Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong

[dco]

You might not see a problem, I did. And avoid D&D? Hardly! We can just change things like you're supposed to do if you don't like the way the rules work normally.

Anyway, rogue aren't traditionally combat classes, they are support classes and high utility. If you make them on par with fighters, what would be the point of playing fighters? Also the extra attacks fighters get typically aren't realized since most games stop before tier 3 and certainly tier 4. Regardless, I really don't want to get into a class vs class debate so I'll stop before I get started too much.

The issue was sneak attack working when our group kind of feels it is unwarranted. Now, with some of the other explanations I've received some posts it makes a lot more sense (I do like the rogue "taking apart" a target like he would a trap or something) and I can discuss it with the other players that way. For my part, I consider the issue most likely solved once I bring some of these points to the DM's attention.

Sure, I only pointed that D&D is not the best simulationist game and why things are done as they are done because reading your post it seems you are looking for some kind of explanation to mechanics, explanations that are not there in the game or were changed to suit your notion of what those mechanics should represent.

Depends on what you read or what you play, I can play in other games classes or archetypes that are as good or better depending on where you spent your points without the rigidity of this class system, in D&D 5e the rogue is what it is. My point is that the mechanics are different but the class is supposed to deal the damage it deals the same way it is supposed to have the other 14-15 features. If you don't use one of the main features of a class personally I don't see what's the point of using it.

You can also have the same problems representing other features from classes, how do you represent that the rogue only has one attack from lvl1 to lvl 20? Only disabled characters can be rogues? Or why the rogue can run more while he takes another action? The rest of classes have damaged knees? Why the wizard has more spells? Why the rogue has more proficiencies in skills?, etc, etc. I could bring countless of questions, if your group only has problems with what sneak attack represents good for you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure, I only pointed that D&D is not the best simulationist game and why things are done as they are done because reading your post it seems you are looking for some kind of explanation to mechanics, explanations that are not there in the game or were changed to suit your notion of what those mechanics should represent.

Depends on what you read or what you play, I can play in other games classes or archetypes that are as good or better depending on where you spent your points without the rigidity of this class system, in D&D 5e the rogue is what it is. My point is that the mechanics are different but the class is supposed to deal the damage it deals the same way it is supposed to have the other 14-15 features. If you don't use one of the main features of a class personally I don't see what's the point of using it.

You can also have the same problems representing other features from classes, how do you represent that the rogue only has one attack from lvl1 to lvl 20? Only disabled characters can be rogues? Or why the rogue can run more while he takes another action? The rest of classes have damaged knees? Why the wizard has more spells? Why the rogue has more proficiencies in skills?, etc, etc. I could bring countless of questions, if your group only has problems with what sneak attack represents good for you.

Cool. Thanks for the response. There are other things that we feel aren't quite right, either, such as rogue and clerics even only getting 1 attack. While I don't think they should have Extra Attack at level 5 or 6, giving it to them at 10th to 12th wouldn't hurt things much IMO. Most of the stuff is okay or a minor fix. Knowing now more about sneak attack, assassinate, and how we've been doing some things wrong will help.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Cool. Thanks for the response. There are other things that we feel aren't quite right, either, such as rogue and clerics even only getting 1 attack. While I don't think they should have Extra Attack at level 5 or 6, giving it to them at 10th to 12th wouldn't hurt things much IMO. Most of the stuff is okay or a minor fix. Knowing now more about sneak attack, assassinate, and how we've been doing some things wrong will help.

Rogues are compensated for this by sneak attack. Clerics are compensated for this by cantrios. Clerics are not a martial class in 5e.

Also...<cough> dragonborn don't have darkvision <cough>

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A related issue may be that the definition of "damage" has changed.

In earlier editions, damage measured only the ability to inflict physical trauma. The only way to inflict damage was to physically impact their body. The only things that increased your damage were those things which made you hit harder, or made your hits hurt more by striking vital places. Healing was relatively slow because, even though you're an action hero, there's a limit to how quickly anyone can shrug off being stabbed.

Narrate this sequence for me in 1st edition. Amy hits Bob for 4 HP of damage.

Was it a mortal wound? Was it a scratch? Who knows! When Todd heals Bob for 3 HP of damage with cure light wounds, did it stuff his guts back in? Did it patch up a scratch? Why does Cure Light Wounds repair dreadful injury to a 0th level human, but do nothing for a high level fighter? Why do the gods hate high level Bob and love low level Bob?

The "HP is meat" crowd wants to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore that HP simply DOES NOT WORK as meat, and never has. Why does your effectiveness not fall as you take damage? In real life, being stabbed limits your ability to run. In D&D there is no death spiral. Wounds don't bleed on their own. Bones aren't broken leaving lasting debilitating effects. There's no mental trauma from being attacked or killing the hundreds of sentient being a character is likely to put down by 5th level.

D&D has always been bad at the simulation of anything but being a D&D character. Third edition may have tricked a bunch of people with a bunch of fiddly minutia, but a spreadsheet full of numbers porn doesn't make it feel real.

 

[Staffan]

If the target is completely unaware of the attacker at the moment of attack, I'd rule they are not 'in combat' and so they don't get an init roll to avoid the surprise attack. I'd then go to init, with the target no longer surprised at the moment init is rolled (so no double dipping surprise attacks).

The way I see the initiative roll is that if the victim beats the assassin on initiative, the victim reacts a split-second before the would-be assassin - not enough to negate advantage from being unseen but enough that the assassin only gets a regular sneak attack. It's basically like shielding your throat with your chin - you'll still get a real nasty cut across the chin, but at least your throat wasn't slit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Narrate this sequence for me in 1st edition. Amy hits Bob for 4 HP of damage.

Amy swings her sword, striking Bob hard for 4 damage. He is now injured, more than he would be from 3 damage, but not as much as would be from 5 damage. Further detail is at the discretion of the DM.

The "HP is meat" crowd wants to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore that HP simply DOES NOT WORK as meat, and never has.

The "HP is plot" crowd wants to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore that the actual game rules treat HP as ONLY physical, and any claims to the contrary were without mechanical basis. Only physical things are capable of inflicting HP damage, and only factors which increase the degree of physical trauma will increase the damage done. If HP were supposed to represent skill or luck or divine protection, then those things which affected your skill or luck or divine protection would do so by interacting with your HP rather than with your attack rolls, AC, and saving throws.

Why does your effectiveness not fall as you take damage? In real life, being stabbed limits your ability to run. In D&D there is no death spiral. Wounds don't bleed on their own. Bones aren't broken leaving lasting debilitating effects.

It's a simplified model, and not everything is worth modeling within the assumptions of combat. Being severely wounded may indeed inhibit your ability to run, because the combat rules assume that you're actually in a battle, and not in a foot race. If you try to apply the combat rules to situations they were never intended to model, then the DM is there to adjudicate.

There's no mental trauma from being attacked or killing the hundreds of sentient being a character is likely to put down by 5th level.

I've heard a lot of nonsense from you people over the years, but this has to take the cake. Are you seriously arguing that, of all of those goblins you attacked with your sword until they've stopped moving, not only did you not hit them whenever you dealt damage, but they didn't even die as a result of your actions? Get real.

 

[5ekyu]

Cool. Thanks for the response. There are other things that we feel aren't quite right, either, such as rogue and clerics even only getting 1 attack. While I don't think they should have Extra Attack at level 5 or 6, giving it to them at 10th to 12th wouldn't hurt things much IMO. Most of the stuff is okay or a minor fix. Knowing now more about sneak attack, assassinate, and how we've been doing some things wrong will help.

"There are other things that we feel aren't quite right, either, such as rogue and clerics even only getting 1 attack. "

But this isn't true.

Rogues often have dual wielding going on with light finesse weapons - so frequently they get a bonus action attack. IIRC some sub-classes also get an extra strike in some circumstances but i might be misrecalling.

Clerics - some clerics, specific to combat type divines, get extra attacks as part of their domain features. So your nature priest or light priest may not but they might if you are war domain. Also, cleric get to weaponize their bonus actions with some very effective options like bonus action cures and Spiritual Weapon.

The decisions on when and where extra attack got added in seem to have been made with what turns out to be in my experience well thought out overall view in mind.

Groups can change whatever they want of course, but this thing you mention here is one of the ones IMX they got pretty right so unless your group has a much different experience, i would advise proceed at your own risk.

i would expect that if every cleric and rogue got added one extra attack (with some domains getting more on top of that) there would be fewer fighters than now, replaced with clerics and rogues and whichever classes also got that boost - like druids maybe.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Amy swings her sword, striking Bob hard for 4 damage. He is now injured, more than he would be from 3 damage, but not as much as would be from 5 damage. Further detail is at the discretion of the DM.

So no concrete meaning other than a pure gamist construct. That seems a little at odds with your previous "they're all meat" statement. Which of course is at odds with the game's own designers statements. HP are handwavium.

The "HP is plot" crowd wants to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore that the actual game rules treat HP as ONLY physical, and any claims to the contrary were without mechanical basis. Only physical things are capable of inflicting HP damage, and only factors which increase the degree of physical trauma will increase the damage done. If HP were supposed to represent skill or luck or divine protection, then those things which affected your skill or luck or divine protection would do so by interacting with your HP rather than with your attack rolls, AC, and saving throws.

They're nicks and scrapes until they aren't. Narrative is the only model which makes sense.

It's a simplified model, and not everything is worth modeling within the assumptions of combat. Being severely wounded may indeed inhibit your ability to run, because the combat rules assume that you're actually in a battle, and not in a foot race. If you try to apply the combat rules to situations they were never intended to model, then the DM is there to adjudicate.

Minor injuries like stubbing your tow impede your ability to walk. Taking an arrow is going to hinder your ability to do ANYTHING through pain alone. Keep sticking those fingers in your ears, praying to the false idol of D&D simulation.

I've heard a lot of nonsense from you people over the years, but this has to take the cake. Are you seriously arguing that, of all of those goblins you attacked with your sword until they've stopped moving, not only did you not hit them whenever you dealt damage, but they didn't even die as a result of your actions? Get real.

You've never heard of PTSD? THAT's clearly what I'm referring to in that combat in D&D is not even remotely realistic with the HP as meat crowd. If you are actually getting seriously injured that much, you're going to be a gibbering wreck or an emotionless husk by 3rd level.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So no concrete meaning other than a pure gamist construct. That seems a little at odds with your previous "they're all meat" statement. Which of course is at odds with the game's own designers statements. HP are handwavium.

They're all meat. They're just various amounts of meat. Four damage is more meat than 3 damage, but it's all observable and quantifiable.

They're nicks and scrapes until they aren't.

That is to say, they're all meat. They never stop being meat. You can't take damage to your luck, or to your divine protection, because those factors are represented through other mechanics and are never reflected through Hit Points.

Minor injuries like stubbing your tow impede your ability to walk. Taking an arrow is going to hinder your ability to do ANYTHING through pain alone.

Taking an arrow isn't so bad, as long as you're wearing armor (or you're magic). It might knock the wind out of you, and you'll probably have a nasty bruise, but it's not going to kill you.

Learn to read dude. You've never heard of PTSD? THAT's clearly what I'm referring to in that combat in D&D is not even remotely realistic with the HP as meat crowd. If you are actually getting seriously injured that much, you're going to be a gibbering wreck or an emotionless husk by 3rd level.

Unless you're arguing that the goblins are still alive at the end of combat, then it isn't that much more traumatic for you to get bashed a bit before you land the killing blow. In either case, it's the act of taking a life which is hardest to deal with, and that doesn't change when you change the description of attacks other than the final one.

Besides, in my games, we fight monsters. Killing people is what the bad guys do.

 

[Ancalagon]

warrant so much potential damage every round???

Rogues do good, not great damage. Other classes can hit much harder.