Hey everyone! It's been a long time since I built my last character and I've played that for like 3 years straight. He was a wizard and having all that versatility and all around utility was really great.
But now I want to try something that's new to me. I've always played casters so now i wanna try something melee oriented. I grew obsessed with the universe of Dune where all the cool fremens swings around their cryss knives. So I want something similar, a dexterous fighter with a big badass knife https://showbox.bio/https://tutuapp.uno/.
But 1d4 sounds unfun so I thought about reflavouring a short sword into a cryss knife. But how can I make that work? Why would someone choose short vs longswords?
Should I consider dual wielding in order to maximize damage? Maybe a rogue would be a better choice to increase my damage output thanks to sneak attacks.
Shortsword is superior for Dex-based characters. Also, don't make a Fighter. Make like some flavor of Rogue (Scout, Mastermind, Swashbuckler) so you can get even more damage off of Sneak Attack. At some point you will be hitting for Fireball levels of damage.
Don’t dual wield, it’s really underwhelming. And rogue is a good choice if you’re looking for lightly armored damage also, a dex-based paladin can work really well.
As far as why someone would choose short or long, there’s proficiency being the big factor. One only works with str, but the other can be str or dex. Also, one can be dual wielded while the other can’t. And in 1D&D, it seems they will have different mastery properties, as well.
Monks can use their Martial Arts damage die with shortswords, but it doesn't surpass the regular shortsword die until level 11.
Compared to other one-handed weapons, the shortsword's only benefit is that you can dual wield d6 finesse without needing a feat or martial weapon proficiency. (Handaxes allow simple dual wielding d6 without finesse, so the finesse is needed, otherwise you'd be better off using handaxes.) So, you're building a character who doesn't get martial weapon proficiency and needs their feats for something else, and wants to dual wield melee weapons using Dexterity.
The classes who don't get martial weapon proficiency are Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard. Because you probably want your swordplay to be your main combat action, we can rule out all the casters, leaving us Monk and Rogue. Both of them usually use Dexterity, so we're off to a good start. Monk doesn't benefit much from dual wielding, on account of having eight million bonus actions already. Same is true for Rogue, really, but to a lesser degree. So let's look into Rogue.
You can bypass the need to Disengage with your bonus action by taking the Mobile feat. Pick a subclass that doesn't use its bonus action as much, like Swashbuckler or Scout perhaps. I'll pick Swashbuckler because then I don't need Mobile anymore. Now I have free feats at levels 4, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 19. I need all of those feats (or at least all the ones inside the level range I'm gonna be playing at) to be better than just upgrading my damage die to a d8, because if that's all they do, I could just pick Dual Wielder and use two rapiers, and that breaks the concept.
Off the top of my head, I'd make a Tiefling Swashbuckler. I'd take Infernal Constitution so I'd have three elemental damage resistances and maybe a little more HP. Shadow Touched so I can cast Invisibility and sneak around, plus whatever other qualifying spell seems fun. Martial Adept to grab Brace or Riposte, to get a way of triggering my Sneak Attack damage on an enemy's turn (Sneak Attack is once per turn, not once per round), and then maybe Ambush for the other choice there. If you use your Panache feature, enemies will likely run at you and trigger Brace. Fill in the other feats with ASIs and/or magic.
There's a Rogue that still plays like a Rogue, it's not really stepping on anyone's toes. In combat you'd be moving in, slicing twice, moving out. Hoping they approach you so you can slice them again with Brace. Your weapon juggling will be really weird though. Before you end your turn, you'll want to sheathe one sword in case you need to cast Hellish Rebuke. Then on your next turn you can draw that sword, but you can't sheathe it again unless you use an action to do so. Because of this, I'm sure you can pick a better race than Tiefling. Something that doesn't have somatic combat spells.
If I wanted to make a fremen I would make a variant human scout rogue, but I’d ask the DM for permission to use a scimitar instead of a shortsword and take the Slasher feat.. If I wanted to make something inspired by the fremen but not strictly speaking a fremen I would instead play a thri-kreen scout rogue with a scimitar (given permission) or a shortsword.
Aim for the eyes and other vital points. Putting emphasis on the DM that it ought to deal significantly more damage or cause skill check based disadvantages?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
Aim for the eyes and other vital points. Putting emphasis on the DM that it ought to deal significantly more damage or cause skill check based disadvantages?
I've got a great copypasta for this.
In D&D if you target an enemy's spinal cord and you hit does it paralyse them regardless of damage?
Ah. The age old question of “called shots”. To understand why they don’t exist, you have to understand what the dice actually mean. Many new players misunderstand the meaning of the dice.
For example, a player makes an attack roll. The enemy’s AC is an 18. The player’s attack roll totals in at a 17. The player “misses”. Many new players interpret this as meaning: my attack fails to strike it’s target.
In reality, that is not necessarily the case. That big-as-a-house Dragon with huge amounts of Natural Armor, it’s not actually hard to hit. It’s like throwing a potato at the side of a barn. Hitting it is easy. It’s Natural Amor makes it hard to hurt. It means that while most attacks probably do hit it, many of them bounce off of the dragon’s hide harmlessly. From a mechanics standpoint, we call these a “miss” because they failed to deal damage, but they are not necessarily a literal miss. Sometimes your sword simply doesn’t find a seam in your opponents plate mail in order to wound them.
That’s an easy one for players to understand once it’s explained. The dice are representative of what is happening in combat, but it is not as simple a translation as a one-to-one.
So why no called shots?
Player: I want to stab him in the head.
DM: The head?
Player: Yes.
DM: You definitely DON’T want to slash him across the throat then?
Player: Well, I mean…
DM: You’re positive that you want to avoid stabbing him through the eye and directly into his brain?
Player: I meant-
DM: Oh. You just meant that you wanted to do an attack that had the best possible chance of wounding or killing your opponent.
Player: Yeah. That’s what I was talking about.
DM: Well, you’re in a fight to the death, man. The game assumes that every attack you’re making is you trying your best to kill your opponent. You’re ALWAYS going for the head, or the throat, or the eyes, or whatever the best opening is that you’ve got. That’s literally the meaning of a fight to the death.
Player: Oh. Well-
DM: When the time comes that you DON’T want to hit them in the head, that you are NOT trying your best to kill them, tell us. There are rules in place for subdual and nonlethal damage for the rare times that you don’t want to kill your foe. Otherwise, the attack that you normally use, that is you doing your best to kill the guy who is doing his best to kill you.
When you make a lethal attack, you are doing your best to kill your foe. You are taking the best spot that you can. You are watching for openings so that you can take them out. This is you at your best.
Flip on a boxing match sometime. You will see minutes go by where both men have their hands up enough that neither can land a head shot. The foolish idea of a “called shot” would suggest that every six seconds (each round) your opponent is somehow required to provide you with an opening to hit that specific area. But judging based on the average boxing match, we can see that this is simply not the case. So since our characters are fighting in a life or death situation, without rules of engagement and referees and points, we are not going to simply waste minutes waiting for one specific place, skipping our attacks when the right opportunity isn’t there. We are always going to be taking the best shot available. If that means the head one round, the neck next time, then a low stab to the thigh while they raise their shield on the third round, and a shot to the groin in the fourth round, we are always taking the best opening we can get.
But… but… shouldn’t different parts of the body have different effects when struck?
They do, but only if you can get past the abstract concept of the numbers. It’s called “Damage”.
You see, when you strike an enemy with your 1d10 sword, you make a roll to see how much damage you deal. Sometimes you get a 1. Sometimes you get a 10. Sometimes it’s in the middle. When you roll a 1, does that mean that your character simply chose to attack with only 10% of his total strength this time? Did you choose to just give ’em a little love tap, instead of really swinging for the fence? Of course not. Your strength is the same, and you’re always swinging with all of your strength. That is why you use your full strength bonus when factoring your hit and damage modifiers.
So why that range of damage then? Why the randomness? Does a roll of a 1 mean that you hit them with some awkwardly placed soft and fluffy pillow that you keep wrapped around the middle of your sword? No.
Understanding the way Damage works means you also have to understand how Hit Points work, since they are two parts of a single mechanic. Hit Points are not the video game style life bar that some people want to treat them as.
Have you ever wondered why reaching level 2 means that you can take twice as many axe-chops before you are killed? “I’ve been in three or four fights now, so I’ve become tough enough that a battle axe to the chest will no longer kill me.” Obviously not. Hit Points are not a reflection of how many times you can get stabbed.
How about why martial classes get more hit points per level than caster classes? “My wizard skipped gym class, so he’s not very durable in a fight.” Hogwash. Toughness is dictated by the Constitution ability. A Wizard with a Constitution of 18 is tougher than a Fighter with a Constitution of 12, even though the Fighter will have more Hit Points. Because Hit Points are not a reflection of “toughness”.
How about this fun one. When you rest, you recover hit points. As you level up, you recover a larger amount of hit points (in 3.5E it was recovering your level in hit points, while in 5E if based on expending your increasing pool of hit dice, but in either case, higher level characters are healing more). Does that mean that soldiers who have fought longer and seen more combat have developed some sort of superhuman Wolverine style regeneration, allowing them to heal faster than normal people? No.
The truth about Hit Points (and damage) is that they are not reflective of how many axe-blows to the face you can take. You are not a tree that is growing bigger as you level, requiring more and more hits to get through. Instead Hit Points reflect training at defending yourself during combat. A hit for 12 can kill a level 1 character, but that same hit for 12 is barely a scratch on your level 15 Barbarian. It’s not because the blow that would behead a normal man cannot penetrate your skin, or your muscles are so dense that they turn aside axes. It is your ability in combat.
You are ducking and bobbing, dodging and weaving, parrying with your weapon and rolling your body on impact. A blow that would have beheaded the untrained man still connects with you, but because of your years of training, you are able to hop back just enough or roll with the blow sufficiently that you rob it of some of it’s power. In terms of mechanics, it still deals 12 damage, but in terms of real life, this is you getting your shoulder up and in the way so you take the blow in a less lethal place, instead of letting them lop your head off.
This is why 3.5E allowed a Coup de Grace on a helpless foe. Or why 5E doesn’t give these higher level and supposedly tougher characters more chances on their death saving throws. Once you are helpless, we all find ourselves on a pretty level playing field, regardless of how those Hit Points would have normally shaped out in combat where we can defend ourselves.
So what does that mean for Called Shots? It’s simple. If you’re always going for the kill (unless you specifically declare you’re holding back and dealing nonlethal damage), and if you’re always swinging with essentially full force on your attacks, regardless of the damage roll, then it is the damage roll that reflects essentially the “where” of the attack’s hit. Your sword hits like a sword, no matter where you stab somebody. It’s not like your sword is sharper or harder on one attack, and flimsier on the next. The damage roll is what gives the perception of different hit locations. That hit for a 1, that’s a cut across the shoulder or the forearm or some other less essential place where it doesn’t necessarily cripple the foe. That roll of 10 damage, against a weaker foe, that effectively IS the head shot. Your sword was not sharper this time, but it connected in a more lethal way with your opponent’s body. And as your opponent increases in their max hit points, you will see that (like the pro boxers) they start doing things like effectively protecting the head and neck, and not affording you those great shots, which is why the shot for 10 that would have downed a lesser foe will barely be a scratch on their 100+ hit points.
The concept of “Called Shots” is foolish because it first of all operates under the assumption that your default setting in a fight to the death is not to do your best to kill your enemy, which is just silly. And second, it assumes that there is an option out there to effectively “hit harder” and your choosing not to take it most of the time.
Hit Points for players are more of an abstract concept than a literal interpretation of the ability to take axe shots to the face. You don’t just train and learn how to get hit in the face with a battleaxe more often. Instead, those higher damage rolls are reflective of you landing that good shot, and those higher hit point pools are reflective of your training making it so that even a well landed blow is no longer necessarily taking it straight on the chin.
Aim for the eyes and other vital points. Putting emphasis on the DM that it ought to deal significantly more damage or cause skill check based disadvantages?
If you don't want to read the wall of text above, I'll give you the short version: what you described is a regular sneak attack.
Scatterbrained and Choir are right about the mechanics. But if you are after a Fremen or a Fremen based character I think rogue is probably the wrong way to go. Yes short sword is finesse so you can use it with strength or Dex. And it’s a simple weapon so the rogue can use it. Wonderful - except - the Fremen are the universe’s best fighters - even better one on one than the emporer’s sardukar. Their still suits are armor and better than studded leather armor. They are also absolute masters of their world’s wilderness. Their “wierding way” is either a monks martial arts or spells. All together to me that spells either a ranger or a ranger fighter multiclass. That gives you more the fighting style, extra hitpoints, martial weapons (including the scimitar which is really closer to the crysknife), medium armor nature skills (if you can get the DM to let you use the UA2 ranger it’s as good in nature as any other class) the reason everyone else is suggesting the scout rogue is that it too gets the nature skills at expertise and it can use the short sword you were asking about. The scimitar is a martial weapon that is light and finesse so it’s just as good but a slashing weapon not a stabbing weapon and it requires the ability to use martial weapons which the ranger has but the rogue doesn’t.
Called shots are upto the DM, most say no, a few say yes and a few say yes- if you crit. Talk to your DM about how they do it but don’t be surprised or disappointed if they say a flat no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey everyone! It's been a long time since I built my last character and I've played that for like 3 years straight. He was a wizard and having all that versatility and all around utility was really great.
But now I want to try something that's new to me. I've always played casters so now i wanna try something melee oriented. I grew obsessed with the universe of Dune where all the cool fremens swings around their cryss knives. So I want something similar, a dexterous fighter with a big badass knife https://showbox.bio/ https://tutuapp.uno/ .
But 1d4 sounds unfun so I thought about reflavouring a short sword into a cryss knife. But how can I make that work? Why would someone choose short vs longswords?
Should I consider dual wielding in order to maximize damage? Maybe a rogue would be a better choice to increase my damage output thanks to sneak attacks.
How can I make the shortsword good?
Shortsword is superior for Dex-based characters. Also, don't make a Fighter. Make like some flavor of Rogue (Scout, Mastermind, Swashbuckler) so you can get even more damage off of Sneak Attack. At some point you will be hitting for Fireball levels of damage.
Don’t dual wield, it’s really underwhelming.
And rogue is a good choice if you’re looking for lightly armored damage also, a dex-based paladin can work really well.
As far as why someone would choose short or long, there’s proficiency being the big factor. One only works with str, but the other can be str or dex. Also, one can be dual wielded while the other can’t. And in 1D&D, it seems they will have different mastery properties, as well.
Monks can use their Martial Arts damage die with shortswords, but it doesn't surpass the regular shortsword die until level 11.
Compared to other one-handed weapons, the shortsword's only benefit is that you can dual wield d6 finesse without needing a feat or martial weapon proficiency. (Handaxes allow simple dual wielding d6 without finesse, so the finesse is needed, otherwise you'd be better off using handaxes.) So, you're building a character who doesn't get martial weapon proficiency and needs their feats for something else, and wants to dual wield melee weapons using Dexterity.
The classes who don't get martial weapon proficiency are Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard. Because you probably want your swordplay to be your main combat action, we can rule out all the casters, leaving us Monk and Rogue. Both of them usually use Dexterity, so we're off to a good start. Monk doesn't benefit much from dual wielding, on account of having eight million bonus actions already. Same is true for Rogue, really, but to a lesser degree. So let's look into Rogue.
You can bypass the need to Disengage with your bonus action by taking the Mobile feat. Pick a subclass that doesn't use its bonus action as much, like Swashbuckler or Scout perhaps. I'll pick Swashbuckler because then I don't need Mobile anymore. Now I have free feats at levels 4, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 19. I need all of those feats (or at least all the ones inside the level range I'm gonna be playing at) to be better than just upgrading my damage die to a d8, because if that's all they do, I could just pick Dual Wielder and use two rapiers, and that breaks the concept.
Off the top of my head, I'd make a Tiefling Swashbuckler. I'd take Infernal Constitution so I'd have three elemental damage resistances and maybe a little more HP. Shadow Touched so I can cast Invisibility and sneak around, plus whatever other qualifying spell seems fun. Martial Adept to grab Brace or Riposte, to get a way of triggering my Sneak Attack damage on an enemy's turn (Sneak Attack is once per turn, not once per round), and then maybe Ambush for the other choice there. If you use your Panache feature, enemies will likely run at you and trigger Brace. Fill in the other feats with ASIs and/or magic.
There's a Rogue that still plays like a Rogue, it's not really stepping on anyone's toes. In combat you'd be moving in, slicing twice, moving out. Hoping they approach you so you can slice them again with Brace. Your weapon juggling will be really weird though. Before you end your turn, you'll want to sheathe one sword in case you need to cast Hellish Rebuke. Then on your next turn you can draw that sword, but you can't sheathe it again unless you use an action to do so. Because of this, I'm sure you can pick a better race than Tiefling. Something that doesn't have somatic combat spells.
If I wanted to make a fremen I would make a variant human scout rogue, but I’d ask the DM for permission to use a scimitar instead of a shortsword and take the Slasher feat.. If I wanted to make something inspired by the fremen but not strictly speaking a fremen I would instead play a thri-kreen scout rogue with a scimitar (given permission) or a shortsword.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Aim for the eyes and other vital points. Putting emphasis on the DM that it ought to deal significantly more damage or cause skill check based disadvantages?
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
I've got a great copypasta for this.
In D&D if you target an enemy's spinal cord and you hit does it paralyse them regardless of damage?
Ah. The age old question of “called shots”. To understand why they don’t exist, you have to understand what the dice actually mean. Many new players misunderstand the meaning of the dice.
For example, a player makes an attack roll. The enemy’s AC is an 18. The player’s attack roll totals in at a 17. The player “misses”. Many new players interpret this as meaning: my attack fails to strike it’s target.
In reality, that is not necessarily the case. That big-as-a-house Dragon with huge amounts of Natural Armor, it’s not actually hard to hit. It’s like throwing a potato at the side of a barn. Hitting it is easy. It’s Natural Amor makes it hard to hurt. It means that while most attacks probably do hit it, many of them bounce off of the dragon’s hide harmlessly. From a mechanics standpoint, we call these a “miss” because they failed to deal damage, but they are not necessarily a literal miss. Sometimes your sword simply doesn’t find a seam in your opponents plate mail in order to wound them.
That’s an easy one for players to understand once it’s explained. The dice are representative of what is happening in combat, but it is not as simple a translation as a one-to-one.
So why no called shots?
Player: I want to stab him in the head.
DM: The head?
Player: Yes.
DM: You definitely DON’T want to slash him across the throat then?
Player: Well, I mean…
DM: You’re positive that you want to avoid stabbing him through the eye and directly into his brain?
Player: I meant-
DM: Oh. You just meant that you wanted to do an attack that had the best possible chance of wounding or killing your opponent.
Player: Yeah. That’s what I was talking about.
DM: Well, you’re in a fight to the death, man. The game assumes that every attack you’re making is you trying your best to kill your opponent. You’re ALWAYS going for the head, or the throat, or the eyes, or whatever the best opening is that you’ve got. That’s literally the meaning of a fight to the death.
Player: Oh. Well-
DM: When the time comes that you DON’T want to hit them in the head, that you are NOT trying your best to kill them, tell us. There are rules in place for subdual and nonlethal damage for the rare times that you don’t want to kill your foe. Otherwise, the attack that you normally use, that is you doing your best to kill the guy who is doing his best to kill you.
When you make a lethal attack, you are doing your best to kill your foe. You are taking the best spot that you can. You are watching for openings so that you can take them out. This is you at your best.
Flip on a boxing match sometime. You will see minutes go by where both men have their hands up enough that neither can land a head shot. The foolish idea of a “called shot” would suggest that every six seconds (each round) your opponent is somehow required to provide you with an opening to hit that specific area. But judging based on the average boxing match, we can see that this is simply not the case. So since our characters are fighting in a life or death situation, without rules of engagement and referees and points, we are not going to simply waste minutes waiting for one specific place, skipping our attacks when the right opportunity isn’t there. We are always going to be taking the best shot available. If that means the head one round, the neck next time, then a low stab to the thigh while they raise their shield on the third round, and a shot to the groin in the fourth round, we are always taking the best opening we can get.
But… but… shouldn’t different parts of the body have different effects when struck?
They do, but only if you can get past the abstract concept of the numbers. It’s called “Damage”.
You see, when you strike an enemy with your 1d10 sword, you make a roll to see how much damage you deal. Sometimes you get a 1. Sometimes you get a 10. Sometimes it’s in the middle. When you roll a 1, does that mean that your character simply chose to attack with only 10% of his total strength this time? Did you choose to just give ’em a little love tap, instead of really swinging for the fence? Of course not. Your strength is the same, and you’re always swinging with all of your strength. That is why you use your full strength bonus when factoring your hit and damage modifiers.
So why that range of damage then? Why the randomness? Does a roll of a 1 mean that you hit them with some awkwardly placed soft and fluffy pillow that you keep wrapped around the middle of your sword? No.
Understanding the way Damage works means you also have to understand how Hit Points work, since they are two parts of a single mechanic. Hit Points are not the video game style life bar that some people want to treat them as.
Have you ever wondered why reaching level 2 means that you can take twice as many axe-chops before you are killed? “I’ve been in three or four fights now, so I’ve become tough enough that a battle axe to the chest will no longer kill me.” Obviously not. Hit Points are not a reflection of how many times you can get stabbed.
How about why martial classes get more hit points per level than caster classes? “My wizard skipped gym class, so he’s not very durable in a fight.” Hogwash. Toughness is dictated by the Constitution ability. A Wizard with a Constitution of 18 is tougher than a Fighter with a Constitution of 12, even though the Fighter will have more Hit Points. Because Hit Points are not a reflection of “toughness”.
How about this fun one. When you rest, you recover hit points. As you level up, you recover a larger amount of hit points (in 3.5E it was recovering your level in hit points, while in 5E if based on expending your increasing pool of hit dice, but in either case, higher level characters are healing more). Does that mean that soldiers who have fought longer and seen more combat have developed some sort of superhuman Wolverine style regeneration, allowing them to heal faster than normal people? No.
The truth about Hit Points (and damage) is that they are not reflective of how many axe-blows to the face you can take. You are not a tree that is growing bigger as you level, requiring more and more hits to get through. Instead Hit Points reflect training at defending yourself during combat. A hit for 12 can kill a level 1 character, but that same hit for 12 is barely a scratch on your level 15 Barbarian. It’s not because the blow that would behead a normal man cannot penetrate your skin, or your muscles are so dense that they turn aside axes. It is your ability in combat.
You are ducking and bobbing, dodging and weaving, parrying with your weapon and rolling your body on impact. A blow that would have beheaded the untrained man still connects with you, but because of your years of training, you are able to hop back just enough or roll with the blow sufficiently that you rob it of some of it’s power. In terms of mechanics, it still deals 12 damage, but in terms of real life, this is you getting your shoulder up and in the way so you take the blow in a less lethal place, instead of letting them lop your head off.
This is why 3.5E allowed a Coup de Grace on a helpless foe. Or why 5E doesn’t give these higher level and supposedly tougher characters more chances on their death saving throws. Once you are helpless, we all find ourselves on a pretty level playing field, regardless of how those Hit Points would have normally shaped out in combat where we can defend ourselves.
So what does that mean for Called Shots? It’s simple. If you’re always going for the kill (unless you specifically declare you’re holding back and dealing nonlethal damage), and if you’re always swinging with essentially full force on your attacks, regardless of the damage roll, then it is the damage roll that reflects essentially the “where” of the attack’s hit. Your sword hits like a sword, no matter where you stab somebody. It’s not like your sword is sharper or harder on one attack, and flimsier on the next. The damage roll is what gives the perception of different hit locations. That hit for a 1, that’s a cut across the shoulder or the forearm or some other less essential place where it doesn’t necessarily cripple the foe. That roll of 10 damage, against a weaker foe, that effectively IS the head shot. Your sword was not sharper this time, but it connected in a more lethal way with your opponent’s body. And as your opponent increases in their max hit points, you will see that (like the pro boxers) they start doing things like effectively protecting the head and neck, and not affording you those great shots, which is why the shot for 10 that would have downed a lesser foe will barely be a scratch on their 100+ hit points.
The concept of “Called Shots” is foolish because it first of all operates under the assumption that your default setting in a fight to the death is not to do your best to kill your enemy, which is just silly. And second, it assumes that there is an option out there to effectively “hit harder” and your choosing not to take it most of the time.
Hit Points for players are more of an abstract concept than a literal interpretation of the ability to take axe shots to the face. You don’t just train and learn how to get hit in the face with a battleaxe more often. Instead, those higher damage rolls are reflective of you landing that good shot, and those higher hit point pools are reflective of your training making it so that even a well landed blow is no longer necessarily taking it straight on the chin.
If you don't want to read the wall of text above, I'll give you the short version: what you described is a regular sneak attack.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Scatterbrained and Choir are right about the mechanics. But if you are after a Fremen or a Fremen based character I think rogue is probably the wrong way to go. Yes short sword is finesse so you can use it with strength or Dex. And it’s a simple weapon so the rogue can use it. Wonderful - except - the Fremen are the universe’s best fighters - even better one on one than the emporer’s sardukar. Their still suits are armor and better than studded leather armor. They are also absolute masters of their world’s wilderness. Their “wierding way” is either a monks martial arts or spells. All together to me that spells either a ranger or a ranger fighter multiclass. That gives you more the fighting style, extra hitpoints, martial weapons (including the scimitar which is really closer to the crysknife), medium armor nature skills (if you can get the DM to let you use the UA2 ranger it’s as good in nature as any other class) the reason everyone else is suggesting the scout rogue is that it too gets the nature skills at expertise and it can use the short sword you were asking about. The scimitar is a martial weapon that is light and finesse so it’s just as good but a slashing weapon not a stabbing weapon and it requires the ability to use martial weapons which the ranger has but the rogue doesn’t.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Called shots are upto the DM, most say no, a few say yes and a few say yes- if you crit. Talk to your DM about how they do it but don’t be surprised or disappointed if they say a flat no.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.