Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about Finesse?
Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong
- Thread starter DND_Reborn
- Start date
aco175
Legend
I was at a convention last weekend where I sneak attacked an ooze. Silly yes, but falls into the other things like knocking prone a snake.
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
[MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION] Not meaning to sound disrespectful (but certainly recognizing my question can be be seen as such), but have you asked your player how they imagine it works? Did you give them a chance to solve the "problem"?
The way I see it, D&D is composed of mechanics and how we see imagine, or "skin" them. There is nothing inherent about the mechanics that make up what we call a human to be human. I can just as easily take those same stats and state that it is a bugbear. The mechanics are not impacted by this, but it allows us to explore the role playing opportunities of having a bugbear present in the party. Additionally, there is nothing that says I can't take the mechanics that make up a warhammer and describe it as a big battle gauntlet. Mechanically the description has no impact on the mechanics, but it can help explain and realize a player's concept for their character.
Similarly, Sneak Attack can easily be skinned into other actions. The problem is that we have this kind of cultural understanding of a rogue and sneak attack based on previous systems. Sneak Attack was described and handled by understanding it as a rogue taking advantage of vital spots. Thus in previous systems, that conceptual understanding guided the mechanical execution, and prevented it from working against creatures without clear anatomy.
However, 5e seems to work a bit differently. There is more separation (though not total separation) between the conceptual or imagined function of powers and abilities, and the mechanical result within the game. Therefore, there is no reason that we need to be married to the idea of a Rogue using an ability named Sneak Attack, or even calling them a rogue for that matter. A player can describe their ability as a Ki strike (focusing their spirit energy into their strike to deal greater damage), a Whisper strike (Whispering magical energy into the weapon to enhance its damage), or any number of ways. Maybe your player imagines that they have a magical ability to coat their weapons in a special liquid that makes their attacks more deadly. As long as the requirements for the mechanical use are not changed, nor the mechanical result, the player should have some creative freedom regarding how it is seen or imagined within the bounds of the setting (a rogue in a Conan-esque setting is not going to be using magic to enhance their strikes into a sneak attack).
There is more credence given to this idea based on how some rogue archetypes can change the parameters on when sneak attack can happen. The Swashbuckler can use sneak attack within 5' as long as no other creature is within 5' of you and your target. If Sneak Attack is solely about striking vital organs, how does fighting one on one improve your ability to strike vital organs? And if it is only about striking vital organs, how come only the Scout can make multiple such strikes a round? All this is a roundabout way of saying that Sneak Attack is a mechanical property of the Rogue. But just because it is called Sneak Attack and we have certain preconceptions about what that means, those conceptual ideas do not have to impact the mechanical outcomes of the ability.
So yes, it does not make sense for "Sneak Attacks" to deal greater damage to creatures without vital spots or discernible anatomy. Because in the end, you can call it Sneak Attack, Ki Strike, Patient Riposte, Poisoned/Corrosive Weapon, or whatever. As long as it doesn't change the mechanical result, really the sky is the limit.
The way I see it, D&D is composed of mechanics and how we see imagine, or "skin" them. There is nothing inherent about the mechanics that make up what we call a human to be human. I can just as easily take those same stats and state that it is a bugbear. The mechanics are not impacted by this, but it allows us to explore the role playing opportunities of having a bugbear present in the party. Additionally, there is nothing that says I can't take the mechanics that make up a warhammer and describe it as a big battle gauntlet. Mechanically the description has no impact on the mechanics, but it can help explain and realize a player's concept for their character.
Similarly, Sneak Attack can easily be skinned into other actions. The problem is that we have this kind of cultural understanding of a rogue and sneak attack based on previous systems. Sneak Attack was described and handled by understanding it as a rogue taking advantage of vital spots. Thus in previous systems, that conceptual understanding guided the mechanical execution, and prevented it from working against creatures without clear anatomy.
However, 5e seems to work a bit differently. There is more separation (though not total separation) between the conceptual or imagined function of powers and abilities, and the mechanical result within the game. Therefore, there is no reason that we need to be married to the idea of a Rogue using an ability named Sneak Attack, or even calling them a rogue for that matter. A player can describe their ability as a Ki strike (focusing their spirit energy into their strike to deal greater damage), a Whisper strike (Whispering magical energy into the weapon to enhance its damage), or any number of ways. Maybe your player imagines that they have a magical ability to coat their weapons in a special liquid that makes their attacks more deadly. As long as the requirements for the mechanical use are not changed, nor the mechanical result, the player should have some creative freedom regarding how it is seen or imagined within the bounds of the setting (a rogue in a Conan-esque setting is not going to be using magic to enhance their strikes into a sneak attack).
There is more credence given to this idea based on how some rogue archetypes can change the parameters on when sneak attack can happen. The Swashbuckler can use sneak attack within 5' as long as no other creature is within 5' of you and your target. If Sneak Attack is solely about striking vital organs, how does fighting one on one improve your ability to strike vital organs? And if it is only about striking vital organs, how come only the Scout can make multiple such strikes a round? All this is a roundabout way of saying that Sneak Attack is a mechanical property of the Rogue. But just because it is called Sneak Attack and we have certain preconceptions about what that means, those conceptual ideas do not have to impact the mechanical outcomes of the ability.
So yes, it does not make sense for "Sneak Attacks" to deal greater damage to creatures without vital spots or discernible anatomy. Because in the end, you can call it Sneak Attack, Ki Strike, Patient Riposte, Poisoned/Corrosive Weapon, or whatever. As long as it doesn't change the mechanical result, really the sky is the limit.
Last edited:
aco175
Legend
I think looking back at past editions also needs a point on the number of PCs at the table. I remember 2e where the party had 8 people in it, where now there are 4-5 and they all need to contribute and be viable. Gone are the days where the mage was poor until mid levels where he would suddenly outstrip the others. Gone are the XP thresholds where the thief could be 3rd level before the mage became 2nd. Most of the changes I'm fine with and enjoy the current edition whenever a new one comes out. I do find that we carry bits from the last edition either since they make sense or we only think that is a rule. For instance, my group still allows the thief to sneak attack on the first round of combat if the bad guy has not acted even if not surprised.
Changing sneak attack damage to lessen the HP damage and make it deal other cool things may work. You could come up with a list of powers like warlock or monk that uses sneak attack dice. So if you want to knock prone the bad guy you could use 1 of the d6s to make a DC10 check and each additional d6 you use makes the DC one higher. So now you can decide thew damage level or do other things like slow and paralyze. I would make sure you leave the decision up to the player once you come up with a list and get the player buy-in before you change things.
I would think that most of the time the more damage and killing things faster makes the most sense. If I can slow the bad guy and do less damage makes less chance it may be used if I can just do 20 more points to him and maybe kill him. I could see some more abstract powers making more of a chance being used. Things like drawing a dagger and throwing it at another target as an extra attack may be worth dealing less damage to this bad guy I'm next to. Something where I can spend a HD of healing could be cool. Now I'm getting away from battle things, but it may help me choose the powers over more damage.
Changing sneak attack damage to lessen the HP damage and make it deal other cool things may work. You could come up with a list of powers like warlock or monk that uses sneak attack dice. So if you want to knock prone the bad guy you could use 1 of the d6s to make a DC10 check and each additional d6 you use makes the DC one higher. So now you can decide thew damage level or do other things like slow and paralyze. I would make sure you leave the decision up to the player once you come up with a list and get the player buy-in before you change things.
I would think that most of the time the more damage and killing things faster makes the most sense. If I can slow the bad guy and do less damage makes less chance it may be used if I can just do 20 more points to him and maybe kill him. I could see some more abstract powers making more of a chance being used. Things like drawing a dagger and throwing it at another target as an extra attack may be worth dealing less damage to this bad guy I'm next to. Something where I can spend a HD of healing could be cool. Now I'm getting away from battle things, but it may help me choose the powers over more damage.
AkaKageWarrior
Explorer
Here's the explanation why sneak attack almost always works:
Rogues are mechanics.
They know body mechanics = anatomy, as well as constructed mechanics.
So they are good at "de-constructing" mechanics, be it disarming traps, taking apart constructs, or shutting down vital parts of living things.
In combat, they just need their opponents to be a little distracted by the rogue's allies to "work" on their opponents.
PS: wow, I really like that.
Rogues are mechanics.
They know body mechanics = anatomy, as well as constructed mechanics.
So they are good at "de-constructing" mechanics, be it disarming traps, taking apart constructs, or shutting down vital parts of living things.
In combat, they just need their opponents to be a little distracted by the rogue's allies to "work" on their opponents.
PS: wow, I really like that.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
Nothing wrong with that approach; a lot of tables are already doing that. It won't work for us, though--we don't use the multiclassing rules at our table (and it does nothing to address the sneak attack ability itself.)
It's not a bad idea, though. I'm sure that with enough elbow grease, one could figure out a way to remove the sneak attack ability altogether and replace it with superiority dice and battlemaster abilities. I think that would be overkill, but some folks might like it. Personally, I'd rather have sneak attack damage be a fixed amount and rogues learn special abilities every few levels that make the sneak attack do different things.
I'd like to see something like "Sneak Attack deals double damage (or triple damage, on a critical hit). At every odd-numbered level thereafter, you learn one rogue trick, chosen from the list below." Then follow it up with a list of effects that the player can choose to add to that sneak attack damage. Like, maybe your target can't take reactions until their next turn. Or the target's movement rate drops to zero. Or you get to make a free Sleight of Hand check against the target to steal an object. Or the target is knocked prone. Or the target is pushed 10 feet in a direction of your choice. Or the target is stunned, poisoned, sickened, frightened, blinded...
Anyway. My days of writing and playtesting house rules are behind me. I barely have time to just show up and play the game; there's no way I've got the bandwidth to write new rules at this time.
I'll keep my eyes peeled for something along these lines, and if it should pop up on DM's Guild or in an Unearthed Arcana article or something, I'll jump on it.EDIT: what [MENTION=27385]aco175[/MENTION] said.
If you cut apart the connective tissues that hold a zombie together, the zombie ends up in pieces. The animating magic may still be making the pieces twitch, but the zombie is effectively finished.
Structural weak points, such as the neck or ankles, where the stone is narrow and/or carrying a lot of weight. Cracks or flaws in the stone.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Again, so much to respond to! I LOVE IT!
What I got from this: it is like comparing a combustible-engine car vs. an electric car. They are both still cars and will get you where you want to go, but how they work, which has certain benefits over the other, etc. is what makes them different. 5E is still D&D, but not your daddy's D&D.
Sorry, but can you elaborate? I am not certain what you want me to address.
LOL, a player wanted to use Shield Master to knock a giant snake "prone", the DM didn't allow it. His ruling: the snake is always "prone". He said in his opinion snakes should be immune to the prone condition. We accepted it, but pointed out the ability of the feat should still do something. He decided to have it still imply disadvantage on the snakes next attack and allow advantage on the next (only one!) attack against the snake. *shrug*
No issue, I didn't find anything offending in your tone and I appreciate the concern. Thanks. While I am ok with a lot of ways to explain mechanics, personally I would get away from the "it is an mystical or magical thing" because I don't find the overlap of magical abilities in so many non-magical classes as appealing, but that is only my preference.
LOL I like it, too! That is a nice way to look at it, how rogues pick apart traps and apply that to their foes. It does help thinking of the rogue that way and sneak attacking operating under that concept. Thanks.
What I got from this: it is like comparing a combustible-engine car vs. an electric car. They are both still cars and will get you where you want to go, but how they work, which has certain benefits over the other, etc. is what makes them different. 5E is still D&D, but not your daddy's D&D.
Sorry, but can you elaborate? I am not certain what you want me to address.
LOL, a player wanted to use Shield Master to knock a giant snake "prone", the DM didn't allow it. His ruling: the snake is always "prone". He said in his opinion snakes should be immune to the prone condition. We accepted it, but pointed out the ability of the feat should still do something. He decided to have it still imply disadvantage on the snakes next attack and allow advantage on the next (only one!) attack against the snake. *shrug*
No issue, I didn't find anything offending in your tone and I appreciate the concern. Thanks. While I am ok with a lot of ways to explain mechanics, personally I would get away from the "it is an mystical or magical thing" because I don't find the overlap of magical abilities in so many non-magical classes as appealing, but that is only my preference.
Here's the explanation why sneak attack almost always works:
Rogues are mechanics.
They know body mechanics = anatomy, as well as constructed mechanics.
So they are good at "de-constructing" mechanics, be it disarming traps, taking apart constructs, or shutting down vital parts of living things.
In combat, they just need their opponents to be a little distracted by the rogue's allies to "work" on their opponents.
PS: wow, I really like that.
LOL I like it, too! That is a nice way to look at it, how rogues pick apart traps and apply that to their foes. It does help thinking of the rogue that way and sneak attacking operating under that concept. Thanks.
André Soares
First Post
Maybe that's the best way to go at things... Instead of changing the class in a tricky way, and risking a player feel you robbed them of their powers, trying to find a justification that fits your fiction of the world.
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
Well, it doesn't have to be a mystical or magical thing. Though, if you have magic users and monks in your group, it isn't such a stretch since there is precedent for that kind of thing.
But it could be a mundane explanation as well. As I think someone else in the thread had mentioned (sorry, I would quote or credit you, but can't find the exact post at the moment), the ability could be more reflective of a rogue timing their shot and making the most opportune strike. It could be capitalizing on a distraction set up by one of the other characters. Or the rogue himself may be distracting the creature, setting it up to expect one kind of strike but then reversing into a different one. So the target bracers for one thing, and instead gets hit in a less defended area. Or perhaps, even though the rogue is technically getting only one attack, maybe the player likes the idea of each additional dice representing a strike. So one mechanical "hit" with sneak attack is visualized or imagined as a number of rapid and precise strikes. That is probably the most mundane option to represent the higher damage without the baggage of "needing to hit a vital spot." A single sneak attack being represented by a flurry of stabs when the creature is distracted.
Regardless, I think it is worth talking to your player to see how they imagine it working. They may have a concept in their head that is cool, fun, thematic, and helps you understand how it can work against things without clear anatomy or vital/weak spots.
Additionally, I would caution you against changing or nerfing the player's character. They built their character for a reason. So long as that ability is not breaking the game, limiting the enjoyment of others, or monopolizing the spotlight, I would let it play out. Of course, your table may be different, prioritizing different things as fun or enjoyable. But certainly something like that would feel pretty harsh at my table unless the player was warned up front at session 0 that characters and mechanics may be tweaked along the way.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
