Sneak Attack Resistance

[Hassassin]

It makes a lot of sense to me that you can't stab a skeleton's vitals, but OTOH that certainly isn't true for all undead - e.g. vampires.

So I was thinking, maybe sneak attack resistance should depend on the monster's other resistances.

For example, the skeleton has DR 5/bludgeoning, so you can't stab its heart or slash open important arteries (rule: DR prevents sneak attacks). However, if you want to borrow the wizard's staff (or know kung-fu) and smash its joints, go ahead!

Now the mechanic doesn't have to be DR, maybe skeletons have Critical Resistance [immune except against vulnerabilities] and Vulnerability [double damage from bludgeoning]. Anyway, the point is that the rogue's offensive advantage depends on knowing the weakness to exploit. This idea feels very roguish to me.

Same as any resistance, it goes without saying it shouldn't be too common. I'm also ignoring the fact that there may be no such thing as sneak attack, of course.

 

[Yora]

I think it's far easier to just give Immunity to Sneak Attack to any creatures where it fits.

 

[Number48]

Well, for the first part, we don't even know if there are sneak attacks in 5E in the way they've appeared in other editions.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sneak attacks were under 3.X considered parallel to crits, which is weird and unnecessary. Sneak attacks should simply be more frequent and better crits under favorable circumstances.

That aside, crit resistance is annoying and not that easy to justify. A crit is just as much about the attacker making his best swing as it is about the defender's specific vulnerability. I can see where it would be hard to crit an ooze, but I have no problem with smashing a skeleton. Thus, I would like to see crit immunity restricted to creatures with no discernable anatomy.

I also think it's important that undead and constructs be revisited in such a way that they can have a lot of hit points. The lack of Con made sense conceptually, but they needed something else to make up for it because these types of creatures seem like they should have lots of hp and good DR, making crit resistance unnecessary.

Damage vulnerability is a separate but interesting idea. If creatures can be resistant to damage, they ought to be vulnerable now and then as well.

 

[Aenghus]

I'm strongly opposed to common immunities to the core abilities of a class. This often ends up in a situation in a themed adventure that the class concerned is crippled, much weaker than normal, and unable to make a full contribution.

I much prefer the 4e stance of making immunities very rare.

If they do come back, there need to be ways to bypass them so as not to make a lot of valid character concepts so unreliable in practical play as to be frustrating.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm strongly opposed to common immunities to the core abilities of a class. This often ends up in a situation in a themed adventure that the class concerned is crippled, much weaker than normal, and unable to make a full contribution.

I much prefer the 4e stance of making immunities very rare.

If they do come back, there need to be ways to bypass them so as not to make a lot of valid character concepts so unreliable in practical play as to be frustrating.

Yeah, that's exactly my rationale for what I outlined in the OP.

Common immunities = bad -> make it rare.

Completely crippled in a fight = bad -> allow ways to bypass the resistance.

 

[Li Shenron]

It makes a lot of sense to me that you can't stab a skeleton's vitals, but OTOH that certainly isn't true for all undead - e.g. vampires.

So I was thinking, maybe sneak attack resistance should depend on the monster's other resistances.

I see three options (here the example is Sneak Attack, but it can be applied to mostly any resistance or immunity):

a) tie resistance to Sneak Attack to creature type [the 3e core method]

Pro is simplicity, you just know that "all undead are immune to SA" which is very easy to remember, and doesn't need to be reprinted every time in a MM.

Con is that when an ability carries over to everything which has that "type" including PC/NPC using spells or earning class abilities that grant such type, you may have a lot of baggage to carry over and remember, and it may generate nonsense cases. Example fomr 3.0 SRD: "Elementals have no clear front or back and are therefore not subject to critical hits or flanking." WTF? There are pretty many creatures of the Elemental type that do have a front and back... in this case I want to point out that it is the immunity to flanking here that makes no sense to apply.

b) tie resistance to Sneak Attack to another ability/feature [your suggestion]

Pro is that it that probably you can avoid more nonsense cases.

Con is that it sounds more complicated to keep track of if you allow more than one feature to tie into SA, and IMHO it also makes monster design more difficult. You may also get some new extra nonsense cases as a by-product.

c) make resistance to Sneak Attack specific for each creature, untied to everything else

Pro is that there are no nonsense cases.

Con is that you have to rewrite the ability into each MM entry.

---

Personally I think the best solution would be a) + c), i.e. let creature Type dictate a series of abilities (when they are believed to be really iconic and thus very frequent), but then include the magic word usually, and then feel free to make some creatures an exception.

Also, put a line in the DMG/MM saying that a DM can decide to modify/remove some monster abilities of these kinds if the group finds it more "realistic".

 

[Casupaa]

Assuming sneak attack will be as dominant a Rogue/Thief feature as in previous editions, bringing back sneak attack immunity would be an awful idea, imo. I really don't understand what an immunity would bring to the table, that justifies having a useless rogue hanging around.

If this is something people feel strongly about having in the game, I think that this should be handled by bringing back weapon types, and applying a moderate piercing weapon resistance for a few monsters.

 

[Dausuul]

That aside, crit resistance is annoying and not that easy to justify. A crit is just as much about the attacker making his best swing as it is about the defender's specific vulnerability. I can see where it would be hard to crit an ooze, but I have no problem with smashing a skeleton. Thus, I would like to see crit immunity restricted to creatures with no discernable anatomy.

This.

I'm strongly opposed to common immunities to the core abilities of a class. This often ends up in a situation in a themed adventure that the class concerned is crippled, much weaker than normal, and unable to make a full contribution.

Also this.

I'm strongly opposed to having any form of "sneak attack resistance," let alone immunity, except in a very rare handful of cases. Immunity to sneak attack should be about as common as immunity to weapons. You wouldn't screw over the fighter by making every third monster weapon-immune, why do it to the rogue by making them sneak-attack-immune?

And while I'm generally sympathetic to arguments from verisimilitude, I don't think those arguments hold much water in this case. A skeleton may not have vital organs, but it certainly has vulnerable spots; a blow to the spine, snapping the skeleton in half, will do a lot more damage than a blow that breaks a few ribs. There's no particular reason why sneak attack should be ineffective on wide classes of creatures. As I recall, back in AD&D, you could backstab undead just fine.

I don't mind having a very few monsters that you just can't sneak attack. It adds flavor and excitement when your abilities don't always work. But it should be very, very few; oozes, say. Certainly not something as common as undead!

 

[Deset Gled]

Absolutes are bad.

It makes sense to me that a first level rogue can't SA a skeleton, but I find it silly that a 20th level rogue still can't. A 20th level rogue should be able to walk up behind a 1HD skeleton, use a sewing needle to touch the right spot, and watch the thing fall apart.

There needs to me a mechanic for SA immunity to be overcome based on the level/training of the rogue. And no, I don't like using feats or powers to cover this; it should be inherent to the SA mechanic. Unfortunately, I don't know the best mechanic for this.

Also, note that this "absolutes are bad" thing is universally applicable. There should be no absolute immunities, ever. Just because a Salamander is immune to his own fire doesn't mean he should be able to survive being in the center of a sun. Just because a Paladin hits third level doesn't mean he should be immune to a pestilence personally applied by a rival god. All that absolutes do is make a game out of renaming things, and it needs to stop. I hate rule add ons like: good character's can't use poisons, so here's a list of "ravages" that act exactly the same as poisons, but good players can use them.