why cant I sneak attack with a longbow?

[Spatula]

Is this a mechanical issue or just a flavor issue?

In other words, does it screw up the math or overpower the rogue to allow sneak attack to work with a longbow?

It looks to be mechanical. If you look at what weapons you can sneak attack with, it comes down to: d6 damage. d4 damage weapons (ie dagger, shuriken) get an extra +1 hit or are bumped to d6 to compensate for the lower die. You can get up to d8 with a feat (rapier, crossbow).

Range is also an issue since there's no restriction on how far you can sneak attack from. The hand crossbow & sling have ranges of 10/20. A rogue can also sneak attack with a normal crossbow (15/30, and d8 damage, same as shortbow) but it costs a feat.

Looking at the above you can say, why is sneak attacking with a club (frex) unbalanced? And it's not, although it is sub-optimal (+2 hit d6 damage vs +3 hit d6 damage for the short sword). So they may have disallowed non-dagger simple weapons partly on that basis, and partly for flavor. Mechanically, I would say sneak attacking with any 1H simple weapon is ok, 2H simple weapons should not be permitted, and shortbow (only, no longbow) with a feat (as it's the same as a crossbow).

And the "precise weapons only" argument does not work, since crossbows and slings are just as accurate as any other non-blade weapon.

 

[Sanzuo]

You know what I think would be cool? A paragon level feat that's like weapon proficiency, only the feat simply allows you to sneak attack with a chosen weapon that you're proficient in. Paying a feat for the privilege seems like a good way to balance out the extra damage.

But of course powers are still limited by what weapons they allow.

Edit: ^^^^^

Hudurrrr... Sorry Scalding, that's what I was going for, yea.

 

[kclark]

The mechanics difference is an average of 2 more points of damage and and a longer range than hand crossbow. I think normal crossbows have much better range and 1d8 damage. Rogue can sneak with normal crossbows, they just are not proficient in them.

I could see a feat allowing it, but would probably have Dex and Wis as one of the stat reqs as a nod to rangers. It is definitely a strong feat to go from hand crossbow to longbow, but requiring a Wis score could help reign it in a bit.

Pinpoint Archery
Heroic Tier Feat
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Wis 13, sneak attack ability
This feat allows the character to gain sneak attack damage with longbows and shortbows.

 

[Palladion]

Hi all, I was looking the new books, trying to convert one of my 3.5 characters to 4E... she is a human rogue/swasbuckler (5/3) who wields rapier and bukler when in hand to hand combat and longbow when ranged and was doing great, I made her a rogue 8 ... I had to spend 3 feats to gain proficiency in the rapier, longbow and light shield but at the end , she came more or less a great character, who can make nearly all things she made in 3.5... but then i noticed that you cant sneak attack with a longbow??? but you can with a hand crosbow ?

why exactly did they do this... crosbow needed love i supose, and in all the years playing 3.X none of my friends or myself use a crosbow ever...

I dont like to houserule something without having played first, but I ask if any1 has found strange this rule and has changed it already and how this affected the game...

If you are not too caught up on the name "rogue" for your class, reverse your idea. Use ranger as a base, use feats to get Weapon Proficiency (rapier) and Skill Training (Thievery) and even the rogue multiclass if specifically want sneak attack. You can call hunter's quarry "precision attack" to get the same semantic feel?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Easy. Because then everybody would be sneak attacking with longbows. That's why you can't sneak attack with greatswords or ballistas either.

We were specifically told earlier in 4E's development that you WOULD be able to Sneak Attack with a 2h axe, indeed that one of the developer's characters did such a thing.

The amount of "gamer stupid" in this thread is hurting my brain, though. Hand crossbows are not "more accurate" than longbows in the hands of someone proficient. That's a fundamentally nonsensical concept.

You do not need to be "stealthy" to sneak attack. You need combat advantage. Thus any argument reliant on "Oh but it's not stealthy!" is pretty much doomed to the halls of extreme moronity (unless you're talking PURELY about theme-ing).

The idea that one point of damage sneak attack is "game-breaking" or "dominating" is pretty silly too. It's worth a single feat though, I'd say.

That's the answer, as others have said. Single heroic-tier feat, I wouldn't go with a 15 an 13 requirement, that's silly, a single 13 in Dex or Wis should do fine, it's only one point for god's sake.

I mean, for comparison's sake, look a Heroic Tier Feat "Backstabber", which adds an average of 2pt to your sneak attacks at Heroic levels, 3 at Paragon, and 5 at Epic tiers. One feat, no pre-req.s beyond being a Rogue and having Sneak Attack (you'd have thought the former would cover the latter...), and it's INARGUABLY superior, people want to slap stringent requirements on this? Jeez, give me a break.

 

[Kitsune]

I would amend that a rogue with a racial weapon proficiency can use that weapon with their sneak attacks/powers. It's a bit on the stupid side to say, "Okay, you're an elf, trained from birth in the art of archery. You are one with your bow...buuuuut you can't use it for any of your class's abilities. Good luck, sucker!"

 

[ZappoHisbane]

We were specifically told earlier in 4E's development that you WOULD be able to Sneak Attack with a 2h axe, indeed that one of the developer's characters did such a thing.

We were also specifically told not to take playtest reports and early previews as gospel for 'This is how 4E shall be, and no other way'.

The amount of "gamer stupid" in this thread is hurting my brain, though. Hand crossbows are not "more accurate" than longbows in the hands of someone proficient. That's a fundamentally nonsensical concept.

I dunno, I think the arguements made thus far regarding draw strength, the ability to take precise aim in a combat situation, etc, have all made pretty decent sense. I could argue the other way too, but that doesn't invalidate their points or make them nonsensical. Note that I could argue their points without being hostile too.

You do not need to be "stealthy" to sneak attack. You need combat advantage. Thus any argument reliant on "Oh but it's not stealthy!" is pretty much doomed to the halls of extreme moronity (unless you're talking PURELY about theme-ing).

The idea that one point of damage sneak attack is "game-breaking" or "dominating" is pretty silly too. It's worth a single feat though, I'd say.

That's the answer, as others have said. Single heroic-tier feat, I wouldn't go with a 15 an 13 requirement, that's silly, a single 13 in Dex or Wis should do fine, it's only one point for god's sake.

I mean, for comparison's sake, look a Heroic Tier Feat "Backstabber", which adds an average of 2pt to your sneak attacks at Heroic levels, 3 at Paragon, and 5 at Epic tiers. One feat, no pre-req.s beyond being a Rogue and having Sneak Attack (you'd have thought the former would cover the latter...), and it's INARGUABLY superior, people want to slap stringent requirements on this? Jeez, give me a break.

Here, have a Kit-Kat.

 

[rkanodia]

If you can Sneak Attack with a L Crossbow, why can't you sneak attack with Shuriken? Or can you...have I missed it?

You can. Shurikens belong to the Light Blade category.

 

[JohnSnow]

Hi all, I was looking the new books, trying to convert one of my 3.5 characters to 4E... she is a human rogue/swasbuckler (5/3) who wields rapier and bukler when in hand to hand combat and longbow when ranged and was doing great, I made her a rogue 8 ... I had to spend 3 feats to gain proficiency in the rapier, longbow and light shield but at the end , she came more or less a great character, who can make nearly all things she made in 3.5... but then i noticed that you cant sneak attack with a longbow??? but you can with a hand crosbow ?

why exactly did they do this... crosbow needed love i supose, and in all the years playing 3.X none of my friends or myself use a crosbow ever...

Without saying there's anything wrong with your concept, I find myself wondering why this character was a rogue to begin with.

I realize that in (core) Third Edition, "Sneak Attack" was the only way to get precision damage. Even the scout's skirmish ability was, by comparison, lacking. However, rogues never got proficiency with the longbow. And that's a key point.

The basic bow, traditionally, has been the best ranged weapon in D&D. It's the one every class wanted for ranged attacks. However, in Fourth Edition, only 2 character classes (fighter and ranger) are even proficient with bows. And only one of those (the ranger) has powers that can make use of them.

I think the idea is to preserve a thematic separation between the rogue and the ranger. Looked at one way, they're quite similar: light-armored, mobile skirmishers that excel at laying down the smack on single targets. Both are also highly skilled, and have access to the skills acrobatics, athletics, dungeoneering, perception and stealth.

That's why the rogue gets thievery by default and gets bluff, insight, streetwise, and intimidate on his skill list (but the ranger doesn't). It's also why the ranger gets nature by default (although dungeoneering is an option) and gets endurance and heal (but the rogue doesn't).

It's also why the ranger gets all the simple and military melee and ranged weapons, whereas the rogue gets a much smaller list of thematically appropriate weapons (and has his powers restricted to those weapons).

It's part of keeping the rogue "rogue-y" and keeping the ranger "ranger-y." Without that separation, the classes are just too hard to tell apart.

I realize that the crappy nature of the 3e ranger led to the rogue (especially with his long skill list and plentiful skill points) becoming the "catch-all" class for a lot of concepts. In fact, multiclassing with either rogue or fighter was commonly used for ANY nonmagical concept someone had in 3e (until the swashbuckler and scout came out, that is).

The Fourth Edition ranger is oddly schizophrenic. He's either: the two-handed fighting skirmish melee combatant OR the superior archer. That's been true of rangers since The Lord of the Rings. They're light-armored skirmishers. Shields have never been their big thing.

The rogue is still adaptable, but not as much as he used to be. I could see there being a series of feats, possibly as soon as the "Martial Power" book, that let you use your class powers with non-standard weapons. For instance, something like this:

Bow Sniper [Rogue]
Prerequisites: Rogue, Sneak Attack Class Feature, Proficient with bow.
Benefit: You may use a bow with which you are proficient as a ranged weapon for any powers or class features granted by the rogue class.

Now, for a longbow, this is strictly speaking, at least 2 points better (on average) than the sling, shuriken, or hand crossbow (1d10 vs. 1d6). However, the balance precedent is the rapier: which for the cost of one feat, you can boost your weapon damage from 1d6 to 1d8. Weapon focus also adds 1, but on the other hand, backstabber adds 2 (on average).

Of course, getting this actually costs the rogue two feats (unless he's an elf), because he has to take Weapon Proficiency first. Therefore, I don't think there's any question that it's balanced. Thematically, it starts to cause the rogue to tread on the ranger's toes a bit, but if you're okay with that, there's no reason not to use this.

As far as the buckler goes, there's no reason it can't just be an offhand weapon. You don't really need "buckler proficiency" to use it. Just take two weapon defense and say you're carrying a buckler. In my personal experience, it works more like an offhand weapon than a shield.

 

[Spatula]

We were specifically told earlier in 4E's development that you WOULD be able to Sneak Attack with a 2h axe, indeed that one of the developer's characters did such a thing.

Err, no we were not. If you go back and look you'll see that playtesting comment was something along the lines of "a rogue is doing a lot of damage with a 2H axe, even though he's not proficient in it, so there was something wrong. And we changed things in some unspecified manner in order to fix it."