Rogues’ +1 w / Daggers


4th Edition

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Want to use a longsword or your fists to hit things in the vitals? Sorry you can't.

Not to really argue with the rest of the things you say, but I'm pretty sure that the fighter and other melee classes can hit things in the vitals as well, they just can't add the sneak attack ability to them.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Teiran wrote:

Then you have a radically different idea of what reasonable customization amounts to then I, and evidently the designers, do. I can think of six weapon combos of the top of my head that allow someone to use a long sword and still use their rogue abilities.

Long sword / Dagger
Long sword / Short sword
Long sword / Shruikens (for the ninja out there)
Long sword / Hand Crossbow
Long sword / Blocking dagger
Long sword / Spiked shield

And there are other's I'm sure, and that's assuming you don't just take the Rapier and use that.

Shuriken and the hand crossbow do not have the off-hand property so you can't really have a longsword at the ready while using either of those weapons.

I'm not sure where to find the blocking dagger or spiked shield.

I believe most of those combos would result in the longsword being used maybe once or twice during a battle with almost all the actual attacks being done with the second weapon. Having something doesn't been that you are using it. If there was a rogue running around just one of his exploits every battle and then every other round used basic longsword attacks, I would similarly say that he wasn't really using his rogue powers.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the character that does this will end up using his longsword nearly as much as the player had first intend, unless the player continually works toward not making, what others would see as, a stronger and better attack.

Teiran wrote:

We both agree that a class should be defined by an archetype, and that's what 4th edition has done. I think the rogue class does a good job of displaying the archtype of the trickster or thug-like theif.

And using a longsword is simply not part of those themes. Nor is using your fists to hit vital points. they go directly against that archtype of the Rogue. That's much more like a fighter or a monk, not the rogue. Are you seriously claiming that unarmed combat is in any way themeatic with the rogue?

They don't have all the archtypes covered yet, and that's quite annoying. There is no monk yet for the unarmed combatant, or a second class which is good with the bow. But saying that the rogue class is badly designed because it does not allow you to build an adventurer which go directly against the archtype of the rogue is stretching things.

You are defining the archetype very rigidly and seemingly not even letting the idea that another person can have a different viewpoint on what an archetype should be able to do.

What if the designers decided it was outside the rogue archetype for a rogue to be able to effectively wield anything but daggers? Someone might suggest that the rogues should be able to use the crossbows as well, but another person can use your same argument that it is outside the rogue archetype to be able to use them. This argument feels like a little bit of circular logic, something like, "You shouldn't want to use this weapon because WotC doesn't let you use this weapon."

I understand that some weapons might be outside the scope of almost every persons view of the rogue.

However, you indicated, or at least I think you did, when giving a list of weapon pairings that you believe a rogue could be the classic ninja.

I know a number of people that believe that it is in the ninja archetype to be able to use unarmed attacks. So, on one hand you are telling them that they can make a ninja with the 4e rogue, and on the other, that they can't make a ninja.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The rogue class, as well as every core class should be designed to portray an archetype, but should be broad enough for a reasonable amount of customization. 4E makes characters conform to a tightly defined, constraining class.

Each class is broad enough to customize. Why must a "ranger" be a "woodsman"? That constraint is purely roleplaying and can be circumvented rather easily. Take the ranger class but don't take the nature skill - take dungeoneering instead.

Just think of the classes as fighting styles:

finesse fighter = rogue
archer = ranger
two handed hacker = fighter
sword and board = fighter

Now add on skill selection, multiclassing, and feat selection and you can turn each one of them into a myriad of character concepts. Add in human versatility and the diversity of character concepts expands dramatically with the extra feat and extra skill.

Character class does not have to be the same as archetype or stereotype.

The Exchange

Zynete wrote:
Shuriken and the hand crossbow do not have the off-hand property so you can't really have a longsword at the ready while using either of those weapons.

Unless you are a drow and take that cool feat that allows you to use the hand crossbow in melee without provoking an opportunity attack.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

crosswiredmind wrote:
Zynete wrote:
Shuriken and the hand crossbow do not have the off-hand property so you can't really have a longsword at the ready while using either of those weapons.
Unless you are a drow and take that cool feat that allows you to use the hand crossbow in melee without provoking an opportunity attack.

While that is a cool feat (Drow Fighting Style from Children of Darkness, right?), it would only benefit if you are using have a light blade as the other weapon. A longsword is a heavy blade so it doesn't work with this feat. (There could be a feat that would let you treat the longsword as if it were in both the light blade and heavy blade groups, but that would mean you could use your rogue exploits with it which, while nice, would have meant that the rogue wouldn't need the two weapons to use their rogue abilities and a longsword at the same time).

I believe that the hand crossbow would still need to be in the primary hand so you could attack with it (not an off-hand weapon). Likely you would have a off-hand light blade in your other hand (off-hand so you can wield it... hmmm... darn it two weapon fighting feats only work with melee weapons). I guess you could make the argument that you could still benefit from the feat if you are just holding a rapier in your off-hand (you can't wield it because it isn't an off-hand weapon, but it still meets the feat's requirement of holding a light blade).


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
The rogue class, as well as every core class should be designed to portray an archetype, but should be broad enough for a reasonable amount of customization. 4E makes characters conform to a tightly defined, constraining class. Want to use a longsword or your fists to hit things in the vitals? Sorry you can't. Want to be good with a bow? You have to be a ranger. Want to fight with two weapons and have it mean something mechanically? You have to be a ranger. It just seems way too restrictive.

I think you are mixing two seperate issues here.

1) Longswords and Unarmed Attacks can't be used to Sneak Attack.

I don't think we have any disagreement at this point that Sneak Attack should have *some* weapon limitation. You don't kill someone with a Maul by poking out their eye, but by crushing their entire head.

So, what it comes down to is a matter of personal opinion on what should fit in that category.

Now, interesting thing about the Longsword - note that, in 3rd Edition, it wasn't a rogue weapon. And, taking it a step further - it wasn't a valid choice for weapon finesse. Clearly, the idea that a longsword is not a weapon used for dextrous, accuracy-based combat is not something new.

A rogue-style character in 3rd Edition who fought with a longsword was likely a hybrid rogue/fighter, who used Strength as their primary attribute for delivering attacks.

What is the difference, then, between that character in 3rd Edition, and a fighter or ranger in 4E who uses a longsword, and has skill training in all the relevant 'rogue' skills?

Just Sneak Attack. Is Sneak Attack vital to the concept? I can't imagine so - in both editions, the character is clearly not built around dex-based, finesse fighting. In 3rd Edition, that meant they used Strength to attack. In 4E, that means they are stuck with fighter and ranger powers to reflect their combat style. (Or possible warlord powers, or certain cleric or paladin powers, or really any strength-based attacks that focus on power over precision.)

The only restrictions I'm seeing are pretty reasonable ones.

Is there room for expanding them? Probably. I think 3rd Edition eventually had some feats or prestige classes that let longswords qualify for Weapon Finesse - 4E could do something similar. And Unarmed Combat, well, that is pretty much unsupported in general, let along supported for specific use with rogue powers.

But I'm not seeing a failing in 4E - either in terms of balance or flavor - in restricting a dextrous style of combat to weapons appropriate to that style.

2) Concepts and Builds

You bring up the complaints that you need to be a ranger to be good with a bow.

Now, this isn't entirely true - you can easily build a fighter or warlord or whatever who is trained with the bow and has the stats to be effective with it. But they aren't going to be a master of the weapon - they can't use it with their powers, they can't get special effects out of it. They can fire basic ranged attacks at enemies just fine - but if they want to do nothing but shoot a bow, they aren't going to compare to the ranger.

Is this really a problem?

"Archery-based Fighter" is not a concept, it is a build. A character concept is: "Trained soldiers who has mastered the bow and is an amazing shot." And guess what - that concept is viable as a ranger.

The classes aren't less restrictive than before, but more so - they are welcoming of a diverse range of concepts, rather than being pinned down to a single style. Combined with the skill and feat system, you can allow for a wide range of concepts within a single class.

However, if your concept is entirely mechanical in nature, you might run into problems. This has been true in earlier editions, as well - if my concept is 'Fighter who uses healing magic', then playing a straight fighter is not going to deliver that concept! That is the same sort of restriction we are complaining about here - except that some of the new restrictions didn't exist before, so feel unnatural.

But, I say, as long as the concepts are still able to be delivered, the mechanical restrictions aren't a concern.

Again, there are some concepts not yet available - unarmed combat being at the fore. But outside of a few of those specific cases, most concepts can easily find a place in the 4E system.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Fighter, in 4E, is a master of Melee Combat; the Rogue is a master of Finesse Combat; the Ranger is a master of Ranged Combat and Skirmishing.

If you have a character who wears full plate, carries an enormous axe, and stands in the front line cleaving one foe after another... you shouldn't expect the rogue class to easily adapt to that build. If you have a character who is a perfect shot with a bow and won't touch a melee weapon, you shouldn't expect the fighter class to easily adapt to that build. If you have a character who is a master at slaying a foe with a single dagger strike, you shouldn't expect the paladin class to easily adapt to that build. If you have a heavily armored character who is able to heal allies with a touch and smite energies with divine power, you shouldn't expect the wizard class to easily adapt to that build.

Sure, you can make many of these sorta work, and you can certainly build hybrids that dabble a bit in multiple class styles.

But most complaints about restrictions are coming from those who are more concerned with a mechanical build than a character concept. If you are willing to start with Cleric or Paladin to build an appropriate faith-based warrior, why does it seem unnatural to need to start with Rogue or Ranger to build a stealthy sniper?

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I just have one comment on Sneak Attack: All of the arguments against using a weapon like a Long Sword or Maul to sneak attack seem to center around the statement that you can't poke an eye out or hit a vital spot with those kinds of weapons. Why should Sneak Attacks be limited to vital spots and weapon types?

To me, Sneak Attacking isn't weapon dependent, it's dependent on how the Rogue is able to deliver the blow. If a Rogue is able to sneak up on an unsuspecting adversary, and club him with a Maul when he's not ready for it, that should count as a Sneak Attack as well. It doesn't require finesse, but it DOES require you to catch your target off guard - which is a big part of the Rogue archetype.

If I was building a Rogue in 4E, and decided to take a feat to be proficient in Long Sword, I should be able to use my Sneak Attack with the weapon as long as all other conditions for a Sneak Attack (no dex bonus to AC, flanking, etc.) are met.


Zynete wrote:
Shuriken and the hand crossbow do not have the off-hand property so you can't really have a longsword at the ready while using either of those weapons.

Well, I do not have my books at work. If they lack the property, then my bad.

Zynete wrote:
I'm not sure where to find the blocking dagger or spiked shield.

They are both from the Adventurer's Vault, and I am sure they both off hand weapons, even though i don't have my book on me.

Zynete wrote:


I believe most of those combos would result in the longsword being used maybe once or twice during a battle with almost all the actual attacks being done with the second weapon. Having something doesn't been that you are using it. If there was a rogue running around just one of his exploits every battle and then every other round used basic longsword attacks, I would similarly say that he wasn't really using his rogue powers.

The Longsword would indeed be for basic attacks, charge attacks, oppertunity attacks, and attacks granted by powers which require a basic attack. (There are considerable warlod powers which grant this sort of thing.)

And yes, that would mean unless you do alot of charging that you'd likely use the longsword less often then the dagger or other light blade.

Zynete wrote:


You are defining the archetype very rigidly and seemingly not even letting the idea that another person can have a different viewpoint on what an archetype should be able to do.

Well, my idea of the rogue archtype might well be different then yours. But for your view of the archtype to be valid, there needs to be some good examples of one that used only a longsword or maul. Can you name a few rogues which used such weapons?

Not a rapier, or a longsword comboed with a smaller blade they used for their sneaky attacks, but just a longsword.

As for the ninja comment, no I had not intended to lump the archtype of the ninja and rogue together. That was a lighter aside, sorry for the confusion. The ninja and rogue are two related, but very different concepts and I would much rather see a Ninja class be designed to more accuratly represent that archtype then see folks try and shoehorn it into the rogue class. I'm fairly certain you can build a ninja like character using the rogue class, but that's not the archtype the class was really designed around, and thus there will always be issues doing it that way.

As Larry points out, this is a matter of how closely the concept you are going for fits the mechanical basis of the class.

The rogue class is built around the concept of the lightly armored, finess based fighter. Clubs, axes, and big swords don't fit that concept, and thus the class does not work well with those weapons.


Larry Lichman wrote:


To me, Sneak Attacking isn't weapon dependent, it's dependent on how the Rogue is able to deliver the blow. If a Rogue is able to sneak up on an unsuspecting adversary, and club him with a Maul when he's not ready for it, that should count as a Sneak Attack as well. It doesn't require finesse, but it DOES require you to catch your target off guard - which is a big part of the Rogue archetype.

If I was building a Rogue in 4E, and decided to take a feat to be proficient in Long Sword, I should be able to use my Sneak Attack with the weapon as long as all other conditions for a Sneak Attack (no dex bonus to AC, flanking, etc.) are met.

This is strictly my opinion, but given the amoutn of damage a sneak attack can do compared to the base weapon, I find it hard to chalk that up to simply catching them off guard. (Even skipping the Back Stabber feat, you go from dealing 1d4 with a dagger to dealing 1d4+2d6 with a sneak attack!)

Catching them off-guard is a component of being able to strike a vital spot, but it's hitting that spot that should convey the increase in damage.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Teiran wrote:
Zynete wrote:
I'm not sure where to find the blocking dagger or spiked shield.
They are both from the Adventurer's Vault, and I am sure they both off hand weapons, even though i don't have my book on me.

Alright, I didn't know about that. I ended up looking through the Player's Handbook a bit trying to find where the spiked shield was.

But at this point, once you started putting non-Player's Handbook weapons in you can just say "longsword with off-hand light blade." I don't think that one should start listing every possible option from every book, but that is another argument.

Teiran wrote:
Zynete wrote:


I believe most of those combos would result in the longsword being used maybe once or twice during a battle with almost all the actual attacks being done with the second weapon. Having something doesn't been that you are using it. If there was a rogue running around just one of his exploits every battle and then every other round used basic longsword attacks, I would similarly say that he wasn't really using his rogue powers.

The Longsword would indeed be for basic attacks, charge attacks, oppertunity attacks, and attacks granted by powers which require a basic attack. (There are considerable warlod powers which grant this sort of thing.)

And yes, that would mean unless you do alot of charging that you'd likely use the longsword less often then the dagger or other light blade.

Obviously, I'm just not sure, in practice, how often the character would get to use his longsword more effectively (Without doing things like charging back and forth between two enemies).

I also don't really want to have to expect other party members to get abilities to get those extra longsword attacks. It would be nice, but I don't want to have to expect it just to make my use of the longsword worthwhile.

If the character ends up being able to use his longsword a large chunk of the fight, that would be good. However I currently believe that it would end up with the character having to rely on his secondary weapon much more.

Teiran wrote:
Zynete wrote:


You are defining the archetype very rigidly and seemingly not even letting the idea that another person can have a different viewpoint on what an archetype should be able to do.

Well, my idea of the rogue archtype might well be different then yours. But for your view of the archtype to be valid, there needs to be some good examples of one that used only a longsword or maul. Can you name a few rogues which used such weapons?

Not a rapier, or a longsword comboed with a smaller blade they used for their sneaky attacks, but just a longsword.

I am much more limited in my exposure to fantasy media than many others are. I can say that Haley from Order of the Stick seems to be a clear rogue and yet relies on a shortbow for combat, but very few examples of actual fantasy rogues come to my mind because I haven't read or watched enough.

Teiran wrote:
As for the ninja comment, no I had not intended to lump the archtype of the ninja and rogue together. That was a lighter aside, sorry for the...

I understand, but it was to bring up the point that the rogue is able to use something that it very often associated with ninja. Which kind of indicates that the rogue does at least have some of the ninja archtype in it.

---

For WotC's view of the archetype to be valid, there needs to be some good examples of a rogue that used only a shuriken. Can you name a few rogues (not ninjas) which used them? :P

You and WotC don't need to explain their choice of giving ninja weapons to rogues to me, so why do I need to justify my weapon choices to them and you?


crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with.

So there is your first house rule.

Character classes in 4e are thematic. This is not 3.5 where characters are built by selecting level combinations from numerous classes until you mix them in some optimized form or another.

If you want to be a martial archer in 4e you need to be a ranger. If you want to be a longsword wielding con artist you need to be a fighter with the bluff skill.

For better or worse class customization is more limited in 4e than it was in 3e.

Exactly. People don't get this for some reason.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

P1NBACK wrote:
Exactly. People don't get this for some reason.

I get it. I just disagree where they are drawing those lines.

I would similarly be arguing if the fighter exploits only worked if they were wielding sword and shield.

I disagree with what they think is not thematic to the class.

Sovereign Court

P1NBACK wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with.

So there is your first house rule.

Character classes in 4e are thematic. This is not 3.5 where characters are built by selecting level combinations from numerous classes until you mix them in some optimized form or another.

If you want to be a martial archer in 4e you need to be a ranger. If you want to be a longsword wielding con artist you need to be a fighter with the bluff skill.

For better or worse class customization is more limited in 4e than it was in 3e.

Exactly. People don't get this for some reason.

I get it. I just don't agree with it. That's pretty much the whole point of this thread. Telling me I can only ever use a small selection of weapons with my class abilities just rubs me the wrong way. Even if I don't plan on sneak attacking with a longsword, it would be nice to have the option to do so even if it required spending a feat.

The Exchange

WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I get it. I just don't agree with it.

So house rule it and move on - or just don't play 4e. Which ever works for you.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I get it. I just don't agree with it.
So house rule it and move on - or just don't play 4e. Which ever works for you.

So those are the only two options?

The Exchange

Zynete wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I get it. I just don't agree with it.
So house rule it and move on - or just don't play 4e. Which ever works for you.
So those are the only two options?

I don't see any others. If you do not like a rule as written you can either change it for your own game or stop playing the game. What other option could there be?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Create a line of rogue exploits that don't have the weapon requirements of other powers. Create a feat that allows sneak attack with specific weapons, a feat that allows the sneak attack with a penalty to attack or damage, or a feat that adds a weapon group to the list of weapons you can use rogue exploits with.

Something between "suck it up" and "just remove the restriction" that is more helpful than telling them to find a new game to play. Something that one could imagine appearing in some later WotC supplement.

If I said I am sad that I don't have the Battle Dancer class in 4e, and that I would like to see it, I don't think that a logical response should be, "either house rule the name of rogue to battle dancer or stop playing 4e."

The Exchange

Zynete wrote:

Create a line of rogue exploits that don't have the weapon requirements of other powers. Create a feat that allows sneak attack with specific weapons, a feat that allows the sneak attack with a penalty to attack or damage, or a feat that adds a weapon group to the list of weapons you can use rogue exploits with.

Something between "suck it up" and "just remove the restriction" that is more helpful than telling them to find a new game to play. Something that one could imagine appearing in some later WotC supplement.

If I said I am sad that I don't have the Battle Dancer class in 4e, and that I would like to see it, I don't think that a logical response should be, "either house rule the name of rogue to battle dancer or stop playing 4e."

I guess I was thinking that all of the "make stuff up" solutions were house rules of one form or another.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

crosswiredmind wrote:
I guess I was thinking that all of the "make stuff up" solutions were house rules of one form or another.

Alright. I was thinking of it as something else.


Tharen the Damned wrote:

- Grey Mouser is clearly a rogue. A Ranger would fit because he uses a Rapier (Scalpell) and a dagger in his off hand weapon (Cat's Claw). But he relies more on Dexterity than on strength. So we give him the Rogue powers. Although he was a Wizards apprentice, he never uses magic. So we just give him traning in arcane knowledge.

Done.

Nope, there are several stories were the Mouser used magic. The earliest incident was him cursing the nobleman responsible for his wizard mentor's death, he cast a powerful spell from a scroll in The Lords of Quarmall and there are a couple of incidents when he may be using magic to break a spell, but it isn't clear what's going on. The Grey Mouser often mucked up the spells - in The Lords of Quarmall his spell killed all the wizards on his employer's side, not the enemy's.

I'd think the closest equivalent to 4E terms is he's a Rogue whose feat-selection allows him to use Rituals.

Oh and regarding the topic of this thread, I'd just houserule a feat that allowed other weapons to be used with Rogue Powers but with a cap on the damage dice - i.e. your great axe does d12 with basic attacks, but d6 weapon damage when combined with rogue powers.

That's hardly earth-shattering, is it?


JRM wrote:
Tharen the Damned wrote:

- Grey Mouser is clearly a rogue. A Ranger would fit because he uses a Rapier (Scalpell) and a dagger in his off hand weapon (Cat's Claw). But he relies more on Dexterity than on strength. So we give him the Rogue powers. Although he was a Wizards apprentice, he never uses magic. So we just give him traning in arcane knowledge.

Done.

Nope, there are several stories were the Mouser used magic. The earliest incident was him cursing the nobleman responsible for his wizard mentor's death, he cast a powerful spell from a scroll in The Lords of Quarmall and there are a couple of incidents when he may be using magic to break a spell, but it isn't clear what's going on. The Grey Mouser often mucked up the spells - in The Lords of Quarmall his spell killed all the wizards on his employer's side, not the enemy's.

I'd think the closest equivalent to 4E terms is he's a Rogue whose feat-selection allows him to use Rituals.

Oh and regarding the topic of this thread, I'd just houserule a feat that allowed other weapons to be used with Rogue Powers but with a cap on the damage dice - i.e. your great axe does d12 with basic attacks, but d6 weapon damage when combined with rogue powers.

That's hardly earth-shattering, is it?

Honestly, that's the best suggestion I've heard yet - allowing for people to freely get the flavor of wielding a greataxe, but preventing big weapon dice from being combined with sneak attack, thus keeping things balanced.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
JRM wrote:
Oh and regarding the topic of this thread, I'd just houserule a feat that allowed other weapons to be used with Rogue Powers but with a cap on the damage dice - i.e. your great axe does d12 with basic attacks, but d6 weapon damage when combined with rogue powers.
Honestly, that's the best suggestion I've heard yet - allowing for people to freely get the flavor of wielding a greataxe, but preventing big weapon dice from being combined with sneak attack, thus keeping things balanced.

Why thank you kindly, my good sir.

Although 4E doesn't suit my tastes, I'll happily try to improve it. The thing that irks me the most about the current "edition wars" is how so few people try to make a positive contribution. Just saying "I hate X, it makes no sense!" is pretty useless, why can't more people say "I don't care for X since I prefer older edition's Y, how about changing it to Z which has a similar flavour but is more balanced."

But then, I'm not naive enough to expect everybody to get along on the internet. :(


I actually like the concept of rogues using daggers and small blades again. Since nobody used daggers in my 3.5 campaigns because of the crappy damage.

Dark Archive

JRM wrote:
Nope, there are several stories were the Mouser used magic. The earliest incident was him cursing the nobleman responsible for his wizard mentor's death, he cast a powerful spell from a scroll in The Lords of Quarmall and there are a couple of incidents when he may be using magic to break a spell, but it isn't clear what's going on. The Grey Mouser often mucked up the spells - in The Lords of Quarmall his spell killed all the wizards on his employer's side, not the enemy's.

I think I have to re-read my Leiber Collection. It seems I forgot a lot in the 15 years since I read the stories last time.

JRM wrote:
Oh and regarding the topic of this thread, I'd just houserule a feat that allowed other weapons to be used with Rogue Powers but with a cap on the damage dice - i.e. your great axe does d12 with basic attacks, but d6 weapon damage when combined with rogue powers.

Good idea!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Honestly, that's the best suggestion I've heard yet - allowing for people to freely get the flavor of wielding a greataxe, but preventing big weapon dice from being combined with sneak attack, thus keeping things balanced.

Actually I believe that suggestion is a little weak. For example, if it were applied to the maul, it would deal the same amount of damage as a short sword, require two hands instead of being off-hand, and the proficiency bonus would be one less. Still you would need to take the feat to become proficient with the maul and a feat to use the maul with rogue powers.

The greataxe is similar but it also gets the weakened "High Crit" property.


Zynete wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Honestly, that's the best suggestion I've heard yet - allowing for people to freely get the flavor of wielding a greataxe, but preventing big weapon dice from being combined with sneak attack, thus keeping things balanced.

Actually I believe that suggestion is a little weak. For example, if it were applied to the maul, it would deal the same amount of damage as a short sword, require two hands instead of being off-hand, and the proficiency bonus would be one less. Still you would need to take the feat to become proficient with the maul and a feat to use the maul with rogue powers.

The greataxe is similar but it also gets the weakened "High Crit" property.

It could probably use a bit of alteration as far as specific values, but I think the core concept is sound - you get to use your larger weapon dice for Opportunity Attacks or when you can't get Sneak Attack, but you don't have to suddenly switch to another weapon when you are in a position to use Sneak Attack and Rogue Powers.

Again, while I am all for someone wanting to play a rogue running around with a Greataxe, I don't want it to be such a good choice that no one ever plays a rogue with a dagger. Making it a viable option, but not necessarily the best one, seems a reasonable solution to me.

It isn't really something I'd be likely to use in my own home games, as I prefer the rogue being represented as an precision-based combatant, rather than just some mechanics being applied to do more damage. But for those who really want to be able to use a Greataxe with Rogue Powers to Sneak Attack someone, I think this ability makes for a good start.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Zynete wrote:

Actually I believe that suggestion is a little weak. For example, if it were applied to the maul, it would deal the same amount of damage as a short sword, require two hands instead of being off-hand, and the proficiency bonus would be one less. Still you would need to take the feat to become proficient with the maul and a feat to use the maul with rogue powers.

The greataxe is similar but it also gets the weakened "High Crit" property.

It could probably use a bit of alteration as far as specific values, but I think the core concept is sound - you get to use your larger weapon dice for Opportunity Attacks or when you can't get Sneak Attack, but you don't have to suddenly switch to another weapon when you are in a position to use Sneak Attack and Rogue Powers.

Again, while I am all for someone wanting to play a rogue running around with a Greataxe, I don't want it to be such a good choice that no one ever plays a rogue with a dagger. Making it a viable option, but not necessarily the best one, seems a reasonable solution to me.

It isn't really something I'd be likely to use in my own home games, as I prefer the rogue being represented as an precision-based combatant, rather than just some mechanics being applied to do more damage. But for those who really want to be able to use a Greataxe with Rogue Powers to Sneak Attack someone, I think this ability makes for a good start.

I'm with Koelbl on this. The point of the exercise is to allow for a sneak-attack with a big weapon but not make it better than a dagger. They'll still have a benefit for non back-stabby attacks with the weapon.

We could have a greater damage cap for bigger weapons, say 1d8 for two-handed weapons, but then they may become more effective in sneak-attacking than a dagger.

A massive weapon like a maul has a lot of inertia, so it should be more difficult to manoeuvre. It feels right to me that a less agile weapon is unsuited for making precision attacks against an evading target, since to achieve the desired accuracy the attacker has to apply more muscle just steering the blow to compensate for the opponent's movements, which detracts from the force of the blow.

It's relatively easy making a high precision 'power swing' against an stationary target, like pole-axing an ox or coup-de-gracing a fallen foe. When someone precision-attacks with a large weapon I imagine the attacker setting up a blow and then giving a deadly 'tap', like Umslopogaas pecking his enemies in the head with his beloved battle-axe.

Umslopogaas is a good model actually. When he started to tire he stopped 'pecking' with his ax and started swinging. In 4E terms he'd run out of per-encounter precision attacks and was using his basic at-wills.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

JRM wrote:

I'm with Koelbl on this. The point of the exercise is to allow for a sneak-attack with a big weapon but not make it better than a dagger. They'll still have a benefit for non back-stabby attacks with the weapon.

We could have a greater damage cap for bigger weapons, say 1d8 for two-handed weapons, but then they may become more effective in sneak-attacking than a dagger.

I agree that this option out there should not be better than wielding a dagger or other rogue weapon. However, I would suggest that spending two feats for a weapon that will turn out to be weaker than a short short is not that happy of an idea. I want to say that this should be allowed to deal more damage. Not a great amount, but enough so that the cost of two extra feats actually pays off in some fashion.

This current rule would make it so even after the character has spent the two feats that he still would be better off dropping his own weapon and grabbing a dagger or a short sword. I believe that after purchasing these feats the character should lose something by going to regular rogue weapons.

I imagine some scenerio where the party is having some hard fight and is losing, but the rogue all of a sudden drops the maul he had trained with all his life to then draw the short sword so that he could fight this battle with all his power.

Also the rapier is a one-handed weapon and manages to deal 1d8 damage with no other special abilities for the cost of one feat. So the 1d8 limit for two-handed weapons seems odd in comparison when it costs two feats.

--

I would suggest that if this route is taken that the damage cap, whatever size it may be, not be applied to the first weapon damage (or high crit extra damage). For example, while weilding a greataxe, a power that dealt 3[W] damage would have you roll 1d12 + 2d8 (if the cap was 1d8).

Yes, it deals more damage than a short sword (or a dagger), but you spent two feats and have 1 less of a profiency bonus. So I think that you have sacrificed enough for that small boost in damage.


Zynete wrote:

I agree that this option out there should not be better than wielding a dagger or other rogue weapon. However, I would suggest that spending two feats for a weapon that will turn out to be weaker than a short short is not that happy of an idea. I want to say that this should be allowed to deal more damage. Not a great amount, but enough so that the cost of two extra feats actually pays off in some fashion.

This current rule would make it so even after the character has spent the two feats that he still would be better off dropping his own weapon and grabbing a dagger or a short sword. I believe that after purchasing these feats the character should lose something by going to regular rogue weapons.

I imagine some scenerio where the party is having some hard fight and is losing, but the rogue all of a sudden drops the maul he had trained with all his life to then draw the short sword so that he could fight this battle with all his power.

Also the rapier is a one-handed weapon and manages to deal 1d8 damage with no other special abilities for the cost of one feat. So the 1d8 limit for two-handed weapons seems odd in comparison when it costs two feats.

--

I would suggest that if this route is taken that the damage cap, whatever size it may be, not be applied to the first weapon damage (or high crit extra damage). For example, while weilding a greataxe, a power that dealt 3[W] damage would have you roll 1d12 + 2d8 (if the cap was 1d8).

Yes, it deals more damage than a short sword (or a dagger), but you spent two feats and have 1 less of a profiency bonus. So I think that you have sacrificed enough for that small boost in damage.

The problem is, feats are a more plentiful resource in 4E. If taking two feats results in the best damage rogues can deal, many will gladly take those feats as quickly as they can. And keep in mind - if they are already taking feats for Proficiency, they are going to grab Superior Weapons rather than Martial ones.

So they have the option of taking a feat for a Rapier (+3 Proficiency, 1d8 damage)... or two feats to use a Fullblade (+3 Proficiency, 1d12 damage, high crit.) Even if secondary and tertiary [W]s are capped at 1d8, all their at-will powers are suddenly jumping up in damage and easily trumping the use of daggers or short swords.

Or you might have dwarves, who can take a feat to gain proficiency with hammers and axes, while also gaining a damage bonus, or Eladrin who do the same with Spears. An Eladrin with Eladrin Soldier and (feat to Sneak Attack with Spears) is doing 1d10+2 damage - while the one who spent two feats on Rapier Proficiency and Weapon Focus is doing 1d10+1, at the same proficiency bonus, without the option of reach.

Here's one solution, and the problems that come with it:

Let's make it a single feat, which both gives proficiency and the ability to use it for Rogue stuff at reduced damage - let's say it drops the weapon damage by two size categories when used for Rogue Powers or Sneak Attack.

The resource investment is now one feat, which should relieve some of your concern. But... even with the limitations, the weapons are simply looking too good. A Full Blade becomes a +3 Proficiency, 2d4 Damage, High Crit weapon - that outclasses the rapier twice over, even outside of the added versatility. Superior Weapons are already enough of a step up that this gives a bit too much oomph - and would shift an Execution Axe to 2d4, Brutal 2, which is way too scary.

So, let's say that superior weapons aren't a choice for the feat. What do the options look like now?

Falchion: +3 Prof, 1d6 Damage, High Crit
Greataxe: +2 Prof, 2d4 Damage, High Crit
Greatsword: +3 Prof, 1d8 Damage
Maul: +2 Prof, 1d10 Damage

A Falchion is, thus, a high-crit Short Sword. The Greataxe and Maul are lower proficiency than a Rapier, but higher damage. And the Greatsword... is identical to the Rapier. Except it has the added versatility of doing more damage on Opportunity Attacks, Basic Attacks (like Charges), and any multiclass fighter/ranger/barbarian powers the character might have. On the other hand... it occupies that other hand. (Pun... somewhat... intended. ^_^) Does that make for a reasonable trade-off? It lets the Rapier wielder use a shield or an off-hand weapon, grab potions, and various other tasks.

But wait - I realize I've forgotten about the Longsword that started this debate. Dropping it two categories makes it a dagger without the rogue dagger bonus - a pretty inferior option. So let's say that one-handed weapons only drop one size category - now how do things look?

Battleaxe: +2 Prof, 1d8 Damage, Versatile
Longsword: +3 Prof, 1d6 Damage, Versatile
Scimitar: +2 Prof, 1d6 Damage, High Crit

So, our Longsword is on par with a Shortsword - but does have Versatile as a slight advantage, in addition to the versatility provided by the feat itself. It does seem a strictly worse choice than the Rapier - but I don't see any way to avoid that. All the one-handed weapons seem to take too big a hit in this deal, but if you don't make that hit, it defeats the entire purpose of the rapier and other one-handed rogue weapons.

Still, this would let rogue take advantage of other weapon category feats like Heavy Blade Opportunity and Hammer Rhythm... so maybe that is enough to make the difference.

All that said, look at how many little complications are brought up by the process - this isn't something simple enough to expect WotC to have easily tossed it into the system. Still, I think it might work for your purposes - toss in some strength as a prereq, and it might look something like this:

Powerful Precision Proficiency
Prerequisite: Rogue, Str 13
Benefit: You gain proficiency in a single military weapon of your choice. You can use this weapon with any Rogue Powers that require the use of a light blade, as well as to deliver Sneak Attack - however, when you do so, the weapon deals damage as though it was one size category smaller if it is a one-handed weapon, or two size categories smaller if it is a two-handed weapon. At all other times, it deals damage normally.

I'm sure the wording could be cleaned up a little bit to limit confusion (at least, if it was being placed in a published product.) For a random house rule, on the other hand, it should do what you are looking for - make it possible for a rogue to use a greataxe or maul without being either hindered or become overwhelmingly powerful. Not the best for those wanting to use a Longsword - but I really don't see a way to fix that without delving into way more complexity than a single feat should involve.


Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
I actually like the concept of rogues using daggers and small blades again. Since nobody used daggers in my 3.5 campaigns because of the crappy damage.

To be fair the only reason any one ever used used daggers in 1st and 2nd was because perverse DMs would hand out a Dagger +5 when all you otherwise had was +2 weapons. So you'd often see players grabbing their +5 dagger to try and do battle with some demon or some such that was immune to weapons of less then +3 enchantment.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Powerful Precision Proficiency
Prerequisite: Rogue, Str 13
Benefit: You gain proficiency in a single military weapon of your choice. You can use this weapon with any Rogue Powers that require the use of a light blade, as well as to deliver Sneak Attack - however, when you do so, the weapon deals damage as though it was one size category smaller if it is a one-handed weapon, or two size categories smaller if it is a two-handed weapon. At all other times, it deals damage normally.

I'm sure the wording could be cleaned up a little bit to limit confusion (at least, if it was being placed in a published product.) For a random house rule, on the other hand, it should do what you are looking for - make it possible for a rogue to use a greataxe or maul without being either hindered or become overwhelmingly powerful. Not the best for those wanting to use a Longsword - but I really don't see a way to fix that without delving into way more complexity than a single feat should involve.

ZOINK!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

The problem is, feats are a more plentiful resource in 4E. If taking two feats results in the best damage rogues can deal, many will gladly take those feats as quickly as they can. And keep in mind - if they are already taking feats for Proficiency, they are going to grab Superior Weapons rather than Martial ones.

So they have the option of taking a feat for a Rapier (+3 Proficiency, 1d8 damage)... or two feats to use a Fullblade (+3 Proficiency, 1d12 damage, high crit.) Even if secondary and tertiary [W]s are capped at 1d8, all their at-will powers are suddenly jumping up in damage and easily trumping the use of daggers or short swords.

1. A bit of extra damage for a feat is par for course. Two-weapon fighting gives a +1 to damage when wielding two melee weapons, so I really don't expect there to be a problem if a feat adds about +1 damage to attacks.

2. I have the three core books, so I have no idea what superior weapons are in other supplements. I when you throw around words like Brutal that I have no good idea of what you mean.

3. I haven't seen the rules for reducing weapons size categories. Even they might be easy to extrapolate from the increased weapon size chart.

4. Fighters can already use rogue weapons like daggers, short swords, and rapiers. It isn't like rogue exploits. You don't need to shove a maul into their hand to make them work, so it really isn't entire accurate to suggest that being a heavy blade, axe, or hammer means that a fighter can use it. Fighters can use light weapons already.

I suspect that adjusting damage dice may not be the easiest thing to perform and that their might be an easier way to do this.

Something like,

Graceful Weapon
Prerequisites: Str 13
Benefit: You may wield a single weapon as if it was in the light blade group in addition to it's other groups. While wielding it this way you take a -1 penalty to attacks if it is a one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon, or a -2 penalty to attacks if it is a two-handed melee weapon.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon.

This would avoid recalculation of damage dice and would make it so more damage weapons would deal more damage on a hit. I would assume however that using this would cause less damage overall because of the loss of accuracy.


Zynete wrote:


Graceful Weapon
Prerequisites: Str 13
Benefit: You may wield a single weapon as if it was in the light blade group in addition to it's other groups. While wielding it this way you take a -1 penalty to attacks if it is a one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon, or a -2 penalty to attacks if it is a two-handed melee weapon.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon.

This would avoid recalculation of damage dice and would make it so more damage weapons would deal more damage on a hit. I would assume however that using this would cause less damage overall because of the loss of accuracy.

Wow...this is a good idea for a feat as well. Now I'm conflicted.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Part of me wants to edit the feat so that the penalties are not based how many hands are used for it and instead on complexity of the weapon. Something like -0 for simple and improvised weapons (unarmed sneak attack!), -1 for military weapons, and -2 for superior weapons.

I'm going to take a break though because I am worrying way to much about this right now.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
To be fair the only reason any one ever used used daggers in 1st and 2nd was because perverse DMs would hand out a Dagger +5 when all you otherwise had was +2 weapons. So you'd often see players grabbing their +5 dagger to try and do battle with some demon or some such that was immune to weapons of less then +3 enchantment.

Not the way we played 1st & 2nd ed AD&D. Daggers were pretty useful if your PC was crawling through a 2' square tunnel and came face to face with a half dozen kobolds, or had just been swallowed by a giant frog.

Now I did once run an adventure were the party were given a +6 dagger which they needed to cut a minor artifact-level chain securing a dragon held captive in a city of monsters. But then, I am a perverse DM. :)


Zynete wrote:

Graceful Weapon

Prerequisites: Str 13
Benefit: You may wield a single weapon as if it was in the light blade group in addition to it's other groups. While wielding it this way you take a -1 penalty to attacks if it is a one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon, or a...

Hmm, wouldn't the different weapon proficiency/damage potential significantly skew the probabilities in comparison to a "damage cap and normal proficiency" feat.

For example, a greatax would be +0 Prof 1d12 damage using this feat, correct?

Say you've got a rapier-rogue and a greatax-rogue using a 2[W] power.

The rapier rogue would do 2d8 on a hit, average nine.
To hit 9+ (60%), average damage per hit .60 x 9 = 4.05
To hit 12+ (45%), average damage per hit .45 x 9 = 3.075
To hit 15+ (30%), average damage per hit .30 x 9 = 2.025
To hit 18+ (15%), average damage per hit .15 x 9 = 1.0125

The greatax rogue would do 2d12 on a hit, average thirteen, but hits 15% less often than the rapier.
Rapier to hit 9+ (greatax 12+), average damage per hit .45 x 13 = 5.85
Rapier to hit 12+ (greatax 15+), average damage per hit .30 x 13 = 3.90
Rapier to hit 15+ (greatax 18+), average damage per hit .15 x 13 = 1.95
Rapier to hit 18+ (greatax 21) crit only?

That suggests the greatax is more effective against most opponents, although I'm not allowing for criticals, which should favour the greatax.

However, if I factor in a damage bonus it swings the balance towards the rapier. Let's say both rogues have a +4.

The rapier rogue would do 2d8+4 on a hit, averaging thirteen.
To hit 9+ (60%), average damage per hit .60 x 13 = 7.80
To hit 12+ (45%), average damage per hit .45 x 13 = 5.85
To hit 15+ (30%), average damage per hit .30 x 13 = 3.90
To hit 18+ (15%), average damage per hit .15 x 13 = 1.95

The greatax rogue would do 2d12+4 on a hit, average seventeen.
Rapier to hit 9+ (greatax 12+), average damage per hit .45 x 17 = 7.65
Rapier to hit 12+ (greatax 15+), average damage per hit .30 x 17 = 5.10
Rapier to hit 15+ (greatax 18+), average damage per hit .15 x 17 = 2.55
Rapier to hit 18+ (greatax 21) crit only?

A higher damage bonus would favour the increased accuracy of the rapier even more, so overall it's probably a better pick for a high damage bonus character, while one with high [W] powers gets more benefit from a greatax.


Zynete wrote:
1. A bit of extra damage for a feat is par for course. Two-weapon fighting gives a +1 to damage when wielding two melee weapons, so I really don't expect there to be a problem if a feat adds about +1 damage to attacks.

Yeah - the key is just to not introduce too many ways to get damage, or people will simply funnel all their feats into that. With small enough numbers, like +1 damage, it is often safe - but letting bigger weapons in tends to be a pretty potent choice.

Zynete wrote:
2. I have the three core books, so I have no idea what superior weapons are in other supplements. I when you throw around words like Brutal that I have no good idea of what you mean.

My apologies on that, I was referring to weapons from the Adventurer's Vault - while not in the three core books, it introduces a lot of superior weapons, which I think need to be considered when designing feats in this vein.

Zynete wrote:
3. I haven't seen the rules for reducing weapons size categories. Even they might be easy to extrapolate from the increased weapon size chart.

Yeah, those charts was all I was referring to. You can't normally change weapons size categories directly.

Zynete wrote:

Graceful Weapon

Prerequisites: Str 13
Benefit: You may wield a single weapon as if it was in the light blade group in addition to it's other groups. While wielding it this way you take a -1 penalty to attacks if it is a one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon, or a -2 penalty to attacks if it is a two-handed melee weapon.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon.

This would avoid recalculation of damage dice and would make it so more damage weapons would deal more damage on a hit. I would assume however that using this would cause less damage overall because of the loss of accuracy.

That is an interesting approach. In general, the penalty will probably hurt worse than the gain from it - 'to hit' tends to be a valuable thing, and taking a -2 penalty on weapons that are already low proficiency is going to be painful. Going with your other version - basing the penalty on simple/military/superior - seems a much more effective way of going about it.

I think, honestly, either of these options would work, along with many of the other suggestions in the thread - as a house rule. None of them work perfectly (at least in my mind), but that would only be necessary if they were being put in a published product. For letting a player in a home game fulfill their character concept in a reasonable fashion, all of these should do the job just fine.


JRM wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
To be fair the only reason any one ever used used daggers in 1st and 2nd was because perverse DMs would hand out a Dagger +5 when all you otherwise had was +2 weapons. So you'd often see players grabbing their +5 dagger to try and do battle with some demon or some such that was immune to weapons of less then +3 enchantment.

Not the way we played 1st & 2nd ed AD&D. Daggers were pretty useful if your PC was crawling through a 2' square tunnel and came face to face with a half dozen kobolds, or had just been swallowed by a giant frog.

Now I did once run an adventure were the party were given a +6 dagger which they needed to cut a minor artifact-level chain securing a dragon held captive in a city of monsters. But then, I am a perverse DM. :)

Oh - yeah - I forgot about the tunnels and being swallowed. There sure were a lot of little tunnels full of viscous kobolds in 1st and 2nd.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

JRM wrote:

The rapier rogue would do 2d8 on a hit, average nine.

To hit 9+ (60%), average damage per hit .60 x 9 = 4.05
To hit 12+ (45%), average damage per hit .45 x 9 = 3.075
To hit 15+ (30%), average damage per hit .30 x 9 = 2.025
To hit 18+ (15%), average damage per hit .15 x 9 = 1.0125

While your following numbers seem right, these ones for the rapier seem off,

0.60 x 9 = 5.40
0.45 x 9 = 4.05
0.30 x 9 = 2.70
0.15 x 9 = 1.35

... would be the correct values. Unless I missed something you did.

-

Also it should be noted that all rogues do get a damage bonus that would favor the rapier. The bonus being sneak attack which, at low levels, should pick up an average of seven extra damage. I'm now pretty sure that the -2 for two handed weapons might be a little excessive.


So here is an interesting class feature of the rogue:

"RUTHLESS RUFFIAN
You are proficient with the club and the mace, and you can use those weapons with Sneak Attack or any rogue power that normally requires a light blade. If you use a club or a mace to deliver an attack that has the rattling keyword, add your Strength modifier to the damage roll."

Straight out of the Compendium, likely something being added in Martial Power (as other similar info has shown up in there for Fighters, Rangers and Warlords.) And if the above is an option as a class feature, I wouldn't be surprised if they also will have feats that allow for similar with other weapons.


Since this thread now has a life of its own, I would like to toss out a couple of ideas borrowed from other games.

All weapons do the same damage. How much damage a particular character can do with a weapon is then modified by Class and/or Feats. This would require a major overhaul of To Hit and Armor Class.

Players are allotted a pool of points which they use to buy weapons. A weapon’s damage, accuracy and other abilities determines its cost. A character can use whatever weapon would logically fit within the damage, accuracy and other abilities the player paid for.

I realize both of these proposals are drastic changes and I can hear the desperate ‘moos’ of dying cows. I just thought I would throw them out as inspiration for thinking outside of the box.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Zynete wrote:
2. I have the three core books, so I have no idea what superior weapons are in other supplements. I when you throw around words like Brutal that I have no good idea of what you mean.
My apologies on that, I was referring to weapons from the Adventurer's Vault - while not in the three core books, it introduces a lot of superior weapons, which I think need to be considered when designing feats in this vein.

I guess that, I was more referring to "Brutal", which I'm not aware of.

Also it would be helping if you gave any help with my attempt at weapon conversion because I had access the superior weapons in the Player's Handbook and I'm not sure how powerful they are compared to other superior weapons.

Sovereign Court

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Zynete wrote:
1. A bit of extra damage for a feat is par for course. Two-weapon fighting gives a +1 to damage when wielding two melee weapons, so I really don't expect there to be a problem if a feat adds about +1 damage to attacks.

Yeah - the key is just to not introduce too many ways to get damage, or people will simply funnel all their feats into that. With small enough numbers, like +1 damage, it is often safe - but letting bigger weapons in tends to be a pretty potent choice.

Zynete wrote:
2. I have the three core books, so I have no idea what superior weapons are in other supplements. I when you throw around words like Brutal that I have no good idea of what you mean.

My apologies on that, I was referring to weapons from the Adventurer's Vault - while not in the three core books, it introduces a lot of superior weapons, which I think need to be considered when designing feats in this vein.

Zynete wrote:
3. I haven't seen the rules for reducing weapons size categories. Even they might be easy to extrapolate from the increased weapon size chart.

Yeah, those charts was all I was referring to. You can't normally change weapons size categories directly.

Zynete wrote:

Graceful Weapon

Prerequisites: Str 13
Benefit: You may wield a single weapon as if it was in the light blade group in addition to it's other groups. While wielding it this way you take a -1 penalty to attacks if it is a one-handed melee weapon or a ranged weapon, or a -2 penalty to attacks if it is a two-handed melee weapon.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon.

This would avoid recalculation of damage dice and would make it so more damage weapons would deal more damage on a hit. I would assume however that using this would cause less damage overall because of the loss of accuracy.

That is an interesting approach. In general, the penalty will probably hurt worse than the...

Now, this is the kind of feat for the rogue that should have been in the PHB. If you are going to make the rogue's weapon selection so restrictive, you should also have some feats to get around those restrictions. With the boatloads of hp monsters in 4E have, would it be so terrible and unbalancing for the iconic striker class to use some higher damage weapons with his powers? I don't really think it would be that big of a deal. If the rogue can drop some monsters a little quicker, that wouldn't be so bad considering how long 4E monsters tend to stick around.


Zynete wrote:
JRM wrote:

The rapier rogue would do 2d8 on a hit, average nine.

To hit 9+ (60%), average damage per hit .60 x 9 = 4.05
To hit 12+ (45%), average damage per hit .45 x 9 = 3.075
To hit 15+ (30%), average damage per hit .30 x 9 = 2.025
To hit 18+ (15%), average damage per hit .15 x 9 = 1.0125

While your following numbers seem right, these ones for the rapier seem off,

0.60 x 9 = 5.40
0.45 x 9 = 4.05
0.30 x 9 = 2.70
0.15 x 9 = 1.35

... would be the correct values. Unless I missed something you did.

Yes you're right about that first one. It was from a calculation for something else.

An old enemy struck again. Curse you copy-and-paste, I'll get you yet!


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
To be fair the only reason any one ever used used daggers in 1st and 2nd was because perverse DMs would hand out a Dagger +5 when all you otherwise had was +2 weapons.
JRM wrote:
Daggers were pretty useful if your PC was crawling through a 2' square tunnel and came face to face with a half dozen kobolds, or had just been swallowed by a giant frog.

That, and in 1st edition, dagger and hand axe were the only weapons that could be used off-handed - at least until Unearthed Arcana came along.

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Rogues’ +1 w / Daggers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition