Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 3966502" data-attributes="member: 529">Yet non-magical weapons work just fine in D&D against all sorts of constructs and undead.I agree that some groups have fun with encounters they can't muscle through.  Some don't.   I wouldn't go so far as to label the latter as whiners.  The complaint about rogues not being able to use their sneak attack against entire monster types has some merit.  The good thing about rogues being able to sneak attack constructs and undead is that it makes it easier on the DM to design campaign worlds and adventures.  Design a nation of undead ruled by vampires in 3E and guess what?  If your group includes rogues they won't go there.  Create an evil puppetmaster NPC and populate his dungeons with clockwork automatons, and they'll find some other dungeon.  Of course you can railroad them into anything, but if you want them to have some say in how the campaign goes, you don't want to hamstring rogues or any other class.I feel like the new sneak attack is designed to free the DM to design things they wouldn't have in 3E. However, as I said earlier in the thread, I do think that some monsters can and should have immunity to sneak attack.  I have a hard time myself imagining formless oozes and incorporeal creatures as being vulnerable to a sneak attack.  But instead of making the entire creature type immune, they can now just make those particular creatures immune.  If they don't, I may house rule a couple of monsters, as I agree with you that not every class has to be fully effective in every encounter.</blockquote>

Verification