Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Please let Rogues to sneak attack with any weapon

Topic.
Currently it is limited to finesse and ranged weapons, like in table-top, but why be limited by that?

Let me use the Racial weapons to backstab. Dwarf Rogue with an axe or warhammer would be fun alternative, or being a Strength based rogue or thug in general.

I guess it could work for any weapon that is not heavy. I also don't think that a hand hammer does worse job at sucker punching and sneak attacking than a dagger.

Gosh ... i hope not. :-/

I'd be open to 1H weapons, but anything in two hands ruins the theme of being agile and finding weak spots in the enemy's defenses. Using a maul is more about making every spot a weak spot with flair. At a minimum the club would make sense to represent the blackjack.

Agreed.

I'd... rather not, probably, because it'd make a class dip even stronger. On the plus side it's probably something easily modded?

Keep it as it is...




unless I get to sneak attack someone with a ballista

Just because a Rogue is using a rapier doesn't mean they can't use STR as their combat stat. "Finesse" means you can use DEX, not you must use DEX. In a PnP game, I'd say sure, let's do it. In a computer game that's already baked, not worth the work.

Because those are the D&D rules, simple. If it aint broke, why fix it. Also because it makes sense..

Why any limits at all? Let everybody do everything. Barbarians can be mighty sneaky too! They should be able to Rage From Shadows and Backstab with a tree they just ripped out from the ground.
Limitations are Classism and thus Evul! and Fascist and BAD!

Str Rogue can be possible ... in theory ...
But ... why would you? O_o

I mean ...
If you use Dex and Finesse weapon ... you only need to max one stat, in order to have both hit/damage and defence ...
If you use Str, you need to get Medium Armor ... or you need to max two stats instead of one ... so you dont loose AC.

What benefit would be there?

These are poor takes. The first one refers to an authority which immediately kills any fresh ideas and leaves no room for discussion.
The second is blowing the logical suggestion out of proportion and extrapolating it to some completely nonsensical and ridiculous examples.

Tell me, free of prejudice, can you make a sneaky headshot with a hand hammer from behind? A spear thrust in the back? How is that wrong?

The benefit of one-shotting a healthy enemy by hiding properly and cracking its head with a hammer out of the dark, for example.

I play a STR-based barbarian/rogue in a PnP game, but it's a role playing build. I would never make such a character in a computer game. EDIT: And the DM is OK with sneak attacking with any one-handed weapon. But that's his house rule.

I dont really see the benefit tho ...

Str Rogue cracked his head ...
Dex Rogue slit his throat ...

Is he anyhow more dead?

Yes, in the hammer case his head is cracked and in the dagger one his throat is slit. Imagine being a detective! Would make a world of difference.

Hmm ...
Im going to read it as "flavor"

Mechanically, a STR rogue is inferior to a DEX rogue, no two ways about it.

Sure, why not? Overall it seems like BG3 homebrew buffs casters way more than martials. Giving rogues---and thus martials via multiclassing---a corresponding buff would help to even out that disparity.

It's barely any buff. Once the sneak attack is 2d6, the majority of damage comes from the sneak attack dice, not from the weapon. I played a rogue in a PnP game and I used a dagger. Another player asked me why I didn't use a better weapon. I said "1d4+3d6 versus 1d8+3d6 is not enough of a difference for me to care." Same here. 1d8+sneak attack (from a rapier) versus 1d12+sneak attack (from a great axe) is not enough of a difference for me to care. And if the house rule is limited to "sneak attack with any one-handed weapon," then there is no difference at all, because there is no one-handed weapon that does more than 1d8.