D&D 5E L&L December 16th Can you feel it?

[Sage Genesis]

I'm happy to perhaps see the end of "This level 20 Orc minion hits harder than this level 6 Ogre, because numbers."

Minor nitpick: this is not quite true. Looking at the Monster Vault, a level 20 minion hits for like 14 damage. A level 6 ogre deals 2d10+6, and 4d10+4 once per encounter with half damage on a miss.

I understand what you really meant and I also understand that the narrative-ish approach to minions is not everybody's cup of D&D tea, and I'm fine with that. But I just wanted to point out that the way minions work has been somewhat exaggerated over time.

 

[delericho]

Which is only an issue when the only fun the rogue player gets out of the game is combat related when he stabs things for a bucket of D6 damage.

Yep. The problem isn't that so many things are immune to sneak attack. The problem is that the Rogue is too much of a one-trick pony.

(And, actually, even in those combats where the Rogue can sneak attack, he's not really that compelling - his combat tactics still boil down to little more than "how can I get into flanking position?")

 

[dmgorgon]

I really don't see the problem with having some monsters that are immune to sneak attack damage. It might break player entitlement, but not immersion. There are plenty of monsters in D&D that are immune to all sorts of things. Players shouldn't expect to do damage all the time. If a rogue is confronted with a grey ooze he should be just as disappointed that his sneak attack doesn't work as the wizard with the failure of his magic missile. Disappointment is acceptable, but it certainly isn't immersion breaking.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I really don't see the problem with having some monsters that are immune to sneak attack damage. It might break player entitlement, but not immersion. There are plenty of monsters in D&D that are immune to all sorts of things. Players shouldn't expect to do damage all the time. If a rogue is confronted with a grey ooze he should be just as disappointed that his sneak attack doesn't work as the wizard with the failure of his magic missile. Disappointment is acceptable, but it certainly isn't immersion breaking.

Is disappointment acceptable, though? I think it depends on the person you ask. Heroes in movies and books almost never find a situation where they aren't badass. They might find an enemy that is immune to one of their attacks, but they simply switch to another one and continue to be badass. They are heroes and they always find a way around any immunity the enemy has.

As the article says, sometimes being TOO realistic or immersive becomes a problem for fun, so you need to find a balance between the two. By defining things too narrowly, you are creating a situation that requires a player to be disappointed when if you had defined the ability slightly more broadly you wouldn't have to make the player disappointed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yep. The problem isn't that so many things are immune to sneak attack. The problem is that the Rogue is too much of a one-trick pony.

(And, actually, even in those combats where the Rogue can sneak attack, he's not really that compelling - his combat tactics still boil down to little more than "how can I get into flanking position?")

But one could really say the same thing about every other class. The fighter is way too reliant on hitting things with weapons. He's kind of a one trick pony and can't defeat any monster immune to weapons. The wizard is a one trick pony in that all he does is cast spells. Anything immune to spells makes him useless.

I like to think of sneak attack as simply a different way of doing damage with a weapon. Rogues and Fighters are both essentially doing the exact same thing. It's just the Rogue is distracting the guy and stabbing him in the kidney and the Fighter is parrying his attack and riposting him through the chest.

 

[Dausuul]

I really don't see the problem with having some monsters that are immune to sneak attack damage. It might break player entitlement, but not immersion. There are plenty of monsters in D&D that are immune to all sorts of things. Players shouldn't expect to do damage all the time. If a rogue is confronted with a grey ooze he should be just as disappointed that his sneak attack doesn't work as the wizard with the failure of his magic missile. Disappointment is acceptable, but it certainly isn't immersion breaking.

Sneak attack is a rogue's only effective direct attack. Being immune to sneak attack isn't equivalent to being immune to magic missile--it's the equivalent of being immune to spells. There are things a wizard can do when confronted with a spell-immune foe; you can move yourself and your allies around the battlefield, or use magic to manipulate the environment, or fall back on skills, or pull out your trusty crossbow. But you're still pretty massively screwed.

Now, D&D does contain a handful of monsters that are immune to magic or effectively so, and that's fine. Likewise, it's fine to have a handful of monsters that are immune to sneak attack. Giving such immunity to entire classes of monsters is a whole other matter--especially when one of those classes is "undead," a major category which often serves as the dominant monster type for entire adventures. Try to imagine playing through "Red Hand of Doom" as a wizard if all goblinoids had total spell immunity.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well that was....well...I'm glad I don't have to grade these...

So, we go through a circle of "<X> is important to game design, and here's a thing about D&D that makes <X> hard/impossible" what like three times. Was this article supposed to just list the things about D&D that make a designer's life hard? Maybe I've been reading and playing Fate too much lately, but this article seemed like a long list of "Things that make D&D lame."

 

[delericho]

But one could really say the same thing about every other class. The fighter is way too reliant on hitting things with weapons. He's kind of a one trick pony and can't defeat any monster immune to weapons.

Yes, but there are way more things immune to sneak attack than there are immune to weapons. And most Fighters have more than one option, although the precise combination would depend on just how the character is built.

That said, 3e did strongly encourage Fighters to pick a single weapon and/or fighting style (e.g. the trip-monkey) and throw every possible advance at becoming as optimised for that as possible. That truly would be a one-trick pony, and is just as problematic as the Rogue.

The wizard is a one trick pony in that all he does is cast spells. Anything immune to spells makes him useless.

And how many things are immune to all spells? Even golems, the traditional mage-killers, are only immune to those spells that allow Spell Resistance. (In 3e, that is - but since we're talking about Rogues, sneak attack, and things that are immune to it, that rather limits the possible edition )

I like to think of sneak attack as simply a different way of doing damage with a weapon. Rogues and Fighters are both essentially doing the exact same thing. It's just the Rogue is distracting the guy and stabbing him in the kidney and the Fighter is parrying his attack and riposting him through the chest.

But, as Dausuul says, Sneak Attack is basically the only effective option the Rogue has in combat, and about a third of all opponents in the game are flat-out immune to it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not sure how this is meant to be reconciled with the most ubiquitous of all D&D mechanics, namely, hp.

"I can be take one more sword blow before I'm killed." "I can fall down one more 10' pit trap before I'm in danger of breaking my neck?" What does either of these correspond to from the character's point of view?

As time goes on, I am increasingly convinced that all (non-minion) D&D characters in all worlds must, in fact, have glowing green bars above their heads, which shorten and change color from yellow to red as they engage in dangerous activities. Its the only way to make sense of have Narrative Cohesion for the characters' decision-making. Otherwise, I can't imagine what sort of madness would have to overtake someone to make your second example rational in any way.

Is it bad when the thing that makes me least willing to play D&D is reading articles by its designers?

 

[Bluenose]

But one could really say the same thing about every other class. The fighter is way too reliant on hitting things with weapons. He's kind of a one trick pony and can't defeat any monster immune to weapons. The wizard is a one trick pony in that all he does is cast spells. Anything immune to spells makes him useless.

Well, apart from spells that ignore spell resistance, summoned creatures, the ability to fly over or creep invisibly past, and a few score other options, I agree, the wizard has few effective ways to deal with foes that are immune to spells.