2
\$\begingroup\$

Soulknife rogues (see TCoE, p. 63) use psychic blades (and soul blades after level 9) to attack. These incorporeal weapons have a range of 60ft and no long range (i.e., cannot attack beyond 60ft).

On the other hand, at level 9, the rogue gains psychic teleportation in which the player can "throw [a soul] blade...up to a number of feet away equal to 10 times the number rolled [on an expended psionic energy die]." Thus, the player can potentially throw the blade up to a maximum of 80ft at level 9, 100ft at level 11, and 120ft at level 17.

The attack range versus teleportation range discrepancy here seems inconsistent. I get that being able to accurately hit a target at greater than 60ft is different than being able to toss it near where you want to teleport at a longer range, but one can still, nonetheless, throw it further than 60ft after level 9.

How would DMs feel about either:

  1. Giving the blades' an attack range of ten feet times the maximum value of the rogue's psychic energy die (60ft at level 3, 80ft at level 9, 100ft at level 11, 120ft at level 17) with no long range.
  2. Leaving the blades' normal attack range at 60ft and allowing for long range attacks to reach ten feet times the maximum psychic energy die (note that the disadvantage for long range attacks would prohibit a sneak attack, a HUGE drop in damage for a rogue).

Seems like neither of these options would break anything (remember, long bows can sneak attack and have a normal attack range of 150ft), and it creates more consistency between the two abilities.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There's a difference between throwing a weapon to deal damage to someone, and throwing an object just for it to land to a specific location. So at the very least, it is realistic to consider an "attack range" and a "non-damaging throw range", which is basically what is described for this ability. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthieu
    Commented Jul 12 at 6:31

2 Answers 2

1
\$\begingroup\$

Break anything? Probably not . . . but . . . .

Neither of your options immediately break the game, but your mileage may vary. What is balanced in the books is intended to be playable for anyone using the rules to run a game, whereas a house rule is (obviously) just for that table.

So the real question is, would it imbalance your game? If your game is high level, high magic, high damage, then no, neither of your proposed changes will probably make a huge difference, except perhaps for the fun of the player playing the soulknife.

However, if your game has very few magic items, very gritty, with few rests, and is extremely tactical, where every character is using book features and is every adventure day close to exhausting every resource, then whether the feature is numerically unbalanced, it may feel so to the other players.

How to proceed

The DM and the player need to get on the same page. Depending on the game, the other players might need to be involved.

And playtest it. Try it out. That's really the best way to tell if it is imbalanced in the specific game, or more fun, or less fun.

My experience

My current game (Eberron, currently 15th level, medium magic) has a soulknife in it. They've never mentioned feeling limited by the 60 foot range.

It's a fairly high-powered game. The party isn't dripping with magic items, but between what we have and various feats, custom subclasses, custom spells, and so on, I just don't think it would make much difference to the game if either of your suggestions were implemented, except maybe it would be more fun for the soulknife (who's having a great time, but always room for more fun).

We try out house rules like that all the time, and they are usually fine.

Inconsistency

You say, "The attack range versus teleportation range discrepancy here seems inconsistent."

Maybe? But really . . . we're talking about psychic powers. How it works is just not defined. What the relationship is between the mechanism that allows the soulknife to attack versus the mechanism that allows the soulknife to teleport is also just not defined.

So inconsistent? I don't think there's much objective to judge that inconsistency by.

I do see your point from a narrative perspective, though, and if it seems inconsistent to you, that's a different story. If you're the DM, you can change it. If you're the player, you can talk to the DM.

\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

Short Answer:

As a DM, I found two main ways to adjust the range of the Soulknife Rogue's psychic blades: scaling the attack range with levels or adding a long-range option. Both methods have their benefits and challenges

Long Answer:

When I first noticed the discrepancy between the attack range of the Soulknife Rogue's psychic blades and their psychic teleportation ability, I experimented with two different thingies

Scaling the Attack Range with Levels:

I decided to increase the attack range based on the rogue’s level. For example, at level 3, the attack range was 60 feet, but by level 17, it extended to 120 feet, matching the maximum roll of their psionic energy die. This change made the abilities feel more cohesive and provided a clear progression as the rogue leveled up. Players enjoyed it basically

However, there were challenges. This adjustment sometimes made the rogue overshadow other ranged classes, which required careful balancing to ensure everyone felt equally valuable. Additionally, the shift from precise, short-range attacks to longer range options changed the rogue's combat style, which took some getting used to for both me and the players.

Adding a Long Range for Psychic Blades:

The second method I tried was adding a long-range attack option. I kept the normal range at 60 feet but allowed for long-range attacks up to 10 feet times the maximum roll of the psionic energy die, with disadvantage on these longer throws. For instance, at level 17, the rogue could attack up to 240 feet but with less accuracy.

This approach added a layer of realism and strategy, as the rogue could now throw their blade further but with a trade-off. The disadvantage on long-range attacks helped maintain balance, preventing the rogue from becoming too overpowered. However, it did add some complexity, requiring more explanation and reminders during play. Despite this, it introduced an interesting tactical element to combat, which many players found engaging.

DM Considerations:

In my experience, the impact of these changes largely depended on the style of our campaign. If your campaign involves a lot of long-range combat, these adjustments can significantly influence gameplay. It’s also important to consider the party composition to ensure that the rogue’s increased range doesn’t make other characters feel less useful.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .