Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7568952" data-attributes="member: 59848">[MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION] Not meaning to sound disrespectful (but certainly recognizing my question can be be seen as such), but have you asked your player how they imagine it works? Did you give them a chance to solve the "problem"?The way I see it, D&D is composed of mechanics and how we see imagine, or "skin" them. There is nothing inherent about the mechanics that make up what we call a human to be human. I can just as easily take those same stats and state that it is a bugbear. The mechanics are not impacted by this, but it allows us to explore the role playing opportunities of having a bugbear present in the party. Additionally, there is nothing that says I can't take the mechanics that make up a warhammer and describe it as a big battle gauntlet. Mechanically the description has no impact on the mechanics, but it can help explain and realize a player's concept for their character.Similarly, Sneak Attack can easily be skinned into other actions. The problem is that we have this kind of cultural understanding of a rogue and sneak attack based on previous systems. Sneak Attack was described and handled by understanding it as a rogue taking advantage of vital spots. Thus in previous systems, that conceptual understanding guided the mechanical execution, and prevented it from working against creatures without clear anatomy. However, 5e seems to work a bit differently. There is more separation (though not total separation) between the conceptual or imagined function of powers and abilities, and the mechanical result within the game. Therefore, there is no reason that we need to be married to the idea of a Rogue using an ability named Sneak Attack, or even calling them a rogue for that matter. A player can describe their ability as a Ki strike (focusing their spirit energy into their strike to deal greater damage), a Whisper strike (Whispering magical energy into the weapon to enhance its damage), or any number of ways. Maybe your player imagines that they have a magical ability to coat their weapons in a special liquid that makes their attacks more deadly. As long as the requirements for the mechanical use are not changed, nor the mechanical result, the player should have some creative freedom regarding how it is seen or imagined within the bounds of the setting (a rogue in a Conan-esque setting is not going to be using magic to enhance their strikes into a sneak attack).There is more credence given to this idea based on how some rogue archetypes can change the parameters on when sneak attack can happen. The Swashbuckler can use sneak attack within 5' as long as no other creature is within 5' of you and your target. If Sneak Attack is solely about striking vital organs, how does fighting one on one improve your ability to strike vital organs? And if it is only about striking vital organs, how come only the Scout can make multiple such strikes a round? All this is a roundabout way of saying that Sneak Attack is a mechanical property of the Rogue. But just because it is called Sneak Attack and we have certain preconceptions about what that means, those conceptual ideas do not have to impact the mechanical outcomes of the ability.So yes, it does not make sense for "Sneak Attacks" to deal greater damage to creatures without vital spots or discernible anatomy. Because in the end, you can call it Sneak Attack, Ki Strike, Patient Riposte, Poisoned/Corrosive Weapon, or whatever. As long as it doesn't change the mechanical result, really the sky is the limit.</blockquote>

Verification