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

[Umbran]

Folks,

Over the past few pages of this thread, we've seen a decline in civility, and some outright lame edition warring nonsense.

Please, stop. Remember where you are. Remember that the people matter more than your argument does. If you can't buy into that, please take a break, because patience for further escalation will not be great.

 

[3catcircus]

I know there are several pages, but I wanted to respond to the OP.

Yup - lots of pages of discussion, talking about anatomy and vital body parts and the logic of why or why not sneak attacks and criticals should be applicable.

I didn't wade through all 13 pages, but did anyone anywhere mention that D&D (every edition) doesn't have a hit location system other than as a bolt-on or house rule? How can the discussion talk about why sneak attacks and criticals should or shouldn't work on some creatures without mentioning this fact?

No comprehensive hit location mechanic = no way to target an attack. Not comprehensive hit location or specific critical hit results = no way to actually, say, lop off a foot or hand or gouge out an eye or skewer the heart or lungs (or whatever it is that an ooze has for internal organs, for example).

The moment you have a decent combat system that includes the ability to target specific locations and provide variable damage effects, then I think you can logically talk about whether or not sneak attacks or criticals should or shouldn't apply to certain monsters.

None of the bolt-on critical hit rules for d20/Pathfinder is really really effective. Torn Asunder does an admirable job and addresses the ability to do critical effects to monsters that are not subject to critical hits, but it may be a bit more effort than some players and DMs want to engage in.

Best system I've seen so far has been the Twilight:2013 combat rules - simple, elegant, and the effects go from "just a flesh wound" up to and including laying there in shock bleeding out or "lights out" one shot-one kill. I imagine there are other games with equally as good combat rules - but that is just it - the critical effects are baked into the combat system. Until D&D uses a combat system with wound and critical effects built-in and does away with hit points as an abstract measure, then critical hits and sneak attacks against certain monsters is, I think, a debate that can't be won either way.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

To turn your comment around somewhat, how does any character damage an undead's animating energy with mundane weapons? The energy is supernatural, and yet anyone with sufficient hit points can pick up a sword and simply stab a zombie dead as if it's a living person.

D&D is the only medium I know of where you don't consistently need supernatural or special tools to destroy supernatural forces. And the reason for that is pretty clear, I think: D&D is in large part about fighting monsters, and leaving non-casters impotent to fight supernatural monsters isn't very fun. And most of us are A-okay with this dynamic.

But at the same time, some of us think that leaving rogues impotent to fight several types of creatures is A-okay because Reasons. Seems like very selective reasoning, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Sunseeker]

Basically: because it's pretty much ALL the rogue does besides skills.

Hey, you wanna be a skill-rogue? Great this is meaningless to you.

But for all the rogues who like to actually stab things, eliminating their only real damaging ability is pretty harsh. Being immune to sneak attack is tantamount to making a creature immune to magic(all of it, not one type), which practically NEVER happens. It's fine for certain monsters to be immune to certain things, but there are far too creatures that are immune to sneak attack and crits. And most of them make no real sense. Worse, they're very normal creatures to encounter in a campaign, regardless of high or low magicalness, especially at low levels. The very few creatures that are immune to magic tend to be very rare.

 

[Imaro]

To turn your comment around somewhat, how does any character damage an undead's animating energy with mundane weapons? The energy is supernatural, and yet anyone with sufficient hit points can pick up a sword and simply stab a zombie dead as if it's a living person.

Perhaps the mounting wounds allow the energy to slowly dissipate from the animated form, since it does need a form to animate?? Maybe the form and energy are intertwined so that damage to one part damages the other as well (though again one can't hit energy or a dead form in a vital spot). Finally who said that the mundane can't damage the supernatural... wooden stakes, fire, silver, etc. are all mundane and have been cited in folklore as effective against the undead and/or supernatural monsters...

D&D is the only medium I know of where you don't consistently need supernatural or special tools to destroy supernatural forces. And the reason for that is pretty clear, I think: D&D is in large part about fighting monsters, and leaving non-casters impotent to fight supernatural monsters isn't very fun. And most of us are A-okay with this dynamic.

What do you mean by "supernatural forces""? There are plenty of games, movies, stories, etc. where a zombie, skeleton, monster, etc. can be destroyed by mundane means so I'm not sure how accurate your statement really is. As far as your second statement, having some monsters that are unaffected by the abilities of certain classes that surprise a player, up the challenge of a combat, force the player to think of alternative tactics or even to flee, etc. is fun for some/most of us

But at the same time, some of us think that leaving rogues impotent to fight several types of creatures is A-okay because Reasons. Seems like very selective reasoning, but maybe that's just me.

Either way it's "selective reasoning"... your statement above just makes it seem like you're trying to present one side selected by some in the debate as objectively correct when it's not. So yeah, I kinda do think it's just you in this situation.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Perhaps the mounting wounds allow the energy to slowly dissipate from the animated form, since it does need a form to animate?? Maybe the form and energy are intertwined so that damage to one part damages the other as well (though again one can't hit energy or a dead form in a vital spot).

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.

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

Finally who said that the mundane can't damage the supernatural... wooden stakes, fire, silver, etc. are all mundane and have been cited in folklore as effective against the undead and/or supernatural monsters...

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.

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.

As far as your second statement, having some monsters that are unaffected by the abilities of certain classes that surprise a player, up the challenge of a combat, force the player to think of alternative tactics or even to flee, etc. is fun for some/most of us

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.

Either way it's "selective reasoning"... your statement above just makes it seem like you're trying to present one side selected by some in the debate as objectively correct when it's not.

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.

 

[Farscape]

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.

First of all, you have no idea how many people it annoys. You, and others like you, may be in the minority.

Next, let's look at SA from 3rd edition.

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can
catch an opponent when he is
unable to defend himself
effectively from her attack,
she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

Undead, plants, constructs, and swarms have never been described as having vital spots.

Undead: Animated by spiritual or supernatural forces. Their organs, if they possessed and still posses them, do not function. Skeletons do not have tendons, organs or anything else. Zombies continue to function even if their bodies are rotting and ravaged. The only undead that has vital areas are vampires and those are only taken advantage of after you have brought it down.

Constructs are basically statues that are brought to life. There are no gears, unless it is a clockwork golem. It is basically an animated object.

Plants: They have no anatomy so there is no vital spot. Severing a limb or two doesn't kill most plants.

Swarms: These are usually too small to hit and contains multiple small creatures that comprise one creature.

SA immunity, to me and others I game with, a challenge, consistency, fun, believability (not to be mistaken for realism), and danger. The way SA was described and the way these types of monsters are described, it makes sense that SA wouldn't work.

 

[Farscape]

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.

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


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.

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.


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.


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.

Describe it for us then please.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6762009]Farscape[/MENTION] - I'm not really sure what you want here. You asked why people had a problem with blanked immunity to SA. You got an answer - blanket immunities for such a broad swath of opponents is not fun for us. Selective immunities are fine, where it might be this or that creature. And, I agree that Pathfinder seems to have found a nice middle road for this.

So, what are you trying to show? That we are not really having fun because we don't think the mechanics should sideline a single class so often? That if we all just manned up we'd be having more fun? What?

The simple fact is, when examined, most of this stuff makes absolutely no sense. Why do you add your strength modifier to damage against incorporeal undead? How do you hit a ghost "harder"? It's nonsensical. But, we ignore that because its a game and it doesn't really matter that much.

To me, the best thing 4e did was get rid of the blanket immunities. I hated them. Make it resistances and it works much better. Sure, that undead might be damage resistant to all weapons. Fantastic. That makes sense for a lot of undead. Rogues just become a little bit more useful in that they can actually do enough damage in a single hit to get past that resistance. Instead of sidelineling classes, we should be looking for ways to make classes more engaged.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Describe it for us then please.

Describe what? How the light in your fridge goes off when you close the door? How electricity travels through various circuit elements? Or maybe how your OP is laughably narrow-minded and rudely dismissive of those who don't share your particular play style preferences?

Like Hussar, I'm not sure what you actually want, which is why I didn't reply to your OP. If your OP was an honest inquiry, you already have your answer: Many of us don't like SA immunity because it's not fun. For us. Don't mistake 'many' for 'a majority'; nobody has hard stats on who likes what, so I could be in the majority or you could. What I do know is that those of us who don't like SA immunity are not a negligible minority.

If you want something more, the question you pose in your OP is no longer in good faith. In which case, I'm not interested in playing 'Who has the bigger longer better play style?'