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

[Farscape]

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."

Care to rephrase the troll apart again? Calling someone a troll or showing troll like behaviour is the same thing. I don't call you any names and I would appreciate it if you didn't call me names either. If you can't control yourself please seek another thread.

Anyway, the problem is relying too heavily on SA and thinking that is all that makes you useful.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I view damaging a vampire with anything but a few things as being genrally ineffective: if you can pump a vampire full of lead from a 50 cal and it still keeps coming, what difference will a poke in the eye do it beyond being a momentary inconvenience.

And what of a Lich, lacking eyes completely?

 

[The Human Target]

I view damaging a vampire with anything but a few things as being genrally ineffective: if you can pump a vampire full of lead from a 50 cal and it still keeps coming, what difference will a poke in the eye do it beyond being a momentary inconvenience.

And what of a Lich, lacking eyes completely?

Then why aren't vampires just immune to non wooden stake weapon attacks? Why is a great sword swing to the chest different than a knife to the back?

A demilich skull like Vecna? He has gems for eyes. He needs a physical form to exist. It can be damaged. You can sneak up on him and deliver an undefended attack. Why would he be immune to sneak attack specifically?

 

[Farscape]

The problem with picking and choosing is the fact that each monster entry will have to give specific instructiins as to why they are immune to SA. How do you SA a lich, or even a ghost? It was easier to classify all undead as being immune. What happened to your enchanter if the DM threw nothing but undead at you? All those feats you took to improve your mental and charm spells?

 

[payn]

The problem with picking and choosing is the fact that each monster entry will have to give specific instructiins as to why they are immune to SA. How do you SA a lich, or even a ghost? It was easier to classify all undead as being immune. What happened to your enchanter if the DM threw nothing but undead at you? All those feats you took to improve your mental and charm spells?

Pathfinder did a pretty good job separating them out. It didn't take much effort just a single line in the stat block.

Good point about the enchanter. I think others covered the fact that an enchanter will still have access to toehr spells. Though focusing on enchantment would be bad in an undead heavy campaign.

 

[billd91]

The problem with picking and choosing is the fact that each monster entry will have to give specific instructiins as to why they are immune to SA. How do you SA a lich, or even a ghost? It was easier to classify all undead as being immune. What happened to your enchanter if the DM threw nothing but undead at you? All those feats you took to improve your mental and charm spells?

I think a significant difference here is the spell caster had plenty of opportunity to not put all of his eggs in one basket - his class power for spell casting is well-suited to it - and chose not to broaden his focus, something very easy for him to do. The rogue has to go farther out of his way to add contingencies to his repertoire to deal with things immune to sneak attack.

 

[Farscape]

Then why aren't vampires just immune to non wooden stake weapon attacks? Why is a great sword swing to the chest different than a knife to the back?

A demilich skull like Vecna? He has gems for eyes. He needs a physical form to exist. It can be damaged. You can sneak up on him and deliver an undefended attack. Why would he be immune to sneak attack specifically?

What part on a skull is a "vital spot"?

Whats the difference between you sneaking up and delivering the attack to the back of the skull and my barbarian giving it a good old golf club swing with his big hammer in the same spot? How would you hit a skull in a precise location?

 

[The Human Target]

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.

Its not fun because it gimps a player harshly in a significant chunk of circumstances. Challenge is fun, ineffectuality is not. There are much better ways to make monsters challenging then making them immune to one classes' shtick.

Its not creative because its an over simple and weirdly specific mechanic to represent the varying physical forms of dramatically different creatures.

Its not balanced because it renders a classes main feature impotent. Also because no other class gets kicked in the groin like that in the editions that have SA immunity. There is no "all goblinoids are immune to dual weapon attacks" rule.

Blanket SA immunity in a vestigial tail on the butt of D&D.

 

[Farscape]

I think a significant difference here is the spell caster had plenty of opportunity to not put all of his eggs in one basket - his class power for spell casting is well-suited to it - and chose not to broaden his focus, something very easy for him to do. The rogue has to go farther out of his way to add contingencies to his repertoire to deal with things immune to sneak attack.

Not really. A few potions, scrolls, and wands will do the job. Rogues are also about using tools when necessary. You don't have to use SA to be effective and anyone that tells you this is dead wrong.

 

[Farscape]

Its not fun because it gimps a player harshly in a significant chunk of circumstances. Challenge is fun, ineffectuality is not. There are much better ways to make monsters challenging then making them immune to one classes' shtick.

Its not creative because its an over simple and weirdly specific mechanic to represent the varying physical forms of dramatically different creatures.

Its not balanced because it renders a classes main feature impotent. Also because no other class gets kicked in the groin like that in the editions that have SA immunity. There is no "all goblinoids are immune to dual weapon attacks" rule.

Blanket SA immunity in a vestigial tail on the butt of D&D.

Boo hoo, you get gimped versus some monsters. If your DM is going out of his way to throw things at you thar always play on your weakness then that is his fault, not the fault of the game.

If you don't carry a bow am I supposed to not throw in any flying creatures?