Sneak attacking undead and constructs seems wrong

[DND_Reborn]

Thanks all for the responses. I woke up and was like, wow, that is a lot of comments! LOL

Now, sure it is a change in philosophy about sneak attacks since 2E. But that is all it is, is a change. It isn't better or worse. Some people like it, some don't, and I could spend days debating why the older systems are just as viable, but that would be a waste of time for everyone, so I'll move on...

For the extra amount of damage it can deal, a big factor is also how incredibly easy it is to get. Rarely in our game is it a one-on-one fight. The rogue nearly always is fighting something that is engaged with one of the rest of us. It is also really easy since you can do it with ranged attack as well. In 2E and even 3E it didn't affect as many things AND it was harder to do. Now, it affects everything and happens routinely. With the extra damage, sneak attacks can make rogues better in combat than fighters (I am NOT talking about OP, power-gaming, min/maxing builds, ok???).

I agree with CleverNickName:

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.

Having it deal extra damage is so mundane, and is OP when it deals so much extra once you get to mid- and high-levels. Our group doesn't really power-game, but the damage for the rogue is outstripping the fighter and barbarian. I can see it in the others when he routinely rolls an extra 4d6 nearly every turn. With things so easy to hit, it isn't even like it is difficult to hit much of the time. The guy who plays the rogue didn't min/max his build either, the effect is built into the sneak attack by default.

I get damage is an arbitrary system, so maybe coming up with other ways to represent the rogue's ability would be a good change. I am not a fan of the battle-master or any archetype or feature which grants "extra dice" to do maneuvers or other things with, so I want to steer clear of those.

Maybe something like this:

If you hit with your sneak attack, you deal an additional die of damage from your weapon (a little more won't break anything IMO). Also, can do one of the following:
1. reduce the target's speed to 0 (or maybe half?) until your next turn.
2. impose disadvantage on the opponent's next attack.
3. grant advantage to an ally's next attack.

Other ideas might be possibly such as tripping your target so it has to check or fall prone, etc. Anyone have thoughts?

 

[André Soares]

The problem is that there's an expectance of the rogue nowadays for being a good damage dealer, so it needs to have a feature that grants significant damage output. I understand why it doesn't fit your fantasy, why it's hard to suspend your disbelief. But still, if you limit sneak attack there will be a lot of fights where the rogue will be all but useless, even if they get those really interesting powers you propose, the damage outpu is too low, and the battlefield control... well, other classes do a better job at it. It's a really tricky spot, balancing narrative expectance with gameplay usefullness

 

[André Soares]

But I always comeback to the point, it's not about the creature you target anymore, it's about your power to extract advantages. Going by this it gets real easy to justify sneak attack.

 

[jasper]

It used to be call, "thief is an and takes advantage of hitting his opponent when it's distracted". But that was too long and since had the word advantage would be rules lawyer feed. So they shorten it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The rogue's sneak attack ability has always felt weird to me ever since we stopped calling it "backstabbing."

Well, we stopped calling it Backstab because that sounds like it requires facing rules.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, we stopped calling it Backstab because that sounds like it requires facing rules.

Back then it did. Now you can use it all the time and deal crap loads of damage with it pretty consistently. I don't need rogues to deal lots of damage, that is the purpose of fighter-types. Rogues can be just as viable in combat without dealing so much damage, especially if you offer them other benefits.

It is the same reasoning why cantrips scale, so casters can consistently deal damage as well when they run out of spell slots, which is a whole other issue because the other casters in our group horde their slots, afraid they'll need them later, tossing cantrips all the time, and typically have most of their slots left when we rest.

 

[André Soares]

Back then it did. Now you can use it all the time and deal crap loads of damage with it pretty consistently.

I feel crap loads of damage is an exageration, sneak attack makes the rogue just close to marcial classes in damage output.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I feel crap loads of damage is an exageration, sneak attack makes the rogue just close to marcial classes in damage output.

In your experience that might be the case, but in mine the rogue is doing as much damage as the fighters, much more on crits. Maybe at higher tiers the fighters will outstrip the rogue, but at tier 2 the rogue is better typically. And as I said before, it happens because he can use it all the time practically.

 

[S'mon]

I feel crap loads of damage is an exageration, sneak attack makes the rogue just close to marcial classes in damage output.

IMC the Rogue-16 does about as much damage sniping as the Barb-18 in melee with the +2 weapon, but not as much as the Barb-20 with the Legendary gear.

Yesterday the Barb-18 gained Garvok, Sword of Wrath, so I expect that to change.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks all for the responses. I woke up and was like, wow, that is a lot of comments! LOL

Now, sure it is a change in philosophy about sneak attacks since 2E. But that is all it is, is a change. It isn't better or worse. Some people like it, some don't, and I could spend days debating why the older systems are just as viable, but that would be a waste of time for everyone, so I'll move on...

For the extra amount of damage it can deal, a big factor is also how incredibly easy it is to get. Rarely in our game is it a one-on-one fight. The rogue nearly always is fighting something that is engaged with one of the rest of us. It is also really easy since you can do it with ranged attack as well. In 2E and even 3E it didn't affect as many things AND it was harder to do. Now, it affects everything and happens routinely. With the extra damage, sneak attacks can make rogues better in combat than fighters (I am NOT talking about OP, power-gaming, min/maxing builds, ok???).

I agree with CleverNickName:



Having it deal extra damage is so mundane, and is OP when it deals so much extra once you get to mid- and high-levels. Our group doesn't really power-game, but the damage for the rogue is outstripping the fighter and barbarian. I can see it in the others when he routinely rolls an extra 4d6 nearly every turn. With things so easy to hit, it isn't even like it is difficult to hit much of the time. The guy who plays the rogue didn't min/max his build either, the effect is built into the sneak attack by default.

I get damage is an arbitrary system, so maybe coming up with other ways to represent the rogue's ability would be a good change. I am not a fan of the battle-master or any archetype or feature which grants "extra dice" to do maneuvers or other things with, so I want to steer clear of those.

Maybe something like this:

If you hit with your sneak attack, you deal an additional die of damage from your weapon (a little more won't break anything IMO). Also, can do one of the following:
1. reduce the target's speed to 0 (or maybe half?) until your next turn.
2. impose disadvantage on the opponent's next attack.
3. grant advantage to an ally's next attack.

Other ideas might be possibly such as tripping your target so it has to check or fall prone, etc. Anyone have thoughts?

I see this a lot -- evaluating how 5e works through the lens of previous editions. I think this is a mistake, namely trying to recreate elements of previous mechanics within 5e. The reason for this is that 5e is a different game altogether. Yes, it says D&D, and it has a huge amount of similarities, but, under the hood, the mechanical engine is quite different and how it approaches design goals is quite different.

Firstly, rogues in editions prior to 3.x were not martial classes. They did poor damage and were not super useful in fights as rogues. You could play an effective rogue, but that wasn't by applying martial skill. 3.x started changing that, and 4e completed the shift to make rogues competent in the martial realm while still focusing on the other pillars of play. In 5e, the rogue is meant to be a competent martial asset, and it is. It is not, however, dominant in that field, falling behind the other martial classes but still remaining relevant. There are a few points where a 5e rogue does slightly better than a fighter (no feats) at damage, but usually the fighter is ahead. Take your shortsword wielding rogue vs a sword and board fighter or a greatsword fighter at 4th and then 5th level: the rogue at 4th does 3d6+stat damage if their conditions are met and the fighter does either 1d8+2+stat (dueling style) or 2d6+1.33+stat (great weapon style). The rogue is a bit ahead (average of 11.5+stat vs either 7.5+stat or 8.33+stat) but with conditions (simple, sure, but not always). At fifth, the fighter wins hands down as the rogue goes to 4d6+stat vs either 2d8+4+2xstat or 4d6+2.66+2xstat. It's a big jump for every other martial class at 5th that the rogue doesn't really close until 9th level (6d6+stat vs the above). This is ignoring the fighter's higher hitpoint, higher AC, and any subclass tricks that go to improving fighter damage output (the rogue really only has assassin for this).

And, this meets the design goal of 5e -- rogues a competent martial classes in combat. Not the best, but competent. Don't confuse lots of dice on one attack for being super-powerful, or even being able to get that often. 5e compensates for this in other areas, like vastly increase monster hitpoints (I'm running a 5th level party and monsters with 50 or so hitpoints are speedbumps). If you nerf rogues, you're making them less useful and reducing a core design principle. You can do this, but you really should have a better reason that "but I remember it wasn't like this in an earlier edition." You wouldn't complain about not being able to trump a hand in gin rummy, either, because that's a mechanic from a different game. If you want to play an older edition, go for it, they're still great games. But, if you're playing 5e, you should really try to grasp that it's a different game and will play differently from previous editions. It's not an update, it's a new game. Leave your thinking about how older editions worked with the older editions; you'll have more fun that way because you won't be fighting the system.