Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ximenes088" data-source="post: 4202934" data-attributes="member: 59899">This may well be the case, but why? You'll be a greatsword-wielding, sneak-attacking Rogue who'll fit perfectly with what you've described. You'll just be rolling (perhaps) 1d6 base damage instead of (maybe) 2d6. Does that extra 1d6 seem irresistably good to you? Well, that may be the reason why WotC's declared that you can't use Sneak Attack with greatswords as a default option. I already recall one staff blog where they mentioned that they had to retune things because the rogue kept using a greataxe even without the proficiency bonii, because it was just the best solution. That's one reason I would be surprised to see any feats allowing sneak attacks with two-handed weapons in 4e.It does seem to me that you're wedding your concept too tightly to mechanical quirks and system oddities. It's no wonder that you should find it unsatisfying when those system freaks get ironed out if you've based an entire character on something as bizzare as precision-based greatsword fighting. I'm not saying it was an uncommon choice in 3.5, or that you could throw a rock without bouncing it off a dozen falchion-wielding rogues, but the reason they did that was for fundamentally mechanical advantage. Yes, I'm sure there was a coolness factor in it, but it was cool because it was effective. How many rogues dual-wielded daggers? I'd venture to say that there's a great deal more concentrated awesome in that style, but no rogue with a brain in his head ever gimped himself so intensely unless he was absolutely dedicated to the idea.</blockquote>

Verification