Rogue Weapons - Possible Error

[Starfox]

A pact blade dagger is a light blade. What's the question?

The question is; can a warlock powers used with a pact blade cause sneak attacks?

You sure as hell (pun intended) are using the pact blade. But you're not getting the weapon's accuracy modifier.

Either way, I am thinking of rule-zero on the weapon limitations on sneak attack. Maybe on all rogue powers. I hate it when classes force you into a certain mold more than absolutely necessary, and learning to use a non-class weapon is pretty expensive.

 

[Gort]

Anyone see anything game-breaking about allowing rogues to add a weapon to their sneak-attack list using a feat?

 

[Traken]

Not game breaking, but certainly empowering.

Give a rogue the ability to SA with a Greataxe... that's a leap from d4 to d12. Start throwing in multiples, you're talking about an average increase of 4 damage per multiple. For one feat...

 

[ravenight]

Not game breaking, but certainly empowering.

Give a rogue the ability to SA with a Greataxe... that's a leap from d4 to d12. Start throwing in multiples, you're talking about an average increase of 4 damage per multiple. For one feat...

But you already get that increase from the feat (A damage isn't based on the weapon). Also, in the case of a 2-hander, you couldn't be wielding a dagger and also a 2-hander. It seems like it would actually be fine, though, even if you could sneak attack with a great axe, it would just allow for a broader rogue, really.

Given the way two-weapon fighting works now, it might actually make sense to allow someone to use a rogue power with a primary weapon as long as they have a dagger or sling or whatever in their off-hand. Likewise, I would certainly let a ranger use something that said you must be wielding 2 weapons if they had a 1-handed weapon and nothing in their off hand (the off hand itself is the other weapon...)

 

[Snotboy]

While a pact blade can be used as a weapon, when it is used in conjunction with warlock powers, it is being used as an implement, as opposed to a weapon. I would surmise that that disqualifies it as allowing sneak attacks.

 

[Grazzt]

The intent is obvious.

Agreed

 

[Grazzt]

Eight years was plenty, thanks.

Hell yes. Not everything needs to be spelled out concrete and water tight in the rules. That was one of 3.x's problems IMO; rules to try and cover every possible situation or question.

Part of the DM's job is to squash crap like that when the intent is obvious and some player goes "So, what if..."....blah blah blah, followed by "but the book says..."

 

[Snotboy]

But you already get that increase from the feat (A damage isn't based on the weapon). Also, in the case of a 2-hander, you couldn't be wielding a dagger and also a 2-hander. It seems like it would actually be fine, though, even if you could sneak attack with a great axe, it would just allow for a broader rogue, really.

Given the way two-weapon fighting works now, it might actually make sense to allow someone to use a rogue power with a primary weapon as long as they have a dagger or sling or whatever in their off-hand. Likewise, I would certainly let a ranger use something that said you must be wielding 2 weapons if they had a 1-handed weapon and nothing in their off hand (the off hand itself is the other weapon...)

Pg 56:
"Weapon: Many martial powers, as well as several
divine powers, can be used only if you’re wielding
a weapon. (You can use an unarmed attack as your
weapon.) A weapon’s reach or range determines the
reach or range of a power it’s used with."

I would saw your idea of the offhand attack being exactly right in this case. As for a rogue using a feat to sneak attack with a greataxe, I would think a series of qualifying feats would be more appropriate--much like he would have to take feats in hide, chain, and scale armor before he could put in for strapping on plate.

 

[Revinor]

Given the way two-weapon fighting works now, it might actually make sense to allow someone to use a rogue power with a primary weapon as long as they have a dagger or sling or whatever in their off-hand.

Yes and later, when we get a naval combat, ship ballista should deal sneak attack damage as long as there is a rogue on board holding a dagger in offhand at moment of attack.

You are free to give the people in your game 10d100 weapons and let rogues sneak attack with them. But there is a very good reason why light blades are worse than non-light counterparts. By allowing SA with high-dice, special-abilities weapons, you create uber-rogue build, which will be no-brainer for all rogues. A lot of effort went into balancing rapier versus dagger builds.

 

[Jack Colby]

If they'd simply meant "holding" they would not have used the word "wielding". Sometimes I wonder if people are making jokes when they post questions like this, but sadly they always seem to be for real...