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

[Farscape]

Perhaps I'm mistaken. Care to quote some rules to back up your statement? I have these:



How are you using a wand or scroll as a swift action? I will gladly defer to someone with greater rules knowledge in this area.

Not what I am talking about.

Take a scroll of Grave Strike. Standard action cast the spell, then move up. Next round make the attack. 1 round duration ends at the end of your next turn.

There are also gloves that allow a rogue to sneak attack things that are immune to sneak attack.

 

[Farscape]

The problem is the very old notion of people thinking themselves better than others.

And this has to do with the topic how?

 

[Mr. Patient]

Standard action cast the spell, then move up. Next round make the attack. 1 round duration ends at the end of your next turn.

I believe that's incorrect.

Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

The effect from grave strike ends just before your next turn. If you used grave strike from a wand or scroll, you'd be able to use it in an AoO. But it won't apply to your next regularly scheduled attack.

 

[Imaro]

OK, so justify that part. The anatomical one. What skill is it? They should be good at healing too, right, since they know anatomy so well? They should be able to identify damaged corpses too, since they know anatomy so well? Track based on the anatomy in footprints? They would be more likely to have a higher ability score in whatever is connected to that anatomy skill, right? Rogues with a higher ability score there, should be better at sneak attack than rogues with a lower ability score in that, right?

You see how this isn't making sense, I hope.

Wait... what? When did knowing where and how to hit things become synonymous with doctor? Martial artists know how and where to hit things but I don't see how that must translate into them being learned surgeons and physicians... in one instance you claim the thief has a subset of knowledge about tactics (for every creature in existence) but then for some reason he can't in turn have a subset of anatomical knowledge?? Why is that?

And no, knowing where to hit someone doesn't mean you are fast enough to do it or strong enough to do the max damage... so I'm not sure having more knowledge would necessarily translate into being better able to practically apply a SA... You can read about brain surgery all day but if your hand isn't steady enough to operate... well you won't be the best brain surgeon no matter how learned you are.

Edit Below...

2) The rouge is a quick sneaky bastard. They know how to exploit the tactics of creatures, their movement, their positioning, their emotions. They can dodge in and strike swiftly and deeply when and where you're not expecting it, or knock you off balance to get in a deeper hit, or aggravate you into an out of position defense so they can strike harder, or toss dirt in your eyes to do so, or get an extra stab in before you know where that sneak has jumped to. They do whatever it takes to play dirty in a fight when they can.

How is this any more "believable" than the other option you presented. Now the rogue knows the tactics, movements, how they position them selves, as well as the emotions they feel...of every creature they encounter. So if he knows their movements and tactics why can't he track them? If he understands their emotions why can't he use diplomacy and other skills to affect their emotional/mental state? And why does the rogue have near omniscient insight into exactly what dirty trick would work on every monster? If anything this sounds more like a ranger than a rogue. IMO there is nothing more believable about this set up than thew other you mentioned. So I'm asking... what exactly makes this more believable?

 

[Farscape]

I believe that's incorrect.



The effect from grave strike ends just before your next turn. If you used grave strike from a wand or scroll, you'd be able to use it in an AoO. But it won't apply to your next regularly scheduled attack.

My mistake.

Just use UMD to activate the scroll and since the spell is a swift action you cast it as a swift action. You are just subject to disruption.

 

[Mr. Patient]

My mistake.

Just use UMD to activate the scroll and since the spell is a swift action you cast it as a swift action. You are just subject to disruption.

Nope, still won't work. As I mentioned before, activating a scroll is a standard action, no matter what the casting time is for the underlying spell.

Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

 

[Derren]

My mistake.

Just use UMD to activate the scroll and since the spell is a swift action you cast it as a swift action. You are just subject to disruption.

I find it quite telling that the main usage of UMD discussed here is how to allow sneak attacks.

 

[Farscape]

Nope, still won't work. As I mentioned before, activating a scroll is a standard action, no matter what the casting time is for the underlying spell.

Nope. You cast from a scroll as if it was memorized or known. You obey the casting time of the spell.

Edit: Not as known but as prepared.

 

[Farscape]

Nope, still won't work. As I mentioned before, activating a scroll is a standard action, no matter what the casting time is for the underlying spell.

There is an article by Skip Williams that says a spell completion item that uses any other casting time besides standard uses that casting time.

Its on the Wizards website.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to reverse the question in the OP. What is right with certain entire classifications of creature being immune to sneak attack? It doesn't add to versmilitude to assume that there are no vulnerable spots on most creatures. It doesn't make the game more interesting or more fun. It annoys a lot of people.

What is the justification? How does it improve the game? Because I can see several ways it harms it.