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

[Iosue]

So what fun should D&D support by default?

The fun of doing max damage against every enemy or the fun of having versimilitude?
And what is easier to houserule? To compile a list of SA immune creatures ro to say that you can SA everything?

Moldvay was pretty happy with "SA everything." Mentzer liked "in principle SA everything subject to DM's judgment." Works for me.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Uhhhh....

I will take a jab at this.

Would you mind explaining how in the hell you can do more damage to energy? How exactly does a Sneak Attack someone do more damage to energy, how do you measure it?

Saying Uhhhhhhhh implies that this is some kind of common knowledge that everyone should know. Makes no sense to be honest.

 

[ccooke]

I will take a jab at this.

Would you mind explaining how in the hell you can do more damage to energy? How exactly does a Sneak Attack someone do more damage to energy, how do you measure it?

Saying Uhhhhhhhh implies that this is some kind of common knowledge that everyone should know. Makes no sense to be honest.

There was context, though. Specifically context where it was said that the reason physical weapons do damage to undead *at all* was because they bleed out some of the energy animating them, or cause more energy to be expended to replace lost tissues.

It was "Uhhhhhhhh" because the answer to the question had been given in the previous post and ignored - namely that if physical weapons cause energy loss, then critical hits and sneak attacks would simply be more damage, and thus cost more energy.

But to be honest, this is just another thread of "playstyle warring", which things are devolving into more and more here.

 

[Iosue]

Would you mind explaining how in the hell you can do more damage to energy?

I am not Tequila Sunrise, but I think his explanation is pretty clear. The rationalization in 3e is that zombies, being animated dead flesh, lack "vital spots" necessary for a SA. The question then becomes, why do normal attacks damage and eventually kill the zombie, but SA does not apply? Imaro's reply is that loss of animated material (via wounds) might cause the energy to dissipate. Or alternatively, that form and energy are intertwined so that damage to one damages the other. Tequila Sunrise's response simply represented an expansion of that explanation to SA. The SA represents severe damage to the animated form, which then requires more energy to be maintained, represented by the loss of HP.

How exactly does a Sneak Attack someone do more damage to energy

As above. SA works just like a regular attack, it just does more damage. The protest is, "but SA represents hitting vital spots, and the zombie has none!" but that's begging the question. If the zombie (or any creature) can be killed by a regular attack, it has vital spots that targeted by the rogue. SA is justified the same way a killing blow to a zombie with a mace is justified.

how do you measure it?

Hit points, and reduction thereof.

Saying Uhhhhhhhh implies that this is some kind of common knowledge that everyone should know. Makes no sense to be honest.

The "Uhhhhh" applies to Farscape's contention that Tequila Sunrise never described why SA would work on a zombie, when in fact Tequila Sunrise had done so just 11 posts earlier. That TS did indeed give such a description should be common knowledge that everyone should know, regardless of whether one buys it or not.

 

[Derren]

If the zombie (or any creature) can be killed by a regular attack, it has vital spots that targeted by the rogue. SA is justified the same way a killing blow to a zombie with a mace is justified.

Which is a false assumption. A undead can also be killed by the accumulated damage to the body, for that it does not require a vital spot. And 3E makes it pretty clear that this is how it is handled, seeing as zombies are immune to both sneak attack and critical damage. And with this assumption to be false, the entire explanation is, too.

 

[Iosue]

Which is a false assumption. A undead can also be killed by the accumulated damage to the body, for that it does not require a vital spot. And 3E makes it pretty clear that this is how it is handled, seeing as zombies are immune to both sneak attack and critical damage. And with this assumption to be false, the entire explanation is, too.

And the question goes back to, why can undead be killed by accumulated damage to the body? What is happening to the body that precludes the sneak attack?

3E is imminently clear about how it handles the situation, which is unique among the editions. I'm questioning its assumptions, particularly in their applicability to the D&D combat paradigm. Ostensibly, SA and crits are not supposed to work because they represent hitting a "vital spot". But if SA and crits really represented hitting vital spots, they'd be instant killers, or at the least impart a lasting injury on their victims. That's not the case. Someone who takes a sneak attack but still has plenty of HP left isn't affected at all by this supposed attack to a "vital spot".

OTOH, if we define "vital spot" (since of course 3E doesn't define it at all) as "damage at structurally important (read=vital) area", then we're abstract enough that getting hit with one and living is still possible. But that means that all corporeal monsters, at least, including constructs and undead such as skeletons, zombies and ghouls, have such structurally important areas.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I am not Tequila Sunrise, but I think his explanation is pretty clear.

Thank you, Iosue. You nailed it, and with more eloquence and patience than I would have.

 

[Derren]

3E is imminently clear about how it handles the situation

Then why do you dispute it?

But if SA and crits really represented hitting vital spots, they'd be instant killers

When following your argumentation then every hit would be an instant killer. Or, everyone would be invulnerable unless a vital spot is hit.

Sneak Attack represents hitting a vital spot, as much as a hit in D&D presents a hit. No vital spots, no sneak attack. And as the undead in D&D are not modern infected but magically animated, they do not have vital spots. They are more or less the same as oozes, golems or plants, except that their body consists out of flesh.

Easy to remember, to implement ad immersive as it adds more character to undead (and other creature groups) instead of having them interchangable HP bags which no defining characteristics.
The only "downside" is that one trick SA rogues do less damage in some situation. But as it is my believe that role playing is not about doing maximum damage in combat and that the rogue has (or at least had in 3E) has many other abilities he could bring to the table, if not minmaxed only for SA, I don't see this as a big problem.

House rule everything SA able if you want, but that should not be the default.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Which is a false assumption. A undead can also be killed by the accumulated damage to the body, for that it does not require a vital spot. And 3E makes it pretty clear that this is how it is handled, seeing as zombies are immune to both sneak attack and critical damage. And with this assumption to be false, the entire explanation is, too.

Taking D&D fluff at face value, particularly fluff pertaining to hit points and damage, is a quick way to get nowhere. Because in D&D, and not least of all 3.x D&D, hit points and damage are abstractions. Except when they're not.

As Iosue mentions, taking SA fluff at face value is problematic because it tries to apply non-abstract results (injury to "vital areas") to an abstract mechanic (hit points).

So please, let's not pretend that we can use SA fluff to prove me or anyone else 'false.' That way lies badwrongfun.

If you're happy with zombies being SA immune, good for you. But you don't have a monopoly on verisimilitude; believe it or not, I and many others find SA-vulnerable zombies more believable than SA-immune zombies.

 

[Derren]

So please, let's not pretend that we can use SA fluff to prove me or anyone else 'false.'

AKA: Lets not use anything which directly contradicts me because it directly contradicts me...