D&D 5E Q&A -- Dec 20: Puzzle monsters and spell points.

[Kobold Avenger]

I remember Elementals being been described as having some sort of anatomy at least in terms of "body parts" like a heart you can get from a dead elemental for use in crafting magic items. And most of them have vaguely humanoid forms too. I'd say that Iron Golems do require some mechanical parts even beyond nut and bolts, but even if there wasn't gears and pistons underneath the armor, piercing holes in the armor would either leak or disrupt magical animating energy.

That's not counting the fact that many solid materials do have flaws, and while those really can't be spotted there's a justification for crits working.

 

[Warbringer]

At this point I'm just renaming "Sneak Attack" to "Mental Gymnastics".

 

[Mistwell]

I take this as a coded "Sneak Attack will affect all creatures"

The question is this:

"Is there room in the game for monsters that are immune to things like Sneak Attack or magic?"

The answer is this:

"Yes, but the key is that we think it’s important to look at these as individual monsters, not entire categories or types of monsters."

So why do you read it as "Sneak Attack will affect all creatures" ?

 

[Kobold Stew]

So why do you read it as "Sneak Attack will affect all creatures" ?

That was my initial sense of the desired subtext; it's not indicating my preference.

 

[Mistwell]

That was my initial sense of the desired subtext; it's not indicating my preference.

But he says the opposite of what you claim...so why do you think it means different from what he says?

 

[Kobold Stew]

That was my initial sense of the desired subtext.

Take it for what it's worth. There will be PC powers that affect whole classes offensively (e.g. turn undead); there won't be blanket exclusions (as in SA) -- as it stands now, mutates mutants, etc.

The difference between the two exists only in semantics and economy of expression, right?

"SA affects all creatures except constructs, elementals, oozes…", and people are up in arms about their characters getting hobbled (as this thread demonstrates).

"Additionally, you do bonus SA damage against humanoids, monstrosities, beasts …" and we should be fine. Except we're not because players assume a rogue without SA is lame in combat, which strikes me as particularly unimaginative.

Of course, any individual creature can have immunities, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc. That goes without saying. The answer here concedes nothing about that which doesn't already exist in common sense. IMO.

 

[Mistwell]

That was my initial sense of the desired subtext.

Take it for what it's worth. There will be PC powers that affect whole classes offensively (e.g. turn undead); there won't be blanket exclusions (as in SA) -- as it stands now, mutates mutants, etc.

The difference between the two exists only in semantics and economy of expression, right?

"SA affects all creatures except constructs, elementals, oozes…", and people are up in arms about their characters getting hobbled (as this thread demonstrates).

"Additionally, you do bonus SA damage against humanoids, monstrosities, beasts …" and we should be fine. Except we're not because players assume a rogue without SA is lame in combat, which strikes me as particularly unimaginative.

Of course, any individual creature can have immunities, resistances, vulnerabilities, etc. That goes without saying. The answer here concedes nothing about that which doesn't already exist in common sense. IMO.

OK, fair enough.

To be clear, my objection to SA immunity across a wide range of creatures is not related to being hobbled, or being lame in combat. My objection is that it implies rogue SA is based on them targeting known vital anatomy, and in purely damage-focused ways.

I don't buy the "rogues are educated in vital anatomy of all monsters, at first level" nor do I buy "they can only use that knowledge for combat purposes".

It doesn't fit with the iconic image of a rogue as a sneaky dirty trickster who might well be entirely uneducated at first level. I just don't buy that a street thug knows the vital spot to strike a purple worm, otyugh, beholder, and dozens of other non-humanoid strange creatures. Where did they get this knowledge, and why do they all have that knowledge despite coming from such varied and unrelated backgrounds?

On the other hand, I have a much easier time buying, "rogues specialize in a sneaky, dirty tricks that take advantage of monsters who are distracted, allowing them to strike harder or faster or more during such distractions". It's not perfect, there are still flaws with that concept, but it makes more sense to me and is more easily adapted to varied backgrounds than the anatomy explanation that is implied by the limited sneak attack method.

 

[steeldragons]

Sneak Attack:

...doesn't work on elementals. They are swirling energy beings. They might have a "humanoid" shape, but they are NOT humanoid. The compsition of thier bodies is the element they are created from/a part of. If you slice a wave or a landslide or a breeze or a flame in half, does it care? Is it weakened? Does your blow do more damage than that guy with a sword's blow? No. It doesn't. Rationalize all you want. Take physics into account if you want (I guess you could for earth or water, but that's about it). In D&D terms, it doesn't. Is the weapon magic (a spell or magic weapon/item)?! Well, they are creatures brought to and/or held in this world by magic...so, sure, the MAGIC does damage. Not the blow/weapon.

...doesn't work on undead. The corporeal ones are "dead" already...they're so dead, they're UNdead! Cut their spine? So what! Slit their throat? So what! They're not breathing. Hit that spot uder the arm? So what! They don't "feel" pain. They might (for the very kind DM) lose use of that arm...but they're not taking "extra damage." For the incorporeal ones, seems a no-brainer. You can't touch 'em anyway. Can magic (spell or wepaon/item) hit them (the incorporeal and the physical ones)? Yes. Do they do damage? The magic does. Not the blow/weapon. No bonus here.

...on that note, doesn't work on shadow- or light-based beings. Like elementals and/or incorporeal undead, these beings do not have physical form that is effected by anything but magic.

...doesn't work for "extraplanar beings" [demons, devils, angels, slaadi, non-elemental things, etc...). Chalk it up to "supernatural sense" or "divine/abyssal/infernal" power/skill/senses/"magical immunity or resistance", doesn't matter...you just can't "sneak up" on these guys. The force of your blow/weapon is always shunted off to the side, though the magic (of a spell or magic weapon/item) will still "hit" them.

...doesn't work against oozes, slimes or jellies. See elementals. If you slice through jelly does it "hurt" it? Or, in the case of "puddings", keep it from coming back together just as it was?

...doesn't work against "worms" or other segmented creatures (lemures, remorhaz...even, maybe, slugs or snails). They have no neck for a slice, no spine to sever, no joints to separate, just...no. Doesn't work. Slicing it "here" is no different or harmful than slicing it "there."

Annnnnnd...there. I have explained "Sneak Attack" exceptions in the DMG in less than a column. The thief/rogue PCs? They learn what works and what doesn't as they go...as the PCs should in a D&D game.

That doesn't seem unreasonable. None of it does. If you are up against that kind of foe, use your BRAIN! Use you IMAGINATION! Your rogue has a bevy of other skills, aside from "Sneak Attack", that can be of service...Does that make them "as effective in battle"?! NO, it doesn't. Flat out. It doesn't. It's a ROGUE! NOT a fighter! Against orcs and goblins (and elves and humans), or ogres, giants, dragons, etc etc etc...they can do their thing. Or, if nothing else, protect the spellcasters!!! That is certainly NOT a "waste" of actions nor should feel like they are not contributing!

 

[Dausuul]

Sneak attack works on anything that can be distracted. It has nothing to do with vital areas or vulnerable spots. Sneak attack immunity, if granted to anything, should be for "vigilant" creatures such as beholders.

 

[Philousk]

You are right Dausuul: the definition of the SA states. SA is based on the distraction of the opponent and not on its anatomical weaknesses exposed. Moreover, I find nowhere in the document where it is stated that the undead (for example) are immune to SA and I find no other type of monster in the bestiary receiving this treatment. Yes some are immunized against damage from non-magical weapons, but that does not mean it is the point affected by SA! Am I missing something?