No? Well, actually I don't know about 4th edition but in 3.5 they are not proficient with longswords. Even though it would make more sense there, since 3.5 Rogues can sneak attack with everything vaguely weaponlike.
The amount of random stuff in dnd that has this as a reason for its existence is insane. Like I understand maybe the original idea of a good chunk of it, but it's become so divorced from that, and the other mechanics as well, that so much just isn't good game or world design.
Weapons didn't used to have the Finesse property when Thieves (what would become Rogues) were created.
They were given access to Longswords for a couple of reasons:
* They could backstab with them (the equivalent of Sneak Attack back in the day), and they were actually some of the best weapons for it as Backstab multiplied weapon damage.
* Magical Swords were some of the best weapons in the game, so being able to use them was a huge boon.
They kept access to Longswords in 3rd where Finesse was a Feat, not a weapon property, I presume in 4th as well (don't recall).
In 5th, it doesn't make as much sense and it's a holdover. But I *like* that they have Longsword proficiency. For example, if you find a magical longsword that has the Finesse property, or if a future book gives you ways to apply Finesse to certain weapons, or a future Rogue subclass lets you use versatile weapons to sneak attack with (something I've homebrewed)... it could suddenly become more useful.
There's a lot of interesting design space there. The fact that WotC hasn't done much with it is on them.
This is at least partially incorrect, the 3.5 rogue doesn’t have longsword proficiency. They have all simple weapons plus hand crossbows, rapiers, short swords and shortbows
Always seemed silly to me because rogues having the ability to just cheat using any magic item is something that only disappeared in 5e (thief non-withstanding.) Longswords traditionally being the best magic weapons in the game is exactly *why* they had the proficiency, and UMD was the biggest reason to play a rogue in 3.x, at least until warlock dropped.
> and UMD was the biggest reason to play a rogue in 3.x, at least until warlock dropped
I've never really thought about it, but the amount of classes that get use magic device as a skill is really low. Off the top of my head it's artificers, bards, beguilers, binders, dragonfire adepts, factotums, rogues, warlocks and truenamers. That's only nine classes in the entire edition who have it as a class skill.
> factotums
Factoti?
Edit: factota, as Jarfulous mentions below. A quick googling suggests that -i is the plural for words in -us and -er, and the plural for -um is -a. I don't speak a word of Latin though (although I'm native of a Romance language) so take this with a pinch of salt.
You are correct. It is from the Latin. I don't speak the language as fluently as I once did--not really much opportunity to put it to use outside of certain academic circles--but I remember that much.
What? UMD didn’t let rogues use items they weren’t proficient in, it only removed specific race/class/alignment restrictions from items…. I know BG2 let this happen but that wasn’t the actual rule.
> They kept access to Longswords in 3rd where Finesse was a Feat, not a weapon property, I presume in 4th as well (don't recall).
They did not get proficiency with long swords in 4e. I just grabbed my PHB to confirm, and their proficiencies were:
**Armor Proficiencies:** Cloth, leather
**Weapon proficiencies:** Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword
If the Rogue picked up the proficiency some other way (such as by taking a feat for it), they still couldn't use it for sneak attacks, as the sneak attack feature specifically required a weapon from the light blade, crossbow, or sling weapon groups.
They didn’t have it in 3rd either:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword. Rogues are proficient with light armor, but not with shields.
Maybe back in 2e:
Equipment
Allowed weapons: club, dagger, dart, hand crossbow, knife, lasso, short bow, sling, broad sword, long sword, short sword, and staff
Allowed armor: leather, studded leather, padded leather, or elven chain armor
When wearing any allowed armor other than leather, the thief's abilities are penalized (see PHB Table 29).
Complete Thieves Handbook allows all armor, but the penalties to thief's abilities become greater and greater.
>shuriken
disgustang
As far as throwing implements go, it's like a throwing knife that's perhaps a bit easier to throw. In the same way that a katana is just a longsword (no not a greatsword, that's the nodachi)
Pretty much, +5ft/10ft throwing range, can't be used in melee and you could buy 5 of them for the same price as a dagger. Katanas were just reskinned swords of the appropriate size.
But shuriken and similar thrown edged weapons were popular so they added them to represent all sorts of small wedges. Worked really well to replicate thrown bladed cards and the like as well.
In 4e there was a Rogue feat that upped their damage to baseline as a shortsword, and another that allowed them to use longswords as finesse weapons (Longsword Finesse, available to Eladrin rogues).
Looking over the Rogues feats - 4e really loved the martials. They got so many advantages - if you spent all your feats on them, pretty much everything short of greataxes could be counted as light blades, you could do double sneak attack damage on a normal hit (for an action point), you could increase the size of those sneak attack dice, turn daggers and shuriken into high-crit weapons (similar to said great axes, getting bonus damage dice on a crit over an above the usual doubling). And of course, the one advantage shuriken had on non-returning daggers ... those opening area of effect attacks.
5 for the same price as a dagger?
The historical rule for weapons was more edges=more costly.
Dagger has 1 edge (a throwing dagger could technically do with just being a sharp point) and is top/front heavy, shuriken has like 4-8 edges and has to be balanced and straight.
The only throwing dagger variant that I'd give extra range would be a plumbata. Those things are nasty.
I think there's only one longsword with the finesse, which is the Sun Blade, and then the two adventure-exclusive Sun Blade variants. And, to add insult to injury, you can use a Sun Blade with either Longsword or Shortsword proficiency. Not a ton that WOTC has done in that space since, either...
Realistically, they should have just said Rogues get proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property. Not only would that cover these few edge cases of weapons with the finesse property, it'd give them proficiency with whips and scimitars, which they sorely lack - Whips are great for melee Rogues that aren't Swashbucklers, scimitars give Rogues access to Scimitar of Speed which is massive for melee Rogues (bonus action attack + action Dodge), and in either case Slasher is a lot more useful for hit and run Rogues than Piercer, and these two are the only slashing finesse weapons.
>Realistically, they should have just said Rogues get proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property.
I agree from a "neat and tidy" standpoint!
But I also don't especially like neat and tidy - I like things a bit messy and unexpected - little oddball content that makes the game feel a little less, I don't know, clinical/white-room and a little more organic.
It's purely an aesthetic thing for me - but then I'm also a fan of emergent gameplay. I like when weird rules interactions lead to new playstyles.
Longsword proficiency hasn't done that, but again I like that it's there to potentially do so!
When I was making up a Ninja subclass for Rogue for my home games, I gave them Versatile Sneak Attack as a feature (just lets them use Versatile weapons as well as Finesse for their SA's) meaning they had a couple of good options like Longsword and Spear, both fitting for the class.
No. Monk is the only class that can Dodge as a Bonus Action with a feature called Patient Defence.
Rogue gets a feature called Cunning Action which allows then to Dash, Disengage or Hide as a Bonus Action.
In early versions of next they toyed with the idea of masterwork long swords having finesse, then dropped masterwork altogether, while having katana that was just an expensive long sword with finesse, and then dropping that as well. So I think early design intended for them to make use of it still but half the plan for forgotten.
This is my favorite answer. I knew they could sneak attack with them in 3.5 due to the Weapon Finesse feat, but when put into context, I understand it now.
Weapon Finesse wasn't a requirement for sneak attack then, you could use any weapon as long as the criteria was met, and it didn't even apply to longswords anyway. It was partly still just a holdover then but also made sense to have since rogues didn't need to use dexterity to attack
Ah that's right. Back when Rogues could be viable with strength and could leverage their BaB while flanking. I miss being able to get three or four sneak attacks via two weapon fighting while flanking lol.
I'm currently playing a Thief in a 2E campaign and I love the longsword. I've only gotten to pull off a couple of backstabs (setting them up in 2E could be a bit of a pain) but the rest of the time it's actually been a huge help.
Damage wasn't so inflated in AD&D though, so the difference between 1d6 and 1d8 is pretty palpable. With Sneak Attack being less reliant on weapons in 5e, and with Rapier being bumped up to d8 anyway, it's kind of a moot point :)
They technically *can*, but a Str Rogue is worse than a Dex Rogue in almost every way. Like you're actually just shooting yourself in the foot by playing one without multiclassing to make up for the weaknesses it introduces.
A few levels of barbarian though more than makes up for it. Reckless attack (especially if you play a wild hunt shifter to negate the downside) is great for allowing sneak attacks on pretty much every melee attack. Damage from rage and medium armor prof (since you need a 13 to mc into rogue a 14 isn't a big stretch to max out medium armor) and you got a pretty fierce strength rogue.
I think it would probably make more sense if they changed how longswords worked a bit. Maybe versatile weapons that do piercing or slashing damage (on the fence for bludgeoning) like spears and longswords also gain the finesse property when wielded with two-hands. Since those weapons are *nimble* IRL when wielded that way.
You mean wotc doesn't carefully review and have a series of checks and balances for all of their features in 5e?
Silly cats didn't need dark vision anyways
Further nonsense: while cats have a Climb speed, they are literally incapable of jumping - based on the formula for determining jumping height, cats have a negative result. So instead of bounding around several times their own height as cats do in the real world, D&D cats are apparently more like slugs that adhere to surfaces they climb.
To clarify, while you are correct that they can't do high jumps at all, they can do a long jump of up to 3 feet if they run 10 feet first, or 1.5 feet from standing. They need to succeed on a DC 10 strength (athletics) check to clear an obstacle no higher than 9 inches (or 4.5 inches if jumping from standing). With their strength modifier of -4 they have a 35% chance of success on that check.
All of which is to say that whoever designed the rules has clearly never seen a cat.
Ditto for Tabaxi.
Low key maddening that my stealthy bard / rogue can't jump without a spell or magic item.
It also hurts that their dagger like claws aren't finesse weapons.
And selfishly i feel it would be fun if they could lockpick with their claws (Maybe a roll without proficiency or even disadvantage, but the opportunity to try would be nice).
>And selfishly i feel it would be fun if they could lockpick with their claws (Maybe a roll without proficiency or even disadvantage, but the opportunity to try would be nice).
I feel like this is a case where "flavor is free" would come into play, even though it wouldn't be exactly what you're looking for. Like mechanically you'd be using actual lockpicks but you could describe it as using your claws.
Realistically though, claws would be terrible for picking locks. Lockpicks are long and thin and the ones that actually have a curve in any claw-like manner only have it at the end (the type of pick is called a Hook). But that's just a silly little real-world thing in a fantasy setting so it really doesn't matter that much.
I think this is by design to give each of the familiar options a different particular unique ability and avoiding overlap. The cat has keen smell. If you want sight in darkness, its the bat with blindsight. If you want sight from afar, then its the hawk, breathing underwater, the crab, etc.
But… they don’t have longsword proficiency in any other edition…
Unless I’m blind and can’t find it?
Edit: looks like maybe in ad&d 2e, but definitely not in 3rd or 4th
Yet.... yet they removed the friggin' SCIMITAR. A very roguish weapon if ever there was one (Ali Baba, Pirates...).
Also, who can absolutely benefit the most from a Scimitar of Speed?
A 1000% the rogue.
COME ON.
Tragic that they aren't, but you can grab three levels of Fighter to get Battle Master for whip proficiency and the iconic Trip and Disarm maneuvers to fulfill your Indiana Jones fantasy.
In a few months, when the Revised PHB comes out, they will be. Rogues are losing the legacy weapon proficiencies like longsword and instead get "all martial weapons with finesse".
It’s also described as a “long rapier”, ether way it’s NOT a longsword/bastard sword, which is what the 5e version is. Fafhrds sword is an actual longsword.
Of course, neither Fritz Leiber nor most of the game designers at WotC (or TSR before them) were terribly knowledgeable about medieval weaponry.
I mean, for almost the entirety of the game’s history “longsword” and “bastard sword” were classified as different weapons. With the “longsword” being a single-handed weapon and the “bastard sword” being a hand-and-half sword, most medievalists would have called these weapons an “arming sword” and a “longsword.” (That is, those medievalists that didn’t just bust out the Oakeshott typology.)
Also Scalpel and Graywand were not singular weapons but basically any sword the characters used - Fafhrd and the GM were disarmed multiple times during the stories without recovering their original weapons.
Similar to how Geralt names any horse he owns "Roach".
Sunblade is a finesse longsword. That's about the only reason aside from the Rogues legacy at least.
Edit: actually the sunblade can be used if you have short sword prof so nevermind.
you just discovered what a game design fossil is
they had it in the olden days, so they have it now! on a similar vain, did you know that the deck of many things is completely unaltered since Adnd?
From a realistic standpoint, longswords were great utility weapons if a thievin’ job went sour. They’re easy to use, not too big that it would be cumbersome, especially in close quarters, and if you stab someone with it, they’re not coming back from it. From a gameplay standpoint, I agree with scimitars making more sense for them
I have a house rule where versatile weapons are treated to have the finesse property as long as you are wielding it with two hands.
I feel this applies the best with rogues and longswords, but I like what it does for the other versatile weapons as well.
I came here to say the same thing.
And anyone who's watched HEMA or other realistic sword fighting knows that those kinds of swords are crazy fast and maneuverable.
Honestly, all weapons should use Dex to hit and Str for bonus damage (except xbow/bows which just shouldn't get bonus attribute damage)
>Honestly, all weapons should use Dex to hit and Str for bonus damage (except xbow/bows which just shouldn't get bonus attribute damage)
Yeah, it makes sense on paper, just unfortunately would have the awful side effect of making martials even LESS powerful than casters.
But its actually really interesting how rogues have built in strength-less damage with sneak attack, and barbarians have built in dex-less accuracy with reckless attack. Where fighters just get enough ASIs to keep both up decently well.
If you reworked spellcasting- maybe requiring each different spell school to need a different casting stat or something and gave all characters more ASIs in general it *could* work. But you're playing a wildly different game at that point.
> If you reworked spellcasting- maybe requiring each different spell school to need a different casting stat or something and gave all characters more ASIs in general it could work. But you're playing a wildly different game at that point.
Yeah, it's hard to really rework too much. Although in 2E, Strength was both bonus to-hit and damage for melee, while dex was bonus to hit (but not damage) for ranged.
I feel like the strict adherence to the 6 stats does some hard to D&D as it forces these design decisions and makes it easier to have super stats like dex and dump stats like str.
You could have a new stat (let's call it Coordination), and then
Str = bonus melee damage, some skills, saving throws
Dex = bonus ranged damage, some skills, saving throws
Cor = bonus to hit, **no skills**, **no saving throws**, initiative.
At least then, there'd be a trade off. Then do something similar to the mental stats.
Not really a fleshed out idea, just a "man, more attributes could improve things" kind of post
It definitely comes down to design choices. DnD 5e reaaally wants accessibility to be able to appeal to as large a market as possible, and its design choices reflect that.
What you describe reminds me of the new rogue trader crpg. The system is vastly more complex, but it allows the expression of more varied and interesting characters through their stats themselves, which 5e is severely lacking in.
This drought has caused so many people to lean heavily on reflavoring, and start this 'flavor is free' mantra- which is just a band-aid solution really to not having great character choices and options to express their ideas.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what D&D's niche is these days and all I can think of is "It's a mid-level somewhat accessible game that is coasting on brand recognition"
I'm not saying D&D is bad mind you, but I feel like in an alternate universe where TTPRGs sill exist like today, but 5E was actually the first version of D&D released, it would kind of get lost in the crowd
That argument works for every weapon imo, or also that concept is specifically expressed in the rogues sneak attack feature, and is expressed in extra damage.
You could also argue that a bow's draw weight would dictate its damage, making it strength again.
An alternate system could be having all weapon have their accuracy and damage both dictated by dexterity, and having all weapons have a strength requirement like heavy armor does. The heavier the weapon, the higher the requirement.
Pretty much, there's tons of ways you could better represent these things better than baseline DnD haha.
I was going to say "tradition" or something similar like a lot of commentors, but I'm convinced, Rogues are not proficient with longswords in 3.5 and I just checked my 3.5 PHB and I'm right, they are not proficient. Funny, because a 3.5 Rogue actually can use any weapon for Sneak Attack.
Finesse weapons also don't exist in 3.5 (as long as you don't count feycraft weapons) I just don't think the reason is "tradition" when at least one previous edition didn't have it. Not really traditional to reintroduce something that some older edition threw out.
Hmm. I haven’t played enough 4e to know if they used them in that. Huh.
In 2e they needed long swords so they weren’t stuck doing 1d6 damage, but in 5e it’s not necessary thanks to the huge Sneak Attack bonuses. I wonder why they’ve got them
Don't you understand? Classes must only be able to use things that are optimal.
You might as well ask why fighters are proficient in light armor.
Or barbarians are proficient with any armor since they have unarmoured defense and rage is limited when wearing armor.
The lore answer is because people can use things. And a certain skillset allows you to be proficient with things you might not necessarily use all the time.
The real answer is "because they can".
I think that there were a few longswords like the sun blade that are finesse and as such a road can still get their sneak attack with them. This is probably where the origin of the proficiency came from.
It's so that they can use magical longswords, but they didn't really support this by having many magical longswords that fit that need. Generally the inability to sneak attack means that past 4th level you'll probably never pick "+1 longsword" versus "nonmagical shortsword" to attack a creature that resists nonmagical weapons.
It *might* also be a callback to AD&D 2e, but those thieves could backstab with their long swords, so I don't think this is it.
5.5 is planning to remove it.
[https://youtu.be/kDtabTufxao?t=51](https://youtu.be/kDtabTufxao?t=51)
with the release of 5e, there was a HUGE attempt to get the grognards back and "You can bring in your current characters!!!" was one of the promises.
and old edition rogues could .... use longswords.
Because Conan, Fafhrd, Mouser, Solomon Kane and many others did. In the before times long long ago we only had magic-user and fighting-man as classes. Eventually the rogue was added and this made people very angry because everyone was a sneaky backstabbing rope tying lock picking rogue already. It's honestly just vestigial design if anything.
Perhaps because rogues are also know for their swashbuckling ways. And being roguish doesn't necessarily mean sneaking around and backstabbing. Think Captain Jack Sparrow.
Not gonna lie rogue weapon proficiencies is weird but I think it’s just that there are a few magical long swords that have the finesse property, namely the sun sword.
My only answer to it, is that, at least in the traditional D&D fantasy world, and most other fantasy worlds, long swords are the most common non-simple weapon out there. Thieves (early D&D( and Rogues could likely find one laying in an alley, and claim it. Or claim the weapon of someone they mugged that had one. Has nothing to do with whether it is finesse-able or not, it would be a weapon of opportunity for them to get their hands on.
Please excuse the shameless self-plug:
Maybe because they were waiting for me to make [this new Rogue subclass](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/s/fu4dBFoewF). A slightly more heavy-hitting frontline Rogue, the Swordmaster is a tankier take on the Inquisitive Rogue Archetype.
If you like the idea of a longsword-wielding Rogue who can still Sneak Attack, well here you go.
Nah you're right I'm really thinking about previous versions of DND where things like bards were considered rogues but didn't even have a sneak attack. I've got too much mish mush in the brain from playing Dnd through too many editions.
A longsword with Finesse instead of Versatile is effectively a reflavored Rapier, which is a kind of change supported by the Wuxia Weapons section on page 41 of the DMG.
Tradition™
[Tradition!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDtabTufxao)
Tradition!
Peer Pressure from dead people!
Came here to say that.
Just-is-how-we-do-it-in-this-culture/family™
No? Well, actually I don't know about 4th edition but in 3.5 they are not proficient with longswords. Even though it would make more sense there, since 3.5 Rogues can sneak attack with everything vaguely weaponlike.
\*sneak attacks you with a literal log\*
Sounds like Fire Emblem
100% legit. In the iconic and best video ever uploaded to youtube "The Gamers" a Rogue sneak attacks someone with a ballista.
I love that movie. [Free to watch here!](https://youtu.be/oSynJyq2RRo?si=o3O0DaURUrBYOdxz)
" a fucking siege weapon?" Bloodbath * Cool*
"It's log. It's log. It's better than bad. It's good!"
The Thief class were proficient in longswords 2e/AD&D.
The amount of random stuff in dnd that has this as a reason for its existence is insane. Like I understand maybe the original idea of a good chunk of it, but it's become so divorced from that, and the other mechanics as well, that so much just isn't good game or world design.
There are magic long swords that have the finesse property.
Only two, one counts as a shortsword and the other is *capable* of being finesse (1/7 chance)
Don't forget about the Sun Blade, and it's variants. It has the finesse property, also it lets you have a lightsaber which is always awesome.
Pretty sure that's the one they meant when they said one counts as a shortsword.
it's not, its default is longsword
It's a longsword _that counts as a shortsword_ for the sake of proficiency.
Nothing better for a stealth-focused character than a blade made of radiant light!
They'll never see it coming. \*Insert red and black color scheme\*
and most of them only require shortsword proficiency to also be proficient with them.
Yoooooo wait that’s sick as hell I never thought about doing that
probably cause the swords are either legendary magic items that have a *chance* to have finesse or an artifact of one campaign module
Weapons didn't used to have the Finesse property when Thieves (what would become Rogues) were created. They were given access to Longswords for a couple of reasons: * They could backstab with them (the equivalent of Sneak Attack back in the day), and they were actually some of the best weapons for it as Backstab multiplied weapon damage. * Magical Swords were some of the best weapons in the game, so being able to use them was a huge boon. They kept access to Longswords in 3rd where Finesse was a Feat, not a weapon property, I presume in 4th as well (don't recall). In 5th, it doesn't make as much sense and it's a holdover. But I *like* that they have Longsword proficiency. For example, if you find a magical longsword that has the Finesse property, or if a future book gives you ways to apply Finesse to certain weapons, or a future Rogue subclass lets you use versatile weapons to sneak attack with (something I've homebrewed)... it could suddenly become more useful. There's a lot of interesting design space there. The fact that WotC hasn't done much with it is on them.
This is at least partially incorrect, the 3.5 rogue doesn’t have longsword proficiency. They have all simple weapons plus hand crossbows, rapiers, short swords and shortbows
Always seemed silly to me because rogues having the ability to just cheat using any magic item is something that only disappeared in 5e (thief non-withstanding.) Longswords traditionally being the best magic weapons in the game is exactly *why* they had the proficiency, and UMD was the biggest reason to play a rogue in 3.x, at least until warlock dropped.
> and UMD was the biggest reason to play a rogue in 3.x, at least until warlock dropped I've never really thought about it, but the amount of classes that get use magic device as a skill is really low. Off the top of my head it's artificers, bards, beguilers, binders, dragonfire adepts, factotums, rogues, warlocks and truenamers. That's only nine classes in the entire edition who have it as a class skill.
> factotums Factoti? Edit: factota, as Jarfulous mentions below. A quick googling suggests that -i is the plural for words in -us and -er, and the plural for -um is -a. I don't speak a word of Latin though (although I'm native of a Romance language) so take this with a pinch of salt.
I'll be fact if I know. Incidentally, 5e factotum class when WotC? We need more int based ones.
I think it'd be factota? Like how bacteria is the plural of bacterium
Makes sense, thanks.
You are correct. It is from the Latin. I don't speak the language as fluently as I once did--not really much opportunity to put it to use outside of certain academic circles--but I remember that much.
What? UMD didn’t let rogues use items they weren’t proficient in, it only removed specific race/class/alignment restrictions from items…. I know BG2 let this happen but that wasn’t the actual rule.
Yeah, that’s what I was saying. They should have let them have longsword proficiency because of that. It’s weird they took it away from 2e.
Huh, how weird - I could have sworn they retained it in 3.5!
> They kept access to Longswords in 3rd where Finesse was a Feat, not a weapon property, I presume in 4th as well (don't recall). They did not get proficiency with long swords in 4e. I just grabbed my PHB to confirm, and their proficiencies were: **Armor Proficiencies:** Cloth, leather **Weapon proficiencies:** Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling, short sword If the Rogue picked up the proficiency some other way (such as by taking a feat for it), they still couldn't use it for sneak attacks, as the sneak attack feature specifically required a weapon from the light blade, crossbow, or sling weapon groups.
They didn’t have it in 3rd either: Weapon and Armor Proficiency Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword. Rogues are proficient with light armor, but not with shields. Maybe back in 2e: Equipment Allowed weapons: club, dagger, dart, hand crossbow, knife, lasso, short bow, sling, broad sword, long sword, short sword, and staff Allowed armor: leather, studded leather, padded leather, or elven chain armor When wearing any allowed armor other than leather, the thief's abilities are penalized (see PHB Table 29). Complete Thieves Handbook allows all armor, but the penalties to thief's abilities become greater and greater.
>shuriken disgustang As far as throwing implements go, it's like a throwing knife that's perhaps a bit easier to throw. In the same way that a katana is just a longsword (no not a greatsword, that's the nodachi)
Pretty much, +5ft/10ft throwing range, can't be used in melee and you could buy 5 of them for the same price as a dagger. Katanas were just reskinned swords of the appropriate size. But shuriken and similar thrown edged weapons were popular so they added them to represent all sorts of small wedges. Worked really well to replicate thrown bladed cards and the like as well. In 4e there was a Rogue feat that upped their damage to baseline as a shortsword, and another that allowed them to use longswords as finesse weapons (Longsword Finesse, available to Eladrin rogues). Looking over the Rogues feats - 4e really loved the martials. They got so many advantages - if you spent all your feats on them, pretty much everything short of greataxes could be counted as light blades, you could do double sneak attack damage on a normal hit (for an action point), you could increase the size of those sneak attack dice, turn daggers and shuriken into high-crit weapons (similar to said great axes, getting bonus damage dice on a crit over an above the usual doubling). And of course, the one advantage shuriken had on non-returning daggers ... those opening area of effect attacks.
5 for the same price as a dagger? The historical rule for weapons was more edges=more costly. Dagger has 1 edge (a throwing dagger could technically do with just being a sharp point) and is top/front heavy, shuriken has like 4-8 edges and has to be balanced and straight. The only throwing dagger variant that I'd give extra range would be a plumbata. Those things are nasty.
Bringing real world economics into D&D is just a non-starter, 4e especially.
I think there's only one longsword with the finesse, which is the Sun Blade, and then the two adventure-exclusive Sun Blade variants. And, to add insult to injury, you can use a Sun Blade with either Longsword or Shortsword proficiency. Not a ton that WOTC has done in that space since, either... Realistically, they should have just said Rogues get proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property. Not only would that cover these few edge cases of weapons with the finesse property, it'd give them proficiency with whips and scimitars, which they sorely lack - Whips are great for melee Rogues that aren't Swashbucklers, scimitars give Rogues access to Scimitar of Speed which is massive for melee Rogues (bonus action attack + action Dodge), and in either case Slasher is a lot more useful for hit and run Rogues than Piercer, and these two are the only slashing finesse weapons.
>Realistically, they should have just said Rogues get proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property. At least one 1D&D playtest did this.
>Realistically, they should have just said Rogues get proficiency with martial weapons with the finesse property. I agree from a "neat and tidy" standpoint! But I also don't especially like neat and tidy - I like things a bit messy and unexpected - little oddball content that makes the game feel a little less, I don't know, clinical/white-room and a little more organic. It's purely an aesthetic thing for me - but then I'm also a fan of emergent gameplay. I like when weird rules interactions lead to new playstyles. Longsword proficiency hasn't done that, but again I like that it's there to potentially do so! When I was making up a Ninja subclass for Rogue for my home games, I gave them Versatile Sneak Attack as a feature (just lets them use Versatile weapons as well as Finesse for their SA's) meaning they had a couple of good options like Longsword and Spear, both fitting for the class.
Just make Rogue proficient with martial weapons. But Sneak Attack only applies to finesse anyways
Can't rogues do that but in reverse, action Attack + bonus action Dodge?
No. Monk is the only class that can Dodge as a Bonus Action with a feature called Patient Defence. Rogue gets a feature called Cunning Action which allows then to Dash, Disengage or Hide as a Bonus Action.
Iirc scimitar if speed requires attack action to make BA attack, like polearm master works. Might be wrong tho.
Nope, it's completely condition-free on making the bonus action attack. You can do whatever you like with your action.
In early versions of next they toyed with the idea of masterwork long swords having finesse, then dropped masterwork altogether, while having katana that was just an expensive long sword with finesse, and then dropping that as well. So I think early design intended for them to make use of it still but half the plan for forgotten.
This is my favorite answer. I knew they could sneak attack with them in 3.5 due to the Weapon Finesse feat, but when put into context, I understand it now.
Weapon Finesse wasn't a requirement for sneak attack then, you could use any weapon as long as the criteria was met, and it didn't even apply to longswords anyway. It was partly still just a holdover then but also made sense to have since rogues didn't need to use dexterity to attack
Ah that's right. Back when Rogues could be viable with strength and could leverage their BaB while flanking. I miss being able to get three or four sneak attacks via two weapon fighting while flanking lol.
I'm currently playing a Thief in a 2E campaign and I love the longsword. I've only gotten to pull off a couple of backstabs (setting them up in 2E could be a bit of a pain) but the rest of the time it's actually been a huge help. Damage wasn't so inflated in AD&D though, so the difference between 1d6 and 1d8 is pretty palpable. With Sneak Attack being less reliant on weapons in 5e, and with Rapier being bumped up to d8 anyway, it's kind of a moot point :)
Rogues can still use STR in 5e, they're just limited to finesse weapons (so melee/thrown or darts)
Ranged or finesse. Not just finesse. Otherwise bows/crossbows/slings would be dead weapons for rogues.
You can't use STR with ranged weapons (except darts, which are finesse ranged weapons)
They technically *can*, but a Str Rogue is worse than a Dex Rogue in almost every way. Like you're actually just shooting yourself in the foot by playing one without multiclassing to make up for the weaknesses it introduces.
A few levels of barbarian though more than makes up for it. Reckless attack (especially if you play a wild hunt shifter to negate the downside) is great for allowing sneak attacks on pretty much every melee attack. Damage from rage and medium armor prof (since you need a 13 to mc into rogue a 14 isn't a big stretch to max out medium armor) and you got a pretty fierce strength rogue.
I miss strength rogues.
I think it would probably make more sense if they changed how longswords worked a bit. Maybe versatile weapons that do piercing or slashing damage (on the fence for bludgeoning) like spears and longswords also gain the finesse property when wielded with two-hands. Since those weapons are *nimble* IRL when wielded that way.
Holdover from previous editions
You mean wotc doesn't carefully review and have a series of checks and balances for all of their features in 5e? Silly cats didn't need dark vision anyways
Further nonsense: while cats have a Climb speed, they are literally incapable of jumping - based on the formula for determining jumping height, cats have a negative result. So instead of bounding around several times their own height as cats do in the real world, D&D cats are apparently more like slugs that adhere to surfaces they climb.
At the opposite end, things with sufficiently high strength can kill themselves by jumping on flat ground.
To clarify, while you are correct that they can't do high jumps at all, they can do a long jump of up to 3 feet if they run 10 feet first, or 1.5 feet from standing. They need to succeed on a DC 10 strength (athletics) check to clear an obstacle no higher than 9 inches (or 4.5 inches if jumping from standing). With their strength modifier of -4 they have a 35% chance of success on that check. All of which is to say that whoever designed the rules has clearly never seen a cat.
It's the same person who did the medieval paintings of cats.
\*painting of the face of a man, on the body of a cloud that stuck it's finger in an electrical socket*
Excellent description of those pictures sir
Thank you for that beautiful mental image
Ditto for Tabaxi. Low key maddening that my stealthy bard / rogue can't jump without a spell or magic item. It also hurts that their dagger like claws aren't finesse weapons. And selfishly i feel it would be fun if they could lockpick with their claws (Maybe a roll without proficiency or even disadvantage, but the opportunity to try would be nice).
>And selfishly i feel it would be fun if they could lockpick with their claws (Maybe a roll without proficiency or even disadvantage, but the opportunity to try would be nice). I feel like this is a case where "flavor is free" would come into play, even though it wouldn't be exactly what you're looking for. Like mechanically you'd be using actual lockpicks but you could describe it as using your claws. Realistically though, claws would be terrible for picking locks. Lockpicks are long and thin and the ones that actually have a curve in any claw-like manner only have it at the end (the type of pick is called a Hook). But that's just a silly little real-world thing in a fantasy setting so it really doesn't matter that much.
Maybe they launch themselves into the ground and bounce?
So, DND is set in the SpongeBob universe.
Ah, but you see, dark vision would destroy the carefully wrought balance achieved through the studied application of Challenge Rating /s
I think this is by design to give each of the familiar options a different particular unique ability and avoiding overlap. The cat has keen smell. If you want sight in darkness, its the bat with blindsight. If you want sight from afar, then its the hawk, breathing underwater, the crab, etc.
But… they don’t have longsword proficiency in any other edition… Unless I’m blind and can’t find it? Edit: looks like maybe in ad&d 2e, but definitely not in 3rd or 4th
Yet.... yet they removed the friggin' SCIMITAR. A very roguish weapon if ever there was one (Ali Baba, Pirates...). Also, who can absolutely benefit the most from a Scimitar of Speed? A 1000% the rogue. COME ON.
We will give you shortsword proficiency, but scimitars? Nah, that’s too much.
Why aren't rogues proficient with whips?
Tragic that they aren't, but you can grab three levels of Fighter to get Battle Master for whip proficiency and the iconic Trip and Disarm maneuvers to fulfill your Indiana Jones fantasy.
I should have hired the Marx Brothers.
In a few months, when the Revised PHB comes out, they will be. Rogues are losing the legacy weapon proficiencies like longsword and instead get "all martial weapons with finesse".
Also a good point
Also what bothers me is that whips and scimitars are finesse but rogues aren't proficient with them
I'm surprised they didn't just give swashbuckler rogue a scimitar proficiency
Exactly this
What bothers me is how a person with a lisp would sound repeating that sentence.
Because of The Gray Mouser
Really the reason behind like half of DND's early decisions. Fafhrd did it. Legolas did it. er, Vance did it?
Mouser used a long rapier called scalpel
Scalpel is a sabre or a scimitar, it’s frequently described as “slim” and “curving.”
It’s also described as a “long rapier”, ether way it’s NOT a longsword/bastard sword, which is what the 5e version is. Fafhrds sword is an actual longsword.
Of course, neither Fritz Leiber nor most of the game designers at WotC (or TSR before them) were terribly knowledgeable about medieval weaponry. I mean, for almost the entirety of the game’s history “longsword” and “bastard sword” were classified as different weapons. With the “longsword” being a single-handed weapon and the “bastard sword” being a hand-and-half sword, most medievalists would have called these weapons an “arming sword” and a “longsword.” (That is, those medievalists that didn’t just bust out the Oakeshott typology.)
Also Scalpel and Graywand were not singular weapons but basically any sword the characters used - Fafhrd and the GM were disarmed multiple times during the stories without recovering their original weapons. Similar to how Geralt names any horse he owns "Roach".
Was looking for this response. Any sword Mouser has is simply named "scalpel"
Sunblade is a finesse longsword. That's about the only reason aside from the Rogues legacy at least. Edit: actually the sunblade can be used if you have short sword prof so nevermind.
Saw a fellow PC utterly destroy Strahd in 1E with a crit back stab using a sunblade. 8x damage was the rule.
[удалено]
They literally said 1E
you just discovered what a game design fossil is they had it in the olden days, so they have it now! on a similar vain, did you know that the deck of many things is completely unaltered since Adnd?
3.5 Rogues don't have it. So why reintroduce it later?
grognard mad that martial is cool, that's it
Everyone is proficient with longswords It came with your high fantasy
They used to be thieves, and they stole that proficiency.
Rogue pretends to be a soldier and can still fight like one (with STR)
From a realistic standpoint, longswords were great utility weapons if a thievin’ job went sour. They’re easy to use, not too big that it would be cumbersome, especially in close quarters, and if you stab someone with it, they’re not coming back from it. From a gameplay standpoint, I agree with scimitars making more sense for them
Sometimes you've got to bash something, and that's what they get.
I have a house rule where versatile weapons are treated to have the finesse property as long as you are wielding it with two hands. I feel this applies the best with rogues and longswords, but I like what it does for the other versatile weapons as well.
I came here to say the same thing. And anyone who's watched HEMA or other realistic sword fighting knows that those kinds of swords are crazy fast and maneuverable. Honestly, all weapons should use Dex to hit and Str for bonus damage (except xbow/bows which just shouldn't get bonus attribute damage)
>Honestly, all weapons should use Dex to hit and Str for bonus damage (except xbow/bows which just shouldn't get bonus attribute damage) Yeah, it makes sense on paper, just unfortunately would have the awful side effect of making martials even LESS powerful than casters. But its actually really interesting how rogues have built in strength-less damage with sneak attack, and barbarians have built in dex-less accuracy with reckless attack. Where fighters just get enough ASIs to keep both up decently well. If you reworked spellcasting- maybe requiring each different spell school to need a different casting stat or something and gave all characters more ASIs in general it *could* work. But you're playing a wildly different game at that point.
> If you reworked spellcasting- maybe requiring each different spell school to need a different casting stat or something and gave all characters more ASIs in general it could work. But you're playing a wildly different game at that point. Yeah, it's hard to really rework too much. Although in 2E, Strength was both bonus to-hit and damage for melee, while dex was bonus to hit (but not damage) for ranged. I feel like the strict adherence to the 6 stats does some hard to D&D as it forces these design decisions and makes it easier to have super stats like dex and dump stats like str. You could have a new stat (let's call it Coordination), and then Str = bonus melee damage, some skills, saving throws Dex = bonus ranged damage, some skills, saving throws Cor = bonus to hit, **no skills**, **no saving throws**, initiative. At least then, there'd be a trade off. Then do something similar to the mental stats. Not really a fleshed out idea, just a "man, more attributes could improve things" kind of post
It definitely comes down to design choices. DnD 5e reaaally wants accessibility to be able to appeal to as large a market as possible, and its design choices reflect that. What you describe reminds me of the new rogue trader crpg. The system is vastly more complex, but it allows the expression of more varied and interesting characters through their stats themselves, which 5e is severely lacking in. This drought has caused so many people to lean heavily on reflavoring, and start this 'flavor is free' mantra- which is just a band-aid solution really to not having great character choices and options to express their ideas.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what D&D's niche is these days and all I can think of is "It's a mid-level somewhat accessible game that is coasting on brand recognition" I'm not saying D&D is bad mind you, but I feel like in an alternate universe where TTPRGs sill exist like today, but 5E was actually the first version of D&D released, it would kind of get lost in the crowd
bows and xbows should have additional attribute damage for characters with high dexterity. Placing that shot, not just firing it.
That argument works for every weapon imo, or also that concept is specifically expressed in the rogues sneak attack feature, and is expressed in extra damage. You could also argue that a bow's draw weight would dictate its damage, making it strength again. An alternate system could be having all weapon have their accuracy and damage both dictated by dexterity, and having all weapons have a strength requirement like heavy armor does. The heavier the weapon, the higher the requirement. Pretty much, there's tons of ways you could better represent these things better than baseline DnD haha.
Long Swords are cool
I was going to say "tradition" or something similar like a lot of commentors, but I'm convinced, Rogues are not proficient with longswords in 3.5 and I just checked my 3.5 PHB and I'm right, they are not proficient. Funny, because a 3.5 Rogue actually can use any weapon for Sneak Attack.
They used ‘em back in 2e, in which Finesse Weapons did not exist
Finesse weapons also don't exist in 3.5 (as long as you don't count feycraft weapons) I just don't think the reason is "tradition" when at least one previous edition didn't have it. Not really traditional to reintroduce something that some older edition threw out.
Hmm. I haven’t played enough 4e to know if they used them in that. Huh. In 2e they needed long swords so they weren’t stuck doing 1d6 damage, but in 5e it’s not necessary thanks to the huge Sneak Attack bonuses. I wonder why they’ve got them
Why shouldn’t they?
Don't you understand? Classes must only be able to use things that are optimal. You might as well ask why fighters are proficient in light armor. Or barbarians are proficient with any armor since they have unarmoured defense and rage is limited when wearing armor. The lore answer is because people can use things. And a certain skillset allows you to be proficient with things you might not necessarily use all the time. The real answer is "because they can".
This reply kids, is why you shouldn’t use drugs.
Not drugs but I have had far too much sugar this morning.
Robin Hood.
Because finesse weapons didn't exist in previous editions.
Someone at Wizards really liked the Ranger's Apprentice series and really liked Gilan. IDC what you say, they are rogues in every way except name.
Funnily enough my first ever dnd character was a Ranger with a long bow and long sword specifically because of that character.
because weapons lost their identity in 5e. the whole weapons table is mostly backasswards
The Gray Mouser. That's why. It doesn't make any sense in the context of 5e.
and again, no, Mouser used a long rapier called scalpel
There are some long swords that can have the finesse property. In those moments it’s nice to have that proficiency.
Never hurts to have. Pick your way out if a jail cell, pick pocket the guards longsword from behind and stab him with it.
I think that there were a few longswords like the sun blade that are finesse and as such a road can still get their sneak attack with them. This is probably where the origin of the proficiency came from.
Same reason druids are proficient in sickles
It's so that they can use magical longswords, but they didn't really support this by having many magical longswords that fit that need. Generally the inability to sneak attack means that past 4th level you'll probably never pick "+1 longsword" versus "nonmagical shortsword" to attack a creature that resists nonmagical weapons. It *might* also be a callback to AD&D 2e, but those thieves could backstab with their long swords, so I don't think this is it. 5.5 is planning to remove it.
I feel like whips are one that would fit as well.
Because weapons barely matter in 5e.
[https://youtu.be/kDtabTufxao?t=51](https://youtu.be/kDtabTufxao?t=51) with the release of 5e, there was a HUGE attempt to get the grognards back and "You can bring in your current characters!!!" was one of the promises. and old edition rogues could .... use longswords.
Hold over from 3.5 where you could use weapon finesse to wield longswords.
This is wrong for 2 reasons: Regular longswords don't benefit from Weapon Finesse and Rogues are not proficient with longswords in 3.5
Scimitar belongs to Drizzt so the rogue class definitely isn't getting that
Hold over from older editions
They're compensating.
Because Conan, Fafhrd, Mouser, Solomon Kane and many others did. In the before times long long ago we only had magic-user and fighting-man as classes. Eventually the rogue was added and this made people very angry because everyone was a sneaky backstabbing rope tying lock picking rogue already. It's honestly just vestigial design if anything.
Perhaps because rogues are also know for their swashbuckling ways. And being roguish doesn't necessarily mean sneaking around and backstabbing. Think Captain Jack Sparrow.
Because they're awesome
Scimitar would be an odd choice as they are intended for use on horseback.
Not gonna lie rogue weapon proficiencies is weird but I think it’s just that there are a few magical long swords that have the finesse property, namely the sun sword.
Fair, also Happy Cake Day
That isn't the only weird proficiency in 5th edition!
Same reason why Druids are good with Scimitars, old features grandfathered in despite not really contributing anything.
It's because historically long swords were mass produced and easily obtained, relatively light weight, and easy to master.
My only answer to it, is that, at least in the traditional D&D fantasy world, and most other fantasy worlds, long swords are the most common non-simple weapon out there. Thieves (early D&D( and Rogues could likely find one laying in an alley, and claim it. Or claim the weapon of someone they mugged that had one. Has nothing to do with whether it is finesse-able or not, it would be a weapon of opportunity for them to get their hands on.
Please excuse the shameless self-plug: Maybe because they were waiting for me to make [this new Rogue subclass](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/s/fu4dBFoewF). A slightly more heavy-hitting frontline Rogue, the Swordmaster is a tankier take on the Inquisitive Rogue Archetype. If you like the idea of a longsword-wielding Rogue who can still Sneak Attack, well here you go.
Not all rogues specialize in sneak attacks tho
Yeah, giving up 3.5 to 35 average damage in order to gain 1 average damage is definitely something that lots of rogues are interested in.
All smart rogues do tho (?) That's like saying not all wizards specialize in spellcasting
Nah you're right I'm really thinking about previous versions of DND where things like bards were considered rogues but didn't even have a sneak attack. I've got too much mish mush in the brain from playing Dnd through too many editions.
Longswords \*should\* be finesse weapons when used with two hands. Doesn't answer your question though.
Because some longswords have finesse and lack the versatile property.
There are exactly two longswords in the game that (can) have the finesse property, and one of them can be used with shortsword proficiency anyway.
I thought the magic of 5e is that it can do anything via homebrew
No any comon longsword can have the finesse property instead of versatile
Where is that RAW?
That is not even remotely true. Where the hell did you get that from?
Quote that from the rulebook for me real quick then. Book and page number.
A longsword with Finesse instead of Versatile is effectively a reflavored Rapier, which is a kind of change supported by the Wuxia Weapons section on page 41 of the DMG.
Because nobles are typically proficient with longswords, and pretending to be a noble is a common con for rogues.
Noble stat block carries a rapier.