D&D 5E What's the problem with certain types of creatures being immune to Sneak Attack?

[billd91]

There is no right or wrong answer when comes down to whether or not undead should be immune to crits and sneak attacks, on an individual level. There are entirely reasonable, in-campaign justifications for either. Trouble is, undead tend to group as a thematic element for atmospheric adventures and that does tend to gimp the sneak attackers too much and for too long. That is bad from a game design perspective.

I prefer PF's rollback of crit/sneak attack immunity and feel it provides a better balancing point between the sneak attacker being challenged to do something else and being sidelined.

 

[Stormonu]

It's only a problem when it's every. single. creature. Just like there's a few creatures the wizard will have a lousy time handling (golems, high SR monsters) or the fighter (flyers, high DR monsters), there's nothing wrong with a handful of monsters you can't sneak attack. However, 3E was too broad, and 4E too open. Just like I have a hard time envisioning psions mind blasting a skeleton or fighter tripping an ooze, there are some monsters that just seem like they should be immune to sneak attack - like say, oozes and slimes.

But they should be far and few between, and when a DM selects them, it should be a deliberate choice - "this is something that is going to give class X some problems - they'll have to have to buckle down and deal with it, or get creative."

One of the problems is, though, that there are players who view these monsters (and I dare say Mearls is one of them), who view these as "punishment" monsters, instead of challenge monsters.

 

[Scorpio616]

The problem is the sheer number of monsters that ended up immune to the rogue's signature class ability.

Yes, sneak attack being made the signature class ability of the rogue was a problem.

Edit.

Fighting them might not be optimal as a rogue, but still doable enough not to make the player feel like their PC is pretty worthless doing rogue things (or required to "carry scrolls, wands, alchemists fire, nets, trip wires, and a host of other things").

I say people who don't want to use whats available to them get what they deserve. Like a Barbarian who gets to sit out multiple combats because they never bothered to buy a mighty composite bow, wishfully thinking he'd always be able to get to melee.

 

[The Human Target]

Also its interesting you sass 4e's game mentality, when out of all the editions its the one where Sneak Attack immunity could have been in there and the Rogue would still have a lot of built in options to meaningful effect combat.

Its always been weird to me the idea that monsters would have one classes feature be explicitly mentioned in their stats.

It'd be like saying Dragons are all immune to the spells of wizards but effected by all other spells.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I don't get why some people have such a problem with certain types of creatures being immune to Sneak Attack. I don't want the all purpose "powers affect everything" mentality of 4th edition where we just press that imaginary button and things happen.

<snip>

If you knew you were going to be in an undead campaign, why did you choose rogue anyway?

The OP's troll-esque attitude aside, the real problem with immunity to sneak attack is that it singles out a specific class. Would a monster that was 'immune to rangers' be fair? No. Yet apparently some folks think it's fine that every other monster is immune to sneak attacks, the rogue's most useful ability in combat.

Worse yet, there's no logical reason that undead have to work this way. Why zombies would be the absolute bane of sneaky types is beyond me.

Monsters should only have immunities to damage types that are shared across classes. Either that, or they should start handing out 'immune to bare-handed attacks', 'immune to arrows and animals', and 'immune to magic missile' to balance things out.

"Sorry bard! This kobold is immune to catchy tunes! You're useless! Better luck next campaign."

 

[Jester David]

Yes, sneak attack being made the signature class ability of the rogue was a problem.

Edit.
I say people who don't want to use whats available to them get what they deserve. Like a Barbarian who gets to sit out multiple combats because they never bothered to buy a mighty composite bow, wishfully thinking he'd always be able to get to melee.

Before 3e they had skills and backstab. Everyone got skills, and that left backstab.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've always seen immunity to SA as a feature, not a bug...but it should have been limited to:

1) those creatures who are animate only by force of magic: undead, golems (not all constructs), animated objects and the like. The underlying logic: they do not depend on muscles, ligaments, joints, a CV system etc. to move & interact in the world- striking them in "vital areas" or "with precision" is essentially meaningless.

2) those creatures with truly alien anatomy. And in their case, there should be a feat, class feature or some way of becoming familiar with their anatomy. Perhaps something akin to the Knowledge Devotion feat?

 

[The Human Target]

I think there are a lot better ways to implement that idea mechanically.

Like say make Gelatinous Cubes immune to flanking i n general, not one classes feature.

Though I guess the big issue is making any class rely so heavily on one mechanic.

 

[The Human Target]

I've always seen immunity to SA as a feature, not a bug...but it should have been limited to:

1) those creatures who are animate only by force of magic: undead, golems (not all constructs), animated objects and the like. The underlying logic: they do not depend on muscles, ligaments, joints, a CV system etc. to move & interact in the world- striking them in "vital areas" or "with precision" is essentially meaningless.

2) those creatures with truly alien anatomy. And in their case, there should be a feat, class feature or some way of becoming familiar with their anatomy. Perhaps something akin to the Knowledge Devotion feat?

I guess it depends on how you view these creatures.

To me stabbing a vampire the the eye or cutting its hamstring would obviously damage it more that stabbing it in the arm. Even if its not a permanently debilitating injury like it would be with a mortal.

 

[Farscape]

Its not fun, creative, or balanced.

But then we aren't all as cool and tough as you are at the table.

How is it not fun, creative, or balanced.

I have been to lots of cons and travel around to various gaming shops and the only place I ever hear something like that is an internet forum.