The idea they picked it for simple flavor choice is why it's pretty clear they struggled early on with design.
If you give a class a proficiency you would expect to be able to use it.
To give a useless proficiency in a class is just asking for confusion.
This logic does not hold up. If we were to do this fighters, paladins and rangers would not be proficient in blowpipes, greatclubs or light hammers
To be honest, if we were only giving them weapons that would be optimized, the only weapons martials would be proficient in are:
Longsword, Warhammer, javelin, maul, greatsword, shortsword, dagger, whip, scimitar, Glaive, hand crossbow and longbow.
Litterally fighters would not have proficiency in any other weapon except for those above, because there is no reason to use any of them.
Nah because they have prof in all marital weapons...
Not specific ones they can't use. If they were specifically called out then your point would be correct but they aren't they just happen to be grouped together in martial weapons.
Rogues are proficient in 13 melee weapons. Only 2 of them are finesse weapons and work with sneak attack (dagger, short sword).
It is pretty much the same thing.
Rapier?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
The idea they picked it for simple flavor choice is why it's pretty clear they struggled early on with design.
If you give a class a proficiency you would expect to be able to use it.
To give a useless proficiency in a class is just asking for confusion.
This logic does not hold up. If we were to do this fighters, paladins and rangers would not be proficient in blowpipes, greatclubs or light hammers
To be honest, if we were only giving them weapons that would be optimized, the only weapons martials would be proficient in are:
Longsword, Warhammer, javelin, maul, greatsword, shortsword, dagger, whip, scimitar, Glaive, hand crossbow and longbow.
Litterally fighters would not have proficiency in any other weapon except for those above, because there is no reason to use any of them.
Nah because they have prof in all marital weapons...
Not specific ones they can't use. If they were specifically called out then your point would be correct but they aren't they just happen to be grouped together in martial weapons.
Rogues are proficient in 13 melee weapons. Only 2 of them are finesse weapons and work with sneak attack (dagger, short sword).
And those are the only three they can start with, and the only three they use. Everything else only matters when multiclassing and even then…
I guess flavor reasons? Or if you got out-rogued and your daggers and shortswords were stolen?
Technically they can use any finesse or ranged weapon for sneak attack.
So they can sneak attack with a heavy crossbow, whip, scimitar, hand crossbow etc, they just don't get their proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless they have a proficiency through some other method.
With Heavy crossbow, +1 damage and much better range for +2 attack can actually be a good tradeoff at low levels. Likewise a whip can
Something you mentioned earlier, I don't think PAM or Sentinel would affect sneak attacks with spears very much. Unless for some reason, every time they enter your reach you have advantage on the attack roll, or you're constantly standing next to an ally, it's just a regular attack. And, like someone mentioned earlier, you're limited to 1 sneak attack per turn, regardless of how many attacks you have, and if more than one have advantage. So even if you did get a sneak attack on that reaction attack, that's it. That's pretty situational. I wouldn't see any balance issues arising if you let the rogue sneak attack with both any finesse weapon and weapons that the rogue class is proficient with to start with.
Also when I say limiting, I'm mainly referring to creativity and character detail when it comes to fighting. For example, picture a pretty strong and agile thief/brigand rogue, a heist expert who's equipped to deal with guards face to face. He might use a longsword to fence with his opponent, use a club to go for cheap but effective shots, and generally make use of grappling or martial arts to subdue their opponent. That requires both strength and finesse.
The other main thing is that if you do decide to go that route with this homerew rule and use a weapon that uses strength, you're kinda sacrificing other ability scores to be able to do that. Meaning having both strength and dex high or equal.
Something you mentioned earlier, I don't think PAM or Sentinel would affect sneak attacks with spears very much. Unless for some reason, every time they enter your reach you have advantage on the attack roll, or you're constantly standing next to an ally, it's just a regular attack. And, like someone mentioned earlier, you're limited to 1 sneak attack per turn, regardless of how many attacks you have, and if more than one have advantage. So even if you did get a sneak attack on that reaction attack, that's it. That's pretty situational. I wouldn't see any balance issues arising if you let the rogue sneak attack with both any finesse weapon and weapons that the rogue class is proficient with to start with.
You get one sneak attack per turn. Unless you're getting people to move somehow during your turn, your opportunity attacks trigger on a different turn than your regular attacks.
While PAM won't get you much unless you both allow sneak attacks with spears and get lucky with positioning, reaction attacks from sentinel will almost always be eligible for sneak attack. The extra attack is triggered when someone next to you attacks someone other than you, so unless a monster both has reach and is making use of it despite you being next to it, the target will be next to the enemy, making sneak attack an option.
Something you mentioned earlier, I don't think PAM or Sentinel would affect sneak attacks with spears very much. Unless for some reason, every time they enter your reach you have advantage on the attack roll, or you're constantly standing next to an ally, it's just a regular attack. And, like someone mentioned earlier, you're limited to 1 sneak attack per turn, regardless of how many attacks you have, and if more than one have advantage. So even if you did get a sneak attack on that reaction attack, that's it. That's pretty situational. I wouldn't see any balance issues arising if you let the rogue sneak attack with both any finesse weapon and weapons that the rogue class is proficient with to start with.
You get one sneak attack per turn. Unless you're getting people to move somehow during your turn, your opportunity attacks trigger on a different turn than your regular attacks.
While PAM won't get you much unless you both allow sneak attacks with spears and get lucky with positioning, reaction attacks from sentinel will almost always be eligible for sneak attack. The extra attack is triggered when someone next to you attacks someone other than you, so unless a monster both has reach and is making use of it despite you being next to it, the target will be next to the enemy, making sneak attack an option.
I see. However, I would think that after you get one sneak attack from a sentinel reaction attack, that's it. That's all you get until your next turn. If your DM even allows you to do such. In some of my games, we interpreted it as "once you get a sneak attack, that's that. Reactions, even if they technically qualify for one, don't count because you've already taken your sneak attack for the round, unless it's before your turn." It's still a round-based system. I may be interpreting that incorrectly, but overall I don't think being able to sneak attack with weapons that the rogue's proficient in is all that bad.
I guess what I'm trying to say is STR-based rogues aren't broken if they're able to sneak attack with simple weapons and longsword. I'm hoping that in the future they may add an official subclass or optional rule that does something similar to this.
The RAW way to get sneak attack with PAM is to hold a finesse weapon in one hand and a spear or quarterstaff in the other. Holding the pole arm triggers the AOO but you use the finesse weapon to make it.
I see. However, I would think that after you get one sneak attack from a sentinel reaction attack, that's it. That's all you get until your next turn. If your DM even allows you to do such. In some of my games, we interpreted it as "once you get a sneak attack, that's that. Reactions, even if they technically qualify for one, don't count because you've already taken your sneak attack for the round, unless it's before your turn." It's still a round-based system. I may be interpreting that incorrectly, but overall I don't think being able to sneak attack with weapons that the rogue's proficient in is all that bad.
Well, once you get sneak attack from sentinel, you are done until your next turn as you don't have another reaction until then. As for being able to sneak attack on your turn and then do it as a reaction, if they wanted sneak attack to be once per round, it would say that. Making it once per turn is entirely intended, and was even stated as such in the sage advice compendium.
I see. However, I would think that after you get one sneak attack from a sentinel reaction attack, that's it. That's all you get until your next turn. If your DM even allows you to do such. In some of my games, we interpreted it as "once you get a sneak attack, that's that. Reactions, even if they technically qualify for one, don't count because you've already taken your sneak attack for the round, unless it's before your turn." It's still a round-based system. I may be interpreting that incorrectly, but overall I don't think being able to sneak attack with weapons that the rogue's proficient in is all that bad.
Well, once you get sneak attack from sentinel, you are done until your next turn as you don't have another reaction until then. As for being able to sneak attack on your turn and then do it as a reaction, if they wanted sneak attack to be once per round, it would say that. Making it once per turn is entirely intended, and was even stated as such in the sage advice compendium.
The other hole I saw in the argument that someone brought up as to how longsword or spear sneak attacks would be "broken" due to the PAM(for some reason?) and sentinel feat, is that you can already take sentinel as a rogue and do that anyway. So that really wouldn't change the fact that the rogue could make sneak attacks via sentinel anyway. I suppose the only real difference would be an average weapon damage increase of 1 with two-handing a longsword.
I see. However, I would think that after you get one sneak attack from a sentinel reaction attack, that's it. That's all you get until your next turn. If your DM even allows you to do such. In some of my games, we interpreted it as "once you get a sneak attack, that's that. Reactions, even if they technically qualify for one, don't count because you've already taken your sneak attack for the round, unless it's before your turn." It's still a round-based system. I may be interpreting that incorrectly, but overall I don't think being able to sneak attack with weapons that the rogue's proficient in is all that bad.
Well, once you get sneak attack from sentinel, you are done until your next turn as you don't have another reaction until then. As for being able to sneak attack on your turn and then do it as a reaction, if they wanted sneak attack to be once per round, it would say that. Making it once per turn is entirely intended, and was even stated as such in the sage advice compendium.
The other hole I saw in the argument that someone brought up as to how longsword or spear sneak attacks would be "broken" due to the PAM(for some reason?) and sentinel feat, is that you can already take sentinel as a rogue and do that anyway. So that really wouldn't change the fact that the rogue could make sneak attacks via sentinel anyway. I suppose the only real difference would be an average weapon damage increase of 1 with two-handing a longsword.
And when you are a rogue with a small mountain of d6 of sneak attack damage, 1 extra makes negligible difference beyond low levels. There is little the rogue would gain there mechanically, especially since using a two-handed weapon means no dual wielding, and that costs more dpr than 1 extra weapon damage would give. Maybe if you need a bonus action for something else?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
The RAW way to get sneak attack with PAM is to hold a finesse weapon in one hand and a spear or quarterstaff in the other. Holding the pole arm triggers the AOO but you use the finesse weapon to make it.
I mean it's pretty obvious that it's not RAI even without any sage advice. It's just badly worded. There are tables that might allow it because RAW is RAW but most tables probably won't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
That would certainly never fly at any table I play at.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rapier?
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
You are correct sir. Three .....
And those are the only three they can start with, and the only three they use.
Everything else only matters when multiclassing and even then…
I guess flavor reasons? Or if you got out-rogued and your daggers and shortswords were stolen?
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
who the **** steals some daggers and leaves you with a more expensive weapon?
also the real answer (legacy purposes) has already been stated on this thread like 10 times now
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Technically they can use any finesse or ranged weapon for sneak attack.
So they can sneak attack with a heavy crossbow, whip, scimitar, hand crossbow etc, they just don't get their proficiency bonus to the attack roll unless they have a proficiency through some other method.
With Heavy crossbow, +1 damage and much better range for +2 attack can actually be a good tradeoff at low levels. Likewise a whip can
The real answer is posted above, but it is not for legacy purposes. You have to dig back in this thread to find it, but JC himself addressed this:
"Rogues have proficiency with a number of weapons that aren't finesse or ranged. Aesthetic choices and game choices—the rogue has both"
https://www.sageadvice.eu/why-rogue-have-proficiency-with-longswords-if-it-doesnt-get-sneak-attack/
Something you mentioned earlier, I don't think PAM or Sentinel would affect sneak attacks with spears very much. Unless for some reason, every time they enter your reach you have advantage on the attack roll, or you're constantly standing next to an ally, it's just a regular attack. And, like someone mentioned earlier, you're limited to 1 sneak attack per turn, regardless of how many attacks you have, and if more than one have advantage. So even if you did get a sneak attack on that reaction attack, that's it. That's pretty situational. I wouldn't see any balance issues arising if you let the rogue sneak attack with both any finesse weapon and weapons that the rogue class is proficient with to start with.
Also when I say limiting, I'm mainly referring to creativity and character detail when it comes to fighting. For example, picture a pretty strong and agile thief/brigand rogue, a heist expert who's equipped to deal with guards face to face. He might use a longsword to fence with his opponent, use a club to go for cheap but effective shots, and generally make use of grappling or martial arts to subdue their opponent. That requires both strength and finesse.
The other main thing is that if you do decide to go that route with this homerew rule and use a weapon that uses strength, you're kinda sacrificing other ability scores to be able to do that. Meaning having both strength and dex high or equal.
You get one sneak attack per turn. Unless you're getting people to move somehow during your turn, your opportunity attacks trigger on a different turn than your regular attacks.
While PAM won't get you much unless you both allow sneak attacks with spears and get lucky with positioning, reaction attacks from sentinel will almost always be eligible for sneak attack. The extra attack is triggered when someone next to you attacks someone other than you, so unless a monster both has reach and is making use of it despite you being next to it, the target will be next to the enemy, making sneak attack an option.
I see. However, I would think that after you get one sneak attack from a sentinel reaction attack, that's it. That's all you get until your next turn. If your DM even allows you to do such. In some of my games, we interpreted it as "once you get a sneak attack, that's that. Reactions, even if they technically qualify for one, don't count because you've already taken your sneak attack for the round, unless it's before your turn." It's still a round-based system. I may be interpreting that incorrectly, but overall I don't think being able to sneak attack with weapons that the rogue's proficient in is all that bad.
I guess what I'm trying to say is STR-based rogues aren't broken if they're able to sneak attack with simple weapons and longsword. I'm hoping that in the future they may add an official subclass or optional rule that does something similar to this.
The RAW way to get sneak attack with PAM is to hold a finesse weapon in one hand and a spear or quarterstaff in the other. Holding the pole arm triggers the AOO but you use the finesse weapon to make it.
Well, once you get sneak attack from sentinel, you are done until your next turn as you don't have another reaction until then. As for being able to sneak attack on your turn and then do it as a reaction, if they wanted sneak attack to be once per round, it would say that. Making it once per turn is entirely intended, and was even stated as such in the sage advice compendium.
The other hole I saw in the argument that someone brought up as to how longsword or spear sneak attacks would be "broken" due to the PAM(for some reason?) and sentinel feat, is that you can already take sentinel as a rogue and do that anyway. So that really wouldn't change the fact that the rogue could make sneak attacks via sentinel anyway. I suppose the only real difference would be an average weapon damage increase of 1 with two-handing a longsword.
And when you are a rogue with a small mountain of d6 of sneak attack damage, 1 extra makes negligible difference beyond low levels. There is little the rogue would gain there mechanically, especially since using a two-handed weapon means no dual wielding, and that costs more dpr than 1 extra weapon damage would give. Maybe if you need a bonus action for something else?
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
RAW maybe, but definitely not RAI.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580139521498480640?s=20&t=frkoNVdMGTGc6GGMYjK5iw
I mean it's pretty obvious that it's not RAI even without any sage advice. It's just badly worded. There are tables that might allow it because RAW is RAW but most tables probably won't.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
That would certainly never fly at any table I play at.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha