Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Turning undead is more like a ribbon. You feel cool when you get to do it, but you hardly lose anything if you can't. Every cleric has something else that they can do with their channel, aside from turning undead.

A better comparison would be to the cleric's spellcasting. You can do something without casting a spell, but the game is really balanced around that being your major contribution.

If you make skeletons and golems immune to sneak attack, then balance would require you to make some enemies completely immune to spells, and other enemies immune to regular weapons. Or you could decide that you don't care about balance, and just nerf rogues. It's worth bearing in mind that, if you produce a house rule which exclusively nerfs rogues and contains no balancing factor, then it's highly unlikely that anyone will choose to play a rogue in that campaign.

 

[CleverNickName]

The rogue's sneak attack ability has always felt weird to me ever since we stopped calling it "backstabbing." I'm always looking for ways to fix it.

I think the worst version of Sneak Attack was 3rd Edition. It was just so inconsistent and unreliable, only working when the DM let it work (by controlling which monsters you encountered), with a laundry list of conditions to trigger it. Then I found the houserule in Unearthed Arcana that let you trade your sneak attack ability for fighter bonus feats...I loved that. I think I ended up using that houserule for every single rogue I ever played in 3E and Pathfinder.

It's a lot better in 5E since it affects all creatures equally, but it just feels dull to me. I'd prefer a different effect, something a little more versatile and colorful than just extra damage (stun, slow, poison, etc.). I haven't seen anything yet, though, so maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's boring.

 

[5ekyu]

The rogue's sneak attack ability has always felt weird to me ever since we stopped calling it "backstabbing." I'm always looking for ways to fix it.

I think the worst version of Sneak Attack was 3rd Edition. It was just so inconsistent and unreliable, only working when the DM let it work (by controlling which monsters you encountered), with a laundry list of conditions to trigger it. Then I found the houserule in Unearthed Arcana that let you trade your sneak attack ability for fighter bonus feats...I loved that. I think I ended up using that houserule for every single rogue I ever played in 3E and Pathfinder.

It's a lot better in 5E since it affects all creatures equally, but it just feels dull to me. I'd prefer a different effect, something a little more versatile and colorful than just extra damage (stun, slow, poison, etc.). I haven't seen anything yet, though, so maybe I'm the only one who thinks it's boring.

To me if you want a variety of effects, call up a battlemaster-rogue build.

 

[Li Shenron]

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???

Sneak Attack in 5e has nothing to do with the target's vulnerabilities. It is described in the PHB as "you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction". So it's all about the Rogue's ability and what is her target doesn't matter, as long as it'a creature.

In game terms, it's basically just a damage bonus once per turn, if you meet some conditions (which is easy most of the times). Other classes have other damage bonuses which on the long term might even out with Sneak Attack even tho they function differently.

 

[Shiroiken]

Everything that moves is either liquid or has joints. If it has joints, those are weaknesses that can be exploited by a rogue. The stone golem is made up of a pile of rocks, so it should have many cracks and joints for a rogue to bypass, just like a dragon's scales.

If it's liquid... well it makes just as much sense as any weapon attack being effective. How does a fighter's sword work against a water weird, for example? It's just something that D&D allows because otherwise non-magical characters would be useless against those enemies.

 

[S'mon]

If it's liquid... well it makes just as much sense as any weapon attack being effective. How does a fighter's sword work against a water weird, for example? It's just something that D&D allows because otherwise non-magical characters would be useless against those enemies.

I find smushing/bashing liquid into disruption more plausible than "subtly striking" it - an issue for piercing weapons in general & rogues in particular.

 

[Fanaelialae]

As others have said, sneak attacking constructs and undead makes as much sense as weapons being able to hurt them to begin with. Realistically, trying to hack through a mound of stone with a sword would just destroy the sword. The mound of stone would likely be relatively unscathed, unless it were a fairly soft stone.

IMO, if weapon attacks can harm a creature, then it should be able to be sneak attacked.

 

[5ekyu]

Everything that moves is either liquid or has joints. If it has joints, those are weaknesses that can be exploited by a rogue. The stone golem is made up of a pile of rocks, so it should have many cracks and joints for a rogue to bypass, just like a dragon's scales.

If it's liquid... well it makes just as much sense as any weapon attack being effective. How does a fighter's sword work against a water weird, for example? It's just something that D&D allows because otherwise non-magical characters would be useless against those enemies.

i will tend to narratively describe these "liquids" as non-homogeneous - whether its oozes or gelatins or elementals - give them some internal differentiation at the start - maybe water weirds have clusters of sand or shells or maybe they have internalized whirlpools at their "heart" of even just different internal lighting and coloration...

all comes back to - only if you describe an utter lack of "stuff that matters" do you have a problem with "stuff that matters" not being there.

magic and image are 80% the same after all.

 

[André Soares]

It's funny how this issue happens with people who are used to the reallity of previous editions. It happened to me and my group, and seing the responses here, it still happens a lot.

In 5e the reasoning for sneak attack is not the same as in 3.x, it's not about hitting soft or vital spots. The feature's descriptions is the following: "Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. " If you pay attention it's about exploiting distraction and being swift. Nothing in the feature infers you are hitting soft tissue, ligaments, organs or any other weak point, you are just exploiting distraction, and so, the composition of the target's body does not matter. It's about your ability, not the target's anatomy.

5e is similar to older editions in a lot of ways, but we cannot assume every thing works the same or has the same fiction justification just because it has the same name or similar function.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

You forgot the most crucial part: rogues in 3.x can´t sneak attack in shady alleys, only in bright light.