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

[HeroForge]

To turn your comment around somewhat, how does any character damage an undead's animating energy with mundane weapons? The energy is supernatural, and yet anyone with sufficient hit points can pick up a sword and simply stab a zombie dead as if it's a living person.

D&D is the only medium I know of where you don't consistently need supernatural or special tools to destroy supernatural forces. And the reason for that is pretty clear, I think: D&D is in large part about fighting monsters, and leaving non-casters impotent to fight supernatural monsters isn't very fun. And most of us are A-okay with this dynamic.

But at the same time, some of us think that leaving rogues impotent to fight several types of creatures is A-okay because Reasons. Seems like very selective reasoning, but maybe that's just me.

I think it is okay that different character classes vary in potency based on the makeup of a particular battle. Having a kind of rocks-paper-scissors situation from fight to fight means that different classes can't just play each fight the same way, and it can allows other characters to shine--I have been in campaigns where each session is sort of like an episode of a television show that highlights one or two particular characters, and sometimes that's cool. Having the freedom to build an encounter where someone new is the 'all-star' of the fight gives more freedom in storytelling. And I know for sure that it can sometimes be tedious for other players to regularly wait and help set up a sneak attack, backstab sort of situation. If a DM wants to be able to take that off the table for an encounter, it is nice to have built in tools to do so.

I think any structure that allows for more variety is good, as it provides more tools for storytelling.

 

[Farscape]

Describe what? How the light in your fridge goes off when you close the door? How electricity travels through various circuit elements? Or maybe how your OP is laughably narrow-minded and rudely dismissive of those who don't share your particular play style preferences?

Like Hussar, I'm not sure what you actually want, which is why I didn't reply to your OP. If your OP was an honest inquiry, you already have your answer: Many of us don't like SA immunity because it's not fun. For us. Don't mistake 'many' for 'a majority'; nobody has hard stats on who likes what, so I could be in the majority or you could. What I do know is that those of us who don't like SA immunity are not a negligible minority.

If you want something more, the question you pose in your OP is no longer in good faith. In which case, I'm not interested in playing 'Who has the bigger longer better play style?'

Why are you dodging the question?

You know exactly what I'm asking you to describe.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Why are you dodging the question?

You know exactly what I'm asking you to describe.

I really don't, and I'm really not going to play twenty questions with you.

You quoted my entire multi-paragraph post, none of which necessarily calls for 'description.' The onus is on you to tell me what in particular you'd like me to describe.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think any structure that allows for more variety is good, as it provides more tools for storytelling.

That's cool.

I think that storytelling in a game is a bit different than storytelling in other mediums, and so rules that render PCs impotent tend not to work as well as rendering a prose character or tv character impotent.

It's all good though, because nobody's preference is wrong.

 

[Mistwell]

It's as absurd (well IMO, less so) as your assertion that somehow knowing how to strike vital areas gives one the set of skills to help in healing or in determining how someone died.

Like I said, cut the strawmanning. I never said anything about knowing HOW to strike a vital area. I said knowing WHERE VITAL AREAS ARE involves knowledge of the anatomy of monsters.

And someone who knows the anatomy of monsters has a better chance of identifying how something died, than someone who has no knowledge of the anatomy of monsters.

There is nothing at all absurd about that proposition. If you disagree, why?

You're making an assumption that has no basis in fact. A coroner is skilled in determining how someone died, a MMA fighter is skilled in striking people in places that will hurt... if there is a by necessity some training in an MMA fighter's experience that makes him inherently better at determining how people died, wouldn't it seem that logically we would see more of them going into the business of well... determining how people died. in other words what facts or examples do you have that in any way correlate to your assumptions as far as knowing where to hurt someone and having an understanding of anatomy that would help in determining how someone died??

I am not going to debate coroners and MMA fighters. There is no reason for an analogy (and an admittedly extremely exaggerated one at that) when we have the real example on the table to discuss.

If you know something about the anatomy of monsters, should you have a better chance of determining how a monster died, than someone who has no knowledge concerning the anatomy of monsters? Answer the question already, and stop distracting with nonsense about MMA fighters and coroners and retirements.

 

[Argyle King]

Yup - lots of pages of discussion, talking about anatomy and vital body parts and the logic of why or why not sneak attacks and criticals should be applicable.

I didn't wade through all 13 pages, but did anyone anywhere mention that D&D (every edition) doesn't have a hit location system other than as a bolt-on or house rule? How can the discussion talk about why sneak attacks and criticals should or shouldn't work on some creatures without mentioning this fact?

No comprehensive hit location mechanic = no way to target an attack. Not comprehensive hit location or specific critical hit results = no way to actually, say, lop off a foot or hand or gouge out an eye or skewer the heart or lungs (or whatever it is that an ooze has for internal organs, for example).

The moment you have a decent combat system that includes the ability to target specific locations and provide variable damage effects, then I think you can logically talk about whether or not sneak attacks or criticals should or shouldn't apply to certain monsters.

None of the bolt-on critical hit rules for d20/Pathfinder is really really effective. Torn Asunder does an admirable job and addresses the ability to do critical effects to monsters that are not subject to critical hits, but it may be a bit more effort than some players and DMs want to engage in.

Best system I've seen so far has been the Twilight:2013 combat rules - simple, elegant, and the effects go from "just a flesh wound" up to and including laying there in shock bleeding out or "lights out" one shot-one kill. I imagine there are other games with equally as good combat rules - but that is just it - the critical effects are baked into the combat system. Until D&D uses a combat system with wound and critical effects built-in and does away with hit points as an abstract measure, then critical hits and sneak attacks against certain monsters is, I think, a debate that can't be won either way.

Good point

I like having hit locations in a game. I also like, as part of having hit locations, for armor and HP to be handled differently. Howevever, even though I prefer that, it's been my experience that it doesn't fit very well into D&D; it tends to clash with some of the quirks and abstractions found in D&D. I somewhat hit on that earlier in the thread when I said that I just have to not think about it too much when playing D&D. While I like a lot of the effects and less abstract things you mention, I think they'd be outside the scope of D&D; adding them all would essentially create a different game. My suggestion to someone wanting all of those things would in fact be to play a different game. That's not in any way intended as a knock toward D&D. I'm simply saying that, even though I like both D&D and the things you mentioned, they don't tend to mix well... at least not in a way that I feel would create something still recognizable as D&D.

Many other games are (in my opinion) better suited to having things like hit location, less abstract HP, facing, and the various other rules which make combat less abstract (and possibly a little harsher*.) I'm not familiar with Twilight:2013, but you mention it in your post. I am familiar with GURPS 4th Edition, and it handles many of the things you mention very well. I've seen discussions of Rolemaster which lead me to believe it has a focus well suited to the things you mention. I'm sure there are others as well.

*Poor choice of words, but I'm not sure how else to explain what I mean. An example I'll use would be GURPS -since I'm more familiar with it. Getting hit is, in my view, more harsh because HPs are something more tangible and less abstract in that system than they are in D&D. However, the game doesn't assume you get hit; rather than just get hit when someone rolls higher than your AC -which that game doesn't have, you can attempt to parry, dodge, or block. Another reason I use it as an example is because I think the Dungeon Fantasy line of products serves as an interesting comparison to D&D 5th Edition's modular approach.


Links provided for reference:
Twilight 2013 http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/58794/T2013--Twilight-2013-Core-Rules
Rolemaster http://ironcrown.com/rolemaster/
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/dungeonfantasy/

 

[Farscape]

I really don't, and I'm really not going to play twenty questions with you.

You quoted my entire multi-paragraph post, none of which necessarily calls for 'description.' The onus is on you to tell me what in particular you'd like me to describe.

You said you could easily describe why SA would work on a zombie so let's have it.

 

[Iosue]

You said you could easily describe why SA would work on a zombie so let's have it.

Uhhhh....

Ah, you're now creatively justifying how the rules reflect D&D magical-physics, which is great! We can just as easily justify how SA works against zombies with a little creativity. Following your creative ideas, a crit or a SA drains more energy (HP) because it takes a lot of that energy to stabilize a broken neck or a partially-severed leg.

 

[Derren]

So what fun should D&D support by default?

The fun of doing max damage against every enemy or the fun of having versimilitude?
And what is easier to houserule? To compile a list of SA immune creatures ro to say that you can SA everything?

 

[Halivar]

The fun of doing max damage against every enemy or the fun of having versimilitude?

There is significant disagreement on which option has the most 'verisimilitude'. In any event, it's a terrible metric because the Great Edition Wars taught me that 'verisimilitude' is apparently as subjective as 'fun'. We all disagree on it. For most, it simply means "this model squares with my personal mental schema."

And what is easier to houserule? To compile a list of SA immune creatures ro to say that you can SA everything?

It isn't difficult for a DM to say on the spot, "this creature has no discernible anatomy, and cannot be SA'd," so I don't think ease of houseruling should be a factor, either.