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

[Derren]

I'm going to reverse the question in the OP. What is right with certain entire classifications of creature being immune to sneak attack? It doesn't add to versmilitude to assume that there are no vulnerable spots on most creatures. It doesn't make the game more interesting or more fun. It annoys a lot of people.

What is the justification? How does it improve the game? Because I can see several ways it harms it.

Most creatures? Even with all addons SA immune monsters were always a small minority.
It doesn't add versmilitude? Actually it does. Certainly more than a ooze having a vulnerable spot just to make combat focused players happy by allowing their one trick DPR pimped build work.

 

[Halivar]

It doesn't add versmilitude? Actually it does. Certainly more than a ooze having a vulnerable spot just to make combat focused players happy by allowing their one trick DPR pimped build work.

Oozes are the only class of creature I can justify being SA immune in my head.

EDIT: And incorporeal creatures attacked with non-magical weapons.

EDIT EDIT: My biggest pet peeve is zombies being SA immune. There is no way zombies should be SA immune.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Or vampires. Ok, I'm done. I promise!

 

[Imaro]

I'm going to reverse the question in the OP. What is right with certain entire classifications of creature being immune to sneak attack? It doesn't add to versmilitude to assume that there are no vulnerable spots on most creatures. It doesn't make the game more interesting or more fun. It annoys a lot of people.

What is the justification? How does it improve the game? Because I can see several ways it harms it.

So you ask for examples of how it improves the game (asuming for others since you already know how it affects you).. but then straight out tell people that it can't be versmilitude... couldn't possibly make the game more interesting for a few/some/most people... couldn't possible make the game more fun for a few/some/most people... and then claim it annoys "a lot" (though not all) of people... For some reason it feels like you've already decided no answer is going to be sufficient for you... so why ask the question??

 

[Minigiant]

Its amazing how in these types of arguments the rogue is always bombarded with creatures that are immune to SA.

It's more 20% of the time with a random spread of foes. Themed adventures is a whole other thing.

If you start counting things you can't sneak up on or are too dangerous for rogues to flank, the percentage gets pretty bad.

 

[Imaro]

Oozes are the only class of creature I can justify being SA immune in my head.

From the 3.5 SRD... Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.

I can justify it in my head with undead whose animation is caused by spiritual or supernatural energy... as opposed to functional ligaments, muscles, tendon and bones... unless you can somehow SA energy as well. But that's just me.

 

[billd91]

Oozes are the only class of creature I can justify being SA immune in my head.

EDIT: And incorporeal creatures attacked with non-magical weapons.

EDIT EDIT: My biggest pet peeve is zombies being SA immune. There is no way zombies should be SA immune.

Elementals - how does one find a vital area in a pyre of flame?
Any creature in gaseous form.
Swarms - but then most are immune to weapons anyway.

And, frankly, I can see the argument for undead and constructs since part of the justification for critical and sneak attack damage stems from hitting vital areas - many of which don't exist or don't matter for these targets. That might have been better modeled by giving the target some degree of fortification, as the armor property, instead of blanket immunity to reflect their lessened degree of vulnerability compared to living targets.

 

[Mistwell]

The second paragraph was not directed at you, but at this whole discussions and the people who think that the rogue must always do high damage in every situation as this seems the only benchmark they apply to D&D characters.

You directly mentioned my post, and only my post, so I am not sure how to read it otherwise.

I am not arguing in any way that the rogue must always do high damage in every situation. I am arguing what makes sense, from a logic standpoint, concerning how sneak attack works.

 

[Mistwell]

The problem here is the not too old notion of people thinking their character sucks if they aren't always optimal.

Or you could reply to what people are saying, as opposed to what you suspect they might be thinking. Very few have implied the argument you just claim they implied.

I've said why I have an issue with it - from a logic standpoint it doesn't make as much sense to me to pretend rogues are anatomy experts to begin with, much less that they have a complete inability to apply that deep anatomy knowledge to any application other than stabbing people.

That's not, in any way, an argument about optimization.

 

[Mistwell]

I think its a fair ruling that backstabs should only be effective against targets that have functional vital organs and such. So most undead are out, slimes, oozes, and soforth.

It's not backstabbing though. It hasn't been backstabbing for a very long time, and when it was, the thief character was quite different. Like, for example, they had a monopoly on skills - so the argument that they had an anatomy skill didn't seem like as much an odd notion, as they had all the skills anyway.

 

[Dausuul]

Most creatures? Even with all addons SA immune monsters were always a small minority.

They account for about one-sixth of the monsters in the SRD. And that's counting by monster, not statblock (so I'm counting all sizes of fire elemental as a single monster). That's not a "small minority." It's not a majority or close to it, but it's a quite substantial fraction.

However, the heart of the problem is that undead are included in that fraction. If it were just constructs, elementals, oozes, and plants, it wouldn't be as big an issue, because you very seldom have adventures dominated by one of those types. Undead, however, naturally lend themselves to adventures where the majority of monsters encountered are undead. Exploring a long-buried tomb; fighting a lich and its dark champions; battling the minions of Orcus; all of these are naturally undead-heavy scenarios.

And since when do undead have no vital spots? Vampires and zombies certainly do--they should be more vulnerable to SA, not less. I can think of plenty of tempting targets on a skeleton, too. Aim for the base of the spine and snap it in half, or jam a weapon into a joint and twist. In general, undead tend toward the "single vulnerable point," which is an invitation to sneak attack. Wraiths are about the only ones I can think of where it's really hard to justify allowing sneak attack.