Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7569239" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Ah, ok, I see what you want.To me the two are different, however related. The older concept of backstab was, quiet literally, an attack in the back. The thief attacked vitals, etc. which was why it didn't work against some foes. It changed into a surprise attack against an opponent who was unaware, and now into using the idea of exploiting your opponent's moment of distraction, etc.The idea of finesse weapons using Dex instead of Str is understandable to me. When I was in college I spent one semester studying fencing. It is more about timing and reacting quickly when the opening presents itself, as opposed to Str where the hope is to force your way through the target's defense. Even so, that would hardly allow me to know how to sneak attack someone--I simply don't have the training or insight to do it.Of course they are similar, which is why you can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon. What I find interesting, is that you do not have to use Dex when employing finesse weapons to make a sneak attack. You could have a Fighter with a Str 20, using a rapier (why not? 5E is in love with them *rolleyes*) who takes a level of rogue. Then when he is fighting with an ally and targets a vulnerable foe, he could gain the +1d6 sneak attack damage once per round. And he could use his Str +5 modifier while doing it.Personally, I think one way they did a disservice to sneak attack in 5E is limiting it to finesse weapons. If a rogue sneaks up on a foe, and bashes him on the head with a war hammer, why not allow the sneak attack damage? That is when it SHOULD be applied, IMO, if ever.But I digress... back to your final question. Like some people, it wouldn't bother me if finesse weapons could use Dex to attack rolls, but not damage. But keeping it the way it is doesn't really bother me, either. I do wish more monsters, including some of the ones I've mentioned, such as the stone golem, should be less vulnerable to some weapons such as certain finesse ones. I'm sorry, but it is ridiculous for piercing weapons to do normal damage against creatures like skeletons or stone golems. You are more like to break your blade than harm a stone golem. Yes, they have immunities to non-magical non-adamantine weapons, but against even magical or adamantine piercing weapons they should have resistance to piercing weapons.I find it comical that skeletons have vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons, but not resistance to piercing. You are so much more likely to miss a skeleton with a piercing attack or at least less likely to damage it.Anyway, that's enough for now. Somewhere in all that I am sure you can glean my response. Have a nice night. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification