Personally I would really like half casters to better encompass the spell warrior archetype, using spells alongside their attacks. Using spells to empower their martial prowess more than what we see now. And finally to be able to spell cast more.
How would I do it?
Create new spells that entice warrior/ranger types
Make more lower level spells that functions to boost a martial character's capabilities; aka spells that would be interesting for a half caster but not really typical full casters. Basically it feels like half casters are under this curse of being given scraps from the full casters plate and then a few class specific spells that mostly break their respective level in terms of power. Hunter's Mark is performing way out of its league as a level 1 spell, mostly to compensate that Ranger's selection of 1st level spells is... not that interesting compared to their limited number of spell slots and the trade-off with casting instead of attacking.
Some rough examples could include:
Dash-attack, 1st lvl spell: you move up to 60 feet in a straight line and for each weapon you wield, you may make one weapon attack against a target along the path, each hit dealing an additional 1d6 Force damage. This movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
Power-shot, 1st lvl spell: Infuse a piece of ammunition with magic. Make a ranged weapon attack against a target. If it hits the target takes 1d4 Necrotic damage and 1d4 Cold damage and is Dazed until the end of its next turn.
Twin-slice, 1st lvl spell: For the duration (1 minute, no concentration), whenever you make a weapon attack with a melee weapon you wield in one hand with the Light property, you may also make a bonus weapon attack with another weapon you wield in one hand with the Light property. Bonus attacks granted through this spell does not trigger a bonus attack. This cannot be used alongside the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting.
Grant more known spells through subclass features
One hindrance for half casters is their limited repertoire of spells known. If you include more through subclass features it opens up the opportunity to select more niche spells. Spells like Longstrider or Jump (I don't recall if there's any other movement-esque buffs at level 1) could perhaps be bundled together to one spell that selects an aspect of your body to empower on cast. Either you go for movement or jump or whatever else can be included in such a spell. Longstrider is by itself a fine spell (not excellent but fine). Jump however is a lot more... niche to pick up, especially for a Ranger.
Paladin is already getting some attention in this area by having their unique Smite spells included in a class featured spell list of known spells that is also always prepared in the UA6 works.
Trade an extra weapon attack for a spell cast
Give half casters the feature to replace one of their weapon attacks with a spell cast. Their spell slot level progression is already impaired compared to full casters so their spell casts are weaker than a full caster. Most likely there should be certain restrictions on what type of spells can be cast (other than spells that at maximum takes an action) - which might be done through a class feature (aka half casters make a selection of a few spells they have trained more, so they are capable of casting them whilst fighting) - if you don't want to make that distinction specifically per spell. In other words I want half-casters to strike a blow against an enemy and then cast something like a midway spell between Gust and Gust of Wind on another. I don't think it would be thematic to have them cast Time Stop in the midst of their flurry of blows so some restraint would be good. This would also give more life to smaller spells that don't really make sense to spend your entire turn doing but could be worth trading a weapon attack for.
Increase their spell slot quantity
Next to increase their spell slots. To avoid that half casters are very prone to save their spell casting for very specific situations, I would just give them more spell slots overall. However at a lower slot level than full casters to not step on any toes. So the they gain closer to the same quantity of spellcasting but not the same quality as full casters. If half casters gain class specific spell slots at certain levels like on level 2 you usually gain access to spell casting and 2x 1st level spell slots whilst full casters have 3x 1st level spell slots - that's a fair disparity. At level 3 though full casters gain +1x 1st level and 2x 2nd level spell slots for +3 spell slots. Half casters only gain +1x 1st level at level 3. Here I would make a class featured spell slot for another 1st level spell slot to half casters to put them up to 4x 1st level spell slots at level 3.
How would that work with multiclassing? You do the same as you do now, and then add the class featured spell slots on top. So a 10th level Ranger and 10th level Wizard would have the spell slot progression of a level 15 full caster: 4x 1st level, 3x 2nd level, 3x 3rd level, 3x 4th level, 2x 5th level, and 1x of 6th, 7th, and 8th level spell slots from the multiclass spell slot progression table. On top of that they have whatever spell slots are specifically gained at certain levels from their Ranger class - like the aforementioned +1 1st level from Ranger level 3. And yes later levels for full casters only see very few additional spell slots, so a multiclass full-caster and half-caster is likely going to have more spell slots than a full-caster. However there's still spell points to level out that issue along with your spell list progression for the multiclasser is limited to what it gains from its individual classes. So if you value a larger quantity of lower level spells over big spells... that's a possibility for you.
That's a lot of bonus, what's the catch?
Obviously yes this is mainly just bonuses, and certainly warrant looking into the other aspects of these classes and perhaps specifically their class specific spells like Smites and Hunter's Mark. I feel like it should be possible to tweak these classes to not overshadow neither martial nor spell casters but still feel like you are not choosing between being a poor martial or a poor spell caster. That's why the options that don't force that choice (like Smites or Hunter's Mark - aka bonus action spells) are your primary way to spend your spell slots for most half-caster characters. Hell, such a change might even warrant postponing the Extra Attack feature to later than level 5. Or the attack-for-spell trade might first come online at a later level - like level 6, 7. There should be enough dials to tweak that can balance them out but enable them to go for that magic-empowered warrior archetype. That one feels lacking under the current ruleset.
Also seems like a good method for encouraging half caster dips and then abandoning them after, at least level 5
Also seems like a good method for encouraging half caster dips and then abandoning them after, at least level 5
Enlighten me how that would be the norm? Since you want to dip only to level 5 I imagine you primarily mean the trade weapon-attack-for-spell casting? If your choice for spells you can cast during your attack action is restricted - like I said would be a good thing to do - to certain spells you got from the half-caster class, what do you have in mind? Not to mention that I also said these changes could warrant balance changes that could postpone either the Extra Attack feature and/or specifically the attack-trade feature.
Oh and because I didn't mention it in my previous post I want to touch on that this change would be stepping on the Eldritch Knight's toes with their improved war magic that upgrades trade-for-cantrip to any spell: they still get 4x attacks per attack action and should be doing fine. However there could be grounds for letting them in on the half-caster's extra spell slots to some degree through the subclass features. As for Bladesingers... I feel like this version of half-casters IS what the Bladesinger is ultimately trying to be. So I don't know if that subclass is specifically needed to achieve that fantasy anymore, but still having the choice is still a win for player options.
Personally I would really like half casters to better encompass the spell warrior archetype, using spells alongside their attacks. Using spells to empower their martial prowess more than what we see now. And finally to be able to spell cast more.
How would I do it?
Sorry but all of this sounds like it could be summarized as: "Turn class features for half casters into spells and then give them full caster spellslots to use them with." Which would just end up as a character with the mechanical limitations of a martial character - being reliant on weapon attacks that primarily deal single-target damage - and also all the limitations of a spellcaster - only being able to do the things a few times per day.
One could easily take away Extra Attack from all the half-casters and replace it with a spell-slot powered sneak attack - where you instead of making 2 attacks, make one "magically empowered" attack that gains additional damage of whatever type by expending a spell slot to do so. But IMO there is no way to balance two classes the both make the same number of attacks but one gets a ton of bonuses they can stack onto one of those attacks and the other doesn't. If you just give a Rogue extra attack without changing their sneak attack mechanics it's going to overshadow every other martial at the table.
You did in fact not read my post did you? Because that's a terrible summary.
Also seems like a good method for encouraging half caster dips and then abandoning them after, at least level 5
Enlighten me how that would be the norm? Since you want to dip only to level 5 I imagine you primarily mean the trade weapon-attack-for-spell casting? If your choice for spells you can cast during your attack action is restricted - like I said would be a good thing to do - to certain spells you got from the half-caster class, what do you have in mind? Not to mention that I also said these changes could warrant balance changes that could postpone either the Extra Attack feature and/or specifically the attack-trade feature.
Oh and because I didn't mention it in my previous post I want to touch on that this change would be stepping on the Eldritch Knight's toes with their improved war magic that upgrades trade-for-cantrip to any spell: they still get 4x attacks per attack action and should be doing fine. However there could be grounds for letting them in on the half-caster's extra spell slots to some degree through the subclass features. As for Bladesingers... I feel like this version of half-casters IS what the Bladesinger is ultimately trying to be. So I don't know if that subclass is specifically needed to achieve that fantasy anymore, but still having the choice is still a win for player options.
Fighters only have 4 attacks per action in theorycraft (or a few sessions at best) - that 4th attack is the level 20 capstone. Take any dip of any kind, and it doesn't happen - and by the time they get it - which is a big IF - the campaign is almost over for the overwhelming majority of players.
Fighters only have 4 attacks per action in theorycraft (or a few sessions at best) - that 4th attack is the level 20 capstone. Take any dip of any kind, and it doesn't happen - and by the time they get it - which is a big IF - the campaign is almost over for the overwhelming majority of players.
True. My point was that EK still has combat benefits over a Half-caster class, so having Half-casters "outperform" the EK's attack-for-spell-trade feature, by being able to cast non-cantrips before the EK, is not that much of a problem. The reason I put outperform in quotations is because the EK has access to cantrips, so they can always empower their weapon attacks through something like Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade or just Sword Burst (and with the UA, True Strike becomes a ranged weapon attack upgrade option for ranged EKs). Meanwhile the Half-casters are limited to their spell slots. So it is not objectively better when considering context.
Furthermore I don't have any issue with a class feature being surface-level better than a subclass feature (non-improved War Magic). The UA-material has already granted a major buff to EK by giving them the Bladesinger treatment of trading a weapon attack instead of being able to make a bonus action attack when casting - granting them full benefit of their upgraded Extra Attack feature AND freeing up their bonus action. Not to mention that the Half-casters' attack-for-spell-trade feature is probably getting more restricted than the EK's.
Half-casters could previously acquire cantrips through a Fighting Style, but they are very notably missing from the UA material. It was introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, a source book the Devs have chosen to replace or incorporate many features from into the UA material for the PHB 2024. This indicates that they don't want this Fighting Style going forward and is only available as an option due to the backwards compatibility. Furthermore Ranger can select from the Druid spell list, whilst the Paladin selects from the Cleric spell list. Both lists not having a weapon attack upgrade (similar to Booming Blade). So for the Half-caster we're comparing a cantrip to a weapon attack, which is likely to be close to equivalent in damage until level 11. Up until that point the EK can easily have the damage of two weapon attacks and the damage from Booming or Green-Flame. And at lvl 11, the EK gets their 3rd weapon attack. Another option to acquire cantrips is through the Magic Initiate feat, but this doesn't change the class of the spells you acquire, they are still Wizard, Warlock, etc. spells and can very easily be excluded from the Half-casters' version of attack-for-spell-trade feature by not being spells of the Half-caster class - if that is deemed problematic. This is unlike the Fighting Style which specifically changes the spells to be Ranger/Paladin spells. So as for damage, the EK outperforms a Half-caster whilst using cantrips, and that's totally fine. However it would be interesting if Half-casters gets the tools to be better utility/control actors whilst still dealing some weapon damage.
Notably, the attack-for-cantrip upgrade given to the EK puts them head-and-shoulders above any other Fighter subclass in pretty much every aspect which IMO is a bad thing. TBH I think cantrip scaling is a massive problem in the game just in general. It causes all kinds of weird distortions across the game, for instance:
1. For Full casters it makes their 1st and 2nd level spell slots redundant at higher levels, a Firebolt does more damage at 11th level than Burning Hands, Burst of Blades does more damage than Thunderwave, Primal Savagery does more damage than Tidal Wave, etc... etc....
2. For Half-casters / 1x3rd casters it means getting access to cantrips is often better than their spells.
3. For Warlocks it means AB is essentially compulsory.
4. For Rogues it makes BB/GFB essentially compulsory.
5. It means every martial wants the equivalent scaling to their weapon attacks as casters get to their cantrips.
BB & GFB are particularly problematic because of their secondary damage that makes them situationally more powerful than a martial making two attacks with Extra Attack. I mean, just realized that in the UA, an 11th level monk is best off using a weapon & using BB or GFB as their main action then doing FoB with their bonus action.
It isn’t possible to explain why they get subclasss later
So start the campaign at 3rd-level? Groups should only be starting at 1st-level if you've got mostly players that have never played before and want to start simple, otherwise starting at 1st-level is just annoying because everybody sucks at 1st-level – it is literally impossible to build a character as anything other than a hopeless useless idiot when starting from 1. 😝
My groups have been starting from 3rd-level for ages, and recently increased that to a 5th-level start, because you can have a much, much more fully formed character at that kind of level. You can have a character whose backstory includes them being good at things, and then have them actually being good at things, which is such a novelty.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The fact that there are groups that start at level 1 is why all classes having level 3 subclasses is problematic.
How is it problematic though? A 1st-level character is a scrub who's only just learned to fight/sneak/whatever; you don't become a specialist on the first try, you learn the basics and then specialise later.
While it might be disappointing not to have any trickster specific features from 1st-level, the Cleric spell list is fundamentally the same for everyone, so you're gonna have to learn some of those spells no matter what.
Nothing stops you from still having a trickster as your choice of deity though, or of theming things a little to add that flavour, or you can start as a cleric who hasn't decided upon a deity yet (after all we know in D&D that the gods are definitely real, so it wouldn't be surprising for someone to believe in the gods in general, but not know which one they favour the most yet, i.e- they could be a follower of a pantheon to start with).
Plus plenty of people don't play via Adventurer's League, and just because AL might start you at 1, doesn't mean you'll stay there forever.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In general, I'd want for each class that has something unique about it (Sorcerer's Metamagic, Druid Wildshape, etc.) be usable more often, with accompanying nerfs if need be. It was excruciating playing a low level Sorcerer and have this class defining feature being usable, what, once per day? Twice, if the DM took pity and gave me a Bloodwell Vial.
For the martial classes, I think they'd do better if they all either had one more extra attack, or were given a free push, trip, or disarm attempt per turn. Something along those lines, to give them a little more tactical thought round to round.
Standardizing the subclass levels is a good idea for balancing, as well as allowing some other weird ideas like the initial attempt at the Strixhaven subclasses where they were available to multiple classes.
Really, just attempting to better balance the classes against each other. If that requires nerfs to spellcasters or spells, then so be it.
Standardizing the subclass levels is horrible for narrative, flavor and class identity reasons
maybe if everyone got subclasses at level 1 that would be fine
but I want my level 1 cleric who worships a trickster god to do trickery things like disguise self or charm others. And I’d like my sorcerer who was blessed by a diety to have actual divine magic, like guiding bolt or even thaumatrugy.
Or maybe I want to play a healer sorcerer. Well per one dnd raw, my sorcerer can’t get any healing spells till level 3 and my party is screwed with me as the only support
Or maybe I want my celestial warlock or stars Druid to use sacred flame as their damaging cantrip… oh wait, can’t have that cantrip till level 3 :/
I’m fine with gaining subclasses at 3rd level. Your cleric of a trickster god can still do trickster things until their god bestows upon them the powers to charm and disguise themselves (via the spells). And it is quite possible to explain narratively and via RP getting subclass features at 3rd level for those classes that got them earlier in the 2014 PHB
I would hope that the 2024 update would allow changes to be made, like the skills mentioned for the Rogue scout that Roland brought up. Or at least, if you already picked Survival and Nature you can choose two other skills on your list. So that you don’t feel that you are somehow losing out.
It isn’t possible to explain why they get subclasss later
and no, a cleric of a trickster god can’t do trickster things without a subclass. They at most can have deception and stealth skills but even that isnt enough to fulfill the fantasy of a divine trickster
the only cleric spell that could fit that niche is suggestion, but you aren’t able to cast that spell at level 1 or 2
and what about arcana clerics? Why shouldn’t a cleric of an arcane god be able to use fire bolt or shocking grasp as their primary damaging cantrips at level 1? Their an arcane cleric not a basic stereotyoical white robed priest
or what about someone blessed by a god? How can I show my inner divine power without a cantrip that deals radiant damage or being able to cast thauamturgy
further more, divine soul sorcerers are supposed to be healers and filfull the support role in the party. They aren’t able to do that now cause of level 3 subclasses.
Please stop jumping through hoops to justify these changes. Level 3 subclasses for all classes are bad for the game
level 1 subclasses for all classes would be a lot better
I'm not trying to jump through hoops to justify the changes. I just don't see them as hoops to jump through.
And I would be fine if subclasses come on at 1st level for all classes. But there's only 4 classes out of 12 in the PHB that get their subclass before 3rd so that would be a bigger change and it isn't the direction that WotC is going. I can understand yours and others frustration or dislike for these changes. I'm just not bothered by it.
But to me, 1st level clerics are not much better than, say, the priest of a temple of the Trickster god that is a commoner (no class levels). You are starting out. The trickster god has taken favor on you and has just given you the ability to cast a few spells and a Divine Order. You haven't proven yourself yet to be granted more power.
From the UA:
Gods of trickery are mischief-makers and instigators who stand as a constant challenge to the accepted order among both gods and mortals. They embody the forces of change and social upheaval, and they’re patrons of thieves, scoundrels, gamblers, rebels, and liberators. Religious orders that operate in secret, especially those that seek to undermine oppressive governments or hierarchies, also draw on the power of the Trickery Domain.
All of which you can embody without access to special spells or powers. You may have been that mischievous boy who stole old lady Donner's pie off the windowsill. Or played pranks on your friends and family and teachers, if you attended school, etc.. It's part of what roleplaying is. The mechanics of it can come later, especially for newer players, which is why WotC is doing this in the first place.
would be nice to still be able to use a hand crossbow with a rogue without spending an ASI on it
Do you mean as a bonus action? Because all Rogues are proficient with hand crossbows, so you can always make a standard one attack per turn with it.
The problem with giving a bonus action shot without any extra cost is that it would easily become the most common build; why would you ever dual wield two daggers if you could instead fire a hand crossbow twice for slightly better damage at 20 feet and then move out of normal movement range?
I guess the Nick weapon property on daggers changes the equation slightly if it remains as-is, because you could do your two dagger attacks while keeping your bonus action free, but you're going to be spending that mostly trying to mitigate some of the downsides of going melee over ranged.
It would be less of a problem if Rogues had more incentives to attack via melee – that's one of the reasons I didn't like them dropping the one sneak attack per round change. The problem wasn't it being once per round, but it being only once on your turn, as that broken the Ready action. If they made that properly once per round (once you have used this feature you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn) they could then add on other ways to boost damage to complement. What I was really hoping for was a way to auto-crit when melee attacking from hidden or attacking a target from behind while an ally is in front (only works once as the enemy can turn around on its turn). This would maintain that double sneak attack that Rogues arguably need to remain competitive in combat, but in a much more Rogue-ish way that feels more earned, and rewards riskier play, rather than the strange combos and builds that trigger it now (via reaction attacks).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i wish they'd find a way to incentivize daggers rather than other weapons be held forever to their low standard. my preference would be a Hide action addendum: "hide intentions." you'd be considered hidden in plain sight as long as you end your turns adjacent to a friendly target with lower passive insight than your stealth check. you may use that friendly target as cover when avoiding active perception checks from others (in case someone is narratively squinting at a wanted poster and then glaring across the marketplace). then hammer home the dagger thing with a note that one must almost certainly also remain outwardly unarmed for the duration, which a hidden dagger would accomplish nicely. the incentive would be a surprise round against that target.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
would be nice to still be able to use a hand crossbow with a rogue without spending an ASI on it
Do you mean as a bonus action? Because all Rogues are proficient with hand crossbows, so you can always make a standard one attack per turn with it.
The problem with giving a bonus action shot without any extra cost is that it would easily become the most common build; why would you ever dual wield two daggers if you could instead fire a hand crossbow twice for slightly better damage at 20 feet and then move out of normal movement range?
I guess the Nick weapon property on daggers changes the equation slightly if it remains as-is, because you could do your two dagger attacks while keeping your bonus action free, but you're going to be spending that mostly trying to mitigate some of the downsides of going melee over ranged.
It would be less of a problem if Rogues had more incentives to attack via melee – that's one of the reasons I didn't like them dropping the one sneak attack per round change. The problem wasn't it being once per round, but it being only once on your turn, as that broken the Ready action. If they made that properly once per round (once you have used this feature you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn) they could then add on other ways to boost damage to complement. What I was really hoping for was a way to auto-crit when melee attacking from hidden or attacking a target from behind while an ally is in front (only works once as the enemy can turn around on its turn). This would maintain that double sneak attack that Rogues arguably need to remain competitive in combat, but in a much more Rogue-ish way that feels more earned, and rewards riskier play, rather than the strange combos and builds that trigger it now (via reaction attacks).
While I agree with your overall point I will say in play test 6 rogues are not proficient in the hand crossbow.
I agree it is weird they removed rogue proficiency with Hand Crossbows because thematically, the hand crossbow is such a rogue-ish weapon. TBH I kinda wish the reverse, that only Rogues got to be proficient in hand-crossbows. The only reason I can see to exclude the use of Handcrossbows is if they think the XbowXpert Rogue is over-used which is a kinda valid issue since in my time playing & DMing 5e, I've only ever seen 2 different types of Rogues : Rapier + Booming Blade, or Handcrossbow + XbowXpert.
The problem with daggers for Rogue is their lack of Fighting Style. If Rogue got the Fighting Style class feature with: dueling, thrown weapon fighter, two weapon-fighting or archery. It would be much more tempting to use daggers rather than investing in XbowXpert. Though personally I'd also add an additional weapon property specifically for small weapons like dagger, darts, blowguns, etc.. : Concealable- When you are not holding this weapon, you can keep it concealed on your body such that other creatures cannot see it. When you start your turn with your weapon concealed the first attack you make with that weapon on your turn is made at advantage and a 19 or 20 counts as a critical hit on this attack.
The incentive is more of a roleplay one, but it is there. It's a lot easier to walk into a place looking like you have no weapons by concealing a dagger or two than it is to try and conceal those shortswords or larger. Mechanically, a rogue with daggers is more deadly than a rogue with fists.
no, i mean they took away proficiency with hand xbow in 1dnd, and in my dream edition i would like to not waste a feat trying to use a hand crossbow on a rogue. rossbow expert bonus attack was already in steep competition because bonus action economy. do i hide, steady aim or attack again? spending a feat to get around not having extra attack makes a ton of sense.
would be nice to still be able to use a hand crossbow with a rogue without spending an ASI on it
Do you mean as a bonus action? Because all Rogues are proficient with hand crossbows, so you can always make a standard one attack per turn with it.
The problem with giving a bonus action shot without any extra cost is that it would easily become the most common build; why would you ever dual wield two daggers if you could instead fire a hand crossbow twice for slightly better damage at 20 feet and then move out of normal movement range?
I guess the Nick weapon property on daggers changes the equation slightly if it remains as-is, because you could do your two dagger attacks while keeping your bonus action free, but you're going to be spending that mostly trying to mitigate some of the downsides of going melee over ranged.
It would be less of a problem if Rogues had more incentives to attack via melee – that's one of the reasons I didn't like them dropping the one sneak attack per round change. The problem wasn't it being once per round, but it being only once on your turn, as that broken the Ready action. If they made that properly once per round (once you have used this feature you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn) they could then add on other ways to boost damage to complement. What I was really hoping for was a way to auto-crit when melee attacking from hidden or attacking a target from behind while an ally is in front (only works once as the enemy can turn around on its turn). This would maintain that double sneak attack that Rogues arguably need to remain competitive in combat, but in a much more Rogue-ish way that feels more earned, and rewards riskier play, rather than the strange combos and builds that trigger it now (via reaction attacks).
The incentive is more of a roleplay one, but it is there. It's a lot easier to walk into a place looking like you have no weapons by concealing a dagger or two than it is to try and conceal those shortswords or larger. Mechanically, a rogue with daggers is more deadly than a rogue with fists.
i don't exactly disagree, but that basically leaves daggers as naught but a sneak attack delivery device. unsatisfying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
The incentive is more of a roleplay one, but it is there. It's a lot easier to walk into a place looking like you have no weapons by concealing a dagger or two than it is to try and conceal those shortswords or larger. Mechanically, a rogue with daggers is more deadly than a rogue with fists.
I still contend rogues should get sneak attack with their fists. Almost every action movie for decades has the protagonist sneak up on someone and snap their neck. Or heck the last boy scout when he kills the dude with one punch. The finesse limit is more thematic than either logical or balancing. After a few levels it generally does not make much a difference in a rogues weapon choice, d4,d6,d8 who cares its all the same after the sneak attack comes in. So let them have the very thematic kill you with a snapped neck or punch someones nose into their brain stuff.
It would be kinda interesting to grant more incentive to use daggers (and other less prominent weapon types) as a Rogue.
Just brainstorming
Add a class feature to Rogue that at level 1 grant them the feat "Small Arms Expert". Other classes can pick it up normally as you would any other feat, but it is inherent to Rogues. Perhaps it cannot be gained through multiclassing INTO the Rogue class (seeing as it is basically a proficiency extender).
.
Small Arms Expert
Your proficiency in small arms makes you an expert in using them to their fullest potential.
You gain proficiency in using daggers, hand axes, crossbow (light), and crossbow (hand).
When using the corresponding weapon you gain the following benefit:
Dagger: Whenever you are attacked with a melee attack while you wield a dagger, you may use your reaction to gain +2 AC against melee attacks until the beginning of your next turn as long as you wield a dagger.
Hand axe: Treat hand axes as if they had the finesse property.
Crossbow, light: When you take the attack action and attack with a light crossbow and the attack doesn't hit, you may spend a bonus action to make another weapon attack against the same target. You ignore the loading property for this attack.
Crossbow, hand: You double the normal range of hand crossbows but not the long range. Additionally if you attack a target within 30 ft. of you with a hand crossbow, you gain +1 to your attack roll, increased to +2 if the target is within 15 ft. Unless you wield a melee weapon, you lose the bonus to the attack roll if there is a hostile creature within 5 ft. of you, who can see you and isn't incapacitated.
The benefit for daggers could also be something like a bleed; "Whenever you hit a creature with an attack using a dagger, you apply one stack of bleed on them. At the beginning of that creature's turn it takes poison damage equal to the amount of bleed stacks on it, then rolls a Constitution saving throw with DC 13 + your proficiency bonus. If it succeeds it removes up to 3 stacks of bleed from itself." The reason for the poison damage is that many creatures who have poison immunity are bloodless creatures - like undead.
A bit unoriginal with the hand axe just granting them finesse, but it effectively opens the weapon up to Rogues as an option, becoming a Scimitar with the Thrown property. Mostly there for the sake of options, but unlikely a favorite. It could have some other benefit atop it, but I also don't want to completely remove the reason to get scimitars/short swords for Rogues. You could also include those in this feat, but then there's even more things to balance out.
Light crossbows are not really used very often, so taking the best thing about dual-wielding Hand Crossbows and the Crossbow Expert feat (attacking twice to proc Sneak Attack) and make a conditional bonus action attack on the Light Crossbow is likely going to make more people pick it up on Rogues and subsequently reduce the "need" for Crossbow Expert.
Hand crossbows is kinda in an awkward position, as currently the hand crossbow doesn't really have many benefits over a light crossbow as it is. The two-handed property of the light crossbow is only applicable for attacking, so you can easily draw a one-handed weapon for close quarter combat if that's your fancy with a light crossbow awkwardly in your other hand but mechanically no problem. It is first when you acquire Crossbow Expert and two hand crossbows that it starts being a superior choice.
Having granted the light crossbow the main reason for acquiring Crossbow Expert + 2x hand crossbows (being more opportunities to trigger Sneak Attack), it would seem the hand crossbow needs to shine better on its own. So lets cement it as a good option for Rogues for close to medium range, by giving it an accuracy increase. It has its normal range increased from 30 ft. to 60 ft. to increase its applicable range for Rogues (and others who pick up the feat). This serves to slightly reduce the difference between hand crossbows and other crossbows, whilst still keeping some differences, like higher damage die, +20 ft. normal range, higher maximum range (and weapon mastery, whatever that ends up being).
That grants us more leeway to use it from range but how about up close? An attack bonus would give us some of the power that we want: the ability to hit and proc Sneak Attack. If we condition that bonus on you being closer to your target it introduces some more interesting combat positioning to gain the benefits.
This also grants merits to be used by a pirate-like build of a one handed melee weapon + hand crossbow. Being close to the enemy to gain the accuracy bonus and having the melee weapon if the gap is closed. At first I didn't put in the loss of the accuracy bonus while in melee range because it would mainly have served to off-set the penalty for ranged attack in melee range for a TWF gun-and-blade style build. However for that to actually work you need Crossbow Expert, which also eliminates that penalty. And speaking of Crossbow Expert this would basically turn two hand crossbows into short swords with +2 to attack rolls at the cost of ammunition. This was a bit too much, so the bonus had to have a limit. However if the bonus was just removed whilst in melee range it would never make sense for a gun-and-blade style build, hence the exception if you wield a melee weapon . This would also limit the bonus accuracy to 1 weapon attack, which I think is okay, being a blend of both ranged and melee combat. Obviously you can acquire Extra Attack or similar features to get more attacks but you could also just pick up the Fighting Initiate feat getting the Fighting Style - Archery to get +2 to attack rolls on all ranged attacks. The flavor of not granting the bonus to a hand crossbow dual-wielder but to a gun-and-blade user, is that a character with two hand crossbows in hand is not going to contest the space between them and an enemy (read parry and block). A character with a melee weapon would. Additionally if that character with a melee weapon had a ranged weapon they could fire with one hand, it would be easier to hit because you're up close and can lock blades with an opponent while positioning the ranged weapon to get a hit in.
'
This would mean you could grab a dagger and a hand crossbow and get the full benefit of both. I'm not sure if that would be too much. I mean you doll around with a d4 melee weapon with a reaction defensive option against only melee attacks and a d6 ranged weapon with increased accuracy when toying the border between enemies being able to catch you and you staying beyond reach. If for no other reason it seems like an interesting option for Rogues to have.
That's a fair point. I also get the desire to make daggers more of an option for rogues (perhaps THE option for some builds/types), but there's also the point that daggers are nearly ubiquitous and very cheap compared to other options. I think every class has proficiency with daggers, so it would very much need to be a rogue-specific thing and probably something that would require more than a 1 level dip with multi-classing.
I guess, if you approach it from the other end (i.e. sneak attack is the only damage contribution that matters), then a rogue just simply doesn't care what melee weapon(s) they wield with the only appreciable differences becoming access to magic weapons and their respective bonuses.
The "gun-and-blade" idea is cool, though. I like it a lot, and it's something that I've kind of envisioned in at least one concept character I've had. Though, it was a rapier instead of a scimitar and that brings up the other complaint I have about rogue weapons...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also seems like a good method for encouraging half caster dips and then abandoning them after, at least level 5
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Enlighten me how that would be the norm? Since you want to dip only to level 5 I imagine you primarily mean the trade weapon-attack-for-spell casting? If your choice for spells you can cast during your attack action is restricted - like I said would be a good thing to do - to certain spells you got from the half-caster class, what do you have in mind? Not to mention that I also said these changes could warrant balance changes that could postpone either the Extra Attack feature and/or specifically the attack-trade feature.
Oh and because I didn't mention it in my previous post I want to touch on that this change would be stepping on the Eldritch Knight's toes with their improved war magic that upgrades trade-for-cantrip to any spell: they still get 4x attacks per attack action and should be doing fine. However there could be grounds for letting them in on the half-caster's extra spell slots to some degree through the subclass features.
As for Bladesingers... I feel like this version of half-casters IS what the Bladesinger is ultimately trying to be. So I don't know if that subclass is specifically needed to achieve that fantasy anymore, but still having the choice is still a win for player options.
You did in fact not read my post did you? Because that's a terrible summary.
Fighters only have 4 attacks per action in theorycraft (or a few sessions at best) - that 4th attack is the level 20 capstone. Take any dip of any kind, and it doesn't happen - and by the time they get it - which is a big IF - the campaign is almost over for the overwhelming majority of players.
True. My point was that EK still has combat benefits over a Half-caster class, so having Half-casters "outperform" the EK's attack-for-spell-trade feature, by being able to cast non-cantrips before the EK, is not that much of a problem. The reason I put outperform in quotations is because the EK has access to cantrips, so they can always empower their weapon attacks through something like Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade or just Sword Burst (and with the UA, True Strike becomes a ranged weapon attack upgrade option for ranged EKs). Meanwhile the Half-casters are limited to their spell slots. So it is not objectively better when considering context.
Furthermore I don't have any issue with a class feature being surface-level better than a subclass feature (non-improved War Magic). The UA-material has already granted a major buff to EK by giving them the Bladesinger treatment of trading a weapon attack instead of being able to make a bonus action attack when casting - granting them full benefit of their upgraded Extra Attack feature AND freeing up their bonus action. Not to mention that the Half-casters' attack-for-spell-trade feature is probably getting more restricted than the EK's.
Half-casters could previously acquire cantrips through a Fighting Style, but they are very notably missing from the UA material. It was introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, a source book the Devs have chosen to replace or incorporate many features from into the UA material for the PHB 2024. This indicates that they don't want this Fighting Style going forward and is only available as an option due to the backwards compatibility. Furthermore Ranger can select from the Druid spell list, whilst the Paladin selects from the Cleric spell list. Both lists not having a weapon attack upgrade (similar to Booming Blade). So for the Half-caster we're comparing a cantrip to a weapon attack, which is likely to be close to equivalent in damage until level 11. Up until that point the EK can easily have the damage of two weapon attacks and the damage from Booming or Green-Flame. And at lvl 11, the EK gets their 3rd weapon attack.
Another option to acquire cantrips is through the Magic Initiate feat, but this doesn't change the class of the spells you acquire, they are still Wizard, Warlock, etc. spells and can very easily be excluded from the Half-casters' version of attack-for-spell-trade feature by not being spells of the Half-caster class - if that is deemed problematic. This is unlike the Fighting Style which specifically changes the spells to be Ranger/Paladin spells.
So as for damage, the EK outperforms a Half-caster whilst using cantrips, and that's totally fine. However it would be interesting if Half-casters gets the tools to be better utility/control actors whilst still dealing some weapon damage.
Notably, the attack-for-cantrip upgrade given to the EK puts them head-and-shoulders above any other Fighter subclass in pretty much every aspect which IMO is a bad thing. TBH I think cantrip scaling is a massive problem in the game just in general. It causes all kinds of weird distortions across the game, for instance:
1. For Full casters it makes their 1st and 2nd level spell slots redundant at higher levels, a Firebolt does more damage at 11th level than Burning Hands, Burst of Blades does more damage than Thunderwave, Primal Savagery does more damage than Tidal Wave, etc... etc....
2. For Half-casters / 1x3rd casters it means getting access to cantrips is often better than their spells.
3. For Warlocks it means AB is essentially compulsory.
4. For Rogues it makes BB/GFB essentially compulsory.
5. It means every martial wants the equivalent scaling to their weapon attacks as casters get to their cantrips.
BB & GFB are particularly problematic because of their secondary damage that makes them situationally more powerful than a martial making two attacks with Extra Attack. I mean, just realized that in the UA, an 11th level monk is best off using a weapon & using BB or GFB as their main action then doing FoB with their bonus action.
So start the campaign at 3rd-level? Groups should only be starting at 1st-level if you've got mostly players that have never played before and want to start simple, otherwise starting at 1st-level is just annoying because everybody sucks at 1st-level – it is literally impossible to build a character as anything other than a hopeless useless idiot when starting from 1. 😝
My groups have been starting from 3rd-level for ages, and recently increased that to a 5th-level start, because you can have a much, much more fully formed character at that kind of level. You can have a character whose backstory includes them being good at things, and then have them actually being good at things, which is such a novelty.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
How is it problematic though? A 1st-level character is a scrub who's only just learned to fight/sneak/whatever; you don't become a specialist on the first try, you learn the basics and then specialise later.
While it might be disappointing not to have any trickster specific features from 1st-level, the Cleric spell list is fundamentally the same for everyone, so you're gonna have to learn some of those spells no matter what.
Nothing stops you from still having a trickster as your choice of deity though, or of theming things a little to add that flavour, or you can start as a cleric who hasn't decided upon a deity yet (after all we know in D&D that the gods are definitely real, so it wouldn't be surprising for someone to believe in the gods in general, but not know which one they favour the most yet, i.e- they could be a follower of a pantheon to start with).
Plus plenty of people don't play via Adventurer's League, and just because AL might start you at 1, doesn't mean you'll stay there forever.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm not trying to jump through hoops to justify the changes. I just don't see them as hoops to jump through.
And I would be fine if subclasses come on at 1st level for all classes. But there's only 4 classes out of 12 in the PHB that get their subclass before 3rd so that would be a bigger change and it isn't the direction that WotC is going. I can understand yours and others frustration or dislike for these changes. I'm just not bothered by it.
But to me, 1st level clerics are not much better than, say, the priest of a temple of the Trickster god that is a commoner (no class levels). You are starting out. The trickster god has taken favor on you and has just given you the ability to cast a few spells and a Divine Order. You haven't proven yourself yet to be granted more power.
From the UA:
All of which you can embody without access to special spells or powers. You may have been that mischievous boy who stole old lady Donner's pie off the windowsill. Or played pranks on your friends and family and teachers, if you attended school, etc.. It's part of what roleplaying is. The mechanics of it can come later, especially for newer players, which is why WotC is doing this in the first place.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
would be nice to still be able to use a hand crossbow with a rogue without spending an ASI on it
Do you mean as a bonus action? Because all Rogues are proficient with hand crossbows, so you can always make a standard one attack per turn with it.
The problem with giving a bonus action shot without any extra cost is that it would easily become the most common build; why would you ever dual wield two daggers if you could instead fire a hand crossbow twice for slightly better damage at 20 feet and then move out of normal movement range?
I guess the Nick weapon property on daggers changes the equation slightly if it remains as-is, because you could do your two dagger attacks while keeping your bonus action free, but you're going to be spending that mostly trying to mitigate some of the downsides of going melee over ranged.
It would be less of a problem if Rogues had more incentives to attack via melee – that's one of the reasons I didn't like them dropping the one sneak attack per round change. The problem wasn't it being once per round, but it being only once on your turn, as that broken the Ready action. If they made that properly once per round (once you have used this feature you cannot do so again until the start of your next turn) they could then add on other ways to boost damage to complement. What I was really hoping for was a way to auto-crit when melee attacking from hidden or attacking a target from behind while an ally is in front (only works once as the enemy can turn around on its turn). This would maintain that double sneak attack that Rogues arguably need to remain competitive in combat, but in a much more Rogue-ish way that feels more earned, and rewards riskier play, rather than the strange combos and builds that trigger it now (via reaction attacks).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
i wish they'd find a way to incentivize daggers rather than other weapons be held forever to their low standard. my preference would be a Hide action addendum: "hide intentions." you'd be considered hidden in plain sight as long as you end your turns adjacent to a friendly target with lower passive insight than your stealth check. you may use that friendly target as cover when avoiding active perception checks from others (in case someone is narratively squinting at a wanted poster and then glaring across the marketplace). then hammer home the dagger thing with a note that one must almost certainly also remain outwardly unarmed for the duration, which a hidden dagger would accomplish nicely. the incentive would be a surprise round against that target.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
While I agree with your overall point I will say in play test 6 rogues are not proficient in the hand crossbow.
I agree it is weird they removed rogue proficiency with Hand Crossbows because thematically, the hand crossbow is such a rogue-ish weapon. TBH I kinda wish the reverse, that only Rogues got to be proficient in hand-crossbows. The only reason I can see to exclude the use of Handcrossbows is if they think the XbowXpert Rogue is over-used which is a kinda valid issue since in my time playing & DMing 5e, I've only ever seen 2 different types of Rogues : Rapier + Booming Blade, or Handcrossbow + XbowXpert.
The problem with daggers for Rogue is their lack of Fighting Style. If Rogue got the Fighting Style class feature with: dueling, thrown weapon fighter, two weapon-fighting or archery. It would be much more tempting to use daggers rather than investing in XbowXpert. Though personally I'd also add an additional weapon property specifically for small weapons like dagger, darts, blowguns, etc.. : Concealable - When you are not holding this weapon, you can keep it concealed on your body such that other creatures cannot see it. When you start your turn with your weapon concealed the first attack you make with that weapon on your turn is made at advantage and a 19 or 20 counts as a critical hit on this attack.
The incentive is more of a roleplay one, but it is there. It's a lot easier to walk into a place looking like you have no weapons by concealing a dagger or two than it is to try and conceal those shortswords or larger. Mechanically, a rogue with daggers is more deadly than a rogue with fists.
no, i mean they took away proficiency with hand xbow in 1dnd, and in my dream edition i would like to not waste a feat trying to use a hand crossbow on a rogue. rossbow expert bonus attack was already in steep competition because bonus action economy. do i hide, steady aim or attack again? spending a feat to get around not having extra attack makes a ton of sense.
i don't exactly disagree, but that basically leaves daggers as naught but a sneak attack delivery device. unsatisfying.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I still contend rogues should get sneak attack with their fists. Almost every action movie for decades has the protagonist sneak up on someone and snap their neck. Or heck the last boy scout when he kills the dude with one punch. The finesse limit is more thematic than either logical or balancing. After a few levels it generally does not make much a difference in a rogues weapon choice, d4,d6,d8 who cares its all the same after the sneak attack comes in. So let them have the very thematic kill you with a snapped neck or punch someones nose into their brain stuff.
It would be kinda interesting to grant more incentive to use daggers (and other less prominent weapon types) as a Rogue.
Just brainstorming
Add a class feature to Rogue that at level 1 grant them the feat "Small Arms Expert". Other classes can pick it up normally as you would any other feat, but it is inherent to Rogues. Perhaps it cannot be gained through multiclassing INTO the Rogue class (seeing as it is basically a proficiency extender).
.
Small Arms Expert
Your proficiency in small arms makes you an expert in using them to their fullest potential.
The benefit for daggers could also be something like a bleed; "Whenever you hit a creature with an attack using a dagger, you apply one stack of bleed on them. At the beginning of that creature's turn it takes poison damage equal to the amount of bleed stacks on it, then rolls a Constitution saving throw with DC 13 + your proficiency bonus. If it succeeds it removes up to 3 stacks of bleed from itself."
The reason for the poison damage is that many creatures who have poison immunity are bloodless creatures - like undead.
A bit unoriginal with the hand axe just granting them finesse, but it effectively opens the weapon up to Rogues as an option, becoming a Scimitar with the Thrown property. Mostly there for the sake of options, but unlikely a favorite. It could have some other benefit atop it, but I also don't want to completely remove the reason to get scimitars/short swords for Rogues. You could also include those in this feat, but then there's even more things to balance out.
Light crossbows are not really used very often, so taking the best thing about dual-wielding Hand Crossbows and the Crossbow Expert feat (attacking twice to proc Sneak Attack) and make a conditional bonus action attack on the Light Crossbow is likely going to make more people pick it up on Rogues and subsequently reduce the "need" for Crossbow Expert.
Hand crossbows is kinda in an awkward position, as currently the hand crossbow doesn't really have many benefits over a light crossbow as it is. The two-handed property of the light crossbow is only applicable for attacking, so you can easily draw a one-handed weapon for close quarter combat if that's your fancy with a light crossbow awkwardly in your other hand but mechanically no problem. It is first when you acquire Crossbow Expert and two hand crossbows that it starts being a superior choice.
Having granted the light crossbow the main reason for acquiring Crossbow Expert + 2x hand crossbows (being more opportunities to trigger Sneak Attack), it would seem the hand crossbow needs to shine better on its own. So lets cement it as a good option for Rogues for close to medium range, by giving it an accuracy increase. It has its normal range increased from 30 ft. to 60 ft. to increase its applicable range for Rogues (and others who pick up the feat). This serves to slightly reduce the difference between hand crossbows and other crossbows, whilst still keeping some differences, like higher damage die, +20 ft. normal range, higher maximum range (and weapon mastery, whatever that ends up being).
That grants us more leeway to use it from range but how about up close? An attack bonus would give us some of the power that we want: the ability to hit and proc Sneak Attack. If we condition that bonus on you being closer to your target it introduces some more interesting combat positioning to gain the benefits.
This also grants merits to be used by a pirate-like build of a one handed melee weapon + hand crossbow. Being close to the enemy to gain the accuracy bonus and having the melee weapon if the gap is closed. At first I didn't put in the loss of the accuracy bonus while in melee range because it would mainly have served to off-set the penalty for ranged attack in melee range for a TWF gun-and-blade style build. However for that to actually work you need Crossbow Expert, which also eliminates that penalty. And speaking of Crossbow Expert this would basically turn two hand crossbows into short swords with +2 to attack rolls at the cost of ammunition. This was a bit too much, so the bonus had to have a limit. However if the bonus was just removed whilst in melee range it would never make sense for a gun-and-blade style build, hence the exception if you wield a melee weapon . This would also limit the bonus accuracy to 1 weapon attack, which I think is okay, being a blend of both ranged and melee combat. Obviously you can acquire Extra Attack or similar features to get more attacks but you could also just pick up the Fighting Initiate feat getting the Fighting Style - Archery to get +2 to attack rolls on all ranged attacks.
The flavor of not granting the bonus to a hand crossbow dual-wielder but to a gun-and-blade user, is that a character with two hand crossbows in hand is not going to contest the space between them and an enemy (read parry and block). A character with a melee weapon would. Additionally if that character with a melee weapon had a ranged weapon they could fire with one hand, it would be easier to hit because you're up close and can lock blades with an opponent while positioning the ranged weapon to get a hit in.
'
This would mean you could grab a dagger and a hand crossbow and get the full benefit of both. I'm not sure if that would be too much. I mean you doll around with a d4 melee weapon with a reaction defensive option against only melee attacks and a d6 ranged weapon with increased accuracy when toying the border between enemies being able to catch you and you staying beyond reach. If for no other reason it seems like an interesting option for Rogues to have.
That's a fair point. I also get the desire to make daggers more of an option for rogues (perhaps THE option for some builds/types), but there's also the point that daggers are nearly ubiquitous and very cheap compared to other options. I think every class has proficiency with daggers, so it would very much need to be a rogue-specific thing and probably something that would require more than a 1 level dip with multi-classing.
I guess, if you approach it from the other end (i.e. sneak attack is the only damage contribution that matters), then a rogue just simply doesn't care what melee weapon(s) they wield with the only appreciable differences becoming access to magic weapons and their respective bonuses.
The "gun-and-blade" idea is cool, though. I like it a lot, and it's something that I've kind of envisioned in at least one concept character I've had. Though, it was a rapier instead of a scimitar and that brings up the other complaint I have about rogue weapons...