic might be able to overpower a fighter. This basically sets up a rock-paper-scissors-style triad, and one that is emergent rather than being strictly enforced (e.g. it's not that rogue weapons get a damage bonus against mages and a damage penalty against fighters, it's just a natural result of having many weaker attacks).

Anyway, I understand why 5e does it the way it does it. Rogues having a single deadly strike also makes sense, while fighters getting more attacks makes sense as well. There's certainly more than one way to do a thing, and this is how 5e chose how to do it. A different system might do it the other way, giving warrior types a single strong attack, and thief types many weaker attacks.

[Dienekes]

Oddly, in a mechanical sense, I feel like this is backwards. Rogues are the light and fast guys, fighters are the strong and heavy guys. So you'd think the fighter would get one high damage attack, while the rogue would get many weaker attacks. But nope, it's actually the other way around.

Yup, and I have pointed this out as to why I feel Swashbuckler does not really make me feel like much of a rapier duelist. At least, not more than a 3 level dip and back to Battlemaster Fighter.

But you're right, essentially. 5e's design has been set, and it is what it is.

[Gurgeh]

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Unearth Arcana had that
You're right, it did exist - it just wasn't the Thug! One of several suggested quick-swap class variants (among other examples were sorcerers and wizards getting a half-progression Animal Companion instead of a familiar)

[Zetakya]

You can do a reasonably good job of a dual-wield build by relying on the off-hand for the Sneak Attack and using the Longsword in the main hand...

However I agree that there should definitely be more availability for Sneak Attacks with variant weapons; Thug archetypes should have a subclass available to them, and it's a glaring hole that there isn't one, IMO.

[Greywander]

The whole point of TWF on a rogue is to get two chances to Sneak Attack. Using a longsword in the main hand (or off hand) defeats the purpose of TWF.

Rogues have a lot of really useful things to use their BAs on, they're not about to waste one on an attack that can't Sneak Attack, unless they literally have nothing else to do.

[Leon]

At the very least should be all light weapons and at best any weapons that they are proficient in and have talked to one of my DMs and they agree on the light weapons part at least. (haven't bothered with the other one as i'm not using any weapon outside of a Bow or Shortsword anyway) The classic Bandit with club that could in other editions be a low level threat is just a sad NPC with a lump of wood in 5e

[Witty Username]

Because Cyric. Rogue's have had sword proficiency since the beginning, longer than rapier as it wasn't included in 3rd edition. In 5e it has been reduced to a trap option or you have a sun blade.

I personally would use rogue sneak attack as either "weapon they are proficient in" or "Rogue weapon" like how monk weapons are set up. I have always felt sneak attack should be about tactics not weapon choice.

Rogues do surprise kill shots, hence one powerful (or more accurately deadly attack) fighters trade blow for blow, so more individually less deadly attacks. Making many weak attacks is awkward for sniping. Swashbuckling should have been a fighter subclass, fighter is better at flyning.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues do surprise kill shots, hence one powerful (or more accurately deadly attack) fighters trade blow for blow, so more individually less deadly attacks. Making many weak attacks is awkward for sniping. Swashbuckling should have been a fighter subclass, fighter is better at flyning.

The way I'd design a system would be something along the lines of giving everyone the equivalent of Extra Attack or perhaps additional actions in a turn (increasing by level) and tailoring what you can do with them by class (and level);
- Fighters might get bonus attack/damage (strong, physical) making their attacks stronger, plus the ability to trade attacks/actions for combat maneuvers (disarm etc.)
- Rogues might get more additional actions (quick, nimble), plus the ability to trade attacks for bonus damage (sniper) or mobility.
- Mages get spellcasting (duh) and trade actions to cast more powerful spells

[Warder]

The way I'd design a system would be something along the lines of giving everyone the equivalent of Extra Attack or perhaps additional actions in a turn (increasing by level) and tailoring what you can do with them by class (and level);
- Fighters might get bonus attack/damage (strong, physical) making their attacks stronger, plus the ability to trade attacks/actions for combat maneuvers (disarm etc.)
- Rogues might get more additional actions (quick, nimble), plus the ability to trade attacks for bonus damage (sniper) or mobility.
- Mages get spellcasting (duh) and trade actions to cast more powerful spells

That's more or less Pathfinder 2! I think it works really well there and a hybrid system would work well for 5e I believe.

[Rynjin]

Or even the quintessential rogue weapon a blackjack, 5e rogues cannot sneak attack with one.

Yeah, I found it weird when I made my Rogue that I couldn't even vaguely recreate my favorite Rogue build from PF. Sap Adept (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/sap-adept-combat/)and Sap Master (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/sap-master-combat/), for posterity.

Slapping someone with a cosh seems like such a ridiculously fitting Rogue thing to do. Did nobody on the 5e dev team play Thief?

[JellyPooga]

That's more or less Pathfinder 2! I think it works really well there and a hybrid system would work well for 5e I believe.

Huh. I've never looked at it myself. Thinking maybe I should! :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

Early on in the next play testing you could sneak attack with any one-handed weapons so I think it was just a legacy choice that they forgot to adjust during the initial printing of 5e.

[nickl_2000]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/Qsb5HYcljbmkk4orxQ/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e470e15zoxs6mn34k6ifubrxpo9txp9 teuezxn98vwc&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g


Although my table also allows sneak attack with a long sword even though it's not a finesse weapon.

[Sigreid]

Useful for disguising yourself to walk among nobles/nights that use longswords and not look like an incompetent boob if you have to demonstrate skill for some reason.

And probably because historically it was expected to be the most common sword type in the game, especially when it came to magic weapons.

[Pildion]

More the first bit than the second; given sneak attack, it's not really a better weapon regardless of whether you're using strength or not unless you're just never getting sneak attack! (You can sneak attack with strength just fine as long as the weapon is a finesse weapon.)

While this is true RAW, I've never played with a DM that did this, and I don't ether. If your a rogue, you get your sneak attack, the difference between a rapier and longsword is the damage type, same die. You can count the number of enemies in all the books on your hands where that damage type would matter.

[Sparky McDibben]

I just swap this for whip proficiency at my table.

[heavyfuel]

My guess - and it's nothing but a guess - is that the designers were going to make Sneak Attack work with any weapon, much like in 3.5. However, they were probably too afraid of a Str-Rogue with a Greatsword dealing 2d6+2d6 at level 3, and decided to call it quits

[Witty Username]

My guess - and it's nothing but a guess - is that the designers were going to make Sneak Attack work with any weapon, much like in 3.5. However, they were probably too afraid of a Str-Rogue with a Greatsword dealing 2d6+2d6 at level 3, and decided to call it quits
That would be my guess as well. Cowards.

[JackPhoenix]

Early on in the next play testing you could sneak attack with any one-handed weapons so I think it was just a legacy choice that they forgot to adjust during the initial printing of 5e.

Same reason why hand crossbow has Light property: It worked differently before release.

[JLandan]

This thread really has me thinking of house ruling club, mace and quarterstaff to the sneak attack list.

Finesse, ranged, or simple bludgeoning. The martial bludgeoning weapons seem heavy for a love tap.

Also, a knock-out strike rule. When attacking a surprised humanoid, the attacker may forego all damage with a bludgeoning weapon, improvised weapon, or unarmed strike to incapacitate on a failed Con save (DC 8 + proficiency bonus + Str or Dex mod).

Does this step on monk's Stunning Strike? I don't think so because the Monk keeps the damage and it works on any target regardless of surprised condition or creature type.

Thoughts?

[Psyren]

This thread really has me thinking of house ruling club, mace and quarterstaff to the sneak attack list.

Finesse, ranged, or simple bludgeoning. The martial bludgeoning weapons seem heavy for a love tap.

I'd be okay with this.



Also, a knock-out strike rule. When attacking a surprised humanoid, the attacker may forego all damage with a bludgeoning weapon, improvised weapon, or unarmed strike to incapacitate on a failed Con save (DC 8 + proficiency bonus + Str or Dex mod).

Does this step on monk's Stunning Strike? I don't think so because the Monk keeps the damage and it works on any target regardless of surprised condition or creature type.

Thoughts?

The big problem I see here is duration. If it's one round it's pretty much not worth it (surprise does that anyway), but any more than that and it quickly becomes too good. There's almost no in-between.

[stoutstien]

Same reason why hand crossbow has Light property: It worked differently before release.

Aye. I still have a copy of most of the Next play test material. Some good concepts in tjere just needs some polishing.

[Amnestic]

This thread really has me thinking of house ruling club, mace and quarterstaff to the sneak attack list.

Finesse, ranged, or simple bludgeoning. The martial bludgeoning weapons seem heavy for a love tap.

I made Flail a finesse weapon since it's a d8 Martial with no other traits, and it seemed reasonable conceptually that the finnicky chain weapon might like some dex attached to it.



Also, a knock-out strike rule. When attacking a surprised humanoid, the attacker may forego all damage with a bludgeoning weapon, improvised weapon, or unarmed strike to incapacitate on a failed Con save (DC 8 + proficiency bonus + Str or Dex mod).

Does this step on monk's Stunning Strike? I don't think so because the Monk keeps the damage and it works on any target regardless of surprised condition or creature type.

Thoughts?

I think it's fine. There's an argument to be made that knocking people out (or slitting their throat) shouldn't be modeled with "combat" rules and instead "narrative" rules, in which case I would either remove the save component (you hit, you automatically knock them out) or the attack component (you automatically hit, they save vs. being knocked out) but those cases are usually more context-sensitive than a general rule would be applicable for.

[JLandan]

I'd be okay with this.



The big problem I see here is duration. If it's one round it's pretty much not worth it (surprise does that anyway), but any more than that and it quickly becomes too good. There's almost no in-between.

Duration is a good question. One round is useless. How about 1 plus Str or Dex mod in rounds?

I chose incapacitated because it is the least of incapacitated/stunned/unconscious. Would stunned or unconscious be better?

Or... Unconscious with a save each round till successful?
PCs that cannot be surprised would be immune.

[Psyren]

Duration is a good question. One round is useless. How about 1 plus Str or Dex mod in rounds?
..
I chose incapacitated because it is the least of incapacitated/stunned/unconscious. Would stunned or unconscious be better?

You might as well make it a minute at that point. Either way they're out for the whole combat. Even a 2-3 round incapacitate is little better than slitting their throat as far as their allies are concerned. And you're right, incap is the least of the three, i.e. the other two are even worse.

I'm not saying it should be impossible to knock someone out rather than fight them - but I'm leaning towards Amnestic's "handle it outside the combat framework" approach, especially considering that you nee to ambush them before combat begins to do this anyway.

[Rynjin]

I like how Mutants and Masterminds and a few other systems do it, which is basically that you can choose whether your damage up until the final hit was lethal or nonlethal as you strike the final blow.

[Psyren]

I like how Mutants and Masterminds and a few other systems do it, which is basically that you can choose whether your damage up until the final hit was lethal or nonlethal as you strike the final blow.

5e does that too actually (PHB 198). The issue here is that 5e hit point values are so high that doing that at the start of a fight with one hit is very difficult, and only gets more difficult as the game goes on. So it's usually best to handle it narratively unless it's at the end of a fight instead.

[Rynjin]

5e does that too actually (PHB 198). The issue here is that 5e hit point values are so high that doing that at the start of a fight with one hit is very difficult, and only gets more difficult as the game goes on. So it's usually best to handle it narratively unless it's at the end of a fight instead.

Yeah...that's always been my experience as well. I maintain that the worst thing about 5e is that they decided to flatten all the numbers, including DAMAGE numbers, but left HP values IDENTICAL to what they were in 3.5.

Such a bizarre choice. Why not flatten the HP values too?

I'd forgotten about the knockout rule in 5e.

[Greywander]

The way I'd design a system would be something along the lines of giving everyone the equivalent of Extra Attack or perhaps additional actions in a turn (increasing by level) and tailoring what you can do with them by class (and level);
- Fighters might get bonus attack/damage (strong, physical) making their attacks stronger, plus the ability to trade attacks/actions for combat maneuvers (disarm etc.)
- Rogues might get more additional actions (quick, nimble), plus the ability to trade attacks for bonus damage (sniper) or mobility.
- Mages get spellcasting (duh) and trade actions to cast more powerful spells
What I was thinking was a system where by default everyone has two attacks. You can trade both attacks for one much more powerful attack (a Power Attack, one might say), or you can trade one attack for two weaker attacks (one might call this a Flurry) (if you trade both attacks, you would get four weaker attacks). Each option would have roughly the same base DPR by default. Then it would be a matter of speccing into effects that are weaker but apply to each hit, or effects that are stronger but only apply to the first hit. E.g. +1 damage per hit vs. +1d6 on the first hit. Choosing to Power Attack or Flurry might also affect accuracy. A Power Attack might ignore part of the AC from armor, or amplify AC from DEX, while a Flurry Attack would do the opposite.

Anyway, that's just a rough thought. A system like this would give the players more choice in how they specialize, instead of being forced to do one or the other. As someone said, many weaker attacks kind of doesn't fit a sniper's style, a pain that I feel on my Eldritch Sniper build.

[Chronos]

Quoth loki_ragnarok:

Very likely because of Fafhrd and The Gray Mouser.
Likely, yes. Even though the Grey Mouser used a rapier, and Fafhrd was, in 5e terms, a valor bard and/or barbarian.

[JLandan]

The knockout rule only works on melee attacks. And you must reduce the target to 0 hp. That can take a while. If you want to sneak up and conk someone on the back of the head to knock them out without sounding an alarm, it will seldom work.

[GreyBlack]

I actually have a houserule that makes them finesse weapons when wielded with two hands. The idea being that two hands gives you more control over the weapon and doesn't require as much strength to use.

This also makes it make more sense for elves to get longsword proficiency, since their default ASIs are in DEX. With Tasha's that doesn't matter as much anymore, but it still makes sense from a thematic standpoint (while you can build a STR elf, a DEX elf fits the flavor better).

I'll also put forward that you should be able to Sneak Attack with any weapon. I really don't know why they decided to limit it. I will say that it should perhaps be limited to weapons you're proficient with. But hitting someone on the back of the head with a club is like the second most cliche sneak attack, after only literally stabbing them in the back.

I, for one, love this house rule. Just came here to say this, and I'm now considering adopting it.

[Kane0]

I would have assumed either a pure carryover from previous editions that went largely under the rader or because at some point the Versatile trait also did something else regarding finesse or sneak attack specifically, but I can't rule out that it was just to taunt rogues, elves and elven rogues.

[Witty Username]

Yeah...that's always been my experience as well. I maintain that the worst thing about 5e is that they decided to flatten all the numbers, including DAMAGE numbers, but left HP values IDENTICAL to what they were in 3.5.


I think that is a bit class dependent, most of the martial classes have some amount of damage scaling built in. Rogue is probably the most obvious with its sneak attack scaling. fighters get more attacks and action surges, Paladins get Imp. divine smite and more slots for smites, etc. I agree that 5e has issues on that though.

[Rynjin]

I think that is a bit class dependent, most of the martial classes have some amount of damage scaling built in. Rogue is probably the most obvious with its sneak attack scaling. fighters get more attacks and action surges, Paladins get Imp. divine smite and more slots for smites, etc. I agree that 5e has issues on that though.

Even then, damage is a lot lower. Remember Sneak Attack used to be applied to every attack, not just your first hit in a round. And so on.

Every class got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge damage nerf compared to 3.5, but enemies got zero HP nerfs.

[Psyren]

Even then, damage is a lot lower. Remember Sneak Attack used to be applied to every attack, not just your first hit in a round. And so on.

Every class got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge damage nerf compared to 3.5, but enemies got zero HP nerfs.

Didn't 3.5 have a "rocket tag" problem at high levels? This may have been a response to that.

[Rynjin]

Didn't 3.5 have a "rocket tag" problem at high levels? This may have been a response to that.

I think it's preferable for combats to be too short than too long, if they're going to go to extremes. Even 2-3 round combats can last a long time at higher levels. Upping that to 6-8 rounds on average (my experience with combat in 5e at levels 10+) is excruciating.

[Witty Username]

Even then, damage is a lot lower. Remember Sneak Attack used to be applied to every attack, not just your first hit in a round. And so on.

Every class got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge damage nerf compared to 3.5, but enemies got zero HP nerfs.

In 3.5 we weren't getting that much in multiple attacks anyway though. The -5 for each consecutive attack really cut into the value as hits were so rare. Fighter got a good deal in 5th 3 attacks per round all with usable attack bonuses and can move while doing it.

Didn't 3.5 have a "rocket tag" problem at high levels? This may have been a response to that.
A little, but that was more an issue with save or die effects that didn't care what hp the target had in any event.
There were outliers like shock trooper fighter (it traded AC for damage at a 1 for 2 ratio, it was silly)

[Psyren]

In 3.5 we weren't getting that much in multiple attacks anyway though. The -5 for each consecutive attack really cut into the value as hits were so rare. Fighter got a good deal in 5th 3 attacks per round all with usable attack bonuses and can move while doing it.

Yeah in 5e everybody functionally gets pounce. Having said that there is also bounded accuracy (including from items) offsetting that.



A little, but that was more an issue with save or die effects that didn't care what hp the target had in any event.
There were outliers like shock trooper fighter (it traded AC for damage at a 1 for 2 ratio, it was silly)

Well yeah, if SoD was still a thing in 5e people would optimize for that here too. But that doesn't mean high-damage builds were uncommon; Mailman, Craven, Killipedes etc. If 5e were to port that philosophy in there'd be no need for legendary resistances, most big monsters would be dead before they became a factor. I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind combats taking a bit longer at the top end this time around.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As for combat length, I find the sweet spot is 2-3 rounds before something changes. A wave of reinforcements, a dramatic shift (terrain, new monster form, etc), etc.

Long enough for creatures to show off their big thing, not too long ago people get bored.

[Willie the Duck]

I would have assumed either a pure carryover from previous editions that went largely under the rader or because at some point the Versatile trait also did something else regarding finesse or sneak attack specifically, but I can't rule out that it was just to taunt rogues, elves and elven rogues.

I mean, that's definitely my impression of the 'why' -- because rogue/thieves (and elves) have had longswords in the past and so they should now, nevermind that the rules have changed and longswords are now hand and a half swords (bringing them closer to the historical use of the term) than the overwhelmingly one-handed* swords they previously were and finesse rules have changed to make rapiers a much preferable option for dex focused classes (/races) and backstab/sneak attack rules have changed to include rapiers and shortswords** but exclude longsword and so on.
*yes, in some editions you could eek out a +1 damage or something for using them two-handed, but there was an actual different weapon on the weapon chart dedicated to the 1-or-2-handed sword option.
**And the decided desire to get two chances to make the SA damage sticking really favoring two-weapon fighting

Personally, I don't see a lot of harm in letting sneak attack work with longswords used one-handed; or longswords used with Dex*; or SA with non-dex weapons in general. Honestly, that they gave wizards the ability to cast in armor (provided they find some way to get proficiency), the entire constraining other classes and concepts (rogues and druids in particular) to only work with their role-specified options seems like a strange decision. I'd rather they not start with those proficiencies, but then if they got them somehow (such as by being an elven rogue or mountain dwarf druid), they could use such items with their class benefits perfectly well.
*other than giving Dex yet another perk, although since rapiers do the same damage in most instances this isn't exactly a huge issue

[Rynjin]

In 3.5 we weren't getting that much in multiple attacks anyway though. The -5 for each consecutive attack really cut into the value as hits were so rare. Fighter got a good deal in 5th 3 attacks per round all with usable attack bonuses and can move while doing it.

I think you're forgetting how many static damage bonuses were lost in 5e. A 5e Fighter is swinging for something like 2d6+10 x3 (or about 51 damage a round if all three hit). The 3.5 Fighter at an equivalent level is doing close to that 51 damage, or more per swing.

I will reiterate, this in and of itself is neither good nor bad. However, I think it is very bad combined with the lack of toning down on HP numbers.

[Chronos]

A 3rd edition fighter had less accuracy with each subsequent attack. A 5th edition fighter gets all of their attacks at the same accuracy as the 3rd edition fighter had on their third attack. This is not a net benefit for the fighter.

[Kane0]

A 3rd edition fighter had less accuracy with each subsequent attack. A 5th edition fighter gets all of their attacks at the same accuracy as the 3rd edition fighter had on their third attack. This is not a net benefit for the fighter.

That accuracy is relative however. Fighters don't have to compete with miss chance on top of AC plus damage resistance on top of damage reduction on top of fast healing which is different to regeneration. You have AC and Damage resistance or immunity to contend with, and that AC largely stops scaling once you hit the mid levels rather than being continually boosted far beyond the ability of the d20 roll to impact the result.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A 3rd edition fighter had less accuracy with each subsequent attack. A 5th edition fighter gets all of their attacks at the same accuracy as the 3rd edition fighter had on their third attack. This is not a net benefit for the fighter.


That accuracy is relative however. Fighters don't have to compete with miss chance on top of AC plus damage resistance on top of damage reduction on top of fast healing which is different to regeneration. You have AC and Damage resistance or immunity to contend with, and that AC largely stops scaling once you hit the mid levels rather than being continually boosted far beyond the ability of the d20 roll to impact the result.

Plus, you know, not being able to move and do your full attack routine.

In general, I find that most 5e monsters die really really fast when focused, by anything other than the weakest party. As they should--3-4 rounds of active combat is plenty. Less for an individual mook-class enemy.

Now if the DM is only running fights against creatures of CR ~> level, then there's a bit more of a problem. That's another difference from 3e--monsters don't "age out" quite as fast.

[JLandan]

This thread really has me thinking of house ruling club, mace and quarterstaff to the sneak attack list.

Finesse, ranged, or simple bludgeoning. The martial bludgeoning weapons seem heavy for a love tap.

Also, a knock-out strike rule. When attacking a surprised humanoid, the attacker may forego all damage with a bludgeoning weapon, improvised weapon, or unarmed strike to incapacitate on a failed Con save (DC 8 + proficiency bonus + Str or Dex mod).

Does this step on monk's Stunning Strike? I don't think so because the Monk keeps the damage and it works on any target regardless of surprised condition or creature type.

Thoughts?

Using a club for sneak attack is making me re-think Shillelagh.

[MrCharlie]

Haven't seen anyone mention it, but Sunblades are longswords with finesse, and Rogue's are excellent at using them because of it.

Otherwise-Likely because the designers didn't decide to kill STR rogues until later in the development cycle, and probably (certainly) didn't have a full weapon property list either, so some things got forgotten.

In terms of "Why not finesse", it's easier to come up with weapons that don't benefit from dexterity than those that do-even a Warhammer is less about hitting hard and more about hitting smart. Even accounting for fantasy tropes, spears and swords could easily be finesse while axes and hammers were strength. But then we have GWM with DEX, and STR becomes pointless unless you're grappling-and grappling, while fun for a lark, isn't usually optimal.

[Rynjin]

That accuracy is relative however. Fighters don't have to compete with miss chance on top of AC plus damage resistance on top of damage reduction on top of fast healing which is different to regeneration. You have AC and Damage resistance or immunity to contend with, and that AC largely stops scaling once you hit the mid levels rather than being continually boosted far beyond the ability of the d20 roll to impact the result.

Yeah, they're definitely relatively more accurate. Everyone is. That's another thing I'm kinda not a fan of, but doesn't super bother me; AC is pretty easy to softcap while accuracy rises to levels that largely obsolete it regardless. One of my favorite systems (Final Fantasy d6) has the same issue.

[Chronos]

Sunblades already count as both longswords and shortswords, for purposes of proficiency, so rogues would be proficient with them anyway.

[stoutstien]

Haven't seen anyone mention it, but Sunblades are longswords with finesse, and Rogue's are excellent at using them because of it.

Otherwise-Likely because the designers didn't decide to kill STR rogues until later in the development cycle, and probably (certainly) didn't have a full weapon property list either, so some things got forgotten.

In terms of "Why not finesse", it's easier to come up with weapons that don't benefit from dexterity than those that do-even a Warhammer is less about hitting hard and more about hitting smart. Even accounting for fantasy tropes, spears and swords could easily be finesse while axes and hammers were strength. But then we have GWM with DEX, and STR becomes pointless unless you're grappling-and grappling, while fun for a lark, isn't usually optimal.

It's easier if you don't look at finesse as precision but as a description of where the balance point of the weapon is. Almost all 5e Finesse weapons are "hilt heavy" or and the others tend to be blade/too heavy. Note both can be well balanced in the hands but the rotational inertia can be different. Could go really deep and talk about "sweet spots" or spots or zones where the impact has no lost energy in vibrating.

Most likely they just make a cap of D8 for the finesse tag and called it good.

[JackPhoenix]

It's easier if you don't look at finesse as precision but as a description of where the balance point of the weapon is. Almost all 5e Finesse weapons are "hilt heavy" or and the others tend to be blade/too heavy. Note both can be well balanced in the hands but the rotational inertia can be different. Could go really deep and talk about "sweet spots" or spots or zones where the impact has no lost energy in vibrating.

Most likely they just make a cap of D8 for the finesse tag and called it good.

And then there's the whip, which gets finesse because, well, strength doesn't do much there anyway.

[stoutstien]

And then there's the whip, which gets finesse because, well, strength doesn't do much there anyway.

In my mind the D&D whip is closer to a chain, hard, or section linked whip then a leather or corded one. I've never made or used one of them so I have no idea what's involved there lol.

[Willowhelm]

In my mind the D&D whip is closer to a chain, hard, or section linked whip then a leather or corded one. I've never made or used one of them so I have no idea what's involved there lol.

What is this based on? Is this just the way you picture it or is there some mechanical reason that it seems that way?

I’m asking because my current PC is using a whip and I’ve been thinking about re-skinning it and changing the damage type.

[MrCharlie]

In my mind the D&D whip is closer to a chain, hard, or section linked whip then a leather or corded one. I've never made or used one of them so I have no idea what's involved there lol.
I'm pretty sure whips have shown up in weapon tables before as leather whips.

Of course, chain whips make immensely more sense, in that they are actually weapons and not torture tools.

(Or ways to motivate animals/show off, to be more generous)

[stoutstien]

What is this based on? Is this just the way you picture it or is there some mechanical reason that it seems that way?

I’m asking because my current PC is using a whip and I’ve been thinking about re-skinning it and changing the damage type.

Mostly conceptual. Bullwhips, stock whips( crops and striking rods) or snake whips are iconic when we think of whips but as weapons they don't make much sense in my mind. I'm not saying that they can't be used as such but so could a large fish. If a player wants to envision those when they use a whip I ha e no problem with it but if I had my way those would be moved over to adventuring gear.

[JackPhoenix]

Mostly conceptual. Bullwhips, stock whips( crops and striking rods) or snake whips are iconic when we think of whips but as weapons they don't make much sense in my mind. I'm not saying that they can't be used as such but so could a large fish. If a player wants to envision those when they use a whip I ha e no problem with it but if I had my way those would be moved over to adventuring gear.

There's a reason why whip only does 1d4 damage (granted, the reason is more likely because it's one-handed, finesse, reach weapon). The fact it does slashing instead of bludgeoning damage also supports the fact it's propably supposed to be a bullwhip or something similar.

[stoutstien]

There's a reason why whip only does 1d4 damage (granted, the reason is more likely because it's one-handed, finesse, reach weapon). The fact it does slashing instead of bludgeoning damage also supports the fact it's propably supposed to be a bullwhip or something similar.

Maybe. Like I said I don't have any real issue with it if a players wants that but conceptually I don't like it. Tipped whips are an option as well.

[Psyren]

A 3rd edition fighter had less accuracy with each subsequent attack. A 5th edition fighter gets all of their attacks at the same accuracy as the 3rd edition fighter had on their third attack. This is not a net benefit for the fighter.

5e CR 15 Mummy Lord (97 HP): AC 17
3.5 CR 15 Mummy Lord (97 HP): AC 30

I think your analysis may have missed something crucial.

[Asmotherion]

Nothing stops you from doing your sneak attack with a dagger and following up with a longsword, if you somehow get one I guess.

[Witty Username]

I would like to link this thread as it has about all of my opinions on the subject of rogues and long swords. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?609442-Worst-case-Best-case-scenario-allowing-the-rogue-to-sneak-attack-with-a-longsword)

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing stops you from doing your sneak attack with a dagger and following up with a longsword, if you somehow get one I guess.

Except the fact you need Dual Wielder to use TWF with non-light weapons.

[Rynjin]

Except the fact you need Dual Wielder to use TWF with non-light weapons.

You don't need TWFing to make an attack with one weapon, then your Extra Attack with another weapon.

Why you'd do this is another question, but eh.

[JNAProductions]

You don't need TWFing to make an attack with one weapon, then your Extra Attack with another weapon.

Why you'd do this is another question, but eh.

Rogues don’t get Extra Attack, though.

[Chronos]

Quoth Psyren:

5e CR 15 Mummy Lord (97 HP): AC 17
3.5 CR 15 Mummy Lord (97 HP): AC 30

I think your analysis may have missed something crucial.
The 5th edition 15th-level fighter, with a total attack bonus of 10 (+5 proficiency, +5 strength), needs a 7 or higher to hit the Mummy Lord. The 3rd edition 15th-level fighter, meanwhile, will have a fair amount of variation in his attack bonus, due to different levels of optimization, but will have at a conservative estimate have an attack bonus of +30/+25/+20 (+15/+10/+5 BAB, +8 strength, +5 magic weapon, +2 from feats and such), and so needs a 10 to hit the mummy lord with his third attack. And it can get even better, with just a small amount of optimization.

[Gurgeh]

You don't need TWFing to make an attack with one weapon, then your Extra Attack with another weapon.

Why you'd do this is another question, but eh.
While that is true, if you are a single-classed Rogue, you do not have Extra Attack, and your only reliable way of getting a second swing in a turn is via two-weapon fighting.

Object interaction rules mean you can't trivially swap your weapons in the same hand around every turn, so you're functionally asking the player to arm themselves for a dual-wielding setup they're not actually able to use in the one turn.

EDIT: why does the 3.5 fighter get a +5 weapon (at least a little bit overtuned even in 3.5's WBL guidelines given +5 is the absolute ceiling of what you can have pre-Epic) while the 5e fighter gets... nothing?

[Psyren]

The 5th edition 15th-level fighter, with a total attack bonus of 10 (+5 proficiency, +5 strength), needs a 7 or higher to hit the Mummy Lord. The 3rd edition 15th-level fighter, meanwhile, will have a fair amount of variation in his attack bonus, due to different levels of optimization, but will have at a conservative estimate have an attack bonus of +30/+25/+20 (+15/+10/+5 BAB, +8 strength, +5 magic weapon, +2 from feats and such), and so needs a 10 to hit the mummy lord with his third attack. And it can get even better, with just a small amount of optimization.

Why are you comparing a naked 5e Fighter with no feats to a 3.5 one decked out in both?

[Kane0]

Why are you comparing a naked 5e Fighter with no feats to a 3.5 one decked out in both?

I'm guessing because those are the assumptions of the respective systems?

[OvisCaedo]

Magic items are an expected part of 3.5's progression and an "optional" system in 5e. There's a lot of assumptions and factors missing from the analysis, but... a 3.5 fighter's potential damage ABSOLUTELY blows a 5e one's out of the water. The problem is that the high level 3.5 fighter was likely to be constantly shut out of dealing it at all, either by enemy abilities or just being obsoleted by some broken thing the casters are doing, and only certain builds would be able to deal more than one attack while moving. Of course, that single attack was likely to be MUCH stronger than a 5e one, but probably not stronger than the 5e guy's full attack sequence.

though i technically never actually played 3.5, only pathfinder.

[Dienekes]

While that is true, if you are a single-classed Rogue, you do not have Extra Attack, and your only reliable way of getting a second swing in a turn is via two-weapon fighting.

Object interaction rules mean you can't trivially swap your weapons in the same hand around every turn, so you're functionally asking the player to arm themselves for a dual-wielding setup they're not actually able to use in the one turn.

EDIT: why does the 3.5 fighter get a +5 weapon (at least a little bit overtuned even in 3.5's WBL guidelines given +5 is the absolute ceiling of what you can have pre-Epic) while the 5e fighter gets... nothing?

In fairness, magic weapons and feats in 5e are specifically called out as optional in the system, while 3.5 had feats baked in and a more rigorous wealth per level system.

But really, as presented it is a bit unfair, and also kinda unnecessary. 3.5 had so many random splats and PrCs and combos that getting +7 doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

Also, I kinda think this whole methodology is a bit off. Attack is just one measure, what is actually important is how quick they can kill the enemy, of which accuracy is just one part of the equation. Now, I will admit I haven't done the math. But I sincerely doubt anything in 5e will compare to Pounce, Power Attack, Shock Trooper shenanigans.

[JNAProductions]

In fairness, magic weapons and feats in 5e are specifically called out as optional in the system, while 3.5 had feats baked in and a more rigorous wealth per level system.

But really, as presented it is a bit unfair, and also kinda unnecessary. 3.5 had so many random splats and PrCs and combos that getting +7 doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

Also, I kinda think this whole methodology is a bit off. Attack is just one measure, what is actually important is how quick they can kill the enemy, of which accuracy is just one part of the equation. Now, I will admit I haven't done the math. But I sincerely doubt anything in 5e will compare to Pounce, Power Attack, Shock Trooper shenanigans.

Which is good! Rocket tag is not, at least to me, desirable.

[Witty Username]

The 5th edition 15th-level fighter, with a total attack bonus of 10 (+5 proficiency, +5 strength), needs a 7 or higher to hit the Mummy Lord. The 3rd edition 15th-level fighter, meanwhile, will have a fair amount of variation in his attack bonus, due to different levels of optimization, but will have at a conservative estimate have an attack bonus of +30/+25/+20 (+15/+10/+5 BAB, +8 strength, +5 magic weapon, +2 from feats and such), and so needs a 10 to hit the mummy lord with his third attack. And it can get even better, with just a small amount of optimization.
Kinda, but give the 5e fighter a +3 weapon, that goes to a 4 or better.
Also, a 5e fighter will tend to make 6 attacks 1 round in a combat.
A 3.5 fighter will tend to have a turn making only 1.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is good! Rocket tag is not, at least to me, desirable.

Amen to that. I want monsters who live 2-5 rounds under active fire. Because then
* they have a chance to do their cool special thing
* they don't have to have their outgoing damage sized at "one-round KO". Because then the players have a chance to do their special cool thing.

[Psyren]

Uhhh... am I the only one reading the DMG? :smallconfused:

Magic items are absolutely expected in 5e. Tiers of Play:


Levels 5-10: Heroes of the Realm
...
They start acquiring more permanent magic items (uncommon and rare ones)...which will serve them for the rest of their careers.

Levels 11-16: Masters of the Realm
...
The adventurers find rare magic items (and very rare ones) that bestow similarly powerful abilities.
...
Levels 17-20: Masters of the World
...
Characters have several rare and very rare magic items at their disposal, and begin discovering legendary items such as a vorpal sword or a staff of the magi.

It might not be as rigid as 3.5's WBL table - nor should it be - but the baseline expectations of each tier are clear. Comparing a naked 15th level 5e fighter to a fully decked out 3.5 one is nonsensical.

[Kane0]

Uhhh... am I the only one reading the DMG? :smallconfused:

Magic items are absolutely expected in 5e. Tiers of Play:

It might not be as rigid as 3.5's WBL table - nor should it be - but the baseline expectations of each tier are clear. Comparing a naked 15th level 5e fighter to a fully decked out 3.5 one is nonsensical.

Now take a look at the 5e PHB vs the 3.5 PHB. And there's the fact that the DMG was released close to 4 months after the PHB and 3 months after the MM.

[Psyren]

Now take a look at the 5e PHB vs the 3.5 PHB. And there's the fact that the DMG was released close to 4 months after the PHB and 3 months after the MM.

And? How does any of this change what I quoted?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What's not expected are magic items that give +X to hit and damage. It's not unexpected or out of bounds, but the system math does not assume specific items or numbers from items. That statement could be totally true if you only found utility items and maybe a common mom touched blade.

Unlike 3e and 4e where you need to get certain numbers from your gear or you'd fall behind the curve.

[Psyren]

What's not expected are magic items that give +X to hit and damage. It's not unexpected or out of bounds, but the system math does not assume specific items or numbers from items. That statement could be totally true if you only found utility items and maybe a common mom touched blade.

Unlike 3e and 4e where you need to get certain numbers from your gear or you'd fall behind the curve.

Sure, if you compare a 15th level naked fighter or a fighter with useless items to one from 3.5 with perfect gear then you negate the benefit of the reduced AC in this edition. That's not the flex it appears to be.