Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong

[DND_Reborn]

So in our last session one of the players (fighter/rogue) was using sneak attack on undead and also a stone golem later on. Given how easy it is to use sneak attack, it bothered me about the idea of sneak attack on creatures that are animated and really don't have vitals or vulnerable spots.

I've read some threads about this and people argue that undead still have muscles, ligaments, etc. which could be targeted, but since they are animated I can't agree with it. And a stone golem? What are you going to strike on that to warrant so much potential damage every round???

And I know sneak attack is a big part of the rogue's features, but it is hardly all and rogues can do a lot. It is like playing in a game with little to no undead, and a cleric has nothing to turn... the cleric still has a lot it can do.

I'm open to ideas, so for people who find this a non-issue, what is your logic?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Everything can be sneak attacked because sneak attack is a crucial part of a rogues viability in combat.

 

[Raith5]

Non issue for me. I think their ability comes from overall perception to see weak spots and vulnerability, not just their knowledge of anatomy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Non issue for me. I think their ability comes from overall perception to see weak spots and vulnerability, not just their knowledge of anatomy.

I suppose maybe a better way to think of it would be a timing issue. Like the rogue knows when to strike at the right moment to try to deal the most damage, which is why sneak attack is limited to finesse weapons which can strike quickly when the opportunity presents itself...

At least your argument is more than just "they need to have it to be effective."

 

[Hussar]

I suppose maybe a better way to think of it would be a timing issue. Like the rogue knows when to strike at the right moment to try to deal the most damage, which is why sneak attack is limited to finesse weapons which can strike quickly when the opportunity presents itself...

At least your argument is more than just "they need to have it to be effective."

Like it or not, at the end of the day, that is the reason. Going back to the old 3e days of "Hey, your rogue is fantastic unless we happen to be fighting fairly common types of monsters (undead, plant, ooze, construct - a heck of a lot of dungeon denizens)" has been determined to be less fun. So, now we just let rogues sneak attack everything and don't worry about it.

 

[Umbran]

I've read some threads about this and people argue that undead still have muscles, ligaments, etc. which could be targeted, but since they are animated I can't agree with it.

That depends on what you mean by "animated". If it is animated in the sense that something is magically activating the muscles, then sneak attack works just fine. If it is animated in the sense that some outside force is lifting the limbs by telekinesis, so that the muscle action doesn't matter, what you say makes sense...

But then why can't all undead levitate or fly? There'd be no reason they need to stand *on* something, like the ground.

And a stone golem? What are you going to strike on that to warrant so much potential damage every round???

Either a stone golem has Pinocchio-style joints (which woul be a weak spot), or its movement causes stone to bend and flex. Have you noticed how much stone *doesn't* bend and flex normally? Well, forcing it to do so means the material starts to build up micro-fractures, and regions with such fractures are vulnerable...

Get creative, you can always come up with some explanation, if you need to. The absurdity of the sneak attack doing more damage is hardly more than the absurdity of walking stone.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That depends on what you mean by "animated". If it is animated in the sense that something is magically activating the muscles, then sneak attack works just fine. If it is animated in the sense that some outside force is lifting the limbs by telekinesis, so that the muscle action doesn't matter, what you say makes sense...

But then why can't all undead levitate or fly? There'd be no reason they need to stand *on* something, like the ground.

For me, I mean the magic is moving them, not giving them life. Skeletons have nothing to allow them to move without the magic that is animating them. And some undead can fly...

Either a stone golem has Pinocchio-style joints (which woul be a weak spot), or its movement causes stone to bend and flex. Have you noticed how much stone *doesn't* bend and flex normally? Well, forcing it to do so means the material starts to build up micro-fractures, and regions with such fractures are vulnerable...

Get creative, you can always come up with some explanation, if you need to. The absurdity of the sneak attack doing more damage is hardly more than the absurdity of walking stone.

Of course such things don't happen normally, they are constructs-animations and magical. A rogue's sneak attack is not. A rogue can still contribute to combat against such creatures, or support others more capable. Besides, there are way more things which it apply to than not.

Anyway, I'm just can't agree with it. It seems overkill, especially with how easy it is to do and how much damage it can inflict, especially with critical hits now doubling all the sneak attack dice as well. All these arguments are things I've read before and still don't persuade me.

But any more thoughts people?

 

[cbwjm]

They used to have this restriction in 3rd edition. I'm not really too concerned with it in 5th but if you are then I'd say feel free to apply the restriction again for your 5e games but only apply it at the start of the campaign rather than altering it part way through and surprising your players. Depending on the campaign the restriction might not even be much of a restriction as some campaigns have little to no undead or constructs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

They used to have this restriction in 3rd edition. I'm not really too concerned with it in 5th but if you are then I'd say feel free to apply the restriction again for your 5e games but only apply it at the start of the campaign rather than altering it part way through and surprising your players. Depending on the campaign the restriction might not even be much of a restriction as some campaigns have little to no undead or constructs.

That's a good point. I'll bring it up, but the last thing I want to do is nerf the other player's character build! I'll suggest it for our next campaign and just wait until then. Maybe at later levels it won't seem so OP.

 

[Umbran]

For me, I mean the magic is moving them, not giving them life. Skeletons have nothing to allow them to move without the magic that is animating them. And some undead can fly...

Ghosts, specters, wraiths, will-o-the-wisps - all of which are specifically known for being incorporeal. Those with traditionally animated physical bodies don't have fly speeds. Why not?

More importantly, by this logic, physical trauma from weapons should not matter at all to them. I mean, why should a sword or a mace matter - it the magic is moving the body, damage to the body is irrelevant, no?

If you aren't going to be consistent with your logic, then why apply that logic?

Of course such things don't happen normally, they are constructs-animations and magical. A rogue's sneak attack is not.

As above - if you are trying to apply realism and logic, the whole thing falls apart. If swords can damage it, then some sword attacks can do more damage than others - the rogue can produce those.

You are drawing a line, but the place for that line is arbitrary. You are softening a rather central element of the character in combat, not on the basis of its actual performance, statistically, but on the basis of "I don't like it."