[5e] sneak attack weapon limitations

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
The RAW limitation was deliberately put in by the authors to mitigate the Rogue outshining the Fighter.

In order for the Rogue to get a sneak attack every round, the Rogue player has to be working with the rest of the team. The most common case for sneak attack is that there an ally next to the target. So there that.
Meh. It’s not that much a boost really in the grand scheme of things. An extra d6 damage (with a great sword) on a PC with only one attack a round (and they could off hand attack for the same.)

It’s probably there more to prevent multiclass shenanigans such as reckless attacking barbarians using it.
 
Ive heard this before... Its not true. It was introduced in supplement 1 greyhawk which is also the supplement that severed ties with chainmail and made d&d standalone. So unless you played pre supplement D&D for less than a year, or chainmail... thief was always a part of it.

Saying it wasnt is like saying burglars were not a part of Middle Earth because they weren't in LoTR.

All the source material D&D used had thieves... Conan, tolkein, etc...
Before the Thief came onto the scene, the Fighter could climb, like Conan did in the Tower of The Elephant. He was never a Thief, that was Taurus of Nemedia. Conan was 18, he barely would have been a Fighter.

But the moment the class became a thing, it was the only class that could suddenly climb because it had a percentage chance of doing so and no one else. Then they added the proficiency system in later editions, which confused the matter and had to explain what a Thief's Climbing percentage suddenly 'really' meant.

Whether or not it was there within a year or two of the original Chainmail system, doesn't actually matter. If you look at the class system, the Thief disrupts it, by giving the impression that it 'locks out' activities that by rights other classes should be able to do. Just with less success.
 
This is all true, and regrettable, but OD&D brought it on themselves. First of all, it was the authors who made this stuff up. More importantly, they didn't offer any clear guidance as to how you should figure out whether or not a person falls to their death when trying to climb a cliff, or succeeds at grabbing a merchant's purse, or tip toes behind someone un-noticed. The usual explanation - 'we made it up as we went along, stupid young person' - is absurd: you can't just talk your way through every risky thing people try to do; if that were the case, we wouldn't need a combat system either. Nature abhors a vacuum, so it got filled, but in a way that sent us down this path of constant sub-division of the separate magisteria of the classes.
 
Before the Thief came onto the scene, the Fighter could climb, like Conan did in the Tower of The Elephant. He was never a Thief, that was Taurus of Nemedia. Conan was 18, he barely would have been a Fighter.

But the moment the class became a thing, it was the only class that could suddenly climb because it had a percentage chance of doing so and no one else. Then they added the proficiency system in later editions, which confused the matter and had to explain what a Thief's Climbing percentage suddenly 'really' meant.

Whether or not it was there within a year or two of the original Chainmail system, doesn't actually matter. If you look at the class system, the Thief disrupts it, by giving the impression that it 'locks out' activities that by rights other classes should be able to do. Just with less success.

No, it really doesn't. It's been hard baked into every edition of D&D ever since. It's been a staple class of D&D and fills a niche like every other class does. Clerics are healers, Mages are offensive casters, Fighters are bashers, Thieves are... well thieves. Everything else either specializes upon these classes or combines the core classes.
It's one of the principles of Dungeons of Dragons and the 4 main party roles to fill. It doesn't lock out abilities any more than the fighter locks out melee combat or the ranger locks out ranged combat. It is a specialist in an aspect of play. Period.
All other characters can attempt to do what the thief can do, they just can't do it as well. However, the same can't be said of the cleric or mage... What they do is definitely something only they can do.
 
This is all true, and regrettable, but OD&D brought it on themselves. First of all, it was the authors who made this stuff up. More importantly, they didn't offer any clear guidance as to how you should figure out whether or not a person falls to their death when trying to climb a cliff, or succeeds at grabbing a merchant's purse, or tip toes behind someone un-noticed. The usual explanation - 'we made it up as we went along, stupid young person' - is absurd: you can't just talk your way through every risky thing people try to do; if that were the case, we wouldn't need a combat system either. Nature abhors a vacuum, so it got filled, but in a way that sent us down this path of constant sub-division of the separate magisteria of the classes.
To be fair, most people who played at the early versions were often told that they were allowed to make it up as they went along. Most people, like myself, who only had the books, defaulted to the basic Human condition: If the Rules don't say, then No.
 
Balance-wise, I just don't see the issue. A glaive does, on average, two points more damage per successful attack than a short sword. The polearm assassin is sacrificing the ability to use the objectively superior DEX score for... two points of damage and reach?

Flavor-wise, it breaks my teeth for reasons already listed-- you simply cannot slip a bohemian earspoon into an orcish sentry's spleen through a gap in its chitin, no matter how subtle you are.
 
Balance-wise, I just don't see the issue. A glaive does, on average, two points more damage per successful attack than a short sword. The polearm assassin is sacrificing the ability to use the objectively superior DEX score for... two points of damage and reach?

Flavor-wise, it breaks my teeth for reasons already listed-- you simply cannot slip a bohemian earspoon into an orcish sentry's spleen through a gap in its chitin, no matter how subtle you are.
Good point. :smile:
 
He was easily dishing out d10+d6+3 damage every turn, completely outshining my Fighter (who was also using a versatile, strength-based weapon).

With a rapier, the rogue is still going to outdamage the fighter: d8+d6+3 vs weapon+3 (with a maul, but with great weapon fighting style you could average a little more with the maul). At 5th level, with both advancing to 18 ability score, the fighter gets 2*weapon+8 and the rogue gets d8+3d6+4 (but the fighter can action surge once). Great Weapon Master helps, though, although rogues can take Sharpshooter. Rogues deal damage pretty fast without expending spell slots, but are dependent on circumstances to get that.

What would you do? Would you allow a dwarf rogue to do sneak attacks with heavy, two-handed hammers?

No, I wouldn't allow sneak attacks with two handed weapons at all. (There was a magic weapon in Princes of the Apocalypse, Windvane, that was a spear but had the finesse property. By RAW that would get sneak attack damage, even two handed.) More troubling for me, since rogues can do extra damage on animated rocks ("It's a rock! It doesn't have any vulnerable spots!") and creatures they've never seen before, it's clearly not knowledge of the opponent's anatomy; it's hard to justify.

I don't think that game balance is a huge issue; from a rapier's d8 to d10 isn't that big a jump. There are a few other possible effects: The hammer will do bludgeoning damage, so great damage on a creature vulnerable to bludgeoning like a minotaur skeleton; the normal choices for a rogue's melee weapon do piercing damage (they aren't normally proficient with whips or scimitars). Very high strength is slightly more possible than very high dexterity (e.g., potion or belt of giant strength). Multiclassing or feats might give a larger benefit (Great Weapon Master, raging barbarian).

Probably the single biggest change from "ye olde dayse" is that we didn't agonize endlessly over trivia.

Yes, this comment from that other thread is perfectly illustrated by this thread.
 
The reverse; on a higher dungeon level, and no map to join them. Something about snipes, which aren't even in the Monster Manual. :sad:
Ahh, Snipes... they are an elusive wandering monster... they always wander away from you when you think you are about to find them.
Some Snipes even take it too far though and end up in jail for tax evasion.

buuuurn.png
 
If my inner munchkin could get away with using my PC ally as an intelligent mount and dual wielding lances to sneak attack, I would. Unfortunately, as a dwarf you are the same size class as most PC Allowed Races. Should have chosen a Halfling. :clown:

A fair compromise would be to let thrown weapons -- used as thrown weapons! -- count for sneak attacks. Then the dwarf can play Super Mario Bros. Hammer Bros and throw light hammers at sneak attack targets. :dice:
 
Later I had a friendly debate with the GM about it. He argued that the rogue should be able to sneak attack with any weapons they want, as long as they can use them. He said that the math works out.
Ignoring that it’s the GM’s game and he / she calls the shots at the table... :smile:

A ‘normal’ rogue would be using a rapier for d8 base damage so this dwarf is only getting a single HP more damage on average. I would say ’rule of cool’ means if the player sees their character as providing precision blows on the bonce with their hammer that’s fine when the GM also agrees.

Our group probably wouldn’t build a character this way without asking first, but if it did happen then we’d say ‘oops’ and let the player continue with their character as envisaged.
 
Our group probably wouldn’t build a character this way without asking first, but if it did happen then we’d say ‘oops’ and let the player continue with their character as envisaged.

yeah this is ultimately what I suggested to the group and let it pass. But the player is also a DM who frequently has to deal with munchkins, so he decided to stick with RAW. Ah well.
 
He was easily dishing out d10+d6+3 damage every turn, completely outshining my Fighter (who was also using a versatile, strength-based weapon).
I mean, I feel you in theory, but in reality... he’s still gonna be out damaging you with a rapier or a short sword. Die type really doesn’t matter that much except in a crit. And fighters crit more than rogues.
 
In 4e parlance, rogues were ‘strikers’ whilst fighters were ‘defenders’. The reason I highlight this is that fighters have other combat factors that rogues don’t: higher armour class through heavy armour and shield, plus higher HP through hit dice and an easier time increasing Con.

So I’m ok with a rogue being able to throw out a single high-damage attack in combat (for which they need to engineer advantage or double-teaming) because the fighter is in there doing other stuff, like drawing enemy attacks and taking them.

To my mind comparing characters in one narrow area ignores all the other ways they are different that make up for that.
 
Once the Fighter gets their second attack the gap closes anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbm
I also would point out that if you add in Battlemaster maneuvers, the Fighter can usually pull another die of damage out of them, which can close that gap even more. However, as dbm dbm mentioned, there's more to a fighter than just DPR. One of my more memorable fighters at my table was a Goliath Battlemaster who fought exclusively sword-and-board, maintaining control of the situation so the other folks could survive to get their hits in. Even though he wasn't the highest damage output, he was VERY consistent, and crucial to a lot of the players' battles.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top