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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
The reason is that I don't want to have to deal with unnecessary complications when it comes to battles. I want to fight the two Ogre Zombies in the room and move on to the next part of the adventure as quickly as possible. I want the focus of the adventure to be on the plot. If we are exploring an ancient tomb, I want to get to the part where we learn the history of the tomb, why it was created, we search for the treasure buried there, and we solve the puzzles the creator left for us. The battle part is interesting and needs to be there, but I'd prefer the focus not be on the minutia of combat. Whether I take a full step left or only a half step left before attacking is not important at all. The important thing is that I attack the enemy and do damage.

My character knows how to fight, I don't. I don't want to have to come up with the exact details of HOW he fights. He knows how best to defeat his enemies whether they are Undead or Orcs. I'll let him figure that out and then abstract that into an attack roll and a damage roll.
Back in 3rd edition, my rogues always carried extra bits to deal with undead, oozes, and golems. I didn't put all my eggs in one basket by depending 100% on Sneak Attack for everything. I had my rogues carry scrolls, wands, alchemists fire, nets, trip wires, and a host of other things. I liked having to actually use my brain when I needed to think outside the box. Also, doing some damage is better than doing no damage so swinging that sword, even though you may not get SA, is better than standing there crying like a baby because your SA didn't work. I want my characters to have to go up against creatures that put me at a disadvantage.
My metric for "Is this a good mechanic?" almost always comes down to: "How intuitive is it for fairly new players to use?"

If someone who had never played an RPG before shows up at my game wanting to learn and says "I want to be that sneaky guy, who hides and disarms traps and stabs people in vital places" and I have an adventure planned that's entirely undead, I don't want the player to complain halfway through the game that it feels like his character is useless compared to everyone else. I don't want him feeling like he made a bad choice when creating his character.

He also likely won't know what scrolls, wands, or alchemists fire were or why he'd need to carry them around. Also, if the campaign started at first level, he likely wouldn't afford any of that.

Plus, I feel that an RPG really should let you create a character at least close to your vision of them. Rarely do Rogue-like characters in TV shows, movies, and books carry around scrolls or use magic. They are just really good at combat. Albeit, sneaky combat. Most players come in thinking, "So, I'm going to be like Riddick(or insert any character here), I sneak in the darkness and attack people when they aren't looking. That'll be so awesome!"

It creates a large disconnect when you suddenly say "Oh, yeah, you are just like Riddick, except when there's zombies around. Then your normally badass character can barely hurt them. You mean you didn't buy the magic item listed on p. 239 of the Magic Item Compendium that means you are good at defeating zombies? What are you, an idiot?"

If you knew you were going to be in an undead campaign, why did you choose rogue anyway?
And this is the key, most people don't know what kind of campaign it will be when they create their characters. I don't know of any DMs who inform their players of these things in advance. Exactly the opposite. Most DMs specifically keep these details hidden so the players have to figure it out as they go along.

Plus, if you are playing an ongoing campaign, the adventures change from session to session. You might start the campaign looking for the Stick of Truth only to find it when you get to level 6 and then suddenly there's an undead army invading and the next 5 levels are attempting to defeat the Lich King and his Undead army.

It feels like of lame going from that guy who does 10 more damage than everyone else and kills enemies before any of your friends to the guy who does 1/10th of everyone else's damage and feels like he is sticking a sewing needle into enemies over and over again, uselessly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It's not simple to post links while using your mobile phone. This site doesn't like mobile phones very well, and I won't even start on the Enworld app.

Hmm...never really had a problem- I use my iPod Touch and iPad2 almost exclusively. And no, I don't use Tapatalk.
 

It creates a large disconnect when you suddenly say "Oh, yeah, you are just like Riddick, except when there's zombies around. Then your normally badass character can barely hurt them.

To me, that sounds like a challenge that a hero can overcome. Heroic stories are full of them. See Jason & the Argonauts, Perseus, Deliverance...the list goes on.

Like...how would Green Lantern fight Big Bird if he suddenly became a serial killer?

How would Superman take down Harry Potter?

The answer is you find another way, you use different tactics. Or you slog around with the mere mortals, and hope that someone else in the party has a solution. Being on a team means teamwork, and teamwork means that you don't have to solve every problem yourself.
 

Because I wanted to take care of traps and play a game where logic comes into play.

I'm fighting a zombie, a moving and physical undead, as a creature that applies by physics, if I damage the legs and slow it down or strike the spine to harm its ability to move, then why is it suddenly immune to these effects because it is undead?

It isn't. Weapon damage applies as always. BS free damage doesn't. Also, once you start talking about animated dead we can safely throw physics and associated sciences out the window.

Furthermore, if I am fighting a flesh-golem as a rogue, I want my character to run and slide low and strike the creature's leg to harm it, aiming for some exposed stitches to undo the leg.

Why is it suddenly impossible to harm it as such?

I want my highly trained fighter to do the same. How does it feel to want? Also, stitched together Frankenstein parts do not equal, hulking human. Refer to zombies for applicable physics.


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?

Assuming both weapons are magical there isn't a difference. Except that a greatsword does a bit more damage than a knife.

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?

Anyone can do that. Rogues just don't get BS damage for doing that.

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?

That was 4E in a nutshell. It was why every batttle was two dimensional and a gargoyle couldn't fly and chew gum at the same time. The everyone has to be awesome all the time edition. It had its chance. It was found wanting. Wizbro has moved on.

Nothing. It's a feature, not a flaw.

Yarp.

I have solved this problem in my OD&D game. There is no thief class, there is no backstab, there are no critical hits. I woke up and realized that targeting specific anatomy in an abstract game with HP pools was stupid and never looked back. Anyone can be a thief now. Choose thief as your background and do all the neat rogue stuff AND the stuff your class can do. Problem solved-all better.
 

Since the time D&D uses mythological and magical undead as basis for their monsters instead of modern pulp ones.

On the contrary, pulp has a tremendous influence on D&D. We have vampires straight out of "Dracula," and liches based on a story by Robert E. Howard, and zombies that look a lot more like "Night of the Living Dead" than traditional Haitian Vodou.

It isn't. Weapon damage applies as always. BS free damage doesn't. ...
I have solved this problem in my OD&D game. There is no thief class, there is no backstab, there are no critical hits. I woke up and realized that targeting specific anatomy in an abstract game with HP pools was stupid and never looked back. Anyone can be a thief now. Choose thief as your background and do all the neat rogue stuff AND the stuff your class can do. Problem solved-all better.

Good for you. Since you've banned the rogue altogether and think sneak attack is BS, why do you care if it works on undead or not? It won't affect your campaign either way.
 
Last edited:

Hmm...never really had a problem- I use my iPod Touch and iPad2 almost exclusively. And no, I don't use Tapatalk.

I am using my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 and I can't get everything to fit on the screen, even worse when you try and post because it goes off the screen. Thats why I am making a lot of spelling mistakes.
 

Because the type of gamer WotC caters to (3E and onward, with early 4E being the peak) is only interested in the combat aspect of the game, build their characters for maximum DPR and they complain when the total damage they do in an adventure is too low.

This is so bad that for a time I didn't even categorize D&D as role playing game any more as they have as much support for role playing as monopoly (you still can wing it, but whats the point?). It is all about combat MMO style so it is no wonder that people complain that classes are not balanced.

I will let my players know we should stop roleplaying because all we care about is combat.

They are going to be shocked!
 

It's not backstabbing though. It hasn't been backstabbing for a very long time, and when it was, the thief character was quite different. Like, for example, they had a monopoly on skills - so the argument that they had an anatomy skill didn't seem like as much an odd notion, as they had all the skills anyway.
Same thing really though.
how are you doing extra damage to a ghost or skeleton?
as opposed to a human or orc?
 

Elementals - how does one find a vital area in a pyre of flame?
Any creature in gaseous form.
Swarms - but then most are immune to weapons anyway.

And, frankly, I can see the argument for undead and constructs since part of the justification for critical and sneak attack damage stems from hitting vital areas - many of which don't exist or don't matter for these targets. That might have been better modeled by giving the target some degree of fortification, as the armor property, instead of blanket immunity to reflect their lessened degree of vulnerability compared to living targets.

How do great axes or magic missiles hit a vital area of a gas cloud or living campfire?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top