What damage type is Sneak Attack?

[igor140]

Given the wording of the PHB and the concept of what it is, it would be logical that it is the same damage type as the initiating attack itself (case in question: piercing).

The real question is, is the damage type INHERENTLY magical or non-magical based upon the weapon, or based upon the type?

In this case, our rogue shot (with a crossbow +2... and therefore magical) a gargoyle while another PC was within 5ft of the target. Gargoyles are resistant to non-magical piercing damage. So the bolt itself did full damage, but what about the Sneak Attack damage? Ultimately, I gave it to him, because he was getting ornery about our deliberation and I can certainly see a legitimate case for it... but it also raised the question.

All references that I recall to magical weapons or abilities (e.g., Druid's melee attacks while shapeshifted) are phrased something to the effect of, "this attack counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance"... but that doesn't expressly state whether or not Magical Piercing (Slashing, etc) damage is categorically different than Non-Magical Piercing damage. Furthermore, the wording of Sneak Attack describes "extra damage", which can reasonably be assumed to be the same damage type as the base attack... but it's not explicitly stated, and it leads us back to the first question.

So there are three ways I see this:

1) The damage type of the crossbow bolt is Magical Piercing, and therefore the Sneak Attack damage-- being an extra damage of presumably the same type-- is not halved.

2) The damage type of the crossbow bolt is Piercing, and therefore all Piercing damage (including Sneak Attack) is halved; except that the crossbow itself was magical, and therefore that instance of damage (i.e., the d8+5 from the bolt itself) is not halved.

3) Sneak Attack deals strictly "extra damage" of no type whatsoever, and applies fully in any and all situations, regardless of resistance or immunity. So shooting a creature completely immune to Piercing damage would still incur the full Sneak Attack amount because it is "extra damage". This is the least likely interpretation as far as I'm concerned, but it does seem to be possible.

What's your interpretation? ... And am I overthinking these things in my insomnia? : )

[dragoeniex]

Well, no better time to overthink things than fits of insomnia, right? Interesting question; I don't think I've heard it asked in any of my groups before.

If memory serves, it's been played in the games I've been at as if it were just extra damage of the same type and condition as the weapon dealing it. That makes sense to me narratively too; I see a "sneak attack" as being something you get by plunging your weapon into a vulnerable or vital area while the target is distracted. Essentially, a grievous wound that's no different from it would have normally been- just positioned better.

And if that's the case, it makes sense to me that the damage would be uniform. It's all coming from the same source.

I'll admit, I'm curious about how other people will respond now.

[Chijinda]

I believe it's the same damage type as whatever weapon the Rogue used. So if they did it with a dagger, it's piercing damage. If they did it with a magic flame dagger that deals fire damage, it's magical fire damage, etc.

[Expected]

I believe it's the same damage type as whatever weapon the Rogue used. So if they did it with a dagger, it's piercing damage. If they did it with a magic flame dagger that deals fire damage, it's magical fire damage, etc.

I agree. When a Rogue sneak attacks an enemy, it requires a weapon with the finesse property and advantage on the attack roll or another enemy of the target near the target. If said weapon was silvered or enchanted, I don't see why it wouldn't affect the damage properties of the sneak attack as well. In this case, it would be piercing damage and ignore the enemy's non-magical weapon damage resistance.

[Jormengand]

Yeah, the damage is explicitly extra damage, as in more weapon damage. It shares the attack's original damage type and any other properties that the weapon has. If you wield a Shadow Blade, then the damage type of your sneak attack can absolutely be psychic, for example.

[igor140]

Excellent! That's basically the conclusion I had come to as well, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some obscure thing about "extra damage" or anything. Anyway, this makes the most sense. Thanks!

[stoutstien]

So if I have a fire dagger of stabby pain that does fire damage and I attack a Trent does my sneak attack get doubled due to vulnerability? That doesn't sound right. I know it against the 5e motto of simple rule writing I view sneak attack as shot placement so a flat bonus. So just a flat whatever d6
Equal to other +damage die feature like sword bards, battle master dice and flat bonuses like rage damage.

[Maelynn]

So if I have a fire dagger of stabby pain that does fire damage and I attack a Trent does my sneak attack get doubled due to vulnerability? That doesn't sound right.

Well, it would work that way. Sneak Attack does 'extra damage', which means you do more of the same damage as your original attack.

Think of a Sneak Attack as hitting a weak area so the blade goes in deeper, or hitting a vital part/organ, or cutting a nerve or sinew that weakens the target, etc. It's all done with the same weapon, so it has the same damage properties.

[Unoriginal]

So if I have a fire dagger of stabby pain that does fire damage and I attack a Trent does my sneak attack get doubled due to vulnerability? That doesn't sound right. I know it against the 5e motto of simple rule writing I view sneak attack as shot placement so a flat bonus. So just a flat whatever d6
Equal to other +damage die feature like sword bards, battle master dice and flat bonuses like rage damage.

If you have a fire dagger, you do dagger damage, then fire damage. The Sneak Attack only applies to the dagger damages.

[Lunali]

So if I have a fire dagger of stabby pain that does fire damage and I attack a Trent does my sneak attack get doubled due to vulnerability? That doesn't sound right. I know it against the 5e motto of simple rule writing I view sneak attack as shot placement so a flat bonus. So just a flat whatever d6
Equal to other +damage die feature like sword bards, battle master dice and flat bonuses like rage damage.

If you have a magical dagger with a blade made of fire that does only fire damage, (similar to the sun blade) then yes, the sneak attack gets doubled. If you have a more typical magical dagger that does bonus fire damage, (like a flame tongue) then no, the sneak attack does piercing damage.

[Scarytincan]

So sunblade sneak attack vs shadow with radiant vulnerability...?

[OvisCaedo]

So sunblade sneak attack vs shadow with radiant vulnerability...?

The rare anti-undead sword would excessively obliterate that low level undead, yes. In fact, by its average damage, even WITHOUT sneak attack a hit from the sun blade would instantly kill a shadow. Someone with a dex mod of 4 would even one shot the poor thing rolling snake eyes on their dice. Though there's probably something more substantial that has radiant vulnerability...?

[stoutstien]

So are ppl rulings the same for Duelist fighting style, battle master dice, sword bards, and hunters extra damage to wounded target?

[Maelynn]

So are ppl rulings the same for Duelist fighting style, battle master dice, sword bards, and hunters extra damage to wounded target?

Resistance and vulnerability are determined -after- you determined damage, so yes:

"Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage" - PHB 197

So first you roll, then add all relevant modifiers (str/dex, flat bonuses like duelist or rage, dice like sneak attack, etc), then resistance, then vulnerability, and that's the damage you do to your target (see PHB 196 on damage rolls). This means that if your enemy has vulnerability to the weapon's damage type, then the Sneak Attack damage will also be doubled.

And I would like to point to Lunali's clarification, which I foolishly left out, regarding the differentiation between the weapon's damage type and an additional damage that is a separate addition to the weapon. If the target is vulnerable to the separate addition of the weapon, then only that bit gets doubled and the weapon's normal damage is applied as above.

[stoutstien]

Makes sense, my table been doing backwards 🙄

[Dalebert]

A rogue with a sunblade makes very short work of a demilich, like a hot knife through butter; almost literally! I know this from personal first-hand experience. I was DMing.

It's not "vulnerable" in the strict mechanical sense of the word, but I think it might be the only dmg type that it's not either immune or resistant to. They otherwise don't have a lot of hit points. It's the fact they can ignore some damage and cut nearly everything else in half.