Don't really know why they have the proficiency, but it does make the sun blade an attractive option.
dats a light saber.
but yeah I'm not sure, it really doesn't make sense for rogues, Bards I'll let slide with like College of swords, but rogue? the sneaky stabby type? I dunno.
Per that post, it is stupid and I promise you I could do a lot damage with a longsword....there are so many out of balance, rules, feats, races, and classes in 5E....don't get me started on the Fizban's dragons...all the evil creatures are far more powerful than the good or neutral dragons.
I know I am waaaaaay late on this thread, but as someone who played a very slightly homebrew longsword-wielding thief, I thought this may be the best solution. My DM and I were debating it, as I had a concept for a character that I really wanted to work, and logically there wouldn't be much reason not to. I'll explain my reasoning and how the character itself played out, but this is the solution we came up with.
When it comes to the Sneak Attack ability, change the requirement from only finesse weapons to finesse weapons and weapons that the rogueclass is proficient with.
There's two reasons we liked this.
Reason 1: This way, you're allowed to be more creative with your rogue's fighting style and weapon of choice. Honestly, something I really disliked about the sneak attack rule is that as written, I feel that it makes the playstyle for combat and character creativity VERY limited. Rapier, shortsword, or dagger. Or maybe some magic weapon that specifically has the finesse property. In short, you have very few options for melee weapon types, whereas if you go with said alternative, you can sneak attack with any basic weapon or other weapons that the rogue class is proficient with. This does not extend to weapon proficiencies that are gained from feats or other sources if they aren't finesse. That way, you don't have something stupid like a rogue running around with a greataxe or greatsword and being able to sneak attack with it, but you could still gain proficiency with any other finesse weapon and still be able to sneak attack. This way you can pick and choose your weapon of choice and playstyle if you decide to make an unorthodox STR rogue like I did. This is how Operatives(rogue equivalent) work in Starfinder, and I think it works pretty well.
Reason 2: If you spec equal amounts or almost equal amounts into both, strength and dexterity, then your other abilities may not be quite as high as a result. I think this is an adequate tradeoff for a very specific and niche playstyle if the player wants to be a bit unorthodox with their rogue. Being able to sneak attack when 2-handing a longsword is far from overpowered. My character, even though he had some pretty good stat rolls at the start, was pretty balanced and well-focused for his purposes. When it came to stat-progression, he focused on STR and feats first, and then got his DEX to 20.
By the late levels, I believe 12-14, he had the following ability scores: 20 STR
20 DEX 16 CON 11 INT 14 WIS 10 CHA His physical stats were great. His mental stats were okay at best, with the slight exception of wisdom. Overall, he was solid for combat purposes, and it was a very fun playstyle as the rough-and-tumble thuggish brigand sort of rogue, while still being incredibly agile, deft and sneaky. The best example I can think of is Letho of Gulet from the Witcher 2 & 3. An incredibly strong and fast fighter and fencer. He did about as much sneak attack damage 2-handing his longsword as a standard rogue with a rapier. The potential damage difference is really only felt in the lower levels and when the player scores a crit. It was far from broken. Skill-wise, he had expertise in athletics, stealth, slight of hand, and thieves' tools. When it came to the mental stat skills, his perception was decent, and his other wisdom-based skills were alright. In essence, he had his specific purpose. I'd say doing a STR-based or longsword rogue if you use this alternative rule is balanced, mainly due to the sacrifices you make when it comes to other stats and skills, with the tradeoff being a different playstyle and more creative freedom.
At this point, you might as well just play a fighter, but I thought the idea was pretty cool, and it turned out to be incredibly fun, while not really breaking any balance.
When it comes to the Sneak Attack ability, change the requirement from only finesse weapons to finesse weapons and weapons that the rogueclass is proficient with.
So sneak attack with a greatclub?
This would be OP when combined with PAM and Sentinel so you would either have to eliminate/modify those feats or nerf Sneak Attack so it could only be used on an action and not a bonus action or reaction.
Personally, I have never found the non-finesse weapon proficiencies to be limiting on a Rogue. You can't use them to sneak attack, but it does not hurt to have them.
Aye, it would restrict the second Sneak Attack with a BA, but it would still be fairly strong to Sneak Attack once someone moves into your range for the PAM Opportunity Attack. Too strong? Perhaps. You can use your BA to disengage and force the same situation again every turn. Would need some playtesting I guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I know I am waaaaaay late on this thread, but as someone who played a very slightly homebrew longsword-wielding thief, I thought this may be the best solution. My DM and I were debating it, as I had a concept for a character that I really wanted to work, and logically there wouldn't be much reason not to. I'll explain my reasoning and how the character itself played out, but this is the solution we came up with.
When it comes to the Sneak Attack ability, change the requirement from only finesse weapons to finesse weapons and weapons that the rogueclass is proficient with.
There's two reasons we liked this.
Reason 1: This way, you're allowed to be more creative with your rogue's fighting style and weapon of choice. Honestly, something I really disliked about the sneak attack rule is that as written, I feel that it makes the playstyle for combat and character creativity VERY limited. Rapier, shortsword, or dagger. Or maybe some magic weapon that specifically has the finesse property. In short, you have very few options for melee weapon types, whereas if you go with said alternative, you can sneak attack with any basic weapon or other weapons that the rogue class is proficient with. This does not extend to weapon proficiencies that are gained from feats or other sources if they aren't finesse. That way, you don't have something stupid like a rogue running around with a greataxe or greatsword and being able to sneak attack with it, but you could still gain proficiency with any other finesse weapon and still be able to sneak attack. This way you can pick and choose your weapon of choice and playstyle if you decide to make an unorthodox STR rogue like I did. This is how Operatives(rogue equivalent) work in Starfinder, and I think it works pretty well.
Reason 2: If you spec equal amounts or almost equal amounts into both, strength and dexterity, then your other abilities may not be quite as high as a result. I think this is an adequate tradeoff for a very specific and niche playstyle if the player wants to be a bit unorthodox with their rogue. Being able to sneak attack when 2-handing a longsword is far from overpowered. My character, even though he had some pretty good stat rolls at the start, was pretty balanced and well-focused for his purposes. When it came to stat-progression, he focused on STR and feats first, and then got his DEX to 20.
By the late levels, I believe 12-14, he had the following ability scores: 20 STR
20 DEX 16 CON 11 INT 14 WIS 10 CHA His physical stats were great. His mental stats were okay at best, with the slight exception of wisdom. Overall, he was solid for combat purposes, and it was a very fun playstyle as the rough-and-tumble thuggish brigand sort of rogue, while still being incredibly agile, deft and sneaky. The best example I can think of is Letho of Gulet from the Witcher 2 & 3. An incredibly strong and fast fighter and fencer. He did about as much sneak attack damage 2-handing his longsword as a standard rogue with a rapier. The potential damage difference is really only felt in the lower levels and when the player scores a crit. It was far from broken. Skill-wise, he had expertise in athletics, stealth, slight of hand, and thieves' tools. When it came to the mental stat skills, his perception was decent, and his other wisdom-based skills were alright. In essence, he had his specific purpose. I'd say doing a STR-based or longsword rogue if you use this alternative rule is balanced, mainly due to the sacrifices you make when it comes to other stats and skills, with the tradeoff being a different playstyle and more creative freedom.
At this point, you might as well just play a fighter, but I thought the idea was pretty cool, and it turned out to be incredibly fun, while not really breaking any balance.
at that rate i'd personally remove the finesse requirement and just have it be "any weapon the rogue is proficient in" since who is going to be actively using weapons they are not proficient in anyways? And now at this point we are back to 3rd edition rogues who could sneak attack with whatever the hell kind of weapon they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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
This would be OP when combined with PAM and Sentinel so you would either have to eliminate/modify those feats or nerf Sneak Attack so it could only be used on an action and not a bonus action or reaction.
Personally, I have never found the non-finesse weapon proficiencies to be limiting on a Rogue. You can't use them to sneak attack, but it does not hurt to have them.
Sneak attack with a great club or quarterstaff could be hitting them on the head from behind, a thuggish solution for many rogues. Having spear or staff work with PAM for a bonus attack is about the same or worse than two weapon fighting for a Rogue, and there’s no Rogue weapons with reach for the PAM reaction.
I don’t know that I would advocate against the finesse requirement for game balance reasons. But it’s not likely to be that OP. The main issue I see is that magic long swords are considerably more likely than finesse weapons if a DM uses random loot tables.
I have understood the long sword for rogues since 2e to be a stand in for sabers, which don’t have a standard equipment line, but which would be similar to a long sword (d8 slashing, though probably no versatility and add finesse) if they did. A good swashbuckler should be able to use a rapier or saber. They are standard fencing swords.
I have understood the long sword for rogues since 2e to be a stand in for sabers, which don’t have a standard equipment line, but which would be similar to a long sword (d8 slashing, though probably no versatility and add finesse) if they did. A good swashbuckler should be able to use a rapier or saber. They are standard fencing swords.
That would be the Scimitar to be honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Sneak attack with a great club or quarterstaff could be hitting them on the head from behind, a thuggish solution for many rogues. Having spear or staff work with PAM for a bonus attack is about the same or worse than two weapon fighting for a Rogue, and there’s no Rogue weapons with reach for the PAM reaction.
The PAM reaction does not require reach to activiate. Having PAM would give a Rogue sneak attack every time an enemy came into range IN ADDITION to two chances to land sneak attack on his turn. It would also do this while providing a higher base damage than weapons eligible for TWF.
PAM:
You gain the following benefits:
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike,quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.
I don’t know that I would advocate against the finesse requirement for game balance reasons. But it’s not likely to be that OP. The main issue I see is that magic long swords are considerably more likely than finesse weapons if a DM uses random loot tables.
On a 8th level Rogue with PAM and Sentinel this would give you:
1. An extra shot at Sneak attack as a bonus on his turn
2. An extra 4d6 sneak attack every round as a reaction when an enemy either closes with the Rogue OR when the enemy attacks someone else within 5 feet.
Additionally the Rogue would get a SA AOO if the enemy tried to move out of the reach to position himself so he did not get hit by Sentinel.
This is not even considering combining this with Bugbear and doing it all from 10 feet away.
I have understood the long sword for rogues since 2e to be a stand in for sabers, which don’t have a standard equipment line, but which would be similar to a long sword (d8 slashing, though probably no versatility and add finesse) if they did. A good swashbuckler should be able to use a rapier or saber. They are standard fencing swords.
A sabre and a cutlass falls under "scimitar". At least it was that way back in 1e when the desctiptions detailed all the variant weapons covered for each weapon. Ironically, in 1E we had only 1 entry for scimitar which also covered cutlass, sabre and a few others, but we had like 4 different entries for Glaives and I am guessing 15 different polearms total.
I think a Swashbuckler fits more with a cutlass than a sabre (a sabre being commonly used by calvary and Turkish military). It would make sense for swashbucklers to get proficiency in scimitars in trade or in addition to shortsword. That would be a lot more balanced then letting them sneak attack with longswords, staffs or spears.
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.
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).
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.
Just about every class is prof. In simple weapons so that is a wash. They get all of them lumped together.
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.
Just about every class is prof. In simple weapons so that is a wash. They get all of them lumped together.
Why randomly add a martial weapon they can't use?
That's what doesn't track
Not every class is proficient in simple weapons and there is only 1 simple melee weapon that is finesse.
The Wizard is not proficient in simple weapons but has all the simple weapons the Rogue needs (dagger).
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.
Just about every class is prof. In simple weapons so that is a wash. They get all of them lumped together.
Why randomly add a martial weapon they can't use?
That's what doesn't track
Not every class is proficient in simple weapons and there is only 1 simple melee weapon that is finesse.
The Wizard is not proficient in simple weapons but has all the simple weapons the Rogue needs (dagger).
Exactly it's almost as if little thought was put in to weapons making sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/why-rogue-have-proficiency-with-longswords-if-it-doesnt-get-sneak-attack/
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Because they had longsword proficiency in previous editions, they got it again in 5E even if it isn't an optimal weapon for them.
dats a light saber.
but yeah I'm not sure, it really doesn't make sense for rogues, Bards I'll let slide with like College of swords, but rogue? the sneaky stabby type? I dunno.
She/They/it
Keep in mind I'm in the UK so my time zone's GMT.
Definitely not an undead.
Per that post, it is stupid and I promise you I could do a lot damage with a longsword....there are so many out of balance, rules, feats, races, and classes in 5E....don't get me started on the Fizban's dragons...all the evil creatures are far more powerful than the good or neutral dragons.
I know I am waaaaaay late on this thread, but as someone who played a very slightly homebrew longsword-wielding thief, I thought this may be the best solution. My DM and I were debating it, as I had a concept for a character that I really wanted to work, and logically there wouldn't be much reason not to. I'll explain my reasoning and how the character itself played out, but this is the solution we came up with.
When it comes to the Sneak Attack ability, change the requirement from only finesse weapons to finesse weapons and weapons that the rogue class is proficient with.
There's two reasons we liked this.
Reason 1: This way, you're allowed to be more creative with your rogue's fighting style and weapon of choice. Honestly, something I really disliked about the sneak attack rule is that as written, I feel that it makes the playstyle for combat and character creativity VERY limited. Rapier, shortsword, or dagger. Or maybe some magic weapon that specifically has the finesse property. In short, you have very few options for melee weapon types, whereas if you go with said alternative, you can sneak attack with any basic weapon or other weapons that the rogue class is proficient with. This does not extend to weapon proficiencies that are gained from feats or other sources if they aren't finesse. That way, you don't have something stupid like a rogue running around with a greataxe or greatsword and being able to sneak attack with it, but you could still gain proficiency with any other finesse weapon and still be able to sneak attack. This way you can pick and choose your weapon of choice and playstyle if you decide to make an unorthodox STR rogue like I did. This is how Operatives(rogue equivalent) work in Starfinder, and I think it works pretty well.
Reason 2: If you spec equal amounts or almost equal amounts into both, strength and dexterity, then your other abilities may not be quite as high as a result. I think this is an adequate tradeoff for a very specific and niche playstyle if the player wants to be a bit unorthodox with their rogue. Being able to sneak attack when 2-handing a longsword is far from overpowered. My character, even though he had some pretty good stat rolls at the start, was pretty balanced and well-focused for his purposes. When it came to stat-progression, he focused on STR and feats first, and then got his DEX to 20.
By the late levels, I believe 12-14, he had the following ability scores:
20 STR
20 DEX
16 CON
11 INT
14 WIS
10 CHA
His physical stats were great. His mental stats were okay at best, with the slight exception of wisdom. Overall, he was solid for combat purposes, and it was a very fun playstyle as the rough-and-tumble thuggish brigand sort of rogue, while still being incredibly agile, deft and sneaky. The best example I can think of is Letho of Gulet from the Witcher 2 & 3. An incredibly strong and fast fighter and fencer. He did about as much sneak attack damage 2-handing his longsword as a standard rogue with a rapier. The potential damage difference is really only felt in the lower levels and when the player scores a crit. It was far from broken. Skill-wise, he had expertise in athletics, stealth, slight of hand, and thieves' tools. When it came to the mental stat skills, his perception was decent, and his other wisdom-based skills were alright. In essence, he had his specific purpose. I'd say doing a STR-based or longsword rogue if you use this alternative rule is balanced, mainly due to the sacrifices you make when it comes to other stats and skills, with the tradeoff being a different playstyle and more creative freedom.
At this point, you might as well just play a fighter, but I thought the idea was pretty cool, and it turned out to be incredibly fun, while not really breaking any balance.
So sneak attack with a greatclub?
This would be OP when combined with PAM and Sentinel so you would either have to eliminate/modify those feats or nerf Sneak Attack so it could only be used on an action and not a bonus action or reaction.
Personally, I have never found the non-finesse weapon proficiencies to be limiting on a Rogue. You can't use them to sneak attack, but it does not hurt to have them.
Sneak Attack is already restricted to 1ce/Turn.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Aye, it would restrict the second Sneak Attack with a BA, but it would still be fairly strong to Sneak Attack once someone moves into your range for the PAM Opportunity Attack. Too strong? Perhaps. You can use your BA to disengage and force the same situation again every turn. Would need some playtesting I guess.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Legacy. In earlier editions many of the best magical weapons were longswords.
at that rate i'd personally remove the finesse requirement and just have it be "any weapon the rogue is proficient in" since who is going to be actively using weapons they are not proficient in anyways? And now at this point we are back to 3rd edition rogues who could sneak attack with whatever the hell kind of weapon they want.
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
Sneak attack with a great club or quarterstaff could be hitting them on the head from behind, a thuggish solution for many rogues. Having spear or staff work with PAM for a bonus attack is about the same or worse than two weapon fighting for a Rogue, and there’s no Rogue weapons with reach for the PAM reaction.
I don’t know that I would advocate against the finesse requirement for game balance reasons. But it’s not likely to be that OP. The main issue I see is that magic long swords are considerably more likely than finesse weapons if a DM uses random loot tables.
I have understood the long sword for rogues since 2e to be a stand in for sabers, which don’t have a standard equipment line, but which would be similar to a long sword (d8 slashing, though probably no versatility and add finesse) if they did. A good swashbuckler should be able to use a rapier or saber. They are standard fencing swords.
That would be the Scimitar to be honest.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
The PAM reaction does not require reach to activiate. Having PAM would give a Rogue sneak attack every time an enemy came into range IN ADDITION to two chances to land sneak attack on his turn. It would also do this while providing a higher base damage than weapons eligible for TWF.
PAM:
You gain the following benefits:
On a 8th level Rogue with PAM and Sentinel this would give you:
1. An extra shot at Sneak attack as a bonus on his turn
2. An extra 4d6 sneak attack every round as a reaction when an enemy either closes with the Rogue OR when the enemy attacks someone else within 5 feet.
Additionally the Rogue would get a SA AOO if the enemy tried to move out of the reach to position himself so he did not get hit by Sentinel.
This is not even considering combining this with Bugbear and doing it all from 10 feet away.
A sabre and a cutlass falls under "scimitar". At least it was that way back in 1e when the desctiptions detailed all the variant weapons covered for each weapon. Ironically, in 1E we had only 1 entry for scimitar which also covered cutlass, sabre and a few others, but we had like 4 different entries for Glaives and I am guessing 15 different polearms total.
I think a Swashbuckler fits more with a cutlass than a sabre (a sabre being commonly used by calvary and Turkish military). It would make sense for swashbucklers to get proficiency in scimitars in trade or in addition to shortsword. That would be a lot more balanced then letting them sneak attack with longswords, staffs or spears.
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.
Just about every class is prof. In simple weapons so that is a wash. They get all of them lumped together.
Why randomly add a martial weapon they can't use?
That's what doesn't track
Not every class is proficient in simple weapons and there is only 1 simple melee weapon that is finesse.
The Wizard is not proficient in simple weapons but has all the simple weapons the Rogue needs (dagger).
Exactly it's almost as if little thought was put in to weapons making sense.