D&D 5E What's the problem with certain types of creatures being immune to Sneak Attack?

[Mistwell]

How is it like a STR mod? Or simply rolling high? Keeping opponents off balance and hitting hard is what a fighter does. Should fighters have Sneak Attack too?

Second time I've replied to that kind of comment, but OK I will say it again. Yes, fighters also do these things as they are part of the basic set of skills for melee combat, but rogues do that particular subset of basic melee skills better than fighters. Fighters are better overall for the basic melee skills, but rogues are better at the subset they specialize in. Therefore they are more able to take advantage of a distracted foe (distracted because they are facing more than one opponent simultaneously or because the rogue has gained advantage on them in some way), because that's the set of melee skills they've focused on.

no, because it's something else. It's coming out of cover and stabbing in the back, or something very similar.

It's really not, and it hasn't been for what, 13-14 years now? It's not backstab anymore. It's a more general thing than that.

 

[Mistwell]

Hit the eyes, the inside of the joints or the thin areas like the neck. Some things are basic physics or almost universal. Also I can know where the carotid, the jugular, and the femoral artery are without knowing very much about how to patch someone up at all.

If it's so basic, why can't anyone do it? Obviously it involves something more than the apparent basics like those things.

 

[Imaro]

If it's so basic, why can't anyone do it? Obviously it involves something more than the apparent basics like those things.

They do... they are called crits.

EDIT... and yes it does involve more than a basic strike... for everyone.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If it's so basic, why can't anyone do it? Obviously it involves something more than the apparent basics like those things.

How to walk across the Grand Canyon on a tightrope is basic knowledge. Would you care to try it? Because I'm not going to. It's the execution that's the hard part. Trying to do it against an enemy who is about your equal and doing their level best not to let you. That doesn't stop fighters trying to do such things - but they don't have such a narrow focus on how they fight, which is why their BAB is higher and they are only assumed to succeed at the higher difficulty target on crits.

 

[Mistwell]

They do... they are called crits.

If sneak attacks are just crits....then why do only rogues get sneak attacks but everyone gets crits? Come on now, obviously sneak attacks are something separate from the concept of critical hits.

 

[Imaro]

Look, there is a difference between strawmanning on the internet, and being so friggen obtuse that it challenges all reason. That you can say "makes no sense" in the same paragraph where you just asked why MMA fighters don't retire to become corners in response to the example I gave, challenges all reason.

It's be helpful if you made a response that was closer to the reality of what I posted, rather than such extreme exaggeration that it's not even identifiable as something I posted.



You let me know when someone mentions autopsies. Or when someone mentions anything close to the ridiculous strawman arguments you're creating there. All I said is they should be better at making a check for than, than someone who knows nothing about anatomy. The rest - that's all you, flailing around, for whatever possessed you to go there.

It's as absurd (well IMO, less so) as your assertion that somehow knowing how to strike vital areas gives one the set of skills to help in healing or in determining how someone died. You're making an assumption that has no basis in fact. A coroner is skilled in determining how someone died, a MMA fighter is skilled in striking people in places that will hurt... if there is a by necessity some training in an MMA fighter's experience that makes him inherently better at determining how people died, wouldn't it seem that logically we would see more of them going into the business of well... determining how people died. in other words what facts or examples do you have that in any way correlate to your assumptions as far as knowing where to hurt someone and having an understanding of anatomy that would help in determining how someone died??

What in the descriptive text of ANY rogue/thief character write-up in a PHB or otherwise says or implies they are learned men and women who pour through thousands of notations concerning the weak spots of all monsters, all apparently possessed from level one, even if they have an intelligence of 3? We're talking about characters who frequently start as street thugs, who happen to know the weak spots on purple worms?

PHB 3.5 pg. 50
Sneak Attack (Ex): If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The 4e PHB is silent on the description for Sneak Attack, giving it in purely mechanical terms, though the fact that one can use it with ranged weapons does seem to lean more towards the vital spot strike as opposed to dirty fighting and tricks...

I can maybe buy it when you know you're always fighting YOUR OWN RACE EVERY SINGLE TIME. But for all monsters? Come on now.

Well many creatures are similar enough in anatomy that the differences would be minuscule if any, I doubt an elf and a human are so anatomically different that they have wildly differing vital spots. Second... mistakes happen, that's why the rogue could still miss on the attack, roll low on damage etc. No one said his knowledge was infallible.

They do? Where does it say or imply that?

I'm speaking about real life, professional fighters... I mean we are talking about whether your explanation is somehow inherently more believable after all, right?

Yes absolutely. I was listing fairly instinctual levels of training, not detailed tactical and strategic scenarios. It's a fighting style after all, not a military commander.

SO he's able to... off instinct... trick, read the movement of, infuriate and confound... professional soldiers, hardened mercenaries and veterans of a thousand battles... Wait, tell me again how this is supposed to be more believable than that he studied and learned a few weak points on groupings of similar monsters??

As class skills, it often does. But I think it's not really the same skill set as in-combat stuff. Tossing dirt in eyes is a dirty tactic in a fight, not the sort of thing that helps with bluff or intimidate.

Sooo... being able to trick someone into opening up enough that you can throw dirt in their eyes...isn't the same skill set as buffing them? I think it is. But even if he takes no value in whatsoever in the bluff or intimidate equivalent in whichever edition we are speaking of... he doesn't get a bonus to it and he still can sneak attack with all this trickery (according to your explanation for sneak attack)...

Well there is nothing in the descriptive text that says or implies this, while there is plenty that says or implies the rogue is a quick and dirty fighter. Also, by definition he has all that anatomy knowledge already at level one, as he can use the sneak attack against any creature he encounters that meets the positional criteria. It seems a fairly absurd concept, that he has all that information memorized even if an intelligence 3 street ruffian.

Except the quotes and example I provided above, I mean 3.5 comes rioght out and says it's a shot to a vital area and 4e implies it. It in no way equates sneak attacking to being quick and using dirty tricks... so please tell me where the text is (concerning sneak attack) that implies your explanation...

It's an attack thing, not a defense thing. If the thing is quicker and smarter than him, it will do damage back to him, probably exceeding the damage he did to it. But as an offensive concept, I think it's pretty sound. I mean, are you really arguing rogues don't fight dirty as their general theme? That such is not in their general makeup as a character type?

I'm saying your rogue can but using it as a basis for SA ius no more or less believable than the explanation you are pitting it against.

The idea that what I said is the same as being a corner is what makes no sense. Please stop with that strawman, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth like that. If you cannot make your point without exaggerating to the extreme, then you can't make your point.

I addressed this above, you made a statement but have provided nothing to back it up... give me an example supporting your assumption that knowing how to hit people hard and effectively would help to determine someone's cause of death... and remember you claimed this should be a general bonus to determine cause of death... so it could be a slit throat, a magical curse, a plague or anything else in D&D...

I didn't say they are overall more effective, just that they can still sneak attack them. Given their low hit points, they may well be killed by such quicker and smarter foes. This of course applies to your view as well.

Yes but you claimed the whole reason they can do SA's is because they are quick and able to trick their foes... but when facing someone who is faster, more seasoned in battle and smarter... how is the rogue able to SA the foe?

Sure, skilled killer is fine. But skilled killer who memorizes tomes of notes from wizards and scholars and assassin guild masters on the anatomy of all monsters? That's the one that seems far less believable to me than dirty trickster.

So now it's "tomes of notes from wizards and scholars and assasin guilds"... if that's your rogues history cool but it's not necessary for that explanation to work. I mean as an adventurer your life depends on killing things so you're going to have studied some basic lore on a multitude of creatures that most common folk wouldn't... now you're telling me it's such a leap that instead of focusing on what tracks they leave, or their military tactics, or what spells they are immune to or what religion they follow... it's inconceivable that a rogue would focus in on what areas on the creatures bodies he hit fast and hard to hurt them?? Instead it's more believable that he is so fast (regardless of his actual Dex score) and so clever (regardless of his actual Int) that he is able to trick, taunt and exploit everything from seasoned warriors to genius level mind flayers into falling for tricks and being caught unaware...Uhm, ok.

 

[Imaro]

If sneak attacks are just crits....then why do only rogues get sneak attacks but everyone gets crits? Come on now, obviously sneak attacks are something separate from the concept of critical hits.

Yeah SA's are purposefully striking a vital spot... but we've been telling you that for pages now...

 

[ccooke]

I think it's all a matter of what the characters are trained to do.

In normal combat, people are actively defending. They're moving to parry, to take blows on their armour, to avoid most of a strike. This is one of the prime reasons why damage is variable and the rules take this into account - in 5e, any hit against an unconscious target is automatically a critical hit (if it has hit points left) or instant death (if it does not).

Rogues are trained to attack foes that are unaware or otherwise unable to defend themselves as they normally would. That's why sneak attack has restrictions upon when it can be used - there has to be *something* that the rogue can use to avoid the target defending themselves properly. The rogue training, then, is not about striking particular weak points but placing a telling blow when the target is too distracted to defend themselves properly. They never get multiple attacks in a round because all of their combat training focuses instead on looking for points when the target's guard is down and then hitting them once with all the skill they can muster, timing the blow with the movements of the target to do as much damage as possible.

Fighters, instead, are trained to be complete combatants. They don't need sneak attack because they are trained to be in control of the fight. They can batter down the enemy with more attacks than anyone else and they do lots of damage with it. They don't need advantage (although they will happily use it), they just continue to hit things.

(Some math:
The two level 20 creatures in the bestiary are Asmodeus and the Pit Fiend. Both have AC 17.
Assuming a level 20 fighter and a level 20 rogue are fighting (hopefully with some backup!). Both characters have a 20 in their primary weapon stat (STR for the fighter, DEX for the rogue). Let's give the rogue two-weapon fighting (with the Duel Wielder feat), and say the fighter isn't using it. Simplest sane characters and the simplest subclasses (warrior for the fighter, assassin for the rogue. The fighter's fighting style will be something that doesn't give an attack bonus, to get a baseline. Let's go for a two-handed weapon like the Greatsword for the fighter and a short sword and longsword for the rogue. No magic, since the system assumes none.

The Rogue:[SBLOCK]
So the Rogue attacks at +5 (DEX) +6 (proficiency) = +11
the first attack (with the longsword) in a round will do 1d8 + 5 (DEX) Criticals do 13+1d8 damage. Taking misses and crits into account, that's 7.53 damage per turn.
the second attack (with the shortsword) will do 1d6. Criticals do 6+1d6 damage. Average damage per turn: 2.93
One attack per turn may use sneak attack for +7d6 (24.5). At least one attack will hit 15 rounds out of 16, for an average of 22.97 damage.[/SBLOCK]
Total average damage for a level 20 Rogue per turn, taking into account misses and crits: 33.42 damage.

The Fighter:[SBLOCK]
The fighter attacks at +5 (STR) +6 (proficiency) with the same +11.
the fighter makes four attacks per turn, each of which does 2d6+5. Criticals do 17+1d6 and happen 15% of the time (on natural rolls of 18,19 and 20).
The fighter can action surge twice to take an additional action (which may include all four attacks), but not twice on the same turn.[/SBLOCK]
Total average damage for a level 20 Fighter per turn, taking into account misses and crits: 41.1, with two turns at 82.2.

(At level 19, it's 30.14 for the Rogue and 30.83 for the fighter, although the fighter can get two rounds of 61.66)

Edited to add: The 5e rules (remember, this thread was about the 5th edition defaults, not any prior rules ;-) ) are written from this viewpoint, it seems:
"Sneak attack: You know how to strike to take advantage of a foe's distraction"

 

[Argyle King]

I don't get why some people have such a problem with certain types of creatures being immune to Sneak Attack. I don't want the all purpose "powers affect everything" mentality of 4th edition where we just press that imaginary button and things happen.

Back in 3rd edition, my rogues always carried extra bits to deal with undead, oozes, and golems. I didn't put all my eggs in one basket by depending 100% on Sneak Attack for everything. I had my rogues carry scrolls, wands, alchemists fire, nets, trip wires, and a host of other things. I liked having to actually use my brain when I needed to think outside the box. Also, doing some damage is better than doing no damage so swinging that sword, even though you may not get SA, is better than standing there crying like a baby because your SA didn't work. I want my characters to have to go up against creatures that put me at a disadvantage.

If you knew you were going to be in an undead campaign, why did you choose rogue anyway?

I know there are several pages, but I wanted to respond to the OP.

For me personally, I think it does make sense to be able to sneak attack some undead and some golems. Undead and golems both still have moving parts which can be damaged in such a way to hamper them.

I don't believe oozes and jellies have an obviously visible anatomy to target though. I can understand saying they are normally immune to sneak attack.

A good middle ground might be to allow knowledge checks to come into play here. It makes sense to me that a rogue who has studied oozes or undead would be able to pick out the weak points of their anatomy; know where to hit them where it hurts. I like the idea of knowledge skills being made more attractive.

However, that then brings up the question of why a wizard or a fighter who has those knowledge skills couldn't do the same thing. I'm not really sure what the answer to that would be. If I try to think about it too much, I end up realizing that D&D sneak attack doesn't always make sense if I put too much thought into it. Still, I feel like there's some way that what I mentioned here might be used to find a good middle ground between the 3rd Edition way of saying some things are just flatly immune to sneak attack and the 4th/5th edition way of saying everything is just flatly vulnerable to sneak attack.

I think it's all a matter of what the characters are trained to do.

In normal combat, people are actively defending. They're moving to parry, to take blows on their armour, to avoid most of a strike. This is one of the prime reasons why damage is variable and the rules take this into account - in 5e, any hit against an unconscious target is automatically a critical hit (if it has hit points left) or instant death (if it does not).

Rogues are trained to attack foes that are unaware or otherwise unable to defend themselves as they normally would. That's why sneak attack has restrictions upon when it can be used - there has to be *something* that the rogue can use to avoid the target defending themselves properly. The rogue training, then, is not about striking particular weak points but placing a telling blow when the target is too distracted to defend themselves properly. They never get multiple attacks in a round because all of their combat training focuses instead on looking for points when the target's guard is down and then hitting them once with all the skill they can muster, timing the blow with the movements of the target to do as much damage as possible.

Fighters, instead, are trained to be complete combatants. They don't need sneak attack because they are trained to be in control of the fight. They can batter down the enemy with more attacks than anyone else and they do lots of damage with it. They don't need advantage (although they will happily use it), they just continue to hit things.

(Some math:
The two level 20 creatures in the bestiary are Asmodeus and the Pit Fiend. Both have AC 17.
Assuming a level 20 fighter and a level 20 rogue are fighting (hopefully with some backup!). Both characters have a 20 in their primary weapon stat (STR for the fighter, DEX for the rogue). Let's give the rogue two-weapon fighting (with the Duel Wielder feat), and say the fighter isn't using it. Simplest sane characters and the simplest subclasses (warrior for the fighter, assassin for the rogue. The fighter's fighting style will be something that doesn't give an attack bonus, to get a baseline. Let's go for a two-handed weapon like the Greatsword for the fighter and a short sword and longsword for the rogue. No magic, since the system assumes none.

The Rogue:[SBLOCK]
So the Rogue attacks at +5 (DEX) +6 (proficiency) = +11
the first attack (with the longsword) in a round will do 1d8 + 5 (DEX) Criticals do 13+1d8 damage. Taking misses and crits into account, that's 7.53 damage per turn.
the second attack (with the shortsword) will do 1d6. Criticals do 6+1d6 damage. Average damage per turn: 2.93
One attack per turn may use sneak attack for +7d6 (24.5). At least one attack will hit 15 rounds out of 16, for an average of 22.97 damage.[/SBLOCK]
Total average damage for a level 20 Rogue per turn, taking into account misses and crits: 33.42 damage.

The Fighter:[SBLOCK]
The fighter attacks at +5 (STR) +6 (proficiency) with the same +11.
the fighter makes four attacks per turn, each of which does 2d6+5. Criticals do 17+1d6 and happen 15% of the time (on natural rolls of 18,19 and 20).
The fighter can action surge twice to take an additional action (which may include all four attacks), but not twice on the same turn.[/SBLOCK]
Total average damage for a level 20 Fighter per turn, taking into account misses and crits: 41.1, with two turns at 82.2.

(At level 19, it's 30.14 for the Rogue and 30.83 for the fighter, although the fighter can get two rounds of 61.66)

Edited to add: The 5e rules (remember, this thread was about the 5th edition defaults, not any prior rules ;-) ) are written from this viewpoint, it seems:
"Sneak attack: You know how to strike to take advantage of a foe's distraction"

Out of curiosity, how do things change if we assume a multiclass rogue/fighter split evenly? I'm curious because my current character is a Half-Orc Rogue 1/Fighter 1. I focused on strength and two handed weapons. There are times when it seems as though my damage is quite high.

However, the character in the group who currently seems to somewhat break the game is a barbarian who has focused on two weapon fighting. He gets to add his bonus rage damage to each attack; even with something like a whip or a dagger in his off-hand, there are times when it seems over-the-top compared to other characters.

You seem to have a better grasp of the end game than I do, so I propose the question to you concerning how these options play out at higher levels. I'm mainly familiar with levels 1-4 of 5th Edition.

 

[MJS]

Second time I've replied to that kind of comment, but OK I will say it again. Yes, fighters also do these things as they are part of the basic set of skills for melee combat, but rogues do that particular subset of basic melee skills better than fighters. Fighters are better overall for the basic melee skills, but rogues are better at the subset they specialize in. Therefore they are more able to take advantage of a distracted foe (distracted because they are facing more than one opponent simultaneously or because the rogue has gained advantage on them in some way), because that's the set of melee skills they've focused on.



It's really not, and it hasn't been for what, 13-14 years now? It's not backstab anymore. It's a more general thing than that.

Gee, sorry you've had to reply twice to the same weak point, maybe if it made sense you'd have better ground to stand on. What a bunch of hogwash. Flies in the face of logic to warp rogues into a combat class - even better than warriors apparently, at timing attacks. You know, that thing the fighters practice at for hours. Nice trivia to know it was screwed up some 13 years ago.
So what does a backstab do now, if a rogue's signature special attack is no more than a fake-out? Double-double damage? Double-dog damage? No wonder ogres have 88hp in this "Next" game.

Anyway, the answer to the thread question is: best handled by DM fiat, on a case-by-case basis. Anything with vital organs that can be reached (so giants might be out) is vulnerable to such an attack in my estimation. Zombies, skeletons, oozes...not so much. If you are using a crit on 20, your rogue still crits as often as the fighter despite the attack bonus difference. Keep sneak attacks sneaky, my friends. Fight the trends and let common sense breathe in your games. BRING BACK THE BACKSTABBING THIEF.

What is a camel? A horse designed by committee.