[5e] sneak attack weapon limitations

[Necrozius]

During last night’s game session, I stupidly started a debate that kind of spoiled the evening.

Here is what happened: there was a dwarven rogue who was making sneak attacks (pretty much every turn) with a versatile warhammer (using it two handed to deal d10 damage).

He was easily dishing out d10+d6+3 damage every turn, completely outshining my Fighter (who was also using a versatile, strength-based weapon).

Eventually, I felt something was off, so I asked the party, somewhat delicately, if sneak attacks are usually limited to light or finesse (dexterity-based) weapons. They disagreed, but looked it up and the dwarf PC’s player visibly looked disappointed.

Great job Necrozius, you ruined the fun.

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.

I argued that it felt like it took away from the utility of the Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin, who are Strength focuses in a game where Dex is far more prevalently used.

In online forums, there's no general consensus. It’s about sacred cows, flavor, theme, keeping the rogue Dex-based, balance, realism and fantasy. I’ve seen these topics used for and against allowing sneak attacks with any weapon at all.

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

 

[Sommerjon]

By da' rules Sneak Attack says:
The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
I haven't bothered to see if there are exceptions to that.

 

[OHT]

Yep, finesse or ranged attacks only by RAW.

 

[Necrozius]

Yeah RAW that’s the rule, but I’ve seen it argued that this rule should be relaxed.

my concern is the potential abuse of changing the rule. A fighter/rogue doing sneak attacks with a reach, heavy, 2-handed Glaive, for example.

 

[OHT]

Yeah RAW that’s the rule, but I’ve seen it argued that this rule should be relaxed.

my concern is the potential abuse of changing the rule. A fighter/rogue doing sneak attacks with a reach, heavy, 2-handed Glaive, for example.

Well, it's already being abused, so I think you were totally within your rights to raise it. In the normal course of events I would be happy that someone is consistently doing a lot of damage - saves my character's life potentially, but if the reason for that is a house rule making that character more effective whilst everyone else are playing RAW then your DM is going to start finding everyone dipping into Rogue for a level or so. At that point they should probably realise that their house rule isn't right.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

 

[Stan]

Don't want to go too far down this road with D&D but, from a realism perspective, finesse only sneak attacks makes sense. The concept is hitting a gap in the armor, sliding past a gap in their defense, and similar weak points. It should be easier to control a light weapon to hit an exact spot compare to a big weapon.

 

[Silverlion]

I'm a GM, I've got a PC who is 7th Level Rogue, and 1 Level of the artificer class. The character's damage outdoes a LOT of characters, even with finesse and ranged attacks. So, yeah, I'd stick with finesse weapons only. I'm also using every rule I can to reduce backstab's utility as an option without proper preparation (after all, even if you hide after an attack, someone knows you're there and can make a perception test to see you.) However the 'ally in melee' is a problematic one. Of course with skill expertise, the stealth score is obscenely high too. It's a bit of a problem. Mind you, when you hurt someone that bad, they tend to look for you, and often go after you specifically.

 

[Lessa]

How can he even sneak with a piece like that.

 

[Chris Brady]

Sneak attack is not an ambush strike. It's a badly named ability to hit vital spots. Those require precision tools. A warhammer requires muscle speed (ergo based on Strength only) thus doesn't qualify.

 

[Necrozius]

Sneak attack is not an ambush strike. It's a badly named ability to hit vital spots. Those require precision tools. A warhammer requires muscle speed (ergo based on Strength only) thus doesn't qualify.

While I agree with you, I've seen counter-arguments in other forums that go like "but in media, we frequently see protagonists knock out people with clubs and hammers on the head". What would be a good way to refute that?

 

[OHT]

While I agree with you, I've seen counter-arguments in other forums that go like "but in media, we frequently see protagonists knock out people with clubs and hammers on the head". What would be a good way to refute that?

In media, virgins normally survive the slasher-flick. Do all your characters chose to remain virgins?

 

[Chris Brady]

While I agree with you, I've seen counter-arguments in other forums that go like "but in media, we frequently see protagonists knock out people with clubs and hammers on the head". What would be a good way to refute that?

That's what happens when you bring an opponent's HP down to zero (and say you dun want to kill them.)

Part of the issue might be because most DMs tend to escalate the type of opponents/HP, which makes it hard to do it after a while. But I've been using lower HP foes to allow players to do it.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

In media, virgins normally survive the slasher-flick. Do all your characters chose to remain virgins?

I mean, they might if we’re playing a slasher flick game...

I can say from experience that Rogues can do a ridiculous amount of damage with “just” their light/finesse weapons. In our Tyranny of Dragons game, one PC died at 6th level and the replacement character was a Drow Rogue with Dex 20 (yes, he rolled right in front of us). Dude was a MONSTER.

 

[OHT]

I mean, they might if we’re playing a slasher flick game...

I can say from experience that Rogues can do a ridiculous amount of damage with “just” their light/finesse weapons. In our Tyranny of Dragons game, one PC died at 6th level and the replacement character was a Drow Rogue with Dex 20 (yes, he rolled right in front of us). Dude was a MONSTER.

Ours is 7th and gets duffed up way too much.

 

[Lessa]

Sneak attack is not an ambush strike. It's a badly named ability to hit vital spots. Those require precision tools. A warhammer requires muscle speed (ergo based on Strength only) thus doesn't qualify.

With a piece like that he can hit all your vital spots at once... by squishing you to the floor like a bug!

 

[Raleel]

i stick with the RAW For 5e. There is not a lot of reason to house rule it. If the argument is that logically they could still surprise attack and all that’s then you probably want a different system that has a finer granularity and no arbitrary distinctions like that. But for 5e, it has some reason to be restricted (niche protection) and there are ways to break the rules - make them take a feat, and if here isn’t one, house rule a new one into existence. I'm almost positive that one exists already though.

the other angle has been alluded to - sneak attack does have some restrictions, put stuff in the way that makes those restrictions harder.

 

[Ladybird]

The rogue is designed assuming using sneak attacks regularly, which is fine, but that doesn't remove the limitations. If Roguey boi really wants to use his warhammer for sneak attacks, I'd be willing to allow a custom feat ("Artisan of Violence : No matter which trade a Dwarf takes up, they find some way to apply hammers to it. You can make sneak attacks using smashing weapons.") or refluffing a sneak attack-capable weapon as a hammer (But without changing the damage type, as sneak attack is still a precise blow) because the concept is really cool, but "any weapon they want" is too much to give for free.

 

[Chris Brady]

With a piece like that he can hit all your vital spots at once... by squishing you to the floor like a bug!

Honestly, I agree, and I think that the Fighter types should get an increasing Damage boost as they level, to reflect that the character IS getting better at knowing where and how to hit things. Not as big a spike as Sneak Attack should, but something like a flat damage bonus. Like the Proficiency bonus to Damage.

Problem with that, is how it will interact with the Paladin's Smite mechanic and the Rangers damage booster spells. Or maybe limit it to Fighters? Except that Barbarians are going to suffer because they have something similar?

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Ours is 7th and gets duffed up way too much.

Ours was hard to hit, most of the time. And his player (almost surprisingly, given his usual play style) was a master of chaos on the battlefield, to get his licks in.

 

[Moonglum]

I peace'd out from current-edition D+D back when they introduced the notion that the thief (rogue, whatever) gets to dance around in the normal sorts of mixed skirmishes that typify D+D encounters, delivering backstab attacks willy-nilly. I interpreted it as part of the game designer's goal to give every class some sort of special attack they get to do every turn (equivalent to the wizards getting to 'zap' people all the time), so that every player would get to make an attack roll every turn. Anyway, I hated it when I first saw it and I continue to hate it. I'm living in a world where you only get to backstab people when they are blissfully going about their business and you've snuck up behind them in a tricksy way.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I don't think the base rule is perfect, but I think it is pretty good. The exceptions I make is that I let martial arts from monk and natural weapons that use Dex to sneak attack. Those always felt like oversights to me. Allowing someone to do precision style damage with a maul just seems wrong though.

 

[Lessa]

Maul Sneak Attack

 

[Raleel]

I peace'd out from current-edition D+D back when they introduced the notion that the thief (rogue, whatever) gets to dance around in the normal sorts of mixed skirmishes that typify D+D encounters, delivering backstab attacks willy-nilly. I interpreted it as part of the game designer's goal to give every class some sort of special attack they get to do every turn (equivalent to the wizards getting to 'zap' people all the time), so that every player would get to make an attack roll every turn. Anyway, I hated it when I first saw it and I continue to hate it. I'm living in a world where you only get to backstab people when they are blissfully going about their business and you've snuck up behind them in a tricksy way.

I am largely here with you, but for the thing here, it's not important. 5e is trying to do exactly that - every class has a special attack/niche powers to help identify them in broad 4 color strokes. Sneaking and stabbing them tricksy-like isn't enough of a hook, I suspect.

 

[Stan]

Old school backstabbing was cool but it came up <=1/session in most games. On the whole, thieves were weak. At low levels, they had trouble just doing their job due low % in all the thief skills. At higher levels, magic could replace most thief abilities. 3e reshaped thieves into rogues, which were strikers and skill monkeys. With rogues and sneak attack, 5e just continues the themes from 3e.

 

[The Butcher]

I wouldn’t allow it even if it was allowed in the RAW.

That being said, yes Necrozius, you ruined it for him. I’d sleep with one eye open and expect a claw hammer sneak attack called shot to the groin.

On a more serious note: if he wants to sneak-bash, aren’t light hammers finesse? (Honest question, don’t have the books with me.)

 

[The Butcher]

Old school backstabbing was cool but it came up <=1/session in most games. On the whole, thieves were weak. At low levels, they had trouble just doing their job due low % in all the thief skills. At higher levels, magic could replace most thief abilities. 3e reshaped thieves into rogues, which were strikers and skill monkeys. With rogues and sneak attack, 5e just continues the themes from 3e.

Hate to admit but it’s true. Most second-wave OSR designs ameliorated the problem by buffing thief skill odds and/or flexibilizing backstab conditions.

 

[tenbones]

Could have been worse. You could have done it with a ballista.

 

[Chris Brady]

I peace'd out from current-edition D+D back when they introduced the notion that the thief (rogue, whatever) gets to dance around in the normal sorts of mixed skirmishes that typify D+D encounters, delivering backstab attacks willy-nilly. I interpreted it as part of the game designer's goal to give every class some sort of special attack they get to do every turn (equivalent to the wizards getting to 'zap' people all the time), so that every player would get to make an attack roll every turn. Anyway, I hated it when I first saw it and I continue to hate it. I'm living in a world where you only get to backstab people when they are blissfully going about their business and you've snuck up behind them in a tricksy way.

It sounds to me that you're stuck on the name 'sneak attack'. Like I said, it's inaccurate. It's a precision strike, that a rogue/thief takes advantage of when the opponent is distracted, like when an ally is harassing the target, or the target is surprised or otherwise incapacitated. That's the idea behind it now. 'Sneak Attack' is just a fancy name and misnomer.

Old school backstabbing was cool but it came up <=1/session in most games. On the whole, thieves were weak. At low levels, they had trouble just doing their job due low % in all the thief skills. At higher levels, magic could replace most thief abilities. 3e reshaped thieves into rogues, which were strikers and skill monkeys. With rogues and sneak attack, 5e just continues the themes from 3e.

I was lucky if I could use it once per session. Even when I was playing an 'assassin' styled Thief (Mostly putting points into climbing and stealth) I rarely got to use the Back Stab. I remember a game in which I had skipped an entire multiplier before I could line up all the modifiers to be able to use Backstab once.

 

[Necrozius]

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Luckily my fellow players are also fellow GMs, and are always on the lookout for such issues. I still felt like a dick bringing that up during the game. That shit should have been brought up after the session was over. My bad.

 

[Sommerjon]

At what point does the "precision damage dice" outweigh the weapon dice?

is there a large difference between
d10+3d6+3
d8 +3d6+3
d6+3d6+3
d4+3d6+3
?

 

[Chris Brady]

At what point does the "precision damage dice" outweigh the weapon dice?

is there a large difference between
d10+3d6+3
d8 +3d6+3
d6+3d6+3
d4+3d6+3
?

That's the point of it. To allow Rogues to use things like short swords and daggers (which are easier to conceal) instead of looking for the biggest die ever. It's to help reinforce the archetype of the stealthy positional killer.

 

[robertsconley]

Sneak attack is not an ambush strike. It's a badly named ability to hit vital spots. Those require precision tools. A warhammer requires muscle speed (ergo based on Strength only) thus doesn't qualify.

My view that it is an attack taking advantage of distractions. The distraction of facing multiple opponents. Of being unaware of an attack and so on. The distraction create an opportunity that attacks using finesse or light weapons can take advantage of.

 

[Chris Brady]

My view that it is an attack taking advantage of distractions. The distraction of facing multiple opponents. Of being unaware of an attack and so on. The distraction create an opportunity that attacks using finesse or light weapons can take advantage of.

Exactly what Sneak Attack (in 5e at least, I forget 3.x) is mean to do, by RAW.

 

[robertsconley]

Hate to admit but it’s true. Most second-wave OSR designs ameliorated the problem by buffing thief skill odds and/or flexibilizing backstab conditions.

Or eliminate the notion that surprise attacks allow for more damage. In my Majestic Fantasy rules I don't have any type of backstab rule. To me the original backstab rule always felt tacked on. The advantage of surprise and positioning is sufficient for how I run my campaigns.

 

[Faylar]

You stumbled upon the most glaring flaw of 5e... Overbalancing. MOST house rules upset the careful balance whether they are cool or not.

To keep it fair and fun. You need to play by the rules as written. Which is also not that fun.

Dwarf rogue is breaking the rules, DM is allowing the balance to be broken by not enforcing them.

I like 5e but its not customizable.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Really not my experience over two campaigns. I tossed in special abilities of my own design, played with options from the DMG, and pretty well figured out that the math underneath was pretty wobbly as the CR system is ridiculously easy to overthrow (easy enough since magic items weren’t factored into CR).

But we also found it to be really fun, so I dunno.

 

[Edgewise]

I'm going to overthink this. There are several ways of looking at this question:

• What are the rules? The answer is pretty clear: light or finesse weapons only.
• What is realistic? Honestly, I think if you have a chance to wind up a good hit with a war hammer on an unsuspecting target, that should be pretty hideous. What seems less than realistic to me is how often the rogue is able to get a backstab. That may also be according to RAW, but viscerally, I feel like you shouldn't be getting backstabs mid-combat except under unusual conditions, and even then it should require a round to get into position and a roll to be sneaky.
• What is balanced for play? I'm pretty sure they must have limited the weapon type to keep things from getting out-of-hand with rogues going wild, one-shotting everything by backstabbing with their glaive-guisarmes. Again, I think one can balance against this by lowering the frequency of these sneak attacks.
• What is balanced for the class? I tend to care less about this, but I imagine questions of niche protection also went into the RAW.
• What is cool? Well, it's cool to be a super-backstabbing rogue, that's for sure. While I don't believe in balancing classes, I do believe that the classes should be balanced in terms of how much fun they are to play. There's no such thing as too much fun, so I don't see much problem here. On the other hand, it's not terribly cool to call out RAW because another player is having more fun than you. But based on your tone, I think you know that already.

It sounds like following RAW is the simplest way forward, although I never play RAW. I imagine that it's much more typical for 5e players to adhere to the rulebooks, though.

If I was the GM and ruling on the matter, I'd allow backstabbing with almost any weapon (as I do right now), but I'd limit the situations where you could pull one off (as I do right now). I might compromise to say that you can pull off a backstab with any weapon outside combat, but in the pell-mell of melee, you need something short and one-handed.

And if you want to avoid pissing off your fellow players, instead of complaining about another player violating RAW, I would request my own violation of RAW. When the GM says that's not in the rules, say neither is backstabbing with a war hammer, but you have no problem with that. Then it's up to the GM if he wants to give you a perk or make everyone sad.

 

[Chris Brady]

Or eliminate the notion that surprise attacks allow for more damage. In my Majestic Fantasy rules I don't have any type of backstab rule. To me the original backstab rule always felt tacked on. The advantage of surprise and positioning is sufficient for how I run my campaigns.

The entire class was tacked on. Before it came along, it was assumed that the Fighting Man was the one opening doors and climbing walls, while anyone could in theory 'pick locks' and 'search for traps'. But once the Thief came along the general consensus because that only THAT class could climb walls and search for traps, or even be stealthy.

The class being limited to about a d6 in melee weapons, meant that in combat -where stealth, climbing and searching for traps were useless- the Thief proved to be a very mediocre Fighter, especially with the to hit bonus it got. So it got an ambush strike, something to be used as a massive hit to help round out it's damage output.

 

[Faylar]

The entire class was tacked on. Before it came along, it was assumed that the Fighting Man was the one opening doors and climbing walls, while anyone could in theory 'pick locks' and 'search for traps'. But once the Thief came along the general consensus because that only THAT class could climb walls and search for traps, or even be stealthy.

The class being limited to about a d6 in melee weapons, meant that in combat -where stealth, climbing and searching for traps were useless- the Thief proved to be a very mediocre Fighter, especially with the to hit bonus it got. So it got an ambush strike, something to be used as a massive hit to help round out it's damage output.

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...