Originally Posted by neprostoman
Originally Posted by branmakmuffin
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
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.

It is a buff, because of how resistances work. Sneak attack against a skeleton with a hand hammer can be a devastating one shot, while attacking an ochre jelly with a scimitar can be a complete disaster.
You are spinning out some highly situational examples. But you are right about one thing: there are no bludgeoning melee weapons that you can sneak attack with. And for a pure rogue, none that do slashing damage (with proficiency), either. So a pure rogue would never attack an ochre jelly with a scimitar.

Unless your game has you fighting nothing but skeletons, overall it would be no buff at all.