So i've recently made an assassin rogue character. Now i've found out that there is no way for me to do melee sneak attacks with bludgeoning damage.
you can with ranged attacks with a Sling. What about melee?
I've thought of a way but i don't know if it works.
POMMELS. Now Pommels should be Improvised Weapons dealing 1d4 damage. It is also written in the Polearm Master feat that the pommels of your weapon does 1d4 damage. And of course Pommels do Bludgeoning damage.
Now would the pommel of a finesse weapon have the finesse property? The pommel of a Rapier/dagger/shortsword and so on? Why not? They are part of that weapon and when you use your rapier/dagger/shortsword you have the finesse property and the pommel is part of the weapon. So they should have the finesse property.
So the pommel of a finesse weapon can deal sneak attack with bludgeoning damage in melee.
Now to further delve into the subject, i'm proficient in the use of the dagger/rapier/shortsword (etc. finesse weapons): using the pommel of a finesse weapon to make an attack, would also mean that i'm proficient with the pommel of that weapon, so i can add my proficiency bonus and since that pommel is a finesse weapon i can also add my DEX modifier to that weapon for attack and damage roll.
my question in the end is: is this rule allowed? it's a workaround rule allowed? or i am missing something and it is all garbage?
p.s. noone knows any movie scene where a sneaker assailant attacks a guard standing from behind with the pommel of a melee weapon? = sneak damage with bludgeoning =)
Bludgeoning damage is mostly just hitting them as hard as you can to knock them out - there isn't much finesse in whacking somebody really hard.
It will be up to a DM to decide whether an improvised weapon is close enough to a real weapon to use your proficiency bonus.
At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
I don't see somebody trying to hit somebody with the pommel of a dagger as wielding the dagger in the same way as precisely striking (between the ribs, around the neck, etc.) with it.
p.s. noone knows any movie scene where a sneaker assailant attacks a guard standing from behind with the pommel of a melee weapon? = sneak damage with bludgeoning =)
That isn't an example of the sneak attack rule, it's an example of the surprise rule.
I think your better option is to talk with the DM about a homebrew weapon that would match closely with a finesse one but does bludgeoning.
A Feder is a training sword thats basically like a rapier but sturdy and round without a point. It might be your best bet to argue a full rapier finesse with 1d8 bludgeoning but since it's a training sword the DM might knock you down to 1d4 or something. Hopefully still retaining your proficiency regardless.
If you multi-class to monk I think nunchaku are a good argument for a finesse bludgeoning weapon with 1d4 damage (maybe even 1d6).
Blackjack and Saps are also very light and handy bludgeoning weapons more in line with something a rogue would use. The Blackjack is pretty close in use to a regular club but it would be all up to discussion with the DM to argue finesse for it.
If you're more of the rogue that walks through the crowd in disguise, right up to your opponent, appearing unassuming then a walking cane could work well. It would be much like a quarterstaff but shorter and lighter so not a bad weapon to argue for 1d4 bludgeoning damage and the finesse property but no versatile one.
RAW though I think that once you start using a weapon in an unintended way you're not really using it the way you would have been trained to be a proficient wielder and its more like the rules for improvised weapons, arguing that the use of the weapon in that way makes it equivalent to a club which means you're not using it in a way that grants finesse.
If this question is for the purposes of knocking a character out, keep in mind that per RAW all melee attacks have the option to be declared "nonlethal" when the target hits 0 HP. You could still flavor it as striking them with the pommel if the DM let you describe the action, but for practical application there's really no reason to go with improvised pommel strikes.
still i don't see why my reasoning by rules won't work. i understand all the talks, i'm asking if by rules this line of reasoning could allow sneak attack with pommels of weapons.
And why wouldn't iron knuckles or something like that "strike precisely"? i hit in the livers? on the ribs? or on the kidneys? Those are hit that normally deals more damage to the human body. Even tho i don't know of any weapon like that in D&D 5e.
As The_Ace_of_Rogues said, if your ultimate goal is to just knock someone out then you can do that RAW even with a Rapier, despite how absurd it might seem IRL.
As you say, Iron knuckles could be a good homebrew weapon or argument for finesse but I don't think even the Unarmed Fighting style allows you to make unarmed strikes with Finesse. You're making an argument with us here but RAW the answer is no and you need to take that argument to your DM who might well grant it.
But RAW as well, a weapon has a damage property and thats it. A dagger does piercing damage and thats it. If you want to tell the DM you're hitting with the pommel then there's no rule or lean in the weapons rule to turn a dagger into a bludgeoning weapon except to argue that it's an improvised weapon and if you have proficiency in a simple club then you argue with the DM that it's equivalent to a club, but the DM will point out you're then using it as a weapon that doesn't have the "Finesse" property.
The moment you start using an improvised weapon or a weapon in an improvised way and argue that it's equivalent to another weapon in the weapons list then THAT weapons traits and statistics are what are used and nothing (including finesse) is carried over from the main weapon.
still i don't see why my reasoning by rules won't work. i understand all the talks, i'm asking if by rules this line of reasoning could allow sneak attack with pommels of weapons.
And why wouldn't iron knuckles or something like that "strike precisely"? i hit in the livers? on the ribs? or on the kidneys? Those are hit that normally deals more damage to the human body. Even tho i don't know of any weapon like that in D&D 5e.
Look, the simple answer to your question is "there are no melee bludgeoning weapons that have finesse, and an improvised weapon cannot imitate properties that do not naturally exist on the weapons table". The longer answer to your question is that, unless you're looking to cheese the Tasha's damage type feats, weapon damage will not matter 99.9% of the time. Only a handful of fairly uncommon enemies calculate PSB damage differently between types, so you're creating a somewhat convoluted chain of logic to get a meaningless effect. If you want to render an enemy unconscious, you can. It is a baked in facet of all melee attacks, so there is no need to try and twist Improvised Weapons to do it.
my line of reasoning is because i'm playing in a campaign where there are 3 type of sea creatures as enemies and each type is resistant to 2 type of damages and vulnerable to the other. since i'm playing a rogue i'm finding myself in a pickle when to fight those who are vulnerable to bludgeoning and resistant to slashing/piercing
my line of reasoning is because i'm playing in a campaign where there are 3 type of sea creatures as enemies and each type is resistant to 2 type of damages and vulnerable to the other. since i'm playing a rogue i'm finding myself in a pickle when to fight those who are vulnerable to bludgeoning and resistant to slashing/piercing
So just any blunt weapon will do double damage to the vulnerable creatures - far better than resistance vs finesse weapon + sneak attack (at least at low levels).
It does look like your DM doesn't like rogues though.
Since your DM would have to approve any use of the pommel with sneak attack, then it might be worth just talking to them about your lack of ability to use your sneak attack against 2/3rds of the creatures you're encountering.
I suspect that spell casters couldn't care less about the resistance/vulnerability of the monsters though, so doubly unfair for melee PCs.
Farling is right. You’re missing your sneak attack but just use a quarterstaff or Mace if you never plan to use two hands and smash away in melee with that if you can’t stay at range with a sling. The only official magic item I can think of to help is the sun blade which has the finesse property but does radiance damage. However it’s a rare item that you probably wouldn’t expect a party member to have until level 6+ And you’d have to find a way to obtain or craft it which is all down to the DM and brings you back to Farley’s suggestion of mentioning it to them. Then they could rule on the pommel, one of the home brew weapons I suggested, a magic item or they might simply adjust the campaign to remove the monsters with resistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So i've recently made an assassin rogue character. Now i've found out that there is no way for me to do melee sneak attacks with bludgeoning damage.
you can with ranged attacks with a Sling. What about melee?
I've thought of a way but i don't know if it works.
POMMELS. Now Pommels should be Improvised Weapons dealing 1d4 damage. It is also written in the Polearm Master feat that the pommels of your weapon does 1d4 damage. And of course Pommels do Bludgeoning damage.
Now would the pommel of a finesse weapon have the finesse property? The pommel of a Rapier/dagger/shortsword and so on? Why not? They are part of that weapon and when you use your rapier/dagger/shortsword you have the finesse property and the pommel is part of the weapon. So they should have the finesse property.
So the pommel of a finesse weapon can deal sneak attack with bludgeoning damage in melee.
Now to further delve into the subject, i'm proficient in the use of the dagger/rapier/shortsword (etc. finesse weapons): using the pommel of a finesse weapon to make an attack, would also mean that i'm proficient with the pommel of that weapon, so i can add my proficiency bonus and since that pommel is a finesse weapon i can also add my DEX modifier to that weapon for attack and damage roll.
my question in the end is: is this rule allowed? it's a workaround rule allowed? or i am missing something and it is all garbage?
p.s. noone knows any movie scene where a sneaker assailant attacks a guard standing from behind with the pommel of a melee weapon? = sneak damage with bludgeoning =)
Bludgeoning damage is mostly just hitting them as hard as you can to knock them out - there isn't much finesse in whacking somebody really hard.
It will be up to a DM to decide whether an improvised weapon is close enough to a real weapon to use your proficiency bonus.
I don't see somebody trying to hit somebody with the pommel of a dagger as wielding the dagger in the same way as precisely striking (between the ribs, around the neck, etc.) with it.
That isn't an example of the sneak attack rule, it's an example of the surprise rule.
For the rest I agree with @Farling.
"Finesse" and "blunt instrument" generally don't go together.
I think your better option is to talk with the DM about a homebrew weapon that would match closely with a finesse one but does bludgeoning.
A Feder is a training sword thats basically like a rapier but sturdy and round without a point. It might be your best bet to argue a full rapier finesse with 1d8 bludgeoning but since it's a training sword the DM might knock you down to 1d4 or something. Hopefully still retaining your proficiency regardless.
If you multi-class to monk I think nunchaku are a good argument for a finesse bludgeoning weapon with 1d4 damage (maybe even 1d6).
Blackjack and Saps are also very light and handy bludgeoning weapons more in line with something a rogue would use. The Blackjack is pretty close in use to a regular club but it would be all up to discussion with the DM to argue finesse for it.
If you're more of the rogue that walks through the crowd in disguise, right up to your opponent, appearing unassuming then a walking cane could work well. It would be much like a quarterstaff but shorter and lighter so not a bad weapon to argue for 1d4 bludgeoning damage and the finesse property but no versatile one.
RAW though I think that once you start using a weapon in an unintended way you're not really using it the way you would have been trained to be a proficient wielder and its more like the rules for improvised weapons, arguing that the use of the weapon in that way makes it equivalent to a club which means you're not using it in a way that grants finesse.
If this question is for the purposes of knocking a character out, keep in mind that per RAW all melee attacks have the option to be declared "nonlethal" when the target hits 0 HP. You could still flavor it as striking them with the pommel if the DM let you describe the action, but for practical application there's really no reason to go with improvised pommel strikes.
still i don't see why my reasoning by rules won't work. i understand all the talks, i'm asking if by rules this line of reasoning could allow sneak attack with pommels of weapons.
And why wouldn't iron knuckles or something like that "strike precisely"? i hit in the livers? on the ribs? or on the kidneys? Those are hit that normally deals more damage to the human body. Even tho i don't know of any weapon like that in D&D 5e.
As The_Ace_of_Rogues said, if your ultimate goal is to just knock someone out then you can do that RAW even with a Rapier, despite how absurd it might seem IRL.
As you say, Iron knuckles could be a good homebrew weapon or argument for finesse but I don't think even the Unarmed Fighting style allows you to make unarmed strikes with Finesse. You're making an argument with us here but RAW the answer is no and you need to take that argument to your DM who might well grant it.
But RAW as well, a weapon has a damage property and thats it. A dagger does piercing damage and thats it. If you want to tell the DM you're hitting with the pommel then there's no rule or lean in the weapons rule to turn a dagger into a bludgeoning weapon except to argue that it's an improvised weapon and if you have proficiency in a simple club then you argue with the DM that it's equivalent to a club, but the DM will point out you're then using it as a weapon that doesn't have the "Finesse" property.
The moment you start using an improvised weapon or a weapon in an improvised way and argue that it's equivalent to another weapon in the weapons list then THAT weapons traits and statistics are what are used and nothing (including finesse) is carried over from the main weapon.
Look, the simple answer to your question is "there are no melee bludgeoning weapons that have finesse, and an improvised weapon cannot imitate properties that do not naturally exist on the weapons table". The longer answer to your question is that, unless you're looking to cheese the Tasha's damage type feats, weapon damage will not matter 99.9% of the time. Only a handful of fairly uncommon enemies calculate PSB damage differently between types, so you're creating a somewhat convoluted chain of logic to get a meaningless effect. If you want to render an enemy unconscious, you can. It is a baked in facet of all melee attacks, so there is no need to try and twist Improvised Weapons to do it.
my line of reasoning is because i'm playing in a campaign where there are 3 type of sea creatures as enemies and each type is resistant to 2 type of damages and vulnerable to the other. since i'm playing a rogue i'm finding myself in a pickle when to fight those who are vulnerable to bludgeoning and resistant to slashing/piercing
So just any blunt weapon will do double damage to the vulnerable creatures - far better than resistance vs finesse weapon + sneak attack (at least at low levels).
It does look like your DM doesn't like rogues though.
Since your DM would have to approve any use of the pommel with sneak attack, then it might be worth just talking to them about your lack of ability to use your sneak attack against 2/3rds of the creatures you're encountering.
I suspect that spell casters couldn't care less about the resistance/vulnerability of the monsters though, so doubly unfair for melee PCs.
Farling is right. You’re missing your sneak attack but just use a quarterstaff or Mace if you never plan to use two hands and smash away in melee with that if you can’t stay at range with a sling. The only official magic item I can think of to help is the sun blade which has the finesse property but does radiance damage. However it’s a rare item that you probably wouldn’t expect a party member to have until level 6+ And you’d have to find a way to obtain or craft it which is all down to the DM and brings you back to Farley’s suggestion of mentioning it to them. Then they could rule on the pommel, one of the home brew weapons I suggested, a magic item or they might simply adjust the campaign to remove the monsters with resistance.