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

[billd91]

I always think of 3e and UMD.

Scrolls and wands weren't as very common a thing in the older editions from what I understand.

If you followed the magic item random tables, scrolls were among the most common magic items available. Wands, by comparison, were quite rare. It was hard, however, to get a particular scroll you might have wanted since magic item creation was a much more variable and difficult process.

 

[Incenjucar]

Some editions allowed the rogue to sort of trick magic items of other classes into working.

It really just reinforces that magic is the correct choice. That said, a rogue vs. a golem with magic immunity and backstab immunity may as well just be a 3E expert.

It's too bad that D&D isn't robust enough to handle a more complex system with each class having an interesting way to handle whatever you throw at it without the old on/off switch of effectiveness.

If, say sneak attack was part of a damage sub-category "critical damage" you could drop the golem's AC, for a round, by 1 for every 10 damage the rogue would have gotten in, or whatever, with a critical hit having the same effect (and penalty).

 

[Minigiant]

It was more ore less a perfect storm of badness.

There were many creatures immune to SA.
The rogue was very weak or item dependent without SA.
The rogue had little else for features that helped in combat by default.

This forced DM to warn or tone down SA-immunity or risk having a bored rogue. It would have been the same for other classes if 20-25% of the MM was weapon immune or spell immune as most D&D classes are one-classfeature ponies.

 

[Derren]

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.

Because the type of gamer WotC caters to (3E and onward, with early 4E being the peak) is only interested in the combat aspect of the game, build their characters for maximum DPR and they complain when the total damage they do in an adventure is too low.

This is so bad that for a time I didn't even categorize D&D as role playing game any more as they have as much support for role playing as monopoly (you still can wing it, but whats the point?). It is all about combat MMO style so it is no wonder that people complain that classes are not balanced.

 

[Minigiant]

Because the type of gamer WotC caters to (3E and onward, with early 4E being the peak) is only interested in the combat aspect of the game, build their characters for maximum DPR and they complain when the total damage they do in an adventure is too low.

This is so bad that for a time I didn't even categorize D&D as role playing game any more as they have as much support for role playing as monopoly (you still can wing it, but whats the point?). It is all about combat MMO style so it is no wonder that people complain that classes are not balanced.

To be fair, noncombat was never D&D strong suit and many of the Pre-3e gamers ignored noncombat rules. You can't sell books to people who skip them and if your rules aren't that great.

So if you have a class that is "Sneak attack and Skills" and 1/5 of the creatures are immune to the former and the later is weird or unused...

 

[Hussar]

What "few wands and scrolls" let my rogue sneak attack plants? Or oozes? Or elementals? I seem to recall some spell or other that let me sneak undead, but, that's about it.

But, yeah, the basic point is spot on. It's not a big issue that some monsters might be immune to critical hits. It's that a very large chunk of the MM was immune, even when that immunity may not have made a whole lot of sense. The rules should not sideline a class that often. It's just a bad idea.

 

[1of3]

Not really. A few potions, scrolls, and wands will do the job. Rogues are also about using tools when necessary. You don't have to use SA to be effective and anyone that tells you this is dead wrong.

Depends. If you have easy access to wands and scrolls, good for you. If you don't, you don't. The problem is that in this case the GM provides both the challenge (unsneakable opponent) and the solution (wand). Unlike a wizard facing devils you cannot just choose not to prepare lightning spells.

This problem is corrobated by DDN explaining that magic items are completely optional.


In addition, there was no middle ground either. You could have Resist Lighnting 10, but there was no Resist Sneak Attack 10.

 

[Mr. Patient]

What "few wands and scrolls" let my rogue sneak attack plants? Or oozes? Or elementals? I seem to recall some spell or other that let me sneak undead, but, that's about it.

There were a few swift action spells in Spell Compendium (grave strike, vine strike, etc.) that allowed you to sneak attack various monster types for one round. These spells were essentially worthless when put in magic item form, because the magic items in question required a standard action to use. By the time you were done activating the item, your turn was over, and the duration of the spell expired at the start of your next turn. So in order to really make use of these spells, you had to actually take a level in the spellcasting class in question.

There were also some augment crystals in Magic Item Compendium. The ones that allowed sneak attacks were Greater crystals, which meant that they had to be applied to +3 weapons or greater (and not just a total of +3 worth of flaming, holy, etc., but an actual +3 bonus).

So in short, no, you couldn't just use a few wands and scrolls.

 

[Mistwell]

I get there is a lack of sympathy from some for this issue because the rogue could just "work around" the rules and obtain magic or use other things and such.

But that's a rules-focused discussion, concerning a different edition of the game. It's not even touching the issue itself.

The issue itself is a choice between two views of sneak attack:

1) The rogue is an anatomy expert. They know the anatomy of all creatures, from dragons to beholders to rust monsters, bulettes to giant spiders, stirges to purple worms to hooked horrors. They know a vulnerable spot on that creature (or that such a creature has no vulnerable spot), and how to strike that spot to cause the maximum damage.

2) The rouge is a quick sneaky bastard. They know how to exploit the tactics of creatures, their movement, their positioning, their emotions. They can dodge in and strike swiftly and deeply when and where you're not expecting it, or knock you off balance to get in a deeper hit, or aggravate you into an out of position defense so they can strike harder, or toss dirt in your eyes to do so, or get an extra stab in before you know where that sneak has jumped to. They do whatever it takes to play dirty in a fight when they can.

What is it about the rogue that you think justifies #1?

Do they study books of anatomy?
Do they just inherently know vulnerable spots of all creatures, even if they have a low intelligence and wisdom, and even if they've never even seen anything like that creature before?
Why does it make sense for you (from a non-rules perspective) that it's #1 instead of #2?

To me, #2 simply makes more sense for a rogue than #1. Of course you can work around the limitations imposed by a world where things work like #1, but that's beside the point. We're talking about what really makes sense for this kind of character, when drafting new rules from scratch. Who really thinks "anatomy expert" when they think of a rogue, more often that they think of "sneaky dirty-pool playing bastard"?

And if the world is more like #2, then there are far fewer creatures that are immune to sneak attack than a world like #1.

 

[Dausuul]

Where are you going to get all these scrolls and wands and such in 5E? You can't just walk down to Magic Item Wal-Mart and plunk down some gold. Your ability to find these things is entirely dependent on the DM handing them out. If the DM wants to run a low-magic, undead-heavy campaign, you're screwed.

There is nothing wrong with occasional "challenge monsters" that are immune to broad classes of attacks, but they should be rare and special. As I said in another thread, undead being immune to sneak attack is like goblinoids being immune to spells. Not some spells, but all spells, including the conjurations that 3E wizards often used to bypass SR. Imagine trying to play through "Red Hand of Doom" as a wizard if that were the case. Sure, you wouldn't be totally helpless; you could accomplish a fair bit with creative and tactical play. But you'd be very weak compared to the rest of the party.