Rogue Weapon Restrictions Concerns

[Tectorman]

When I'm picking Rogue as a class for one of my characters, the goal is never because the concept requires my choice of weapons to be limited; if anything, it's the opposite. I'm after being the skills guy or especially sneaky, or acrobatic and nimble, or because the character, regardless of what weapon they're using, fights in an ill-defined though still recognizably Rogue-y sort of way. Whether they're using a dagger or rapier or whip or greatsword or glaive or warhammer.

So when Starfinder and D&D 4E and 5E made the Operative and Rogue classes stuck with a hyper-specific list of weapons from which you MAY NOT DEVIATE, I wasn't happy. My first ever Rogue was in 3.5, where she started with a shortsword, learned she was going into a skeleton-heavy area, bought a light mace instead, and continued without the slightest functional hiccup (nor any expectation of such a hiccup had I picked any other weapon). I couldn't reproduce that when I remade her for 5E; the closest I could get was using a sling and hoping to be at range.

So the P2E Rogue being artificially herded into using agile, finesse, or ranged weapons is worrisome to me. That said, I get that Sneak Attack is pretty much exclusively a damage fix, a means to let a Rogue using a finesse or agile weapon match another character using a weapon with a larger damage die. None of the other Rogue feats or features seem to require Sneak Attack to work, Debilitating Strikes are independent, etc. This is somewhat relieving.

On the other hand, Footpad's Focus calls out a specific list of weapons you can get this feat's benefit on. And while I get that that might be a form of niche protection for the Fighter, it still represents a trend I'm uncomfortable with. Picking the Rogue class is not giving up hammers, polearms, flails, or anything not agile or finesse, and I'm really hoping that what I'm currently seeing in the playtest for the Rogue represents the furthest that mindset goes, for the entire edition.

...

Also, Footpad's Focus uses the term "light" and I'm thinking it should be "finesse" (because otherwise, it would be talking about bulk, and I don't think that's meant to be the criterion).

[Fuzzypaws]

I'm still of the mindset that everyone should get simple weapons. They're simple, after all. Then various classes should get their choice of weapon groups (axes, swords, etc) to become trained in for martial weapons, rather than some classes getting "all martial weapons" and other classes getting a narrow list of specific weapons.

So, fighter would have the most choice, choosing the most groups, 4-5. Below would be the barbarian, ranger and paladin with 3 groups. Below that would be rogue with 2 groups, and below that would be cleric etc with 1 group.

[Nettah]

You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

[Elleth]

I quite like for non-multiclassed rogue how the brute rogue works at present - any simple weapon.

I will confess that I'm happy to finally have a good reason to go longspear though.

[Tectorman]

Nettah wrote:

You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.

[HWalsh]

Tectorman wrote:

Nettah wrote:

You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.

Everyone has to do things they don't like. I have to play babysitter as a Paladin. As a Cleric I have an anathema. As a Fighter I can't shoot sword beams.

The Rogue gets the most options of any Martial class. Right now I think they've gotten more than enough love.

Though, in all seriousness, if you want a weapon they don't get, grab weapon proficiency. That gets you the weapon you want. A human can do this at level 1.

[PossibleCabbage]

It feels like the rogue could get options which can be chosen to extend the set of weapons they can use their rogue stuff with. I figure these are inevitable, honestly.

[shroudb]

Tectorman wrote:

Nettah wrote:

You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.

Let's put sneak attack behind.

You obviously shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a greatsword.

So, we're looking at an option that allows a rogue to effectively use other weapons effectively even without sneak attacking.

A more martial focused rogue if you will. Someone that trained more with weapons.

Isn't that a rogue with the 1st fighter dedication already?

[The Once and Future Kai]

I'm mixed. I've always thought that Sneak Attack coming from a Greatsword was a bit cheesy. But, alternatively, I had a lot of fun with a Rogue wielding a longspear and felt that it was appropriately stabby stabby. I think the middle ground of "Rogues start with Sneak Attack working with this but can early on select a class ability that let's them use any weapon" is reasonable. Brute Rogue doesn't go far enough towards meeting this goal, in my opinion.

[Data Lore]

I think the standard restrictions are fine but the brute version could stand to be loosened a bit (maybe any d8 or lower weapon?).

[Tectorman]

shroudb wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

Nettah wrote:

You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.

Let's put sneak attack behind.

You obviously shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a greatsword.

So, we're looking at an option that allows a rogue to effectively use other weapons effectively even without sneak attacking.

A more martial focused rogue if you will. Someone that trained more with weapons.

Isn't that a rogue with the 1st fighter dedication already?

I already did put sneak attack behind. Looking at the numbers, at first level, the Rogue is putting out, at most, 1d8 + 1d6 before stat mods (avg 8), whereas a d12 weapon without sneak attack, before stat mods, is avg 6.5. Fast forward to level 20, and that d12 weapon is now 6d12 (avg 39). The Rogue, on the other hand, is putting out 6d8 + 4d6 (avg 41). Pretty darned close; close enough for me to call P2E sneak attack JUST a math corrector.

I seem not to be phrasing my concern well. Let's try this:

"Except for sneak attack, dismissible due to how it seems to only exist to make the math work right, and a few feats like Footpad's Focus (less dismissible), the P2E Rogue seems to have successfully avoided 4E's, 5E's, and Starfinder's pitfalls regarding a hyper-specific vision of what a Rogue/Operative gets to use. This is good. If I take Weapon Proficiency and start using a greatsword or a battle axe or a halberd or a pick or a scythe or loterally whatever happens to strike my fancy, I can still use almost all of what the Rogue class grants.

"I can still Surprise Attack, Deny Advantage, Debilitate on a Strike, Double Debilitate on a Strike, and Master Strike. None of the Rogue's 1st level feats, all but one of his 2nd level feats (Footpad's Focus), none of his 4th level feats, all but one of his 6th level feats (Twist the Knife, since it's gated behind Sneak Attack), all but one of his 8th level feats (Sly Striker, similarly because its benefit is Sneak Attack contingent), none from 10th, none from 12th, none from 14th, all but one of his 16th level feats (Dispelling Slice, again because it's gated behind Sneak Attack), and none of the rest of his feats herd him into only using 'proper Rogue weaponry'.

"This is good. It could be better, and the fact that those exceptions still exist is worrisome because they're indicative of the potential for back-sliding, for the mindset that 'Rogues are only using daggers, shortswords, and rapiers for these class features, so let's go ahead and curtail using anything but those weapons for everything else' to take root. But as long as said back-sliding is avoided, it's not a problem."

Better? I don't think the Rogue has the problem I'm hoping to avoid. I think it has the potential for said problem, I want to avoid that outcome, and I think that goal is better served by stating it outright rather than just hoping the developers can read my mind.

And yes, I think a few of these feats could be modified to not be Sneak-Attack-dependent. Maybe not Twist the Knife or Sly Striker (since they're just damage), but Dispelling Slice could be modified to "If your Strike deals sneak attack damage (or otherwise would if not for your choice of weapon), you can apply the following enhancement:". Same effect, no additional damage, still the requirement for flat-footed, but now usable for greatsword Rogues.

But this thread is less me saying "Here's the problem, please fix it" and more "You've mostly avoided this problem, but since said avoiding might be accidental, let me tell you specifically what you're avoiding so you can consciously continue to avoid it".

[shroudb]

Tectorman wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

Nettah wrote:

You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.

Let's put sneak attack behind.

You obviously shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a greatsword.

So, we're looking at an option that allows a rogue to effectively use other weapons effectively even without sneak attacking.

A more martial focused rogue if you will. Someone that trained more with weapons.

Isn't that a rogue with the 1st fighter dedication already?

I already did put sneak attack behind. Looking at the numbers, at first level, the Rogue is putting out, at most, 1d8 + 1d6 before stat mods (avg 8), whereas a d12 weapon without sneak attack, before stat mods, is avg 6.5. Fast forward to level 20, and that d12 weapon is now 6d12 (avg 39). The Rogue, on the other hand, is putting out 6d8 + 4d6 (avg 41). Pretty darned close; close enough for me to call P2E sneak attack JUST a math corrector.

I seem not to be phrasing my concern well. Let's try this:

"Except for sneak attack, dismissible due to how it seems to only exist to make the math work right, and a few feats like Footpad's Focus (less dismissible), the P2E Rogue seems to have successfully avoided 4E's, 5E's, and Starfinder's pitfalls regarding a hyper-specific vision of what a...

ah, i see.

you don't see a problem, but you fear that because a few weapon specific feats exist, there might be such a problem in the future.

right?

well... i personally like that direction:

i.e. a rogue is effective with all weapons, but he also has some specific "weapon styles" that he has extra things for.

i think that's healthy.

i mean, ranger has clear weapon styles, barbarian has 2 clear weapon styles depending on totem focus for him, paladin has weapon styles, so why not the rogue having some for his own?

[Tectorman]

shroudb wrote:

ah, i see.

you don't see a problem, but you fear that because a few weapon specific feats exist, there might be such a problem in the future.

right?

well... i personally like that direction:

i.e. a rogue is effective with all weapons, but he also has some specific "weapon styles" that he has extra things for.

i think that's healthy.

i mean, ranger has clear weapon styles, barbarian has 2 clear weapon styles depending on totem focus for him, paladin has weapon styles, so why not the rogue having some for his own?

Because the game covers multiple modes: downtime, exploration, and combat. While the class facet of character creation is a player's primary source of how their character interacts with those modes. Which means that picking the Rogue class isn't necessarily going to be influenced just by "what weapons do I want to use?".

For example, the 4E Rogue had a whole lot of Utility powers based on being sneaky, mobile, clever, etc. Picking the Rogue class for those Rogue Utility powers was a valid method of expressing your character. Right up until, clear out of the blue, the class's attack powers all say "You may only use this power with a light blade, sling, or crossbow".

It's essentially the same thing as saying:

"So you're playing a Fighter?"
"Yep."
"So your character's name is Mark?"
"... I ... You ... What?"
"If you're playing a Fighter, then it's a valid assumption that you want your character to be named Mark and we're going to go ahead and codify it into the rules that you may not pick a different name. You don't mind, right?"
"Yes, I mind. I didn't sign onto that at all. The two have nothing to do with each other."

And while yes, I'm leary of those other classes having specific combat styles, that's still an improvement over not even being able to pick which weapon you can use.

[shroudb]

Tectorman wrote:

shroudb wrote:

ah, i see.

you don't see a problem, but you fear that because a few weapon specific feats exist, there might be such a problem in the future.

right?

well... i personally like that direction:

i.e. a rogue is effective with all weapons, but he also has some specific "weapon styles" that he has extra things for.

i think that's healthy.

i mean, ranger has clear weapon styles, barbarian has 2 clear weapon styles depending on totem focus for him, paladin has weapon styles, so why not the rogue having some for his own?

Because the game covers multiple modes: downtime, exploration, and combat. While the class facet of character creation is a player's primary source of how their character interacts with those modes. Which means that picking the Rogue class isn't necessarily going to be influenced just by "what weapons do I want to use?".

For example, the 4E Rogue had a whole lot of Utility powers based on being sneaky, mobile, clever, etc. Picking the Rogue class for those Rogue Utility powers was a valid method of expressing your character. Right up until, clear out of the blue, the class's attack powers all say "You may only use this power with a light blade, sling, or crossbow".

It's essentially the same thing as saying:

"So you're playing a Fighter?"
"Yep."
"So your character's name is Mark?"
"... I ... You ... What?"
"If you're playing a Fighter, then it's a valid assumption that you want your character to be named Mark and we're going to go ahead and codify it into the rules that you may not pick a different name. You don't mind, right?"
"Yes, I mind. I didn't sign onto that at all. The two have nothing to do with each other."

And while yes, I'm leary of those other classes having specific combat styles, that's still an improvement over not even being able to pick which weapon you can use.

one doesn't negate the other though.

because paladins have feats for shields, you don't see every paladin using shield. It just gives them more options if they choose to do so.

beause barbarians can use unarmed or giant weapons, you don't see all barbarians use unarmed or giant weapons, it just gives them more options if they coose that.

a sorc has feats for blasts and concentration spells. That doesn't mean that if you want to play a sorc with mostly divination stuff you can't. just that your blasts can also benefit from those extra things.

and etc.

more options is always good. And rogue having a combat style that gives extra options if you focus on stabby things is a healthy direction imo. If you want to be a thug, there's options, if you simply use a greatsword, as you pointed out you're still good, but if you happen to choose that finesse agile weapon, you also have some extra things you can pick up.

you don't need to. They are just extras.

as an example, i recently posted a fighter build, that for purely mechanical reasons, i've picked only a single fighter feat at level 1, and then all other are multiclass feats.

similary, if you want to pick up rogue for exploration, or narrative reasons, for skills and etc, you can. And you can then get martial weapons from feats, spells from feats, healing from feats, and build pretty much a custom class based on a concept. Like, a rogue/alchemist focused on poisons as an example. You still get all the "exploration/narrative/alternative" options of rogue.

Your combat style is just that. A combat style. And due to how accurancy and damage works so far, it's mostly kept in check regardless of the path you want to take.

[Igor Horvat]

I would like to see all classes proficient with all weapons.

then we can remove simple/martial/exotic BS.

classes can be balanced the around proficiency progression with weapons.

Or weapons can have a minimum str requirement to use or you are unproficient if you do not have that str.