(5e) Should Rogues be able to sneak attack with all light weapons?

[Arvok]

I think there is some legitimacy in not allowing sneak attack damage for all light weapons. When a thief (sorry--a rogue) performs a sneak attack in combat, I see it as a thrust at an enemy's vitals. A thrust can be quite devastating in the right spot, as it creates a penetrating wound that can strike vital organs. A thrust also requires less force to counter than a swing, which is why it's important to catch an enemy off guard--he doesn't get the chance to parry the blade out of the way.

That being said, I do think there are instances when a light weapon could be used for sneak attack. The classic back stab, in which the enemy is unaware of the rogue, would be the most likely scenario. A club to the back of the head, or a hand axe to the side of the neck could cause a plethora of extra damage, but only if the victim is unaware of the attack.

I wouldn't allow just any old weapon to be used for sneak attack damage, however (barring some feat/subclass special ability that specifically allows it). The rogue's ability to cause extra damage relies on a precision strike--not what comes to mind when you're swinging a glaive.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who would argue over whether or not my ideas are the best for game balance. That's fine. I'm just offering my opinion based on a mixture of realism and thematic "purity".

 

[Oofta]

I think there is some legitimacy in not allowing sneak attack damage for all light weapons. When a thief (sorry--a rogue) performs a sneak attack in combat, I see it as a thrust at an enemy's vitals. A thrust can be quite devastating in the right spot, as it creates a penetrating wound that can strike vital organs. A thrust also requires less force to counter than a swing, which is why it's important to catch an enemy off guard--he doesn't get the chance to parry the blade out of the way.

That being said, I do think there are instances when a light weapon could be used for sneak attack. The classic back stab, in which the enemy is unaware of the rogue, would be the most likely scenario. A club to the back of the head, or a hand axe to the side of the neck could cause a plethora of extra damage, but only if the victim is unaware of the attack.

I wouldn't allow just any old weapon to be used for sneak attack damage, however (barring some feat/subclass special ability that specifically allows it). The rogue's ability to cause extra damage relies on a precision strike--not what comes to mind when you're swinging a glaive.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who would argue over whether or not my ideas are the best for game balance. That's fine. I'm just offering my opinion based on a mixture of realism and thematic "purity".

The real reason for rogues to have sneak attack is so that they do more damage in combat. At the same time they need to feel different mechanically than the fighter because they can pop-in hit someone when they're unaware or distracted.

It's their study of weak points and vulnerabilities that matters, and honestly thinking about the logic just makes my head hurt. A dagger that does more damage than a solid blow from a claymore? Really?

Either perspective can be justified from a narrative perspective, so I don't care. If you want to maintain the tradition though, I understand. Meanwhile if my player's dwarven rogue wants to kneecap someone with a warhammer instead of poking them with a rapier I don't care.

 

[Arvok]

...and honestly thinking about the logic just makes my head hurt. A dagger that does more damage than a solid blow from a claymore? Really?

I would argue that a solid claymore hit across the torso or head that doesn't penetrate the ribs or skull would do less trauma than a six inch blade piercing the spleen, liver, or one of the kidneys. The deep laceration from a sword swing looks ugly, but the penetrating trauma will bleed significantly and the victim will most likely die without surgical intervention (or a cure wounds spell).

...I think I'm drifting off a bit deeply into the weeds as far as this post goes, though.

 

[Oofta]

I would argue that a solid claymore hit across the torso or head that doesn't penetrate the ribs or skull would do less trauma than a six inch blade piercing the spleen, liver, or one of the kidneys. The deep laceration from a sword swing looks ugly, but the penetrating trauma will bleed significantly and the victim will most likely die without surgical intervention (or a cure wounds spell).

...I think I'm drifting off a bit deeply into the weeds as far as this post goes, though.

It's a myth that sword were dull and club-like, I think a solid hit from a claymore would perforate you quite well. A solid hit across the head could well separate the head from the body.

But to get into this you need to take into consideration the target armor. Many fights between people in plate were ended with one person knocking them over and stabbing them in the face with a dagger. So yes...the chink in the armor is important depending on the type of armor. It's why they added that sharp pointy bit to halberds after heavier armor came into play.

But on the flip side, we do the same damage vs an unarmored opponent as someone in full kit because D&D. But I'm fine with the trade-off. And with rogues not getting sneak attack with light weapons in your game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I would argue that a solid claymore hit across the torso or head that doesn't penetrate the ribs or skull would do less trauma than a six inch blade piercing the spleen, liver, or one of the kidneys. The deep laceration from a sword swing looks ugly, but the penetrating trauma will bleed significantly and the victim will most likely die without surgical intervention (or a cure wounds spell).

If you're specifying a hit to the vitals while the opponent is distracted, with the dagger, why aren't you doing likewise with the claymore?