D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Rogue and Cunning Strike

[Chaosmancer]

Dual wielder isn't needed with two light weapons. It's needed to use the rapier as part of the combo. As long as both weapons are light the first attack succeeds with a vex weapon for advantage the second weapon is set up for a sneak attack. The nick property on the second weapon keeps the bonus action available. 2014 dual wielder doesn't keep the bonus action because there's a lack of the nick property.

Dual wielder used to even up an odd stat does make this work with a rapier and scimitar because the scimitar is light. Setting up our own sneak attack through dual wielding like that seems like a nice bonus when we can also keep cunning action, especially since cunning strike relies on that sneak attack condition. It creates an option to sneak attack without having an ally nearby.

That plus something like fast hands (that can now use a magic item in the options) allows me to dual wield effectively on a thief and not give up those bonus action options. Vex attack, nick sneak attack, apply an appropriate cunning strike option, use fast hands as desired.

That particular combo is less useful on a swashbuckler, but it keeps cunning action available for rogue subclasses. The opportunity cost between cunning action and twf is gone using the combo. It looks like a solid upgrade to the class to me unless I'm missing something.

You seem to be talking about something COMPLETELY different than me.

You said that the rapier not being light hurts it for Dual-wielding. But in 2014 the Rapier was never a light weapon. It never could be used for dual-wielding without the feat. That was always a necessary step.

You then went on to discuss shortsword and dagger, which is 1d6 and 1d4... but the rapier also has Vex, so if you have the feat, which you must to dual-wield rapiers at all, you would use Rapier and Scimitar... which is basically identical and does 1d8 and 1d6.

I know you mentioned throwing daggers, but since you can sheath a weapon after your attack and draw a new weapon before your attack... Rapier Scimitar wouldn't prevent throwing daggers, and the feat allows you to draw two weapons instead of one.


The only real difference I'm seeing is that you can no longer dual-wield rapiers. But, even if you are just talking "I don't need the feat to dual-wield" this has always been true. Dual Shortsword was 2d6 compared to dual rapier being 2d8. So I'm very confused why you think Dual-Wielding somehow obviates the Rapier, when it works exactly like it used to work... just now with identical weapon masteries.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's not open the historical precedent can of worms. Do that and you quickly find out that nearly every weapon was specialized in specifically countering the armor of its day, and a third of the armors in the book never existed. To say nothing of dual wielding at all being pretty rare historically.

Rather, let's ask if there's fictional precedent for ways to make it look cool. And in that field, I think it's a bit thin. Most fictional dual wielders either go for a matched pair or a big/little pair. So scimitar and shortsword does come off as a bit of a mechanical incentive over an aesthetic one. How much so may depend on how useful a free off-hand is.

All you’ve got to do to make the shortsword/scimitar combo look cool is hold one of them in reverse grip.

 

[Ashrym]

You seem to be talking about something COMPLETELY different than me.

You said that the rapier not being light hurts it for Dual-wielding. But in 2014 the Rapier was never a light weapon. It never could be used for dual-wielding without the feat. That was always a necessary step.

You then went on to discuss shortsword and dagger, which is 1d6 and 1d4... but the rapier also has Vex, so if you have the feat, which you must to dual-wield rapiers at all, you would use Rapier and Scimitar... which is basically identical and does 1d8 and 1d6.

I know you mentioned throwing daggers, but since you can sheath a weapon after your attack and draw a new weapon before your attack... Rapier Scimitar wouldn't prevent throwing daggers, and the feat allows you to draw two weapons instead of one.


The only real difference I'm seeing is that you can no longer dual-wield rapiers. But, even if you are just talking "I don't need the feat to dual-wield" this has always been true. Dual Shortsword was 2d6 compared to dual rapier being 2d8. So I'm very confused why you think Dual-Wielding somehow obviates the Rapier, when it works exactly like it used to work... just now with identical weapon masteries.

I mistook the focus point of your post among other posts, including my own. D'oh!

Yes, dual wielding a rapier requires the feat. That's where not being a light weapon hurts it. I can dual wield without needing a feat with 2 d6 light weapons vs d8 and d6 weapons. That small damage bonus isn't really worth a feat, IMO. In 2014 is was a slightly better damage bonus for 2 rapiers.

Yes, it's always been true that a person did not need a feat to dual wield with light weapons. What has not always been true is the interaction with weapon mastery properties, which is where I was going. That interaction gives rogues a boost using TWF that's more important than the damage on a d8 vs a d6 with the rapier.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, the flip side of “Vex is rarely useful for a rogue who can be hidden or sniping near constantly” is “A rogue with a Vex weapon doesn’t need to be hidden or sniping near constantly.” It’s good for the same reason Withdraw and Sneak Strike are still good even though rogues can use Disengage or Hide as a bonus action - having multiple different ways to accomplish the same thing using different resources gives you more flexibility. A rapier-using rogue doesn’t need to hide or use Steady Aim to get advantage, which frees them up to use their movement, bonus action, and now Cunning Strike on other things.

this

 

[Tome]

Poison. I like this "basic" poison. You don't need proficiency with a poisoner's kit (fine), but surely "somewhere on your person" is too vague. What if it's in a backpack? A bag of holding? you have two light weapons in your hands? There has to be some coherent story that can emerge.

Could the poisoning be something more akin to causing their body to poison itself? "Your precise sneak attack does damage to the target's internal organs causing them to release toxins into the bloodstream."

Alternately, "The damage caused by your sneak attack causes the target to double over and retch. As the target tries to regain breath and equilibrium, it is treated as though it were poisoned. A successful CON saving throw negates this condition."

If you've ever had the wind knocked out of you, then you know that recovery is not instantaneous. A punch to the sternum or throat could disrupt breathing while a kidney punch could cause the target to double over in agony. Or, if humanoid male, kick him in the ding ding.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Could the poisoning be something more akin to causing their body to poison itself? "Your precise sneak attack does damage to the target's internal organs causing them to release toxins into the bloodstream."

Alternately, "The damage caused by your sneak attack causes the target to double over and retch. As the target tries to regain breath and equilibrium, it is treated as though it were poisoned. A successful CON saving throw negates this condition."

If you've ever had the wind knocked out of you, then you know that recovery is not instantaneous. A punch to the sternum or throat could disrupt breathing while a kidney punch could cause the target to double over in agony. Or, if humanoid male, kick him in the ding ding.

The effects of a throat or groin strike sounds like it would be best represented by a personal physical impairment, like being addled, dazed, stunned, or something like that.

I prefer "poisoned" to stay true to representing the effects of a delivered physical or magical toxin.

Poison resistance and immunity is a thing, and that shouldn't make a person resist or immune to specific types of strikes.

 

[Tome]

The effects of a throat or groin strike sounds like it would be best represented by a personal physical impairment, like being addled, dazed, stunned, or something like that.

I prefer "poisoned" to stay true to representing the effects of a delivered physical or magical toxin.

Poison resistance and immunity is a thing, and that shouldn't make a person resist or immune to specific types of strikes.

That's a valid point. I was just trying to think of a narrative reason for why the sneak attack dice could be used to fuel a poison effect when the weapon was not poisoned in advance and it is not a magical effect. Perhaps they should just redefine it as Break Morale or something similar.

Break Morale (Cost: 1D6).
Your sneak attack shatters your target's morale; forcing the target to make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has the Frightened condition for 1 minute. At the end of each of its turns, the Frightened target can repeat the save, ending the effect on itself on a success.

<EDIT>
5e is full of effects that do not have narrative backup. There is no reason for a poison effect to just work because you have poisoner's kit on your person. You don't pause combat to grab a poison soaked rag from your kit and wipe the blade before starting your sneak attack. It's sloppy writing and makes for bad story telling. I think WotC is so used to the hand wave of "it's magic, that's why" that they forget to properly explain non-magical effects. It falls on the DM to explain away these inconsistencies.

My proposal of Break Morale above is not a perfect solution. All the other cunning strike effects require CON or DEX saves. These are stats in which most frontline combatants have high scores and or proficiency added to saving throws. This means that they will succeed on their saves more frequently than they will on a WIS saving throw. That feels unbalanced to me. Perhaps the above should be called Debilitating Strike and force a CON save. Failure would impose a 50% movement penalty and impair the target's ability to make reactions for 1 minute or until the save is made at the end of Target's turn.