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

[Mistwell]

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?

Nobody has argued max damage to everything.

And many, including myself, have explained that it makes more sense ("versimilitude" if you like, though I despise the word), to view sneak attack the way we are describing it, as otherwise the rogue is more of an anatomy expert than a sneaky tricky bastard. So it's not like one view has a monopoly on believability ("versimilitude").

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Why do we need to carry on the 4th edition era notion that classes are measured in DPR?

That notion needs to go like a fart in the wind.

 

[Imaro]

Ah, you're now creatively justifying how the rules reflect D&D magical-physics, which is great! We can just as easily justify how SA works against zombies with a little creativity. Following your creative ideas, a crit or a SA drains more energy (HP) because it takes a lot of that energy to stabilize a broken neck or a partially-severed leg.

Yeah, this is what you asked me to do... right?

See? We can justify pretty much any rule we want to with a little creativity.

I never said we couldn't...

This is what I meant by "...or special tools." D&D is the only medium I know of where you don't need a wooden stake, or a headshot, or a magical spell to kill a zombie.

I guess I don't consider fire in D&D as a special tool. Burning oil, torches, spells, etc. Fire is pretty common... and in most zombie media it destroys them.

Oh wait, no, there is another I know of! It's a game called Diablo. Point is, combat-centric games like D&D handwaive a lot of details in the name of everyone being able to kill monsters with swords. D&D just isn't consistent in its use of handwaivium.

Seriously, Diablo is the ONLY game you can think of, besides D&D, where zombies are affected by mundane weapons... there are a ton of role playing games where the zombie is an easily defeated creature that doesn't require special tools. I'm thinking that perhaps your experience in this area must be pretty limited.

I never said otherwise; what I am saying is that justifications for game rules which rely on rationalizing D&D's magical-physics make poor arguments for one play style over another. Because creativity can be used to rationalize anyone's play style.

Good thing these weren't the only justifications I provided then...

I assure you that, despite how vitriolic the OP and many of the posts have been, I am not trying to paint anyone as objectively wrong or right.

Well then I'm not sure what your point is since it's all subjective and more reasons than just the rationalization of rules have been provided...

 

[Mistwell]

Why do we need to carry on the 4th edition era notion that classes are measured in DPR?

That notion needs to go like a fart in the wind.

Some people like it. And, some people, like myself, are not making an argument about it at all. For me, the "rogues are anatomy experts" makes no sense, from a believability standpoint. It seems more "realistic" to me to have sneak attack be a SNEAKY ATTACK, as opposed to a backstab based on unique knowledge of monster anatomy...knowledge which they posess but which magically is only useful for doing damage with, as opposed to doing anything else with that knowledge.

To me, it's the 3e-version that's more about DPR. You guys are arguing special type of anatomy knowledge, which only rogues can know and they get at first level for every monster in the game, which is only allowed to be used in combat, and not out of combat for other things that knowing about anatomy might help with. That screams DPR to me.

All we are arguing is that rogues are good at doing sneaky attacks, when things are distracted. It doesn't require any anatomy knowledge at all. You don't have to know about the anatomy of the purple worm or the beholder, you just need to be skilled at sneakily striking things which are distracted.

 

[Imaro]

Like I said, cut the strawmanning. I never said anything about knowing HOW to strike a vital area. I said knowing WHERE VITAL AREAS ARE involves knowledge of the anatomy of monsters.

Pedantry.... GO!!! The rogue knows how to strike vital areas, which in turn, LOGICALLY, implies he knows where they are, otherwise how could he strike them??? Knowing where to strike someone does not however necessarily involve knowing about the anatomy of a creature in a general, practical sense.

And someone who knows the anatomy of monsters has a better chance of identifying how something died, than someone who has no knowledge of the anatomy of monsters.

Good thing rogue's know where to strike in vital spots, but don't need to know about anatomy, even on a superficial level to do that. If someone tells me that kicking someone in the groin hurts people and shows me how to do it effectively... why do I need the type of anatomical knowledge that would allow me to determine how someone died in order to do this? This is where your logic breaks down...

There is nothing at all absurd about that proposition. If you disagree, why?

Yes it is absurd, for the reason see what I wrote above...

I am not going to debate coroners and MMA fighters. There is no reason for an analogy (and an admittedly extremely exaggerated one at that) when we have the real example on the table to discuss.

What reall example, I've asked you to provide one...

If you know something about the anatomy of monsters, should you have a better chance of determining how a monster died, than someone who has no knowledge concerning the anatomy of monsters? Answer the question already, and stop distracting with nonsense about MMA fighters and coroners and retirements.

First quit trying to falsely construct the situation we are discussing with leading questions... we are speaking to the rogue, specifically his SA power as it is described in the game... and how much anatomy knowledge is necessary for it to work... the discussion of whether knowledge of anatomy would allow a better chance of determining how a monster died is within this context, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that.

If a rogue knows how to strike something in a vital spot (which is what SA is described as) it does not in turn follow that I know enough about said creature's anatomy that it would help me determine how they died. In fact I can know where and how best to strike something and have no practical knowledge about it's anatomy that in any way relates to how the creature might have died.

 

[Imaro]

It isn't difficult for a DM to say on the spot, "this creature has no discernible anatomy, and cannot be SA'd," so I don't think ease of houseruling should be a factor, either.

My only concern here would be that if there is no precedent set for monsters that are immune to SA's then it becomes something the players (rightly or wrongly) don't expect to be in the game, and feels like a gotcha. Sort of like how even though it wasn't a rule in 4e... some/many players of 4e expected encounters to be level appropriate as laid out by the guidelines...

 

[Mistwell]

Pedantry.... GO!!! The rogue knows how to strike vital areas, which in turn, LOGICALLY, implies he knows where they are, otherwise how could he strike them??? Knowing where to strike someone does not however necessarily involve knowing about the anatomy of a creature in a general, practical sense.

I am glad you agree he knows where vital areas are on the anatomy of the creature.

Which means if there are 20 things to know about the anatomy of a creature when it comes to their violent death, and you know 1 of them, and someone else knows 0 of them, then you have a better chance of determining something involving their anatomy than the other person.

And since death is more likely to involve a vital area of a creature than (for example) the nasal passages of the creature, it's even more likely that you knowing where their vital areas are might help determining how they died. Certainly you'd have a least a slightly better chance than someone who has no idea where their vital areas are.

In the very least, can you admit that a rogue with sneak attack is more likely to be able to identify that a monster was killed by another rogue using sneak attack, than someone who has no knowledge of sneak attacks and vital areas would know?

Why is that an absurd notion, and can you answer that without resorting to analogies?

 

[Mistwell]

My only concern here would be that if there is no precedent set for monsters that are immune to SA's then it becomes something the players (rightly or wrongly) don't expect to be in the game, and feels like a gotcha. Sort of like how even though it wasn't a rule in 4e... some/many players of 4e expected encounters to be level appropriate as laid out by the guidelines...

Most of us are arguing that a few specific things here and there can have sneak attack immunity or resistance, just not whole big categories of things.

 

[Imaro]

I am glad you agree he knows where vital areas are on the anatomy of the creature.

Which means if there are 20 things to know about the anatomy of a creature when it comes to their violent death, and you know 1 of them, and someone else knows 0 of them, then you have a better chance of determining something involving their anatomy than the other person.

Sooo... every adventurer knows about the anatomy of numerous creatures because they all ultimately participate in and witness the killing of many/most of them, so now we're back at a zero sum. the rogue is no better (since SA does not equate to killing blow) than a fighter or paladin or wizard or any other class who regularly kill and dispatch numerous "monsters".

And since death is more likely to involve a vital area of a creature than (for example) the nasal passages of the creature, it's even more likely that you knowing where their vital areas are might help determining how they died. Certainly you'd have a least a slightly better chance than someone who has no idea where their vital areas are.

Why is that an absurd notion?

It's absurd because... Again vital spot does not necessarily equate to killing blow. Striking someone in the groin would be hitting a vital spot... but are a significant enough number of deaths caused by a wound to the groin that it would provide a benefit in general anatomical studies of causes of death (because skills in D&D are a representation of general knowledge in the field)? I don't think so. Second no one claimed the rogue has comprehensive knowledge of every vital spot on every creature, more likely he has a very limited number of known vital spots on various creatures. In other words you keep arguing he must have general anatomical knowledge because he knows how to hit a few vulnerable spots on a creature but logically one does not follow the other... you have to realize this, yet it seems like your argument just gets more and more circular as we keep going.

On another note I am still waiting for the example you alluded to in your previous post...

 

[Imaro]

Most of us are arguing that a few specific things here and there can have sneak attack immunity or resistance, just not whole big categories of things.

The post I responded to, as well as a few others have definitely couched it in terms of either/or... so that is what I was responding to. I don't want the general 4e paradigm of every attack works on everything.