I always believed that a touch attack would stack with a sneak attack if the PC was able to apply the sneak damage. So a flanking rogue/sorcerer could be able to add his sneak damage to the effect of the touch spell. It could also be possible to do the same against a FF opponent with range touch spells requiring a range touch attack.
You could also argue that the sneak damage could be added to a regular spell against all FF opponents.
But reading the capstone power of the arcane trickster which seems to allow just this, I'm wondering if I've been wrong all those years and stretching the rules a bit too far.
I wish to know if others shared the same views.
DW
I always believed that a touch attack would stack with a sneak attack if the PC was able to apply the sneak damage. So a flanking rogue/sorcerer could be able to add his sneak damage to the effect of the touch spell. It could also be possible to do the same against a FF opponent with range touch spells requiring a range touch attack.
You could also argue that the sneak damage could be added to a regular spell against all FF opponents.
But reading the capstone power of the arcane trickster which seems to allow just this, I'm wondering if I've been wrong all those years and stretching the rules a bit too far.
I wish to know if others shared the same views.
DW
I think I agree with you, IMO if a rogue/sorcerer fires a melfs acid arrow against someone who is flatfooted they get the sneak attack damage same as if they fired a normal arrow. I dont see it working for a magic missile as it doesnt have an 'attack'. I do see it working for say a shocking grasp attack on a flanked foe.
I am unable to quote the rules for this and may be wrong, but that is how I would play it.
I always believed that a touch attack would stack with a sneak attack if the PC was able to apply the sneak damage. So a flanking rogue/sorcerer could be able to add his sneak damage to the effect of the touch spell. It could also be possible to do the same against a FF opponent with range touch spells requiring a range touch attack.
You could also argue that the sneak damage could be added to a regular spell against all FF opponents.
But reading the capstone power of the arcane trickster which seems to allow just this, I'm wondering if I've been wrong all those years and stretching the rules a bit too far.
I wish to know if others shared the same views.
DW
You are right, that you can deal sneak attack damage with any damaging spell that needs an attack roll (either ranged or normal), if the usual conditions for sneak attack are satisfied, i.e., the opponent is flanked or loosed his Dexterity modifier.
The ability of the arcane trickster lets him add his sneak attack damage to any spell when opponents are flat-footed. He could go into a room (being invisible or using Stealth) and drop a fireball on a crowd and all of them would also suffer sneak attack damage. This is normally forbidden, since sneak attack only works with stuff that uses attack rolls (you must aim after all).
If it requires an attack roll and deals HP damage, it can be used as a sneak attack.
If it requires an attack roll and deals HP damage, it can be used as a sneak attack.
For good or ill, yes.
Unfortunately though, your cleric/rogue can't flank your fighter ally to get sneak attack on his healing spells...
... also don't roll to hit the fighter and try and get a critical hit on your cure light wounds, some reason DM's frown on that too.
Unfortunately though, your cleric/rogue can't flank your fighter ally to get sneak attack on his healing spells...
... also don't roll to hit the fighter and try and get a critical hit on your cure light wounds, some reason DM's frown on that too.
I know, I don't get why. You'd think they could use their Heal skill for the attack too...
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.
Incorrect -- Pretty good damage for a zero level spell coupled with a twelfth level ability.
By itself the Ray of Frost isn't worth a thing.
Also consider that if the character had instead stuck with straight wizard he would have Scorching Ray or Disintegrate for more damage.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.
That's because the rogue/socerer is shooting the ray into his enemy's eye, kidney or corotid artery. A straight spellcaster just aims at the target and is happy that he hits the fleshy part of the arm or something.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I know somewhere I've read that sneak attack damage is always the same type as the main attack, so that yes, a sneak attack with a ray of frost is all cold damage, and subject to energy resistance, vulnerability, immunity, SR, etc. This may have been in a FAQ, or supplement book somewhere - I don't recall.
Thanks Joel. You've made a rogue (who happens to be played by my wife), very happy. Now that you say it I do recall reading that somewhere. ALso your prior interpretation makes good sense. Hitting the carotid artery for even 3 lousy points suddenly becomes magnified (into 6d6 in this case), by the fact that your brain doesn't work right anymore:) Or that a chunk (small, to be sure) of frozen blood just hit your brain, or your heart, or wherever. Nice logic.
Hmmm...
How about Touch of idiocy or Ray of enfeeblement? Would those, as they require an attack, get the sneak bonuses? It wouldn't make sense to make it Int or Str damage though.
Also, the example of the 0-level spell is interesting because it is usually much easier to hit with a touch attack than with a regular attack with a sword.
On the other hand, if you're flanking, you can only cast one spell (with the risks involved) whereas you can do more than one regular attack with a sword (with a BAB of 6+).
DW
Thanks Joel. You've made a rogue (who happens to be played by my wife), very happy. Now that you say it I do recall reading that somewhere. ALso your prior interpretation makes good sense. Hitting the carotid artery for even 3 lousy points suddenly becomes magnified (into 6d6 in this case), by the fact that your brain doesn't work right anymore:) Or that a chunk (small, to be sure) of frozen blood just hit your brain, or your heart, or wherever. Nice logic.Hmmm...
How about Touch of idiocy or Ray of enfeeblement? Would those, as they require an attack, get the sneak bonuses? It wouldn't make sense to make it Int or Str damage though.
Also, the example of the 0-level spell is interesting because it is usually much easier to hit with a touch attack than with a regular attack with a sword.
On the other hand, if you're flanking, you can only cast one spell (with the risks involved) whereas you can do more than one regular attack with a sword (with a BAB of 6+).
DW
You have to do actual damage, not just inflict a penalty. For example, the 3.5 ray of enfeeblement gave an ability penalty, so it doesn't get to do sneak attack damage.
I know somewhere I've read that sneak attack damage is always the same type as the main attack, so that yes, a sneak attack with a ray of frost is all cold damage, and subject to energy resistance, vulnerability, immunity, SR, etc. This may have been in a FAQ, or supplement book somewhere - I don't recall.
Complete Arcane is the source. Perhaps in other places as well.
... also don't roll to hit the fighter and try and get a critical hit on your cure light wounds, some reason DM's frown on that too.
Oooh.... don't go there now. ^_-
Aside from not doing damage (so no critical) you really don't want the DM to start having you roll to hit with cure spells. A bad luck auto-miss (1) with a cure critical wounds would be very bad. It would also make it rather difficult to heal those high Touch AC party members (rogues and such).
...A scene and some dialog involving Merisiel and Kyra has popped into my head. 0_o
It's a touch spell so I can hold the charge...
Anyways, Something else on the touch of idiocy and such:
Ability damage is not damage... it would be better to read it ability_damage (one word) and as such isn't subject to sneak attack (which only affects damage).
It's a touch spell so I can hold the charge...
In theory correct but I've heard of DM's waiting for the PC to do something innocuous after casting the charged spell like grab a potion or door and saying they discharge the spell after ("Well you cast the spell so you had to have your holy symbol in your other hand, what were you opening the door with, your teeth?"). Usually because the player takes advantage of it repeatedly, just something to think about lol.
As for the example I think they used something like chill touch or some necromancy spell and sneak attack, so the sneak attack inflicted negative energy or some odd type energy that you wouldn't ever expect sneak attack to deal.
It's a touch spell so I can hold the charge...
Anyways, Something else on the touch of idiocy and such:
Ability damage is not damage... it would be better to read it ability_damage (one word) and as such isn't subject to sneak attack (which only affects damage).
On the other hand, the 3.5 rule did some weird stuff. Hitting someone with enervation and successfully scoring a critical hit or sneak attack got you extra damage of the negative energy variety.
On the other hand, the 3.5 rule did some weird stuff. Hitting someone with enervation and successfully scoring a critical hit or sneak attack got you extra damage of the negative energy variety.It's a touch spell so I can hold the charge...
Anyways, Something else on the touch of idiocy and such:
Ability damage is not damage... it would be better to read it ability_damage (one word) and as such isn't subject to sneak attack (which only affects damage).
So Touch of idiocy would allow extra damage from sneaking, just not ability damage though.
Sneak attack mentions attack, not damage.
DW
On the other hand, the 3.5 rule did some weird stuff. Hitting someone with enervation and successfully scoring a critical hit or sneak attack got you extra damage of the negative energy variety.It's a touch spell so I can hold the charge...
Anyways, Something else on the touch of idiocy and such:
Ability damage is not damage... it would be better to read it ability_damage (one word) and as such isn't subject to sneak attack (which only affects damage).
So Touch of idiocy would allow extra damage from sneaking, just not ability damage though.
Sneak attack mentions attack, not damage.
DW
I believe so. Book's not in front of me right this second to check. For more fun, consider disintegrate. Then consider destruction. Not that these cases both apply in Pathfinder in the same way as they used to.
On the other hand, the 3.5 rule did some weird stuff. Hitting someone with enervation and successfully scoring a critical hit or sneak attack got you extra damage of the negative energy variety.It's a touch spell so I can hold the charge...
Anyways, Something else on the touch of idiocy and such:
Ability damage is not damage... it would be better to read it ability_damage (one word) and as such isn't subject to sneak attack (which only affects damage).
So Touch of idiocy would allow extra damage from sneaking, just not ability damage though.
Sneak attack mentions attack, not damage.
DW
sounds likely to me, I would have to double check the errata.
I believe so. Book's not in front of me right this second to check. For more fun, consider disintegrate. Then consider destruction. Not that these cases both apply in Pathfinder in the same way as they used to.
...
So Touch of idiocy would allow extra damage from sneaking, just not ability damage though.Sneak attack mentions attack, not damage.
DW
I would rule the same but it might be worth noting that neither Touch of Idiocy or Ray of enfeeblement actually deal ability damage (at least in PF) they impose a Penalty. Mostly the same effect but duration and max. effect are different.
But still, it's an attack roll so one could sneak with them.
One thing I allowed but think I was wrong to was Sneak Attack damage with a Wand of Acid Arrow in melee because I toughts the target was flanked by the rogue with the rapier she held in her other hand (and an allie onthe other side), not with the range attack wand.
I allowed it because the description of sneak attack says " ...when the rogue flanks her target" but the description of flanking starts with "When making a melee attack ..." but it's not clear all the way (to me). Is "Flanked" like a condition?
Any toughts?
|
|
One thing I allowed but think I was wrong to was Sneak Attack damage with a Wand of Acid Arrow in melee because I toughts the target was flanked by the rogue with the rapier she held in her other hand (and an allie onthe other side), not with the range attack wand.
I allowed it because the description of sneak attack says " ...when the rogue flanks her target" but the description of flanking starts with "When making a melee attack ..." but it's not clear all the way (to me). Is "Flanked" like a condition?
Any toughts?
You are correct here, you can not flank with a missile weapon, period. Yes I am sure there is a feat/ability out there in a book somewhere that says you can, but I am talking just core here.
Ranged Sneak Attack builds remind me of 2nd edition Backstab, hard to pull off, not really worth the time to do it unless the situation falls into your lap or you have a habit of stealthing up on the bag guys.
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.
The rule you are looking for is....Your the DM, if you feel it is wrong, talk to your players, explain your thoughts, allow them input then make the ruling you can all live with.
That would be the rule you are looking for in this situation.
My biggest issue is that this ignores most defense your opponet might have. Sneak attack means he's flat footed so no dex, but because it's a touch spell no armor either.
I would not be inclined to allow it, don't care what the rules say, it's over powered in my veiw. My players and I would have to talk it out, but I know them, I feel certain this would not get into our game as is. A hand crossbow, knife, bow would all have to hit the armor of the foe, but this bypasses all of that.
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.The rule you are looking for is....Your the DM, if you feel it is wrong, talk to your players, explain your thoughts, allow them input then make the ruling you can all live with.
That would be the rule you are looking for in this situation.
My biggest issue is that this ignores most defense your opponet might have. Sneak attack means he's flat footed so no dex, but because it's a touch spell no armor either.
I would not be inclined to allow it, don't care what the rules say, it's over powered in my veiw. My players and I would have to talk it out, but I know them, I feel certain this would not get into our game as is. A hand crossbow, knife, bow would all have to hit the armor of the foe, but this bypasses all of that.
I see your point, and yet, you do less from sneak attack because you invested in spellcasting, and you do less with spells, because you invested in sneak attack.
As for the Rogue talent, there is a limited number of uses, the limit of one spell cast per round, and the difficulty of casting the spell while in the threatened area.
Doesn't it balance itself?
DW
So the rogue in my party with the magical talent - ray of frost can sneak attack for 1d3 (ray of frost) plus 6d6 (sneak attack damage). That seems wrong, but I haven't found a rule that says she can't. Pretty good damage for a zero level spell.The rule you are looking for is....Your the DM, if you feel it is wrong, talk to your players, explain your thoughts, allow them input then make the ruling you can all live with.
That would be the rule you are looking for in this situation.
My biggest issue is that this ignores most defense your opponet might have. Sneak attack means he's flat footed so no dex, but because it's a touch spell no armor either.
I would not be inclined to allow it, don't care what the rules say, it's over powered in my veiw. My players and I would have to talk it out, but I know them, I feel certain this would not get into our game as is. A hand crossbow, knife, bow would all have to hit the armor of the foe, but this bypasses all of that.
I see your point, and yet, you do less from sneak attack because you invested in spellcasting, and you do less with spells, because you invested in sneak attack.
As for the Rogue talent, there is a limited number of uses, the limit of one spell cast per round, and the difficulty of casting the spell while in the threatened area.
Doesn't it balance itself?
DW
For a touch spell, sort of, and I would be willing to listen to arguements to allow it for shocking grasp and the like. Certainly your arguement strengthens if you had improved unarmed or were a monk.
But for ray of frost? No I just don't see it. First if they don't know you are there, or if you are at range they can't interupt spell casting anyway. But even if you are in melee, it's a zero level spell, a minimal risk of spell interuption really.
You do less sneak attack damage with a great sword if you take fighter levels and specialize in it, but you don't get to ignore armor when checking to see if you get to apply that sneak attack damage.
Personally I have always had issues with fighters not being able to defend their flanks but rogues being able to, but that is another story entirely.
Unfortunately though, your cleric/rogue can't flank your fighter ally to get sneak attack on his healing spells...
... also don't roll to hit the fighter and try and get a critical hit on your cure light wounds, some reason DM's frown on that too.
Actually, as a DM, I'm pretty sure be willing to let the cleric make touch attack rolls with a chance to critical. The 5% of the time you get double healing is balanced by the 5% of the time you get no healing because you rolled a 1. And that's assuming you can hit their touch AC on a 2.
Sneak attack on a cure spell I'd only allow if it did damage. (Last month, my rogue used a wand of CLW to sneak attack vampire spawn twice. It was great!)
My biggest issue is that this ignores most defense your opponet might have. Sneak attack means he's flat footed so no dex, but because it's a touch spell no armor either.Well, it doesn't "mean" the target is flat-footed. He may be merely flanked. Or blinded, or stunned.
But you are right. Ranged touch attacks are almost always at a much lower AC than any normal attacks, so those touch sneak attacks are more likely to hit than ordinary sneak attacks.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack.
...
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon.These two passages about Ray spells make it fairly clear that aiming and firing a ray works just like aiming and firing any other ranged weapon, including the ability to do critical damage.
The differences, such as the fact that it's a touch attack, are actually built into the individual rays - that's why it says "typically you make a ranged touch attack", because it's up to the description of the individual ray.
Given all that, it seems reasonable to assume that if it can crit, it can also sneak attack.
However, it does not actually specify this in Pathfinder, or in the SRD, though as mentioned, there are splatbooks that clarify this question.
I would not be inclined to allow it, don't care what the rules say, it's over powered in my veiw. My players and I would have to talk it out, but I know them, I feel certain this would not get into our game as is. A hand crossbow, knife, bow would all have to hit the armor of the foe, but this bypasses all of that.Well, obviously, it's always up to each DM what to allow, what to change, and what to ignore.
But if you think this is overpowered, try giving a handful of rogue levels to a wraith, and have it lurk in the stone floors of its lair, moving freely about the dungeon, popping out of the floor, sneak attacking the unsuspecting party while they are busy with some other encounter or trap or whatever, then ducking back into the floor where nobody can hurt it, see it, or even detect it. Using spring attack, of course. And ignoring all all armor while it sneak attacks (see the rules for incorporeal subtype). One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.
But if you think this is overpowered, try giving a handful of rogue levels to a wraith, and have it lurk in the stone floors of its lair, moving freely about the dungeon, popping out of the floor, sneak attacking the unsuspecting party while they are busy with some other encounter or trap or whatever, then ducking back into the floor where nobody can hurt it, see it, or even detect it. Using spring attack, of course. And ignoring all all armor while it sneak attacks (see the rules for incorporeal subtype). One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.
I think that's a pretty clear indication of just how powerful it is. No I can see no reason to allow this in a game, simply too powerful. And any rogue worth his salt can use a wand of ray of frost without the loss of sneak attack damage, just takes some skill points.
I think that's a pretty clear indication of just how powerful it is. No I can see no reason to allow this in a game, simply too powerful. And any rogue worth his salt can use a wand of ray of frost without the loss of sneak attack damage, just takes some skill points.
But if you think this is overpowered, try giving a handful of rogue levels to a wraith, and have it lurk in the stone floors of its lair, moving freely about the dungeon, popping out of the floor, sneak attacking the unsuspecting party while they are busy with some other encounter or trap or whatever, then ducking back into the floor where nobody can hurt it, see it, or even detect it. Using spring attack, of course. And ignoring all all armor while it sneak attacks (see the rules for incorporeal subtype). One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.
Again Opportunity cost: The ranks spent in Use Magic Device (which until he has a total bonus of +20 isn't a garantuee that it will work), the cost of the wand (375 gp) and the question of getting a situation where he can sneak attack in the first place (much harder to do for ranged attacks than melee attacks).
In the case that he does get sneak attack on a ranged attack he has given up all chance of multiple attacks for having the attack be a ranged touch attack (he might have been able to get multiple attacks with a regular ranged weapon resulting in much more damage).
Personally I would rather have 5 attacks with a normal magical ranged weapon than 1 attack with wand... that I got to succeed on a skill check on to use.
(5 attacks = Full attack + haste + rapid shot)
|
I think that's a pretty clear indication of just how powerful it is. No I can see no reason to allow this in a game, simply too powerful. And any rogue worth his salt can use a wand of ray of frost without the loss of sneak attack damage, just takes some skill points.
But if you think this is overpowered, try giving a handful of rogue levels to a wraith, and have it lurk in the stone floors of its lair, moving freely about the dungeon, popping out of the floor, sneak attacking the unsuspecting party while they are busy with some other encounter or trap or whatever, then ducking back into the floor where nobody can hurt it, see it, or even detect it. Using spring attack, of course. And ignoring all all armor while it sneak attacks (see the rules for incorporeal subtype). One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.
If you really think *that* is powerful, I'd love to see you view some of the old Character Optimization forums.
|
|
One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.
I'm attributing the quote to you since you tossed the entire post in a quote bubble.
First of all this is hardly 'one little CR 5 wraith...' as you put it. 5 rogue levels turn it into a CR10 creature, you point out it also attacked from highly beneficial terrain during encounters with other things.
Not only that but the wraith has an undervalued CR. Incorporial, con drain, undead traits, and create spawn make it a pain to put down, and very deadly without additional tinkering.
One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.I'm attributing the quote to you since you tossed the entire post in a quote bubble.
First of all this is hardly 'one little CR 5 wraith...' as you put it. 5 rogue levels turn it into a CR10 creature, you point out it also attacked from highly beneficial terrain during encounters with other things.
Not only that but the wraith has an undervalued CR. Incorporial, con drain, undead traits, and create spawn make it a pain to put down, and very deadly without additional tinkering.
Yeah, not sure how I screwed up that /quote, but I can't fix it now.
And I had meant "CR 5 wraith with 5 rogue levels, making it CR 10" but I managed not to make that clear.
I think that's a pretty clear indication of just how powerful it is. No I can see no reason to allow this in a game, simply too powerful. And any rogue worth his salt can use a wand of ray of frost without the loss of sneak attack damage, just takes some skill points.
But if you think this is overpowered, try giving a handful of rogue levels to a wraith, and have it lurk in the stone floors of its lair, moving freely about the dungeon, popping out of the floor, sneak attacking the unsuspecting party while they are busy with some other encounter or trap or whatever, then ducking back into the floor where nobody can hurt it, see it, or even detect it. Using spring attack, of course. And ignoring all all armor while it sneak attacks (see the rules for incorporeal subtype). One little cr5 wraith with 5 rogue levels chased a whole group of 11th & 12th level PCs right out of its dungeon.
Again Opportunity cost: The ranks spent in Use Magic Device (which until he has a total bonus of +20 isn't a garantuee that it will work), the cost of the wand (375 gp) and the question of getting a situation where he can sneak attack in the first place (much harder to do for ranged attacks than melee attacks).
In the case that he does get sneak attack on a ranged attack he has given up all chance of multiple attacks for having the attack be a ranged touch attack (he might have been able to get multiple attacks with a regular ranged weapon resulting in much more damage).
Personally I would rather have 5 attacks with a normal magical ranged weapon than 1 attack with wand... that I got to succeed on a skill check on to use.
(5 attacks = Full attack + haste + rapid shot)
But you need to hit his armor and your assuming full attack with haste...maybe people power game alot and assume everyone is always hasted but I'm not sure I would make that assumption. All the same with ranged touch you are ignoring his armor, which at the level you get 5 attacks as a rogue is likely not all that bad.
Also at the level your implying using a wand with a zero level spell is trival.
Fortification would also get in your way, I'm not sure if it would get in the way of something armor offers no protection against. I would certainly see an arguement for it not helping.
Three of those attacks are at my highest BAB bonus -2. Usually with a rogue I find that to be enough to hit with three attacks, which will net me triple the damage of the wand using rogue, which still has to make a skill check.
Also there is a feat that will do the same thing for a rogue with a normal weapon actually -- Pinpoint shot turns the attack into a ranged touch attack.
My main point is that there are opportunity costs to each thing a character does: A two weapon fighting rogue isn't going to have the attacks that a two handed fighting rogue will both of which will take more damage than a ranged rogue, however will get sneak attack more often, while the magic using rogue now has to contend with SR, buying magic items, and skill checks (if he is 'straight' rogue) or the choices of multiclassing, and the fact he is going to deal even less damage per round than any other rogue probably will do.
Fortification is a problem for all rogues -- touch attacks ignore armor bonuses, not armor effects.
The skill roll to use a wand is DC 20, that's not trival until it is an auto pass at level 17 (level 14 with skill focus which costs a feat, level 12 with skill focus and a Cha of 14 which has its own costs as well).
Every part of it costs something. My ranged rogue has a chance to do 50d6 damage in one round, with a good chance of at least 30d6 of that sticking... the ranged touch attack rogue has a chance of doing 10d6+1d3 damage in a round, with a much better chance (generally) of connecting, the two weapon fighting rogue has a chance to do 70d6 damage in a round if he can get into melee and hit with all his attacks.
So here is what the issue really boils down to:
50d6 -- has to get the opponent flat footed, has to hit, eats some feats
10d6 -- has to get the opponent flat footed, has to hit (much easier), eats a feat (skill focus, could also eat all the ranged rogue's feats too)
70d6 -- must flank, use a full attack action, has to hit, eats several feats
All a matter of what set of issues you want to deal with.
The skill roll to use a wand is DC 20, that's not trival until it is an auto pass at level 17 (level 14 with skill focus which costs a feat, level 12 with skill focus and a Cha of 14 which has its own costs as well).
For a rogue with 5 attacks? What level is the rogue with 5 attacks? Lets look:
Rapid shot, haste make for 2. The other three take you 15 levels to achieve. So roll anything but a 1 and with a 10 cha and max skill points in UMD you make it (18 in 3.5). Sounds pretty trival to me. And that skill is well worth it for use just for cure wands never mind this effect.
Instead of Ray of Frost, have the Rogue use Two weapon fighting and THROW vials of acid flasks or alchemists fire. you can get a ridiculous amount of touch-attack sneak damage that way.
Have the party Wizard cast BLINK on you. You will now do SA damage but have a 20% miss chance yourself. Then take the feat Ignore Magical Concealment, which allows you to ignore miss chances generated by magic effects. Now you're golden.
Instead of Ray of Frost, have the Rogue use Two weapon fighting and THROW vials of acid flasks or alchemists fire. you can get a ridiculous amount of touch-attack sneak damage that way.
Now that's funny.
I'm so using this as a mad goblin alchemist/rogue NPC villain...
The skill roll to use a wand is DC 20, that's not trival until it is an auto pass at level 17 (level 14 with skill focus which costs a feat, level 12 with skill focus and a Cha of 14 which has its own costs as well).
For a rogue with 5 attacks? What level is the rogue with 5 attacks? Lets look:
Rapid shot, haste make for 2. The other three take you 15 levels to achieve. So roll anything but a 1 and with a 10 cha and max skill points in UMD you make it (18 in 3.5). Sounds pretty trival to me. And that skill is well worth it for use just for cure wands never mind this effect.
Again look at the damage difference:
Even given that it takes until level 15 to get the 5 full attacks that is still 5 times the sneak attack damage compared to a single go at it.
If we only consider the 3 attacks that are likely to hit that's 3x the damage of the wand, just on sneak attack dice, nevermind the possibility of more damage from the weapon being magic, feats, and special effects.
3x damage (possibly 5x damage) > 1x damage (which could still miss and takes two rolls to do)
So what makes the use of the wand even with the 3x damage? The fact that it's a ranged touch attack, meaning less chance of it missing.
My point is the use of a ranged touch attack spell for sneak attacking is hardly game breaking as the rogue is giving up all his extra attacks that would also do sneak attack damage. That is where the balance lies, hey he'll probably hit with the wand... so what? It's a measly 10d6+1d3 damage at most, if he beats any spell resistance, hits (still could miss), and succeeds on his UMD check (until level 16 he could fail, after than he can't).
I'm not saying that the use of a wand is a bad choice, just that it is a balanced choice, and the balancing factors are the lower damage output, and skill points needed to do it.
Instead of Ray of Frost, have the Rogue use Two weapon fighting and THROW vials of acid flasks or alchemists fire. you can get a ridiculous amount of touch-attack sneak damage that way.Now that's funny.
I'm so using this as a mad goblin alchemist/rogue NPC villain...
Won't work. Re-read the entries on sneak attack and acid flasks and alchemist fire. Eric Mona (or maybe it was James) pointed out the problems with this back during the design focus for rogues.
Won't work. Re-read the entries on sneak attack and acid flasks and alchemist fire. Eric Mona (or maybe it was James) pointed out the problems with this back during the design focus for rogues.Instead of Ray of Frost, have the Rogue use Two weapon fighting and THROW vials of acid flasks or alchemists fire. you can get a ridiculous amount of touch-attack sneak damage that way.Now that's funny.
I'm so using this as a mad goblin alchemist/rogue NPC villain...
You won't be able to sneak attack with splash weapons, but the Grenadier and Mad Alchemist feats in PHBII can still give you some options.
Yeah I was just pointing out that you couldn't rely on alchemical items to deliver your sneak attack damage...
However I could see someone trying to make a case with the "throw anything" feat if they are directly throwing the item at the enemy instead of the normal method of attacking with alchemical weapons... but that would be a long hard case to make.
Yeah I was just pointing out that you couldn't rely on alchemical items to deliver your sneak attack damage...
However I could see someone trying to make a case with the "throw anything" feat if they are directly throwing the item at the enemy instead of the normal method of attacking with alchemical weapons... but that would be a long hard case to make.
I suppose you could be right over all, one attack with a touch isn't unbalanced too much.
Now here's an odd question, you do ray of frost but the person has frost resist. Does that also reduce the sneak attack damage which would in effect be frost damage, or would the sneak attack damage be physical?
Now here's an odd question, you do ray of frost but the person has frost resist. Does that also reduce the sneak attack damage which would in effect be frost damage, or would the sneak attack damage be physical?
Well, since the Sneak Attack dealt is cold damage, Cold Resistance would reduce it as well (and Cold Immunity would utterly nullify it).
See this link in order to see the official rules on Sneak Attacks dealt with spells. The interesting point is this:
"A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell inflicts extra damage according to the attacker's sneak attack ability, and the extra damage dealt is the same type as the spell deals. For example, a 10th level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell inflicts 2d4 points of acid damage, plus an extra 5d6 points of acid damage from the sneak attack (note that continuing damage from this spell is not part of the sneak attack). Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with an enervation spell deals 1d4 negative levels plus an extra 5d6 points of negative energy damage."
Just my 2c.
Just to throw more wood on the fire.
Multiclass Warlock/Rogue. Warlock throws off ranged touch attacks at the same rate as the rogue get's sneak attacks. So, within 30 feet, the multiclassed Warlock/Rogue get's his Sneak Attacks. And, because a Warlock's attacks are standard attacks, if he has multiple attacks and uses a full round attack action, he can fire his warlock blast however many attacks he has, and as long as he qualifies for a sneak attack on each one, he can get the sneak attack on each ranged touch attack. Add on top of that that Hideous Blow can be used to combine his eldritch blast, his sneak attack, and his weapon damage, all on a hit.
Now, I know, the argument is 'Why would you multiclass warlock/rogue when you could go straight warlock and get the flat damage as a ranged touch attack'. Because you get your rogue abilities (evasion, uncanny dodge, trapfinding, skill points, etc). By the way, this also works (even better) with a Scout/Warlock combo. I have a player who does this religiously, and it's a nasty pain to deal with. I've taken to using magic missiles on him (he's all dex and ac boosts, hard to hit melee, tumbles out of threatened ranges, uses scout movement to get away from the fight and then move in attack move out). Area effect spells are useless with evasion. Blech. I hate warlocks.
Just to throw more wood on the fire.
Multiclass Warlock/Rogue. Warlock throws off ranged touch attacks at the same rate as the rogue get's sneak attacks. So, within 30 feet, the multiclassed Warlock/Rogue get's his Sneak Attacks. And, because a Warlock's attacks are standard attacks, if he has multiple attacks and uses a full round attack action, he can fire his warlock blast however many attacks he has, and as long as he qualifies for a sneak attack on each one, he can get the sneak attack on each ranged touch attack. Add on top of that that Hideous Blow can be used to combine his eldritch blast, his sneak attack, and his weapon damage, all on a hit.
Now, I know, the argument is 'Why would you multiclass warlock/rogue when you could go straight warlock and get the flat damage as a ranged touch attack'. Because you get your rogue abilities (evasion, uncanny dodge, trapfinding, skill points, etc). By the way, this also works (even better) with a Scout/Warlock combo. I have a player who does this religiously, and it's a nasty pain to deal with. I've taken to using magic missiles on him (he's all dex and ac boosts, hard to hit melee, tumbles out of threatened ranges, uses scout movement to get away from the fight and then move in attack move out). Area effect spells are useless with evasion. Blech. I hate warlocks.
Eldritch Blast is a spell-like ability. You can't get more than one in a round.
Eldritch Blast is a spell-like ability. You can't get more than one in a round.Just to throw more wood on the fire.
Multiclass Warlock/Rogue. <SNIP> Blech. I hate warlocks.
Gah,
You're right, sorry, my brain isn't working too well this morning. He doesn't get multiple attacks yet, so I forgot that. Thanks. It's still a nasty combination (Scout + Warlock).