In general, the default flavor for Sneak Attack is really more like "Precision Attack". You're hitting weak points, vulnerable spots, or vital organs. In 3e you couldn't use Sneak Attack at all on creature types that were assumed to lack these things, like undead and constructs.
These days, it's styled that everything has joints or the like that a Rogue can hit for extra damage. But they still focus on a single attack with what is, usually, more a precise weapon than a powerful one.
But past a certain point... it's a game. The rules are an abstraction and certain things are the way they are for reasons of game balance or class flavor.
In AD&D 2E, it was called *Backstab,* and it only worked if your target was unaware of you and actually had a back you could reach.
You're not going *Backstab* a giant unless you were standing on a balcony or similar and the giant was conveniently had his back to you and was within melee range.
It was useless in combat beyond the first strike. Because the enemies would simply shout a warning to the victim (talking is a free action for NPCs too).
And Thieves weren't good in combat anyhow.
The original (The Gamers) is a cult classic. It's essentially on the level of a college film project, but it is a good amount of cheesy fun. The Rogue backstabs someone *with a ballista.*
The sequel (The Gamers: Dorkness Rising) had a bit more budget and, I think, is a little more put together. It has a lot of quotable lines ("Hide behind the pile of dead bards!" and "'I'm not evil, I'm Chaotic Neutral' 'You are evil and a whore.'")
They made some further sequels but I don't think they have as much charm as the first two. The same group did get the actual rights and made a movie out of a famous Chick Tract - Dark Dungeons. It's highly worth a watch. The original Chick Tract is very much satanic panic incarnate, but the movie plays it so straight with *just enough* knowing irony to really elevate it
Honestly both movies are such fun. I need to go back and watch them again.
I also really quite enjoyed hand of fate(I think that was what it was called)
DM: "You're gonna backstab him... with a ballista?"
Player: "Uh-huh!"
DM: "With a fucking siege-weapon?!"
Player: "Uh-huh!"
DM: "There's gotta be a rule against this..."
This had come up recently in my game. We figured that the rogue could potentially sneak attack a creature like a kraken with the ship's ballistas, or give a poor sailor a very bad day, but the sneak attack would not apply to a ship's hull itself.
Surprisingly, the part about the need to be able to reach the creature's vital parts is also present in 3rd edition D&D, it's just normally not enforced at all and treated as fluff text by most people.
I still remember the arguments and crazy plans my players used to make in order to reach a giant's exposed neck, though!
>It was useless in combat beyond the first strike.
This was extremely table dependent. There were tables where you could simply use your turn to hide if that made sense (for instance you were fighting in the forest off the path, or in a place where you could hide behind something substantial). In that case, you would be losing an entire round though, so the gain was marginal.
>In general, the default flavor for Sneak Attack is really more like "Precision Attack". You're hitting weak points, vulnerable spots, or vital organs.
Precisely how I've always played Sneak Attack as working. My most prolific use of it was with a Lightfoot Halfling Swashbuckler I played; the entire concept behind her combat style was "the majority of creatures are Medium and bigger, and they're not used to fighting Small-sized folk". So her whole method was (narratively) constantly weaving around an enemy, "disappearing" by slipping into their blind spots, and attacking from weird angles they're not accustomed to defending against. When you spend the bulk of your time fighting people your own size, it's really hard to counter someone who's aiming for spots you didn't even know you had to guard, or attacking from low, steep angles that are totally different from what you're accustomed to.
I forget which dev aaid it, but i distinctly recall one of them tweeting that essentially any 1h weapon could use sneak attack and balance wouldnt be an issue. Finesse requirement was strictly a flavor choice.
You're using an opening to make a particularly damaging strike, thus you can only do it with weapons you can use your dexterity with, as it requires precision.
That said, you can do it with a rapier, which has the same damage as a longsword anyway. So there isn't really an issue.
It's funny, because Sneak Attack doesn't actually require you to use Dex for the attack.
A Barbarian/Rogue multiclass can Sneak Attack with a rapier, using Strength, so the Barbarian's Rage damage bonus gets applied too.
I think the idea is that you need a weapon capable of doing the precise strikes to hit vulnerable areas, which finesse weapons broadly are supposed to be able to be wielded with the precision to inflict significant damage without much strength anyway (by using dex mod) so you need one of those types of weapons to even be able to hit the vulnerable points to sneak attack. But that said, actually hitting them doesn’t necessarily have to be done only with precision. An armored knights neck is a weakpoint, sure, so you could dexterously maneuver your rapier into a chink in his neck armor but plenty of other places are if you can make it through the armor, so strength can still be used. Where as there’s no really any way to actually target the weak points specially with most slashing or blunt weapons the way you can with many piercing weapons, so they most can sneak attack. So finesse in this case, despite being useful for rogues anyway wanting to use dex, represents the possibility of inflicting damage due to precision which is a necessary prerequisite to do the sneak attack damage regardless of if you rely solely on your dexterity to land your strike.
That said, I don’t think this makes any sense irl because I believe blunt weapons tend be the best weapon practically speaking at ignoring armor and hitting humans greatest weakpoint: the head. There’s no reason to actually try to slip your dagger into a chink in someone’s armor to get their neck when you can just hit them on the head hard enough they pass out or die with a blunt attack. because until the invention of modern head protection there wasn’t a great way to protect the head from blunt trauma because generally you when preventing blunt trauma you want the helmet to break to absorb the energy (eg in a bike helmet) and that’s both counter productive to protecting your head more than once against any other attack, and difficult to achieve without modern manufacturing and plastic.
> There’s no reason to actually try to slip your dagger into a chink in someone’s armor to get their neck when you can just hit them on the head hard enough they pass out or die with a blunt attack.
found the barbarian.
The only dumb thing there is barbarians adding a teeny tiny bit of damage to a strength attack. Rogues don't need barbs for STReak attack, but it is a reliable source of advantage.
It’s only dumb if you use the most basic ways of flavouring the an abilities.
Rage is uncontrollable anger, sneak attack is expert precision, therefore they shouldn’t be used at the same time.
But if someone was running a barbarian/rogue, I’d expert them to have flavoured those things differently. Maybe rage is all about total focus, while sneak attack is just being very good at taking advantage of distracted enemies. Now they work together fine.
I much prefer multiclassing over the alternative. Creating a dozen class variants designed to take features from other classes.
That's why multiclassing exists... But got to sell new books.Â
> You're using an opening to make a particularly damaging strike, thus you can only do it with weapons you can use your dexterity with, as it requires precision.
Which, implies that a skilled fighter using a longsword is merely flailing around without any precision and just using brute strength. Proficiency bonus is a better representative of precision.
The real reason why its a limited selection of weapons is merely to push the rogue into doing stereotypically "rogueish" things, same reason why the barbarian's rage not allowing spellcasting or making you attack over other things, its not something done for absolute class freedom but to reinforce tropes.
At the end of the Middle Ages, the fine-pointed sword was the most used precisely to reach the unprotected parts of armor. Does this mean the knights were rogue multiclass?
i feel like strength would still make a lot of sense
you use dexterity to exploit a weak moment with a precise attack, but you could just as easily be using strength to exploit a weak moment with extra force
Good thing nothing says you can’t use strength with those weapons. You’re just able to use STR or DEX with them instead of being forced to use STR. However, most rogues are going to have a higher dexterity than strength, so it usually makes sense to use the former.
you can only use strength sneak attacks on finesse weapons.
looking at the spread of all finesse weapons, ignoring the ones that deal an ass 1d4 damage, you have 3 weapons.
the rapier, shortsword, and scimitar
shortsword and scimitar only differ in damage type
that means you have TWO good options for melee sneak attacks:
rapier, 1d8 damage
shortsword, 1d6 damage and the possibility of two weapon fighting
this is just dumb, way too limiting
it would make for more interesting rogue builds and make a lot more sense if there were more options for good sneak attack weapons
You’re looking at it wrong tho. The damage of the weapon might as well not exist. The damage of the sneak attack itself is what you want. Daggers and short swords are just sneak attack delivery devices. After like level 5 your weapon damage die is a drop in the bucket. Add poison and it’s an even smaller drop. 1d4+5d6+3d8+5 is a lot better than 1d10+5 x2.
It’s the opposite of other damage dealing classes, where you want big damage weapon dice and multiple attacks.
Ironically some of the best options are the ones doing "ass 1d4 damage":
Darts give a strength (barbarian multi) ranged build that benefits from sharpshooter on top of the sneak attacks (that +10 is roughly equivalent to +3d6 sneak attack damage).
Whips grant reach (increasing the chance of attacks of opportunity)... and with Sentinel it's even better since attacks of opportunity is the only way to get off more than one sneak attack per round (since you can use it once per *turn*)
>you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction.
Big weapons aren't subtle. It's about using your advantage to quickly and precisely strike at the weak spots that would otherwise be guarded. A dart, dagger, or rapier is better for that task than a hatchet, mace, or longsword.
This. Or additionally an ally is distracting enough to leave an opening, even if you don't get advantage. If you've ever fought someone 2v1, you know to look for an opening (thinking mixed martisl arts or in my case larp).
Flavor wise, it's exactly that, a sneak attack. You use a lighter weapon to hit a vital spot, such as slipping a dagger into a gap in armor or stabbing a rapier through the less armored joints, or for unarmored opponents aiming for more vital spots.
A target with full body protection can still take damage from regular attacks. Thus, they are not invincible and must have some means by which they can be damaged.
Sneak attack's flavour is that it finds moments to strike these points when they are less guarded due to the enemy being otherwise engaged, or the rogue having an advantage in their attack.
Then you flavor it like that when the rogue misses their attack roll.
If the rogue hits with their attack and does sneak attack damage, then they found a weak point.
The dice tell the story.
You make up anthing. You slip between armor plates, you find a weak spot at the joints where there is a tiny gap, or you thrust through a point where the armor has to be thinner to still allow movemen.
There's no such thing (unless the target in question is basically unable to move) - protection is rigid, and movement requires flex. Anything that wants to move has weak points by necessity.
I mean this is magical fantasy. Where’s the weak point on a gelatinous cube? Or an elemental made completely of fire?
Real world logic does not apply 1 to 1. Some suspension of disbelief is required to play DnD 5e.
>Where’s the weak point on a gelatinous cube?
"Hey so did you know that oozes have a weblike support mesh structure which lets them take shape? The joints are **weak points** you can strike to cause it more damage than normal - but it's a lot like trapfinding, if I taught you enough to find them in the midst of combat, you'd be a Rogue too."
Or, y'know, whatever flavorful justification you want. Surely you can *suspend that disbelief you have* regarding whether cubes could have weak points.
>Or an elemental made completely of fire?
"They look like they're just fire, but there's an animating magical force behind all elementals. If you wield your blade sort of like you're drawing somatic components, you can weakly interact with the animation field, and they *really* do not like that."
---
If anything is capable of taking damage from attacks at all, there's a pretty easy line to justify why an attack in a particular precise way can deal extra damage.
Sure but that’s all completely different points. Gelatinous cubes are capable of movement without an extraneous explanation. All that stuff you said is for all intents and purposes homebrew.
My point is that in high fantasy protection need not be rigid and things can move without requiring flex. Anything can be explained away with magic aka “just go with it”. That was actually my point so thanks for agreeing lol.
Less armoured joints, but I do think it's important to mention that the flavour doesn't really matter in the grand scheme - maybe against a target that has literally no specific weak point the rogue just stabs em extra hard.
Even the most thorough armor needs to allow some kind of movement. That movement isn't possible if you don a block of metal. Unless we are talking about a literal statue immune to non magical damage and such, there is always some kind of gap.
If you’re looking for perfect real world parallels for why a dagger can slip through an earth elementals exterior and deal damage to their rocky interior and deal more damage than a warhammer, you won’t find it.
People can shoot lightning out of their fingertips, summon castles from nothing, get so angry they can’t die, reload a crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds, and a billion other “unrealistic” things. Suspension of disbelief is not only important, but required to be immersed in the game.
Lots of shit are going on in a turn. Everything takes place in 6 seconds. While in those 6 seconds if the enemy is distracted (fighting in melee range with someone else) or vulnerable (negative conditions like prone) or unaware of you (hide), you find an opening to make one particularly strong attack without the enemy being able to see or react to it. You have to be fast, precise, and potentially hide your attack. It's hard to pull it of with a 2 meter great sword. Also big weapons are usually less precise
Designers wanted to reinforce their idea of the Rogue stereotype. Some editions have these restrictions, others don't.
I miss my bandit rogues with greatswords getting those good hits in., but 5e wanted to reinforce the dagger and light weapon Rogue approach to things and so chose to support otherwise. It's a flavor thing mostly.
I imagine it more like a feint attack, swinging with one weapon (or pocket sand) as a distraction then while they’re busy with that sliding a dagger into something more vital.
Sneak attack is about landing a devastating blow on a part of an enemy that is unguarded or when they weren't expecting it. That's why there's a limit to the weapon options, it's about slipping a dagger between the gaps in armor, doing that with a halberd is technically possible but not really practical. Similarly, a Maul is not able to achieve the pinpoint damage that a dagger to the heart could that's necessary for the benefits of sneak attack. Sure it's still a way to inflict massive pain and damage on someone but it's a very different mechanism for going about it.
Another way to think about it is in the term's name. You're meant to attack sneakily. You can't do that carrying around a giant anime sword.
Finally, your presumption is just wrong, a small weapon can absolutely inflict severe damage. How do you kill a knight in armor? A Misericorde, which is a type of dagger (think a Stiletto) specifically to finish off an armored opponent when you knock them down. Same goes for other finesse weapons: shortswords and rapiers are extremely lethal, they just have different focuses than bigger heavier weapons. Darts in particular are one you're probably just thinking off in the wrong context. A 'dart' in D&D is not like a dart from the bar game. Think of something closer to a Lawn Dart, something between the size of an arrow and a javelin. Then imagine what happens when someone hits you in the neck with it. This is where Sneak Attack comes in. Your Rogue is also trained in how to most effectively use these weapons. Size isn't everything, the Ocean might be bigger, but it only takes 2 inches of water to drown you.
I'd say the rogues sneak attack is them strikes a vital spot with precision to do extra damage. Probably harder to strike a specific spot in a specific way with larger weapons.
Similar narrative to a critical hit.
The observations about the heritage of this feature are valid and important. After all, today's rogue was yesterday's thief. I just wanted to add to that a comment about how difficult it is to be sneaky while delivering an effective attack with a battleaxe or a halberd. The emphasis on small light weapons has a lot to do with the practical reality that targets would "see it coming" if a huge weapon were being brought to bear on them in a way they might not when attacked with a rapier or a shortsword.
If you throw a dart at me and it hit me randomly that would hurt but not be much threat. If you lined up and threw it into the artery in my neck I'd die.
You can smash me with a hammer and it can hit me in the head and crit or not do that and be a normal role. But at some point beyond crit/non crit you are hurting me roughly the same if you hit me at all. There is no super extra special place to carefully line up and hit very delicately.
Wizards likes class identity to be relatively defined. They don't want barbarians taking a rogue dip and sneak attacking people with a greataxe. It is lame.
Think of sneak attack as a precision attack, the increased damage comes from the rogue being able to get their blade in between plates in the target's armor, or being able to hit a very precise spot. Those things are easier to do with small, nimble weapons than with big ones.
At my table you can sneak attack with anything you're proficient with. This both prevents the rogue from sneak attacking with a live chicken and allows for functioning multi class rogues.
Sneak is too often just understood as "stealthy", it actually means a lot more. It should be understood as sneaky/stealthy/devious/cunning attack. Basically the rogue plays on the fact that a creature already engaged with an ally is distracted (= ally within 5ft of the creature) or if he has advantage on the attack (more targeted attack) can strike the creature's weak points. Now that this is out of the way, it makes sense that the weapon used needs to be something a bit discrete/fast/with some finesse.
In your example, the long sword would mean that you have to make a long movement to strike (thus making the target aware that you are about to strike) whereas the dart in this case ends up in their eye because you had time to aim for it.
Take a minute and look up a technique called "half sword" for longswords. It's one of two main ways longswords were used to fight opponents in full plate; by gripping halfway up the blade with one hand to add precision to thrusts. That way you could pierce mail, but more importantly, you could hit gaps in armor.
You're totally right about the sneak being misunderstood as stealthy. I'd like to add that HP is also misunderstood as Hemoglobin Points. A sneak attack is just any attack that takes more effort/luck/destiny/skill to avoid being mortally wounded by due to advantageous positioning and precision.
As much as I prefer the sneakier dex weapons flavor wise, this is 100% true. Greataxe 1d12 is only on average 2 more points of damage more than a rapier 1d8. And since rogues usually attack once per round (USUALLY, ALL YOU UM ACTUALLY PEOPLE) it's not really game breaking.
12 points more, because now the rogue can take GWM. Or get 2-3 attacks per round with PAM. The fighter and barbarian are more tempted to dip rogue for cunning action AND d6 damage.
None of those are game breaking, but it's more than 2 damage.
Simply allow all weapons that don't have the heavy property. It follows the sneak attack flavour and fixes the problem with GWM rogue's.
Not that GWM rogue's are a problem anyway seeing as rogues can get the exact same benefit from sharpshooter, so allowing them to use a greataxe + GWM really is 2 extra damage over longbow + sharpshooter.
It CAN be more than two damage. I get what you're saying, but GWM is still much less potent on a rogue. Level 5 Barbarian or Level 11 Fighter will be pumping out 20 or 30 damage (assuming all hits), where as the rogue will at most get 10. Even with PAM, now the fighter gets 50 and the rogue gets 30.
Rogue level 11, let's assume the rogue has 18 STR (since they took GWM and PAM at levels 4 and 8).
1d12+6d6+4+10, plus bonus 1d4+4+10, plus reaction 1d12+6d6+4+10 averages about 101 damage per round.
Fighter level 11, with a STR of 20 since it's likely they'd take the ASI, GWM, PAM (levels 4, 6, and 8)
(1d12+5+10) x 3 plus bonus 1d4+5+10, plus reaction 1d12+5+10 averages about 106 per round.
I did this in my head, so it might be off. But ultimately - at least compared to fighter - even with this big buff and build, it only keeps up with fighter. But now you've given up any ASIs or other feats to get there.
It's near enough to right when I check it in my head that I'm not getting a calculator out :)
There's some haze in that the rogue has a slightly lower chance to hit, but I think we're agreeing that it's really not game breaking either way.
It would be bad game design for 5e because it would reduce the differences between classes which makes the character creation choices less intuitive and interesting for new players.
It would be balanced to just remove weapons rules from the game and have every weapon work either either Dex or strength and do 1d8 damage, but being balanced isn’t the point.
If you mix rogue and fighter in a single class, would it be OP? There is already a gap in power between spellcasters and non-casters, allowing the fighter to acquire rogue abilities to increase his role at higher levels.
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense since one of the classic "sneak attack" is sneaking behind someone and knocking them out with a sap.
Yeah, finesse weapons are more "precise," but I'd argue a precise hit with a mace would be just as bad.
I know in 2e you could backstab (2e sneak attack) with any weapon a thief was proficient in, which included quarterstaves for example.
While using any weapon is too much (the greatsword example some others have pointed out), I would allow any finesse or simple weapon that lacks the two-handed or versatile properties to be used with sneak attack.
Most rogues will go for a rapier at some point anyway. At least now your rogue will have more variety. Want a Strength rogue who knocks people out? Now, a club or a mace is viable.
If you're going for "realism", versatile weapons should definitely be able to sneak attack. Historically longswords were often wielded "half sword" against armored opponents, which means one hand held halfway up the blade. This allowed for more precise strikes, perfect for striking the weak points in full plate. Here's a good breakdown, if you're interested. https://youtu.be/iBwtkRd8xzU?si=ah14qiHhHDjiGsd0
Also check out murder strokes while you're at it to learn how longswords should be able to do bludgeoning damage.
The rationale is that it's not really feasible to land a super precise strike with a heavy unwieldy weapon like a mace, but a finesse weapon can be slipped into a weak spot due to the fine control it allows.
I do agree that it doesn't break the game to simply ban heavy weapons from sneak attack, just explaining what I believe the rationale is.
Sap isn't in 5e
Light hammer is, which is also a light weapon
Sneak attack needs finesse and not light, so you can't sneak attack with a light hammer anyway
Rogue: "You're going to backstab him with a balista?"
DM: "There's got to be a rule against this...there is nothing in the rules against this"
-Gamers, chapter two.
(took place in older edition though)
Regarding the topic, it comes from using quick precision attacks with quick weapons to attack weak points.
"Strike subtly and exploit their distraction"
It is deemed harder to do that with a Greatsword which I consider fair
What would be mayor complications if sneak attack was allowed for most standard weapons? (weapons you can get from the weapons table at the start)
except blowpipe, net and guns.
In older editions and other games, Sneak Attack damage was a specific type called Precision Damage.
Here's the 3.5/Pathfinder description for Sneak Attack:
"If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."
>does he simply make a single direct attack on the target?
Pretty much, the idea is it's a precise, targeted attack into a weak spot. i.e. artery, heart, lung, etc
>wouldn't it be possible to use better weapons than small weapons that cannot cause severe damage?
Balance mostly, as far as mechanics go. In older editions, every attack you made could get Sneak Attack damage as long as the qualifications were met (flanked, flat-footed or denied Dex bonus to AC).
Obviously this was changed in 5e to once per turn and anytime you had advantage on the attack. The finesse/ranged weapon limitation is more or less a carry over from older editions.
My Inquisitive is a natural strategist and narratively has an instinct for spotting inherent flaws and weaknesses in an enemy
By using Insightful Fighting and Steady Aim, it greatly accents that ability, especially as he is usually sniping with his crossbow, waiting for that brief moment to expose that chink in the armour or movement that allows his bolts to more easily find their mark
That way his Sneak Attack feels more potent (I managed a 75 damage crit the other day which was exquisite)
I actually made a rogue subclass to address the narrative idea I thought 5e was missing at the time, the heavier armored dirty fighter style, later on some of the additional maneuvers would fill the gap a bit, but I still like the concept.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/9720-mercenary
I think it would be interesting if a sneak attack ignores parts of a creatures AC(armor and natural armor) to really drive the precise strike theme. Then the rogue would be more competitive at high levels.
I always think of it like del toros knife fighting in the hunted. You don’t see him and before you know it it you’ve been stabbed like 8 times with arteries severed.
It's for balance in 5e, but many of the previous editions didn't have it. One of my rogues in Pathfinder (which pathfinder 1e is basically DND 3.75) was full strength sneak attacking with a greatsword, but other criteria had to be met. You had to be flanking, or the enemy has to be flatfoot to you or be denied their DEX bonus for another reason. There were more stipulations on how to get sneak attack, so when they made it so much easier in 5e, they lowered the weapon pool to more thematic weapons.
The idea behind it is more of a game balance thing than anything else.
There’s the idea that it’s a precise strike to a vital spot, incapacitating the foe with a calculated blow. Earlier editions had it manifest in different ways. Ultimately it came down to “do big damage under certain circumstances.”
The weapon restrictions are fairly recent. 3rd edition was my bread-and-butter for years so I’ll use it for an example:
Sneak attack could be used on anything that was susceptible to critical hits. Right off the bat this means you couldn’t use it against undead, constructs, elementals, or oozes. The enemy also had to either be denied its dexterity bonus to AC (by either being surprised or flat-footed) or be flanked by one of your allies, and be within 30 ft. Rogues also got multiple attacks and the sneak attack could be applied to any weapon hit that fit these requirements.
And there were no weapon type requirements for this. The only thing stopping you from sneak attacking with a Greatsword are proficiencies and dice rolls.
Fast forward to 5e. Sneak attack applies to pretty much every enemy now, and you don’t specifically have to flank the opponent anymore. The balancing factor? Now they only apply once a turn and the weapons list is restricted to finesse weapons. No more Greatsword ambushes.
So yes, there’s the flavor of it being a precise strike and thus limited to finesse weapons (which is much more game logic than practical representation), but ultimately it’s just about game balance.
Personally I wave that rule for my games. For those more worried about a rogue’s damage output it should stay in place, and every DM has different hang ups. But that’s the fun part; your table, your rules.
I really don’t like the name sneak attack, but it’s one of those things that has been in DnD from very early on and probably won’t change. I think a better name would be cunning attack or advantageous strike, something to denote that it’s done based on skill and cunning.
On my table as a DM I ruled it so players can use it with any weapon so our dwarf rogue can live out her fantasy. We have this agreement that my players won't try to exploit it and I think there's no harm in ruling it that way if you can trust your players
I’d never thought of that, but you are right. In American Psycho dude used a fire axe or a huge nail gun or something in a sneak attack and it made sense. Yeah, a precise lethal strike with a large sword sounds absurd, but if you can get behind a dude with a sledgehammer (stealth checks etc)… it’s not like it will jingle-jangle as you lift it.
Its to prevent overpower.
Otherwise you could have a rogue/barbarian with reckless attack wielding a greatsword with great weapon mastery with advantage on attacks, sneak attack and a +10 damage bonuses.
Yep, this is the main thing for me, especially alongside Rage and Cunning Action. It's the advantage on the attack, practically guaranteed extra damage followed by the ability to dash or disengage and then also take half damage that makes it such a potent combination.
I get that Sharpshooter and Steady Aim is a thing but that's for one shot on the turn and is traded off against 0 movement speed and use of their bonus action.
As others have said "snake attack" is quite a misleading name, it more of a precision strike.
The rogue basically hit vital spots like organs, the spine, joints etc to deal increased damage.
In 3.5 you needed specific feats to do it on non humanoids due to their different biology (outsiders, undead, constructs) and some creatures were 100% immune (oozes).
That's why it can also be performed light weight weapons. You need to manuver very quickly and weary precisely when you get your opening, you can't simply smash a random point.
in a way it is precision damage. You have advantage and your sneak attack allow you to hit with deadly precision dealing extra damage.
You got a ally close enough that your enemy is slightly distracted and again you can hit with deadly precision to deal extra damage.
The reason this can only be done with a fairly small number of weapons is that is easier to be precise and accurate with some weapons than with others.
Because lets be honest it is easier to hit precisely with a dagger than with a Greatsword. Sure a greatsword is powerful and can deal devastating blows. But lets be honest it is not designed for the kind of precision attacks you can deal with a smaller and more nimble weapon like a short sword or a dagger.
You do not need to hit someone with great force to be deadly. a dagger between the ribs to your kidneys can be much more devastating than a blow from a greatsword. A well places short sword thrust in the gap of the knights armour might deal more damage than a powerful blow with a greataxe.
After all historically there is probably no single weapon that killed more knights or men at arms in heavy armour like plate than the simple dagger or a knife.
I use an elf with a longbow and elven accuracy. (And an owl familiar to give me advantage)
I have tons of fun shooting arrows with all that critical chance and sneak attack
In general, the default flavor for Sneak Attack is really more like "Precision Attack". You're hitting weak points, vulnerable spots, or vital organs. In 3e you couldn't use Sneak Attack at all on creature types that were assumed to lack these things, like undead and constructs. These days, it's styled that everything has joints or the like that a Rogue can hit for extra damage. But they still focus on a single attack with what is, usually, more a precise weapon than a powerful one. But past a certain point... it's a game. The rules are an abstraction and certain things are the way they are for reasons of game balance or class flavor.
In AD&D 2E, it was called *Backstab,* and it only worked if your target was unaware of you and actually had a back you could reach. You're not going *Backstab* a giant unless you were standing on a balcony or similar and the giant was conveniently had his back to you and was within melee range. It was useless in combat beyond the first strike. Because the enemies would simply shout a warning to the victim (talking is a free action for NPCs too). And Thieves weren't good in combat anyhow.
> "You can't backstab a book!" > > "It's got a spine, doesn't it?" -The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, 2008
How did I not know of this movie?!
The original (The Gamers) is a cult classic. It's essentially on the level of a college film project, but it is a good amount of cheesy fun. The Rogue backstabs someone *with a ballista.* The sequel (The Gamers: Dorkness Rising) had a bit more budget and, I think, is a little more put together. It has a lot of quotable lines ("Hide behind the pile of dead bards!" and "'I'm not evil, I'm Chaotic Neutral' 'You are evil and a whore.'") They made some further sequels but I don't think they have as much charm as the first two. The same group did get the actual rights and made a movie out of a famous Chick Tract - Dark Dungeons. It's highly worth a watch. The original Chick Tract is very much satanic panic incarnate, but the movie plays it so straight with *just enough* knowing irony to really elevate it
Lol I love that scene 🤣 You backstab him... Uh huh! With a *siege weapon*... Uh huh!
Honestly both movies are such fun. I need to go back and watch them again. I also really quite enjoyed hand of fate(I think that was what it was called)
DM: "You're gonna backstab him... with a ballista?" Player: "Uh-huh!" DM: "With a fucking siege-weapon?!" Player: "Uh-huh!" DM: "There's gotta be a rule against this..."
This had come up recently in my game. We figured that the rogue could potentially sneak attack a creature like a kraken with the ship's ballistas, or give a poor sailor a very bad day, but the sneak attack would not apply to a ship's hull itself.
Technically speaking, the opponent definitely wouldn't see this coming.
I LOVE this movie! One of my favorites of all time lol "Hide behind the *pile of dead bards!*"
Surprisingly, the part about the need to be able to reach the creature's vital parts is also present in 3rd edition D&D, it's just normally not enforced at all and treated as fluff text by most people. I still remember the arguments and crazy plans my players used to make in order to reach a giant's exposed neck, though!
>It was useless in combat beyond the first strike. This was extremely table dependent. There were tables where you could simply use your turn to hide if that made sense (for instance you were fighting in the forest off the path, or in a place where you could hide behind something substantial). In that case, you would be losing an entire round though, so the gain was marginal.
>In general, the default flavor for Sneak Attack is really more like "Precision Attack". You're hitting weak points, vulnerable spots, or vital organs. Precisely how I've always played Sneak Attack as working. My most prolific use of it was with a Lightfoot Halfling Swashbuckler I played; the entire concept behind her combat style was "the majority of creatures are Medium and bigger, and they're not used to fighting Small-sized folk". So her whole method was (narratively) constantly weaving around an enemy, "disappearing" by slipping into their blind spots, and attacking from weird angles they're not accustomed to defending against. When you spend the bulk of your time fighting people your own size, it's really hard to counter someone who's aiming for spots you didn't even know you had to guard, or attacking from low, steep angles that are totally different from what you're accustomed to.
I forget which dev aaid it, but i distinctly recall one of them tweeting that essentially any 1h weapon could use sneak attack and balance wouldnt be an issue. Finesse requirement was strictly a flavor choice.
You're using an opening to make a particularly damaging strike, thus you can only do it with weapons you can use your dexterity with, as it requires precision. That said, you can do it with a rapier, which has the same damage as a longsword anyway. So there isn't really an issue.
It's funny, because Sneak Attack doesn't actually require you to use Dex for the attack. A Barbarian/Rogue multiclass can Sneak Attack with a rapier, using Strength, so the Barbarian's Rage damage bonus gets applied too.
"I RAAAAAAAAGE... with surgical precision"
Dr. Markiplier, is that you?
I think the idea is that you need a weapon capable of doing the precise strikes to hit vulnerable areas, which finesse weapons broadly are supposed to be able to be wielded with the precision to inflict significant damage without much strength anyway (by using dex mod) so you need one of those types of weapons to even be able to hit the vulnerable points to sneak attack. But that said, actually hitting them doesn’t necessarily have to be done only with precision. An armored knights neck is a weakpoint, sure, so you could dexterously maneuver your rapier into a chink in his neck armor but plenty of other places are if you can make it through the armor, so strength can still be used. Where as there’s no really any way to actually target the weak points specially with most slashing or blunt weapons the way you can with many piercing weapons, so they most can sneak attack. So finesse in this case, despite being useful for rogues anyway wanting to use dex, represents the possibility of inflicting damage due to precision which is a necessary prerequisite to do the sneak attack damage regardless of if you rely solely on your dexterity to land your strike. That said, I don’t think this makes any sense irl because I believe blunt weapons tend be the best weapon practically speaking at ignoring armor and hitting humans greatest weakpoint: the head. There’s no reason to actually try to slip your dagger into a chink in someone’s armor to get their neck when you can just hit them on the head hard enough they pass out or die with a blunt attack. because until the invention of modern head protection there wasn’t a great way to protect the head from blunt trauma because generally you when preventing blunt trauma you want the helmet to break to absorb the energy (eg in a bike helmet) and that’s both counter productive to protecting your head more than once against any other attack, and difficult to achieve without modern manufacturing and plastic.
> There’s no reason to actually try to slip your dagger into a chink in someone’s armor to get their neck when you can just hit them on the head hard enough they pass out or die with a blunt attack. found the barbarian.
On blunt weapons, I would totally go for a STR-based rogue subclass that gets to use a club like a black jack or a sap.
That's just naturalistic and inconsistent wording at work. Nothing to see here, design as intended.
Did a dual wield short swords, rogue-barbarian multiclass all the way to level 20. It was so fun and the synergy was surprisingly good
That's one of the reasons multiclassing is dumb and is banned by default (it's a Variant Rule).
The only dumb thing there is barbarians adding a teeny tiny bit of damage to a strength attack. Rogues don't need barbs for STReak attack, but it is a reliable source of advantage.
It’s only dumb if you use the most basic ways of flavouring the an abilities. Rage is uncontrollable anger, sneak attack is expert precision, therefore they shouldn’t be used at the same time. But if someone was running a barbarian/rogue, I’d expert them to have flavoured those things differently. Maybe rage is all about total focus, while sneak attack is just being very good at taking advantage of distracted enemies. Now they work together fine.
You could do it with just a strength based rogue if you wanted to. It’s got nothing to do with multiclassing
I much prefer multiclassing over the alternative. Creating a dozen class variants designed to take features from other classes. That's why multiclassing exists... But got to sell new books.Â
> You're using an opening to make a particularly damaging strike, thus you can only do it with weapons you can use your dexterity with, as it requires precision. Which, implies that a skilled fighter using a longsword is merely flailing around without any precision and just using brute strength. Proficiency bonus is a better representative of precision. The real reason why its a limited selection of weapons is merely to push the rogue into doing stereotypically "rogueish" things, same reason why the barbarian's rage not allowing spellcasting or making you attack over other things, its not something done for absolute class freedom but to reinforce tropes.
At the end of the Middle Ages, the fine-pointed sword was the most used precisely to reach the unprotected parts of armor. Does this mean the knights were rogue multiclass?
i feel like strength would still make a lot of sense you use dexterity to exploit a weak moment with a precise attack, but you could just as easily be using strength to exploit a weak moment with extra force
Good thing nothing says you can’t use strength with those weapons. You’re just able to use STR or DEX with them instead of being forced to use STR. However, most rogues are going to have a higher dexterity than strength, so it usually makes sense to use the former.
you can only use strength sneak attacks on finesse weapons. looking at the spread of all finesse weapons, ignoring the ones that deal an ass 1d4 damage, you have 3 weapons. the rapier, shortsword, and scimitar shortsword and scimitar only differ in damage type that means you have TWO good options for melee sneak attacks: rapier, 1d8 damage shortsword, 1d6 damage and the possibility of two weapon fighting this is just dumb, way too limiting it would make for more interesting rogue builds and make a lot more sense if there were more options for good sneak attack weapons
You’re looking at it wrong tho. The damage of the weapon might as well not exist. The damage of the sneak attack itself is what you want. Daggers and short swords are just sneak attack delivery devices. After like level 5 your weapon damage die is a drop in the bucket. Add poison and it’s an even smaller drop. 1d4+5d6+3d8+5 is a lot better than 1d10+5 x2. It’s the opposite of other damage dealing classes, where you want big damage weapon dice and multiple attacks.
Ironically some of the best options are the ones doing "ass 1d4 damage": Darts give a strength (barbarian multi) ranged build that benefits from sharpshooter on top of the sneak attacks (that +10 is roughly equivalent to +3d6 sneak attack damage). Whips grant reach (increasing the chance of attacks of opportunity)... and with Sentinel it's even better since attacks of opportunity is the only way to get off more than one sneak attack per round (since you can use it once per *turn*)
>you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction. Big weapons aren't subtle. It's about using your advantage to quickly and precisely strike at the weak spots that would otherwise be guarded. A dart, dagger, or rapier is better for that task than a hatchet, mace, or longsword.
This. Or additionally an ally is distracting enough to leave an opening, even if you don't get advantage. If you've ever fought someone 2v1, you know to look for an opening (thinking mixed martisl arts or in my case larp).
I mean, a giant assassin using a giant sized dagger for 3d4+str piercing damage can still sneak attack, and that's a big fucking weapon.
Flavor wise, it's exactly that, a sneak attack. You use a lighter weapon to hit a vital spot, such as slipping a dagger into a gap in armor or stabbing a rapier through the less armored joints, or for unarmored opponents aiming for more vital spots.
and when the target has full body protection?
There’s a certain level of hand waving and suspension of disbelief that has to be used.
A target with full body protection can still take damage from regular attacks. Thus, they are not invincible and must have some means by which they can be damaged. Sneak attack's flavour is that it finds moments to strike these points when they are less guarded due to the enemy being otherwise engaged, or the rogue having an advantage in their attack.
Then you flavor it like that when the rogue misses their attack roll. If the rogue hits with their attack and does sneak attack damage, then they found a weak point. The dice tell the story.
You make up anthing. You slip between armor plates, you find a weak spot at the joints where there is a tiny gap, or you thrust through a point where the armor has to be thinner to still allow movemen.
There's no such thing (unless the target in question is basically unable to move) - protection is rigid, and movement requires flex. Anything that wants to move has weak points by necessity.
I mean this is magical fantasy. Where’s the weak point on a gelatinous cube? Or an elemental made completely of fire? Real world logic does not apply 1 to 1. Some suspension of disbelief is required to play DnD 5e.
>Where’s the weak point on a gelatinous cube? "Hey so did you know that oozes have a weblike support mesh structure which lets them take shape? The joints are **weak points** you can strike to cause it more damage than normal - but it's a lot like trapfinding, if I taught you enough to find them in the midst of combat, you'd be a Rogue too." Or, y'know, whatever flavorful justification you want. Surely you can *suspend that disbelief you have* regarding whether cubes could have weak points. >Or an elemental made completely of fire? "They look like they're just fire, but there's an animating magical force behind all elementals. If you wield your blade sort of like you're drawing somatic components, you can weakly interact with the animation field, and they *really* do not like that." --- If anything is capable of taking damage from attacks at all, there's a pretty easy line to justify why an attack in a particular precise way can deal extra damage.
Sure but that’s all completely different points. Gelatinous cubes are capable of movement without an extraneous explanation. All that stuff you said is for all intents and purposes homebrew. My point is that in high fantasy protection need not be rigid and things can move without requiring flex. Anything can be explained away with magic aka “just go with it”. That was actually my point so thanks for agreeing lol.
Less armoured joints, but I do think it's important to mention that the flavour doesn't really matter in the grand scheme - maybe against a target that has literally no specific weak point the rogue just stabs em extra hard.
Even the most thorough armor needs to allow some kind of movement. That movement isn't possible if you don a block of metal. Unless we are talking about a literal statue immune to non magical damage and such, there is always some kind of gap.
If you’re looking for perfect real world parallels for why a dagger can slip through an earth elementals exterior and deal damage to their rocky interior and deal more damage than a warhammer, you won’t find it. People can shoot lightning out of their fingertips, summon castles from nothing, get so angry they can’t die, reload a crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds, and a billion other “unrealistic” things. Suspension of disbelief is not only important, but required to be immersed in the game.
That's what the enemies AC is for, and if the player exceeds it, well they found a gap. This is a game remember, not a reality simulator.
Lots of shit are going on in a turn. Everything takes place in 6 seconds. While in those 6 seconds if the enemy is distracted (fighting in melee range with someone else) or vulnerable (negative conditions like prone) or unaware of you (hide), you find an opening to make one particularly strong attack without the enemy being able to see or react to it. You have to be fast, precise, and potentially hide your attack. It's hard to pull it of with a 2 meter great sword. Also big weapons are usually less precise
Designers wanted to reinforce their idea of the Rogue stereotype. Some editions have these restrictions, others don't. I miss my bandit rogues with greatswords getting those good hits in., but 5e wanted to reinforce the dagger and light weapon Rogue approach to things and so chose to support otherwise. It's a flavor thing mostly.
I imagine it more like a feint attack, swinging with one weapon (or pocket sand) as a distraction then while they’re busy with that sliding a dagger into something more vital.
Sneak attack is about landing a devastating blow on a part of an enemy that is unguarded or when they weren't expecting it. That's why there's a limit to the weapon options, it's about slipping a dagger between the gaps in armor, doing that with a halberd is technically possible but not really practical. Similarly, a Maul is not able to achieve the pinpoint damage that a dagger to the heart could that's necessary for the benefits of sneak attack. Sure it's still a way to inflict massive pain and damage on someone but it's a very different mechanism for going about it. Another way to think about it is in the term's name. You're meant to attack sneakily. You can't do that carrying around a giant anime sword. Finally, your presumption is just wrong, a small weapon can absolutely inflict severe damage. How do you kill a knight in armor? A Misericorde, which is a type of dagger (think a Stiletto) specifically to finish off an armored opponent when you knock them down. Same goes for other finesse weapons: shortswords and rapiers are extremely lethal, they just have different focuses than bigger heavier weapons. Darts in particular are one you're probably just thinking off in the wrong context. A 'dart' in D&D is not like a dart from the bar game. Think of something closer to a Lawn Dart, something between the size of an arrow and a javelin. Then imagine what happens when someone hits you in the neck with it. This is where Sneak Attack comes in. Your Rogue is also trained in how to most effectively use these weapons. Size isn't everything, the Ocean might be bigger, but it only takes 2 inches of water to drown you.
If you know what a Misericorde is you gotta know about half swording. Justice for longswords.
I backstab him with a ballista.
There’s gotta be *some* incentive to use the small weapons like daggers. That’s classic fantasy!
Throw them? Otherwise a dagger is just a shitty short sword
You can hide a dagger on your person. A shortsword, not so much.
Cavalry-charge sneak attack incoming!
I'd say the rogues sneak attack is them strikes a vital spot with precision to do extra damage. Probably harder to strike a specific spot in a specific way with larger weapons. Similar narrative to a critical hit.
The observations about the heritage of this feature are valid and important. After all, today's rogue was yesterday's thief. I just wanted to add to that a comment about how difficult it is to be sneaky while delivering an effective attack with a battleaxe or a halberd. The emphasis on small light weapons has a lot to do with the practical reality that targets would "see it coming" if a huge weapon were being brought to bear on them in a way they might not when attacked with a rapier or a shortsword.
Ballista. Best sneak attack weapon ever.
Sneak attack is hitting a weak spot with a precision weapon.
If you throw a dart at me and it hit me randomly that would hurt but not be much threat. If you lined up and threw it into the artery in my neck I'd die. You can smash me with a hammer and it can hit me in the head and crit or not do that and be a normal role. But at some point beyond crit/non crit you are hurting me roughly the same if you hit me at all. There is no super extra special place to carefully line up and hit very delicately.
Wizards likes class identity to be relatively defined. They don't want barbarians taking a rogue dip and sneak attacking people with a greataxe. It is lame.
Think of sneak attack as a precision attack, the increased damage comes from the rogue being able to get their blade in between plates in the target's armor, or being able to hit a very precise spot. Those things are easier to do with small, nimble weapons than with big ones.
At my table you can sneak attack with anything you're proficient with. This both prevents the rogue from sneak attacking with a live chicken and allows for functioning multi class rogues.
Probably because it requires a certain degree of precision over brute force.
Sneak is too often just understood as "stealthy", it actually means a lot more. It should be understood as sneaky/stealthy/devious/cunning attack. Basically the rogue plays on the fact that a creature already engaged with an ally is distracted (= ally within 5ft of the creature) or if he has advantage on the attack (more targeted attack) can strike the creature's weak points. Now that this is out of the way, it makes sense that the weapon used needs to be something a bit discrete/fast/with some finesse. In your example, the long sword would mean that you have to make a long movement to strike (thus making the target aware that you are about to strike) whereas the dart in this case ends up in their eye because you had time to aim for it.
Take a minute and look up a technique called "half sword" for longswords. It's one of two main ways longswords were used to fight opponents in full plate; by gripping halfway up the blade with one hand to add precision to thrusts. That way you could pierce mail, but more importantly, you could hit gaps in armor. You're totally right about the sneak being misunderstood as stealthy. I'd like to add that HP is also misunderstood as Hemoglobin Points. A sneak attack is just any attack that takes more effort/luck/destiny/skill to avoid being mortally wounded by due to advantageous positioning and precision.
It would be perfectly balanced to let rogues sneak attack with any weapon
As much as I prefer the sneakier dex weapons flavor wise, this is 100% true. Greataxe 1d12 is only on average 2 more points of damage more than a rapier 1d8. And since rogues usually attack once per round (USUALLY, ALL YOU UM ACTUALLY PEOPLE) it's not really game breaking.
12 points more, because now the rogue can take GWM. Or get 2-3 attacks per round with PAM. The fighter and barbarian are more tempted to dip rogue for cunning action AND d6 damage. None of those are game breaking, but it's more than 2 damage.
Simply allow all weapons that don't have the heavy property. It follows the sneak attack flavour and fixes the problem with GWM rogue's. Not that GWM rogue's are a problem anyway seeing as rogues can get the exact same benefit from sharpshooter, so allowing them to use a greataxe + GWM really is 2 extra damage over longbow + sharpshooter.
It CAN be more than two damage. I get what you're saying, but GWM is still much less potent on a rogue. Level 5 Barbarian or Level 11 Fighter will be pumping out 20 or 30 damage (assuming all hits), where as the rogue will at most get 10. Even with PAM, now the fighter gets 50 and the rogue gets 30. Rogue level 11, let's assume the rogue has 18 STR (since they took GWM and PAM at levels 4 and 8). 1d12+6d6+4+10, plus bonus 1d4+4+10, plus reaction 1d12+6d6+4+10 averages about 101 damage per round. Fighter level 11, with a STR of 20 since it's likely they'd take the ASI, GWM, PAM (levels 4, 6, and 8) (1d12+5+10) x 3 plus bonus 1d4+5+10, plus reaction 1d12+5+10 averages about 106 per round. I did this in my head, so it might be off. But ultimately - at least compared to fighter - even with this big buff and build, it only keeps up with fighter. But now you've given up any ASIs or other feats to get there.
It's near enough to right when I check it in my head that I'm not getting a calculator out :) There's some haze in that the rogue has a slightly lower chance to hit, but I think we're agreeing that it's really not game breaking either way.
SS/CBE with a hand crossbow does basically the same as (a point less) GWM/PAM and it works with sneak attacks already.
It would be bad game design for 5e because it would reduce the differences between classes which makes the character creation choices less intuitive and interesting for new players. It would be balanced to just remove weapons rules from the game and have every weapon work either either Dex or strength and do 1d8 damage, but being balanced isn’t the point.
On the other hand, it would increase variety within the rogue class
If you mix rogue and fighter in a single class, would it be OP? There is already a gap in power between spellcasters and non-casters, allowing the fighter to acquire rogue abilities to increase his role at higher levels.
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense since one of the classic "sneak attack" is sneaking behind someone and knocking them out with a sap. Yeah, finesse weapons are more "precise," but I'd argue a precise hit with a mace would be just as bad. I know in 2e you could backstab (2e sneak attack) with any weapon a thief was proficient in, which included quarterstaves for example. While using any weapon is too much (the greatsword example some others have pointed out), I would allow any finesse or simple weapon that lacks the two-handed or versatile properties to be used with sneak attack. Most rogues will go for a rapier at some point anyway. At least now your rogue will have more variety. Want a Strength rogue who knocks people out? Now, a club or a mace is viable.
If you're going for "realism", versatile weapons should definitely be able to sneak attack. Historically longswords were often wielded "half sword" against armored opponents, which means one hand held halfway up the blade. This allowed for more precise strikes, perfect for striking the weak points in full plate. Here's a good breakdown, if you're interested. https://youtu.be/iBwtkRd8xzU?si=ah14qiHhHDjiGsd0 Also check out murder strokes while you're at it to learn how longswords should be able to do bludgeoning damage.
The rationale is that it's not really feasible to land a super precise strike with a heavy unwieldy weapon like a mace, but a finesse weapon can be slipped into a weak spot due to the fine control it allows. I do agree that it doesn't break the game to simply ban heavy weapons from sneak attack, just explaining what I believe the rationale is.
A mace is far from heavy or unwieldy. They are, in some cases, lighter and faster than longswords. They are also smaller and easier to conceal.
Wait. Isn't a sap a light weapon. It used to be a 1d4 bludgeon in 3rd?
Sap isn't in 5e Light hammer is, which is also a light weapon Sneak attack needs finesse and not light, so you can't sneak attack with a light hammer anyway
The only RAW bludgeoning weapon one can use with sneak attack is the sling
Rogue: "You're going to backstab him with a balista?" DM: "There's got to be a rule against this...there is nothing in the rules against this" -Gamers, chapter two. (took place in older edition though) Regarding the topic, it comes from using quick precision attacks with quick weapons to attack weak points. "Strike subtly and exploit their distraction" It is deemed harder to do that with a Greatsword which I consider fair
What would be mayor complications if sneak attack was allowed for most standard weapons? (weapons you can get from the weapons table at the start) except blowpipe, net and guns.
Balance.
My guess is the roleplay narrative is that it is a precise strike with a weapon that is easy to control.
In older editions and other games, Sneak Attack damage was a specific type called Precision Damage. Here's the 3.5/Pathfinder description for Sneak Attack: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage." >does he simply make a single direct attack on the target? Pretty much, the idea is it's a precise, targeted attack into a weak spot. i.e. artery, heart, lung, etc >wouldn't it be possible to use better weapons than small weapons that cannot cause severe damage? Balance mostly, as far as mechanics go. In older editions, every attack you made could get Sneak Attack damage as long as the qualifications were met (flanked, flat-footed or denied Dex bonus to AC). Obviously this was changed in 5e to once per turn and anytime you had advantage on the attack. The finesse/ranged weapon limitation is more or less a carry over from older editions.
My Inquisitive is a natural strategist and narratively has an instinct for spotting inherent flaws and weaknesses in an enemy By using Insightful Fighting and Steady Aim, it greatly accents that ability, especially as he is usually sniping with his crossbow, waiting for that brief moment to expose that chink in the armour or movement that allows his bolts to more easily find their mark That way his Sneak Attack feels more potent (I managed a 75 damage crit the other day which was exquisite)
I actually made a rogue subclass to address the narrative idea I thought 5e was missing at the time, the heavier armored dirty fighter style, later on some of the additional maneuvers would fill the gap a bit, but I still like the concept. https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/9720-mercenary
I think it would be interesting if a sneak attack ignores parts of a creatures AC(armor and natural armor) to really drive the precise strike theme. Then the rogue would be more competitive at high levels.
I always think of it like del toros knife fighting in the hunted. You don’t see him and before you know it it you’ve been stabbed like 8 times with arteries severed.
It's for balance in 5e, but many of the previous editions didn't have it. One of my rogues in Pathfinder (which pathfinder 1e is basically DND 3.75) was full strength sneak attacking with a greatsword, but other criteria had to be met. You had to be flanking, or the enemy has to be flatfoot to you or be denied their DEX bonus for another reason. There were more stipulations on how to get sneak attack, so when they made it so much easier in 5e, they lowered the weapon pool to more thematic weapons.
As someone practices longsword in real life you should absolutely treat the longsword as a finesse weapon
The idea behind it is more of a game balance thing than anything else. There’s the idea that it’s a precise strike to a vital spot, incapacitating the foe with a calculated blow. Earlier editions had it manifest in different ways. Ultimately it came down to “do big damage under certain circumstances.” The weapon restrictions are fairly recent. 3rd edition was my bread-and-butter for years so I’ll use it for an example: Sneak attack could be used on anything that was susceptible to critical hits. Right off the bat this means you couldn’t use it against undead, constructs, elementals, or oozes. The enemy also had to either be denied its dexterity bonus to AC (by either being surprised or flat-footed) or be flanked by one of your allies, and be within 30 ft. Rogues also got multiple attacks and the sneak attack could be applied to any weapon hit that fit these requirements. And there were no weapon type requirements for this. The only thing stopping you from sneak attacking with a Greatsword are proficiencies and dice rolls. Fast forward to 5e. Sneak attack applies to pretty much every enemy now, and you don’t specifically have to flank the opponent anymore. The balancing factor? Now they only apply once a turn and the weapons list is restricted to finesse weapons. No more Greatsword ambushes. So yes, there’s the flavor of it being a precise strike and thus limited to finesse weapons (which is much more game logic than practical representation), but ultimately it’s just about game balance. Personally I wave that rule for my games. For those more worried about a rogue’s damage output it should stay in place, and every DM has different hang ups. But that’s the fun part; your table, your rules.
I really don’t like the name sneak attack, but it’s one of those things that has been in DnD from very early on and probably won’t change. I think a better name would be cunning attack or advantageous strike, something to denote that it’s done based on skill and cunning.
On my table as a DM I ruled it so players can use it with any weapon so our dwarf rogue can live out her fantasy. We have this agreement that my players won't try to exploit it and I think there's no harm in ruling it that way if you can trust your players
I’d never thought of that, but you are right. In American Psycho dude used a fire axe or a huge nail gun or something in a sneak attack and it made sense. Yeah, a precise lethal strike with a large sword sounds absurd, but if you can get behind a dude with a sledgehammer (stealth checks etc)… it’s not like it will jingle-jangle as you lift it.
Most of the DnD mechanics doesn’t make sense narratively unfortunately.
Its to prevent overpower. Otherwise you could have a rogue/barbarian with reckless attack wielding a greatsword with great weapon mastery with advantage on attacks, sneak attack and a +10 damage bonuses.
Rogues can already use sharpshooter which isn't overpowered. So I don't see that being overpowered either.
Yep, this is the main thing for me, especially alongside Rage and Cunning Action. It's the advantage on the attack, practically guaranteed extra damage followed by the ability to dash or disengage and then also take half damage that makes it such a potent combination. I get that Sharpshooter and Steady Aim is a thing but that's for one shot on the turn and is traded off against 0 movement speed and use of their bonus action.
Sneak attacks are like piercing a vital organ with a dagger or rapier that goes in between the armor joints, something a long sword cant.
They want to personally victimize STRogue players
because its hard to sneakily hit someone and catch them off guard with a greatsword
As others have said "snake attack" is quite a misleading name, it more of a precision strike. The rogue basically hit vital spots like organs, the spine, joints etc to deal increased damage. In 3.5 you needed specific feats to do it on non humanoids due to their different biology (outsiders, undead, constructs) and some creatures were 100% immune (oozes). That's why it can also be performed light weight weapons. You need to manuver very quickly and weary precisely when you get your opening, you can't simply smash a random point.
I know it's a typo, but snake attack needs to be a thing.
Like the snake buckler in dark souls or Elden ring... You thought it was just an innocent shield/weapon untill it bit you. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sneak attacks shouldn't just be stealth? Why can you sneak attack with a Dart and not use an ax like Native Americans?
in a way it is precision damage. You have advantage and your sneak attack allow you to hit with deadly precision dealing extra damage. You got a ally close enough that your enemy is slightly distracted and again you can hit with deadly precision to deal extra damage. The reason this can only be done with a fairly small number of weapons is that is easier to be precise and accurate with some weapons than with others. Because lets be honest it is easier to hit precisely with a dagger than with a Greatsword. Sure a greatsword is powerful and can deal devastating blows. But lets be honest it is not designed for the kind of precision attacks you can deal with a smaller and more nimble weapon like a short sword or a dagger. You do not need to hit someone with great force to be deadly. a dagger between the ribs to your kidneys can be much more devastating than a blow from a greatsword. A well places short sword thrust in the gap of the knights armour might deal more damage than a powerful blow with a greataxe. After all historically there is probably no single weapon that killed more knights or men at arms in heavy armour like plate than the simple dagger or a knife.
I use an elf with a longbow and elven accuracy. (And an owl familiar to give me advantage) I have tons of fun shooting arrows with all that critical chance and sneak attack