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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Some oozes are the exception here and on a case by case basis can be immune to Sneak Attack. Any ooze that is based on an amoeba (or other single-celled organism) has a discernable anatomy and should be vulnerable to sneak attack. Any ooze where you can sever parts of it and they stop moving should be vulnerable to Sneak Attack. And any ooze which reforms ... should be more or less immune to bludgeoning or piercing weapons. As should a lot of the other examples like elementals if they are immune to precision damage.

The simple fact is that if it isn't either (a) utterly amorphous or (b) incredibly symmetrical (sphere or egg) it should be vulnerable to precision damage. Someone upthread asked where you hit a skull - obvious places are the joins between plates (especially where the fontanelle was), behind the jawbone, and poking round in the eyesockets.

As for most monsters, Daasul's already pointed out that it's roughly a sixth. And the distribution isn't uniform; undead are a pretty huge monster type that in most fiction are really vulnerable to precision damage.

(The other ridiculous 3.X case which should be more rather than less vulnerable to precision damage is constructs - the limit case being a Clockwork Golem (or anything else steampunky).)

To me, that sounds like a challenge that a hero can overcome. Heroic stories are full of them. See Jason & the Argonauts, Perseus, Deliverance...the list goes on.

Like...how would Green Lantern fight Big Bird if he suddenly became a serial killer?

How would Superman take down Harry Potter?

The answer is you find another way, you use different tactics. Or you slog around with the mere mortals, and hope that someone else in the party has a solution. Being on a team means teamwork, and teamwork means that you don't have to solve every problem yourself.

The above might hold if all characters were affected equally. If you're playing a rogue alongside a wizard you're already playing Green Arrow alongside Green Lantern (Hard Travelling Heroes was an impressive series btw). You don't need any more challenges. But the mages have every bit as easy a time taking down SR-resistant monsters as Green Lantern would against Big Bird or Superman against Harry Potter.

Green Lantern vs Big Bird: Green Lantern creates a bulldozer and bulldozes rubble all over Big Bird (or anything else indirect up to and including guiding down a meteor). His only limitation is that he can't directly hit Big Bird with his constructs - but making a potato cannon and shooting potatoes at Big Bird with it would be fine.

Superman vs Harry Potter: Speed Blitz. Harry draws his wand - and before he's had time to blink it's in Superman's hands. Or Superman blows at him. Or Laser-eyes him. Or simply dodges.

 

[Mistwell]

Wait... what? When did knowing where and how to hit things become synonymous with doctor?

You need to know something's anatomy, before you can hit it in a vulnerable part of that anatomy.

If you know something's anatomy, then when you find a corpse of that thing, and are asked "how did this thing die", you should have a better chance of answering that question than someone who has no knowledge of anatomy. That makes sense to you, right? I didn't say " learned surgeons and physicians", I said they have some skill in anatomy, and therefore should be able to make checks which would relate to anatomy.

But they don't. And I think the reason they don't is "anatomy expert" was tacked on as a half-hearted retrofit explanation for when it was still backstab, back when thieves were the only class with skills.

And no, knowing where to hit someone doesn't mean you are fast enough to do it or strong enough to do the max damage... so I'm not sure having more knowledge would necessarily translate into being better able to practically apply a SA... You can read about brain surgery all day but if your hand isn't steady enough to operate... well you won't be the best brain surgeon no matter how learned you are.

You have to know their anatomy first, before you can apply your speed to hitting them there for more damage. If that were not the case, than Fighters could sneak attack, and would be better at it than the rogue if they had a higher dexterity. There is a necessary knowledge component to the rogue sneak attack that obvious is more than merely speed and strength - because if it were just speed and strength, then anyone with a good strength and dexterity could do it.

How is this any more "believable" than the other option you presented. Now the rogue knows the tactics, movements, how they position them selves, as well as the emotions they feel...of every creature they encounter.

Nope, just that they tend to be better at figuring those things out on the fly than others. Anatomy is a fixed knowledge sort of thing - you cannot really know much of it simply by glancing and something quickly, as some of it is internal. If monster X has it's heart located near it's right wing tendon, you won't know that by looking at it. But movements and position, those things can be figured out on the fly by someone who emphasizes figuring out those things. They are tendencies the rogue excels at, much like they tend to know how to piss things off even if they've never seen them before. None of those skills are as specific as anatomical knowledge.

So if he knows their movements and tactics why can't he track them?

Movement in the micro, not how they would travel long distances. He can figure out on the fly micro movements, not how wide their overland tracel step is or their footprints or tendancies to grab tree branches and rocks as they travel such distances. The two are not related.

If he understands their emotions why can't he use diplomacy and other skills to affect their emotional/mental state?

I didn't say he "understands their emotions" I said he can figure out on the fly out to piss something off, or whether it's immediate rage in a split second will cause an overreach. That's not really stuff that helps much with diplomacy, as it all takes place within roughly a single heartbeat.

And why does the rogue have near omniscient insight into exactly what dirty trick would work on every monster?

He obviously doesn't. He just tends to be better at it than others. He's good at dirty tricks - not perfect. If he were perfect, he'd max damage every time. Instead there is a range. But that argument cannot apply to the anatomy-type rogue, as he'd ALWAYS fail at backstab versus creatures whose anatomy he doesn't know. It's not the sort of skill done on the fly, while the others I mentioned are.

If anything this sounds more like a ranger than a rogue. IMO there is nothing more believable about this set up than thew other you mentioned. So I'm asking... what exactly makes this more believable? [/FONT]

I think I've answered that just fine. The idea that rogues study anatomy itself makes no sense, and that they cannot apply that knowledge outside of sneak attacks is even sillier. But the idea that they are quick dirty tricksters, that is much more in line with the theme of a rogue than "anatomy-expert".

 

[Mistwell]

Same thing really though.
how are you doing extra damage to a ghost or skeleton?
as opposed to a human or orc?

Same way you're doing more damage when you roll high on the base weapon damage. Same way you're doing more damage when you add your strength mod. Obviously, all creatures are vulnerable to "more" damage at any given time.

As to how you deal that damage - by being skilled at keeping them off balance when they are distracted, quickly darting to where they don't expect you to dart, hitting them more or harder, etc.. The theme of a rogue is "quick" and "precise" and "dirty" so it will involve those things most likely.

The thing it likely wouldn't involve is "memorizing monster anatomy charts".

 

[Neonchameleon]

You need to know something's anatomy, before you can hit it in a vulnerable part of that anatomy.

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.

Nope, just that they tend to be better at figuring those things out on the fly than others. Anatomy is a fixed knowledge sort of thing - you cannot really know much of it simply by glancing and something quickly, as some of it is internal.

You can not know everything - but you can know really quite a lot. Like where the joints are, where the chitinous plates overlap or have gaps, where the eyes are, the inside of the mouth, the hollow just underneath the skull, that the creature is a vertibrate so you can get it between the vertibrae. And possibly where some of the major blood vessels like the jugular and the carotid are. Very possibly the location of the brain.

No, that doesn't tell you where the heart, lungs, or kidneys are. But it tells you enough.

 

[Imaro]

It creates a large disconnect when you suddenly say "Oh, yeah, you are just like Riddick, except when there's zombies around. Then your normally badass character can barely hurt them. You mean you didn't buy the magic item listed on p. 239 of the Magic Item Compendium that means you are good at defeating zombies? What are you, an idiot?"

Wait... The DM should have NEVER told him he was playing Riddick if he chose a rogue... in no edition would Riddick be a pure rogue.

 

[Remathilis]

For the record, I like the Pathfinder immunity list:

* Incorporeal undead (so no SA to ghosts, wraiths, or specters. Along with incorporeality, this makes them frightening)
* Elementals (Makes sense, they're just giant balls of elemental goo)
* Oozes (like elementals, balls of snot with no vital organs).

That is a small, tight list of exceptions which adds flavor to those encounters. This is akin to some creatures having high/unique SR (to cut down mages) or some having high/unique DR (to keep fighters off balance).

 

[Imaro]

You need to know something's anatomy, before you can hit it in a vulnerable part of that anatomy.

If you know something's anatomy, then when you find a corpse of that thing, and are asked "how did this thing die", you should have a better chance of answering that question than someone who has no knowledge of anatomy. That makes sense to you, right? I didn't say " learned surgeons and physicians", I said they have some skill in anatomy, and therefore should be able to make checks which would relate to anatomy.

But they don't. And I think the reason they don't is "anatomy expert" was tacked on as a half-hearted retrofit explanation for when it was still backstab, back when thieves were the only class with skills.

So why don't we see more coroners who are retired MMA fighters? Sorry, not buying it... this makes no sense. Learning how to hit someone in vital areas does not in any way entail that you yourself know specific enough knowledge in anatomy to do autopsies. Your logic seems flawed here. Also I don't remember thieves being healers or masters of anatomy even back then.

You have to know their anatomy first, before you can apply your speed to hitting them there for more damage. If that were not the case, than Fighters could sneak attack, and would be better at it than the rogue if they had a higher dexterity. There is a necessary knowledge component to the rogue sneak attack that obvious is more than merely speed and strength - because if it were just speed and strength, then anyone with a good strength and dexterity could do it.

No, somewhere some warrior, rogue, doctor, wizard or whatever discovered a weak point on a monster and wrote down or transferred that knowledge to others... and they in turn passed it on to others and so on... you know kind of like fighting techniques... And nowhere along the line were those who learned to hurt and kill required to know the totality of the anatomy of their enemy... Again, just like MMA fighters who are trained, not to be corroners but to be fighters that can hurt people.

Nope, just that they tend to be better at figuring those things out on the fly than others. Anatomy is a fixed knowledge sort of thing - you cannot really know much of it simply by glancing and something quickly, as some of it is internal. If monster X has it's heart located near it's right wing tendon, you won't know that by looking at it. But movements and position, those things can be figured out on the fly by someone who emphasizes figuring out those things. They are tendencies the rogue excels at, much like they tend to know how to piss things off even if they've never seen them before. None of those skills are as specific as anatomical knowledge.

And I'm sorry but fighters study numerous recordings to determine what they believe are weaknesses in an opponents fighting styles... yet for some reason you think the rogue being able to determine these things in a matter of seconds is more believable than him having studied how to hurt things in the quickest and most efficient way possible?? Not really seeing either of these as super believable.

Movement in the micro, not how they would travel long distances. He can figure out on the fly micro movements, not how wide their overland tracel step is or their footprints or tendancies to grab tree branches and rocks as they travel such distances. The two are not related.

So he can in a matter of seconds determine the movements well enough to counter it of everything from a cougar and human to a howling ghost and a water elemental... again fighters study numerous videos and documentation to do this to other fighters, why is it more believable to you that the rogue can do it in a matter of seconds after meeting a creature for the first time as opposed to having learned how best to attack, maim or harm these creatures through folklore, teachers, legends, etc.??

I didn't say he "understands their emotions" I said he can figure out on the fly out to piss something off, or whether it's immediate rage in a split second will cause an overreach. That's not really stuff that helps much with diplomacy, as it all takes place within roughly a single heartbeat.

So why doesn't this help him when he wants to cause frustration in a creature outside of combat? Intimidate or Bluff it by taunting it? Also I don't think... he can tell how best to get under it's skin in less than a second is really an answer to the question I asked. The rogue should still be able to lever that type of uncanny insight in certain social situations, ESPECIALLY since he can do it at such astonishing speeds and with having never met the creature or even necessarily understanding it's language... I mean, I'm just posing the same type of questions you asked of the other explanation and you still haven't told me why this is in any way more believable than the rogue having collected snippets, legends, folklore and training on how to deal with a multitude of foes...

He obviously doesn't. He just tends to be better at it than others. He's good at dirty tricks - not perfect. If he were perfect, he'd max damage every time. Instead there is a range. But that argument cannot apply to the anatomy-type rogue, as he'd ALWAYS fail at backstab versus creatures whose anatomy he doesn't know. It's not the sort of skill done on the fly, while the others I mentioned are.

No the anatomy explanation does work since the assumption of the PHB is that the rogue has trained for years before he starts adventuring and he could have easily come across legends, old adventurers, guild masters, assasins, etc. that have this knowledge and may have imparted it by the time he starts adventuring... and whose to say everything he knows or says is correct, or if everytimg he tries the rogue strikes true??

On the other hand your excuse makes no sense because the rogue can do this to an opponent that is both quicker than him and smarter than him... why is that? if this is purely about instinct and dirty fighting it seems that an opponent who is both quicker and smarter than the rogue shouldn't be falling for his tricks and should be faster than him when he tries to strike... it's not based on knowledge it's based on ability and there are always things in D&D that are quicker, stronger and smarter than the PC's.

I think I've answered that just fine. The idea that rogues study anatomy itself makes no sense, and that they cannot apply that knowledge outside of sneak attacks is even sillier. But the idea that they are quick dirty tricksters, that is much more in line with the theme of a rogue than "anatomy-expert".

No, you really haven't... the idea that a person who knows how to hit hard and in vital areas must also be a skilled coroner makes no sense. the fact that they are quick dirty tricksters who for some reason are effective against creatures both smarter and quicker than them makes no sense. The fact that they can "trick" creatures like abominations or monsters from the Far Realm who are supposed to be purely alien in their thoughts and motivations makes no sense. Finally the theme of the rogue could just as easily be "skilled killer" as "dirty trickster" so you proclaiming a "theme"for the rogue class doesn't make it so...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally, I think Rogues have Sneak Attack because it's an original game mechanic that other classes don't have and gives Rogues something unique to do in the game during combat. And it has basic fluff layered on top of the mechanic to give it a little bit of narrative heft... but which in actuality has just as many story holes in it as every single other game mechanic in the game.

So whether Sneak Attack is fluffed "anatomy expert", or "dirty fighter" or any other way... it doesn't really matter because it's only there to make the game more interesting for the Rogue player during combat. And if you're looking for some airtight "reality" that the mechanic is adequately representing... you're fooling yourself. Because there's pretty much not a single mechanic in the game that stands up to that kind of scrutiny. The entire game is "basic narrative descriptor" used to explain "different ways to roll the dice".

 

[MJS]

Same way you're doing more damage when you roll high on the base weapon damage. Same way you're doing more damage when you add your strength mod. Obviously, all creatures are vulnerable to "more" damage at any given time.

As to how you deal that damage - by being skilled at keeping them off balance when they are distracted, quickly darting to where they don't expect you to dart, hitting them more or harder, etc.. The theme of a rogue is "quick" and "precise" and "dirty" so it will involve those things most likely.

The thing it likely wouldn't involve is "memorizing monster anatomy charts".

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?
no, because it's something else. It's coming out of cover and stabbing in the back, or something very similar. The thief doesn't need anatomy charts. But the extra damage is the result of that stealth-delivered critical, which I have no problem negating for creatures that have no such vital areas to hit.

Fortunately, 5E supports handwaving and hammering it to one's preference.

 

[Mistwell]

So why don't we see more coroners who are retired MMA fighters? Sorry, not buying it... this makes no sense.

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.

Learning how to hit someone in vital areas does not in any way entail that you yourself know specific enough knowledge in anatomy to do autopsies. Your logic seems flawed here. Also I don't remember thieves being healers or masters of anatomy even back then.

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.

No, somewhere some warrior, rogue, doctor, wizard or whatever discovered a weak point on a monster and wrote down or transferred that knowledge to others... and they in turn passed it on to others and so on...

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?

you know kind of like fighting techniques...

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.

And I'm sorry but fighters study numerous recordings to determine what they believe are weaknesses in an opponents fighting styles...

They do? Where does it say or imply that?

yet for some reason you think the rogue being able to determine these things in a matter of seconds is more believable than him having studied how to hurt things in the quickest and most efficient way possible??

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 why doesn't this help him when he wants to cause frustration in a creature outside of combat? Intimidate or Bluff it by taunting it?

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.

No the anatomy explanation does work since the assumption of the PHB is that the rogue has trained for years before he starts adventuring and he could have easily come across legends, old adventurers, guild masters, assasins, etc. that have this knowledge and may have imparted it by the time he starts adventuring... and whose to say everything he knows or says is correct, or if everytimg he tries the rogue strikes true??

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.

On the other hand your excuse makes no sense because the rogue can do this to an opponent that is both quicker than him and smarter than him...

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?

No, you really haven't... the idea that a person who knows how to hit hard and in vital areas must also be a skilled coroner makes no sense.

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.

the fact that they are quick dirty tricksters who for some reason are effective against creatures both smarter and quicker than them makes no sense.

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.

The fact that they can "trick" creatures like abominations or monsters from the Far Realm who are supposed to be purely alien in their thoughts and motivations makes no sense.

Why? They might make no sense in a general way, but in a specific "I feint left" sort of sense I think it would apply just as well.

Finally the theme of the rogue could just as easily be "skilled killer" as "dirty trickster" so you proclaiming a "theme"for the rogue class doesn't make it so...

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.