Magic Missile Sneak Attack


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Hello

Can a rogue with low magic talent could make a sneak attack using Magic Missile?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Magic Missile can't be targeted to hit specific areas, it just hits the target.

In general, barring a special ability like the Arcane Trickster capstone ability, you need to be making an attack roll to actually be sneak attacking. A decent rule of thumb is, if the spell doesn't require a to hit roll, it's not going to benefit from sneak attack.


snowball now, is an excellent candidate, unless they're going into the Reign of Winter AP.

Scarab Sages

No. You need a to hit roll to apply sneak attack damage. a Rogue with Minor Magic could make a touch sneak attack with acid splash, ray of frost, jolt, or disrupt undead(although only against undead targets for DU). Major Magic can make touch sneak attacks with Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp, and Snowball.

Shadow Lodge

Now, don't start that again...

Its an argument had many times, consensus is that by RAI it should not work. There is some debate over the RAW. You can click my user name to find several discussions where i give my opinion on the matter.

Happy reading.

Shadow Lodge

How is there debate on raw? It doesn't work
You need a to hit

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Read the threads. You need to attack, the Debate revolves around whether "Attack" in the sneak attack rules specifically means attack roll, or weather it also includes the definition of Attack spelled out (see what i did there) in the Magic chapter.

Sovereign Court

I've read some of those debates MoS - you're about the only one who doesn't agree that by RAW you need an attack roll.

So to the OP - it doesn't work for sneak by RAW.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Emphasis Added

Charon's Little Helper wrote:


I've read some of those debates MoS - you're about the only one who doesn't agree that by RAW you need an attack roll.

There were debates on the subject long before I began posting here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:
Read the threads. You need to attack, the Debate revolves around whether "Attack" in the sneak attack rules specifically means attack roll, or weather it also includes the definition of Attack spelled out (see what i did there) in the Magic chapter.

What it means to attack as spelled out in the rules on invisibility is not what it means to attack as used anywhere else in the rules (okay, there might be some other obscure locations).

You must be making an attack roll with a weapon or weapon like spell to be able to benefit from SA.

FAQ showing magic missile in use with surprise spells.

FAQ and another one.

Why use magic missile as an example in a FAQ talking about surprise spells if magic missile getting SA isn't really relevant to surprise spells?

And further
SKR on Sneak Attack and Magic Missile specifically

Shadow Lodge

The Passage I am referring to is not specifically concerning Invisibility, rather it refers to all spells.

Quote:

Special Spell Effects

Many special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

This passage is in the beginning of the Magic chapter and refers to all spells, and even to Channel Energy as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Making a case for a possible meaning of RAW is fine. Making such a case in the face of FAQ's and developer commentary is not productive.

Shadow Lodge

bbangerter wrote:

Making a case for a possible meaning of RAW is fine. Making such a case in the face of FAQ's and developer commentary is not productive.

Interestingly enough, your first link doesn't reference magic missile at all, your second does, but only to say how it works with surprise spell, it does not say anything about how magic missile works on its own anytime the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks the target. That probably should be a separate FAQ. Maybe something like this:

What qualifies a spell to be used when making sneak attacks?

As for Sean's Commentary, as much as I respect the man, its just that, Commentary (a statement of opinion). In no way is commentary akin to official ruling.

Shadow Lodge

Casting a spell is not always an attack

Dealing damage is not always an attack

Making an attack roll is however always an attack


Master of Shadows wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

Making a case for a possible meaning of RAW is fine. Making such a case in the face of FAQ's and developer commentary is not productive.

Interestingly enough, your first link doesn't reference magic missile at all, your second does, but only to say how it works with surprise spell, it does not say anything about how magic missile works on its own anytime the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks the target. That probably should be a separate FAQ. Maybe something like this:

What qualifies a spell to be used when making sneak attacks?

As for Sean's Commentary, as much as I respect the man, its just that, Commentary (a statement of opinion). In no way is commentary akin to official ruling.

You can argue this as much as you want, but you know how the rules are intended to function. That RAW is (only kind of) fuzzy is irrelevant when the intent is patent. The intent is that Magic Missile doesn't get sneak attack without you having the Surprise Spells class feature. Your interpretation makes that class feature completely meaningless.

Your first post contained all the information that is needed. "Consensus is that by RAI it should not work." In other words, everybody knows it is not supposed to work this way. Why argue in favor of something when you undoubtedly know that it is not supposed to work, even if you can twist the language to read like maybe it could?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grandmikus wrote:

Hello

Can a rogue with low magic talent could make a sneak attack using Magic Missile?

No, but you can with Ray of Frost.


If it can't roll to hit, it can't crit. If it can't roll to crit, it can't add sneak attack. Cut and dried.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

Making a case for a possible meaning of RAW is fine. Making such a case in the face of FAQ's and developer commentary is not productive.

Interestingly enough, your first link doesn't reference magic missile at all, your second does, but only to say how it works with surprise spell, it does not say anything about how magic missile works on its own anytime the target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks the target. That probably should be a separate FAQ. Maybe something like this:

What qualifies a spell to be used when making sneak attacks?

As for Sean's Commentary, as much as I respect the man, its just that, Commentary (a statement of opinion). In no way is commentary akin to official ruling.

You can argue this as much as you want, but you know how the rules are intended to function. That RAW is (only kind of) fuzzy is irrelevant when the intent is patent. The intent is that Magic Missile doesn't get sneak attack without you having the Surprise Spells class feature. Your interpretation makes that class feature completely meaningless.

Your first post contained all the information that is needed. "Consensus is that by RAI it should not work." In other words, everybody knows it is not supposed to work this way. Why argue in favor of something when you undoubtedly know that it is not supposed to work, even if you can twist the language to read like maybe it could?

Because Someone asked what the arguments were, and I'm a vexatious litigant at heart. Devil's Advocate is my favorite game. That aside, I feel it is necessary to argue RAW over RAI because frequently what people interpret as the intent actually translates to: "How we played it last edition despite clearly stated rules that obviously contradict prior edition mechanics." I reject designer commentary as opinion and not word of law because without Official FAQ, how do we know his opinion is not his own rather than that of the entire design team. Frequently I find designers use the Royal We when in fact they should say I. Often I have seen designers say one thing in a blog or forum post only to be contradicted in a later publication either FAQ, Magazine or subsequent edition. It's been my experience with other games that perfectly sound and balanced play mechanics get tossed by the wayside in favor of how things were done in prior editions just because a significant number of very loquacious people, who in truth represent only a small minority of players, force their erroneous opinions on the masses. It is only by Continued Debate and questioning "Conventional Wisdom" that we will ever receive an official response.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Master of Shadows wrote:
Because Someone asked what the arguments were, and I'm a vexatious litigant at heart. Devil's Advocate is my favorite game. That aside, I feel it is necessary to argue RAW over RAI because frequently what people interpret as the intent actually translates to: "How we played it last edition despite clearly stated rules that obviously contradict prior edition mechanics." I reject designer commentary as opinion and not word of law because without Official FAQ, how do we know his opinion is not his own rather than that of the entire design team. Frequently I find designers use the Royal We when in fact they should say I. Often I have seen designers say one thing in a blog or forum post only to be contradicted in a later publication either FAQ, Magazine or subsequent edition. It's been my experience with other games that perfectly sound and balanced play mechanics get tossed by the wayside in favor of how things were done in prior editions just because a significant number of very loquacious people, who in truth represent only a small minority of players, force their erroneous opinions on the masses. It is only by Continued Debate and questioning "Conventional Wisdom" that we will ever receive an official response. .

uh..... Vive Le Galt?

Silver Crusade

Apart from the specifics of magic missile not being able to target specific areas, the more general argument of 'attacks' for the Sneak Attack:-

Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

Apply reason to this situation. If you want to SA the target, but the target still has his Dex bonus against you, it doesn't matter if the target has lost his Dex bonus to someone else! What matters is whether or not the target has his Dex bonus versus that attack!

The Dex bonus in question is the Dex bonus to AC. Therefore, the only 'attack' to which the presence or absence of the Dex bonus applies is situations where the AC is being rolled against, i.e. an 'attack roll'.

Since magic missile doesn't use an attack roll, the target's AC (and conditions affecting AC, like the presence or absence of a Dex bonus to AC) are not part of the magic missile 'attack'. Therefore, the loss of Dex bonus doesn't apply to the magic missile attack, and therefore the conditions that trigger SA damage do not apply to that attack.

QED.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Apart from the specifics of magic missile not being able to target specific areas, the more general argument of 'attacks' for the Sneak Attack:-

Sneak Attack wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

Apply reason to this situation. If you want to SA the target, but the target still has his Dex bonus against you, it doesn't matter if the target has lost his Dex bonus to someone else! What matters is whether or not the target has his Dex bonus versus that attack!

The Dex bonus in question is the Dex bonus to AC. Therefore, the only 'attack' to which the presence or absence of the Dex bonus applies is situations where the AC is being rolled against, i.e. an 'attack roll'.

Since magic missile doesn't use an attack roll, the target's AC (and conditions affecting AC, like the presence or absence of a Dex bonus to AC) are not part of the magic missile 'attack'. Therefore, the loss of Dex bonus doesn't apply to the magic missile attack, and therefore the conditions that trigger SA damage do not apply to that attack.

QED.

1st: There is no specific target requirement for sneak attack.

2nd: Your argument is invalid on 2 counts
a. Being flatfooted (such as during the surprise round) is a blanket condition that denies Dex bonus to AC regardless of whether the character in question is specifically being attacked whether with an attack roll or otherwise.
b. If a. were not true, then the Surprise Spells class ability would be impossible to utilize due to the lack triggering events. This is clearly evidence that making an 'attack roll' is not the sole triggering event that determines denial of dexterity.

Sovereign Court

Don't feed the troll! (just use fire/acid :P)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

HAHA, Well played Sir, Well Played.

I would not consider myself a troll. Rather I would consider myself someone who wants a Direct and Unequivocal answer (In the form of an FAQ) to the question not yet addressed by any FAQ or Rules edition:

What Specific Qualities does a Spell need in order to be used as a means for delivering Sneak Attacks without the use of the Surprise Spells class ability of the Arcane Trickster.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Surprise Spells wrote:
Surprise Spells: At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

This special ability, the capstone for a PrC, allows SA damage to apply to a situation that otherwise would not apply. In this case, the SA damage is not applied because the situation triggers SA, but because the special ability says it does.

Just because this specific special ability allows SA damage just because 'flat-footed', this doesn't mean that this is how SA works outside if this ability. Indeed, if SA worked that way then the Surprise Spells ability wouldn't do anything.


Master of Shadows wrote:

HAHA, Well played Sir, Well Played.

I would not consider myself a troll. Rather I would consider myself someone who wants a Direct and Unequivocal answer (In the form of an FAQ) to the question not yet addressed by any FAQ or Rules edition:

What Specific Qualities does a Spell need in order to be used as a means for delivering Sneak Attacks without the use of the Surprise Spells class ability of the Arcane Trickster.

Does the spell make an attack roll? If yes, you can probably sneak attack with it, assuming all the other conditions of sneak attack are already met.

That's it. What other question is there to answer? This is how everybody (including you) understands the ability to work. Why do we need a direct and unequivocal answer when everybody already knows what the answer is?


fretgod99 wrote:

Does the spell make an attack roll? If yes, you can probably sneak attack with it, assuming all the other conditions of sneak attack are already met.

That's it. What other question is there to answer? This is how everybody (including you) understands the ability to work. Why do we need a direct and unequivocal answer when everybody already knows what the answer is?

This +1

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
snowball now, is an excellent candidate, unless they're going into the Reign of Winter AP.

You would think that, but a suprisingly large number of monsters in that AP are not resistant to cold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:
consensus is that by RAI it should not work

This, of course will not do at all. The rules say what the rules say. And a player who is following the rules can do what the rules say. It doesn't matter whether somebody's interpretation is unpopular. If the rules say you can do it, you can do it.

In United States law, this concept is called civil rights. Minorities are supposed to be protected. It's not against the law to be unpopular.

This seems to be pretty much the point that Master of Shadows was making.

Fretgod wrote:
You can argue this as much as you want, but you know how the rules are intended to function.

No, he doesn't. And no you don't. You have done NOTHING to demonstrate that you have any insight into how the rules are supposed to work. You have brought no evidence. You have demonstrated no authority. Your argument has shown no merit.

Fretgod wrote:
This is how everybody (including you) understands the ability to work.

You have offered no evidence to make anything like this bold a claim. You have offered no evidence that most people don't understand the rule differently from you. You have offered no evidence that most people think egg yolks are yellow, water is wet, or dirt is dirty.

No evidence = no merit = your argument.

bbangerter, on the other hand, is getting there. To hammer home the point, lets look at the description of the class ability.

Surprise Spell wrote:
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals [hit point] damage, if the targets are flat-footed.

That means that not all spells that inflict damage are eligible for Sneak Attack Damage. What kind of spell would that be? Now let's look at that FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Arcane Trickster: How does the Surprise Spells class feature work with spells like magic missile and fireball?

The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.

The writers of the FAQ specifically mentioned Magic Missile as a damage-dealing spell that does not normally qualify for Sneak Attack Damage, both in the title of the FAQ and within the answer itself (last sentence).

Also, Sean Reynolds really was a game designer at the time he posted that comment bbangerter quoted. He really does have insight into the rules as intended, so his opinion on this topic really is worth more than other people's. That being said, Master' has a point that that was not in fact an official rules post.

Let's take a look at the RAW again.

Rogue Sneak Attack Ability wrote:
she can strike a vital spot for extra damage

It doesn't say here that she needs to make an attack roll, but it does say that Sneak Attack involves striking a vital spot for extra damage.

Is Magic Missile a tool for that job? Let's see:

Magic Missile wrote:
Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out.

So, no. Magic Missile doesn't do that. You can't use Magic Missile for Sneak Attack Damage unless you can (via the Surprise Spell Class Ability, for example).

Now for advice on how to use these rules to score Sneak Attack Damage with Spells.

What are some spells that might inflict Sneak Attack Damage? Somebody mentioned Ray of Frost. There is also Acid Splash and Jolt, all 0-level spells and easy for a Rogue to get.

If your Rogue also takes the next Rogue Talent for a Level 1 Spell, I recommend Vanish. That will turn you Invisible for long enough to make another Stealth Check. Then you will deny your target his Dex AC bonus (probably). Your attack roll will be against his Flat-Footed, Touch AC, and will do your Sneak Attack Damage.


Master of Shadows wrote:

Frequently I find designers use the Royal e when in fact they should say I. Often I have seen designers say one thing in a blog or forum post only to e contradicted in a later publication either FAQ, agazine or subsequent edition.

Cite examples from the pdt team of this happening frequently.


Actually, the rules are not written in legalise or intended to be interpreted to the letter, so an argument that 'that is just what they say' doesn't hold as a particularly strong argument in pathfinder. All rules are written with the assumption that the reader has a modicum of common sense (else you get into trouble with 'there's no dead condition so I can still take actions' and other nonsense). Sometimes rules are actually deliberately made less clear for the (justifiable) reason that legalise is boring to parse and thus makes poor prose.

Thus, suprise spells itself AND the FAQ are more than enough evidence to show the correct rule.


Blakmane wrote:

Actually, the rules are not written in legalise or intended to be interpreted to the letter, so an argument that 'that is just what they say' doesn't hold as a particularly strong argument in pathfinder. All rules are written with the assumption that the reader has a modicum of common sense (else you get into trouble with 'there's no dead condition so I can still take actions' and other nonsense). Sometimes rules are actually deliberately made less clear for the (justifiable) reason that legalise is boring to parse and thus makes poor prose.

Thus, suprise spells itself AND the FAQ are more than enough evidence to show the correct rule.

But what the rules say bears much more weight than what any clique of player-commentators say they think the rules were meant to say. Generally, the RAW is the only authoritative thing we have to go on.

> Thus, suprise spells itself AND the FAQ are more than enough evidence to show the correct rule.

I certainly agree with you that the description of the class ability and the related FAQ are more than enough evidence. I'll go further and say those are the Rules as Written.

In fact, I said as much in my prior post.

And, even though I didn't need to, I offered further supporting evidence.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is this thread is still going on? This was already answered by raw and rai


Scott, the reason I didn't go into a detailed argument is because it's already been done with him. He even referenced the discussion in his posts. He agrees as to what the RAI are. He has conceded the point, he just doesn't think the RAW are as clear as they could be.

To that, I respond so what? This isn't the only place that the rules could be clearer. But more importantly, if everybody knows how the rules are supposed to function, why should the Developers waste their time clarifying something everybody already understands?

So that whole bit you posted about Surprise Spell and whatnot? I already had that discussion with him. He agreed with the reasoning. That's why I didn't go into it again. It's not a clique of players declaring RAW from on high, it's us all recognizing that the discussion is over and done with. For some reason, he felt like injecting the argument into this thread when nobody else was talking about it and his questions have already been addressed.

Shadow Lodge

This is what gets to me, and why I proposed the FAQ I stated above:

SKR wrote:


Just because you make an attack roll with a spell doesn't mean it's a weapon-like spell.

What then Qualifies? Its already understood that Sneak attack requires damage to be dealt in order to add extra damage, and even setting aside Fireball and Magic missile (though I still argue that the FAQ addresses only how the spells work with Surprise Spell, and in point of fact I feel it addresses only the distribution of the extra damage, but does nothing to address how the spells work without surprise spells), do touch spells qualify, can you use it with Vampiric Touch, is vampiric touch then the source of the damage since sneak allows you to add extra, if so do you then add additional temporary hitpoints based on the extra damage amount? How does it work with spells like Ray of enfeeblement, does strength damage qualify for extra damage, if so is the extra damage also strength damage or does it mysteriously change types? Can you use it with a ranged touch attack that is not a Ray? What exactly is a weapon-like spell?

As for providing examples of contradictory rulings from Paizo staff, I do not follow these boards closely enough to provide specifics although I have heard it frequently happens with the guy in charge of the golarion setting. My personal anecdotal experience stems from many other games by more than one manufacturer, but I would point the finger directly at Games Workshop as being the worst offender. They are probably wholly responsible for my current level of cynicism regarding both developer commentary, and claims of "communal understanding".

Shadow Lodge

Blakmane wrote:
Sometimes rules are actually deliberately made less clear for the (justifiable) reason that legalese is boring to parse and thus makes poor prose.

This is a terrible design philosophy, especially since there are several instances in which the rule could be more clearly stated using less words and consistent verbage throughout. If the intent is to stave off boredom, they would have been better off providing descriptive flavor text for the rule in one font, and then providing the rule itself in clear concise language using a separate font. with a statement in the beginning of the book calling out the differences.


If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack. So no Ray of Enfeeblement Sneak Attack for +4d6 STR damage (or whatever).

As for your position on Surprise Spells, I really would like you to explain how Sneak Attack on a fireball works differently with and without Surprise Spells. If you think it's possible to get Sneak Attack on a fireball without that class feature, how do you propose it works? And how do you propose it works differently than getting SA on a fireball with Surprise Spells?


Victor Zajic wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
snowball now, is an excellent candidate, unless they're going into the Reign of Winter AP.
You would think that, but a surprisingly large number of monsters in that AP are not resistant to cold.

With access to the Elemental Spell (acid, electricity, fire) and Intensified Spell metamagic feats plus the Vital Strike feat, an Arcane Trickster can get all kinds of nasty with snowball...

Shadow Lodge

fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack. So no Ray of Enfeeblement Sneak Attack for +4d6 STR damage (or whatever).

As for your position on Surprise Spells, I really would like you to explain how Sneak Attack on a fireball works differently with and without Surprise Spells. If you think it's possible to get Sneak Attack on a fireball without that class feature, how do you propose it works? And how do you propose it works differently than getting SA on a fireball with Surprise Spells?

My Arguments intentionally do not address those issues, because the rules don't address them.

I suppose I could make the following Argument:

Fireball (emphasis mine) wrote:


You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

You would designate the point of eruption as being a specific location on an enemy creature and only that specific creature would be subject to extra damage from sneak attack. Also Since you can hit an opening with a ranged touch attack it stands to reason you could also hit an enemy. I dislike this argument because it is implicit and not explicit which is why i did not make it originally.


Victor Zajic wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
snowball now, is an excellent candidate, unless they're going into the Reign of Winter AP.
You would think that, but a suprisingly large number of monsters in that AP are not resistant to cold.

And an elemental (fire) sorcerer could have bonus fun throwing flaming snowballs at cold-loving beasties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand how Fireball would work with Sneal Attack because the rules don't speak to it. So what is the problem again? Where is there any indication that you can get Sneak Attack with AoE spells outside of Surprise Spell?

That you have to make a ranged touch attack to have a Fireball make it through an arrow slit doesn't change the lack of precision with which the Fireball explodes. Is it your position that you get to make an attack roll when casting Fireball and apply Sneak Attack to one target? Do you honestly believe the rules are supposed to function that way or are you grasping for straws?

What we have is every rules indication demonstrating that this works exactly as everybody understands. You don't appear to like it, not because the result is something you disagree with, but because it's not as painfully obvious as it could be. If there's more to your argument than that, please point to a rule that actually creates ambiguity. That something isn't as ibvious as it could be does not mean it's incorrect. Again, where is the debate?


Master of Shadows wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack. So no Ray of Enfeeblement Sneak Attack for +4d6 STR damage (or whatever).

As for your position on Surprise Spells, I really would like you to explain how Sneak Attack on a fireball works differently with and without Surprise Spells. If you think it's possible to get Sneak Attack on a fireball without that class feature, how do you propose it works? And how do you propose it works differently than getting SA on a fireball with Surprise Spells?

My Arguments intentionally do not address those issues, because the rules don't address them.

I suppose I could make the following Argument:

Fireball (emphasis mine) wrote:


You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

You would designate the point of eruption as being a specific location on an enemy creature and only that specific creature would be subject to extra damage from sneak attack. Also Since you can hit an opening with a ranged touch attack it stands to reason you could also hit an enemy. I dislike this argument because it is implicit and not explicit which is why i did not make it originally.

You cannot designate a particular point on an enemy creature as the point of eruption for a fireball. You may only target a grid intersection per the rules for area spells.

Shadow Lodge

I'd argue that "range, Distance, and Height" could be specified to the micrometer by a wizard with knowledge of such measurements. That seems pretty precise to me. But Now you really do have me playing devil's advocate.

All I'm saying is that there is no indication in the rules that that degree of precision is required for sneak attack.

my position:

Qualification's for Sneak Attack per RAW:
1. In order to sneak attack there must be an attack
a. The Special Effects of Spells Passage of the Magic section section clearly indicates what sorts of spells meet this requirement.

2. The Attack must deal damage in order to apply Sneak Attack's "Extra Damage"
a. Pretty much any damaging spell meets this qualification.

3. The Target must be flat-footed or otherwise denied dex to AC.
a. I argue this is situational and not related to attack rolls in the slightest.

4. Or in liu of denial of dexterity bonus, The Target must instead be flanked by the attacker.
a. I would argue that this is positional and would require a feat or other ability at the least for ranged spells, but touch spells could certainly qualify.

Additionally, Everyone wants to point to this:

Sneak Attack wrote:
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.

Without a clear definition of what constitutes a vital spot, or base rules for called shots used to target them specifically, I contend that this entire portion is fluff, descriptive text used to convey the feel of sneak attack, and not actual rules. if this were not the case, there would be no need for the quite obvious line break and paragraph change.

If it were relevant then the entry would look more like this:
Sneak attack could say wrote:
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. The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Sometimes rules are actually deliberately made less clear for the (justifiable) reason that legalese is boring to parse and thus makes poor prose.
This is a terrible design philosophy, especially since there are several instances in which the rule could be more clearly stated using less words and consistent verbage throughout. If the intent is to stave off boredom, they would have been better off providing descriptive flavor text for the rule in one font, and then providing the rule itself in clear concise language using a separate font. with a statement in the beginning of the book calling out the differences.

For nearly any other game in the world, it would be a terrible design philosophy. For Dungeons and Dragons, it's just part of the brilliance. Different rules, different interpretations, conflicts in the rules, new rulebooks that contradict old rules, bad writing throughout, that was the way it was since EGG (may the good times roll ever on) invented the game, and we LIKED IT!

It's only for PFS that precise and rigorous wording becomes necessary, because the same character is supposed to work for every referee. And that means it's supposed to be consistent. Your emphasis on RAW over RAI is well-justified for PFS play. But as to clear and concise language, be careful what you wish for. Too much clarity and concision and you might just clarify all the imagination and fun out of the game.


fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack. So no Ray of Enfeeblement Sneak Attack for +4d6 STR damage (or whatever).

As for your position on Surprise Spells, I really would like you to explain how Sneak Attack on a fireball works differently with and without Surprise Spells. If you think it's possible to get Sneak Attack on a fireball without that class feature, how do you propose it works? And how do you propose it works differently than getting SA on a fireball with Surprise Spells?

> If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack.

Citation, please.


Master of Shadows wrote:

This is what gets to me, and why I proposed the FAQ I stated above:

SKR wrote:


Just because you make an attack roll with a spell doesn't mean it's a weapon-like spell.

What then Qualifies? Its already understood that Sneak attack requires damage to be dealt in order to add extra damage, and even setting aside Fireball and Magic missile (though I still argue that the FAQ addresses only how the spells work with Surprise Spell, and in point of fact I feel it addresses only the distribution of the extra damage, but does nothing to address how the spells work without surprise spells), do touch spells qualify, can you use it with Vampiric Touch, is vampiric touch then the source of the damage since sneak allows you to add extra, if so do you then add additional temporary hitpoints based on the extra damage amount? How does it work with spells like Ray of enfeeblement, does strength damage qualify for extra damage, if so is the extra damage also strength damage or does it mysteriously change types? Can you use it with a ranged touch attack that is not a Ray? What exactly is a weapon-like spell?

As for providing examples of contradictory rulings from Paizo staff, I do not follow these boards closely enough to provide specifics although I have heard it frequently happens with the guy in charge of the golarion setting. My personal anecdotal experience stems from many other games by more than one manufacturer, but I would point the finger directly at Games Workshop as being the worst offender. They are probably wholly responsible for my current level of cynicism regarding both developer commentary, and claims of "communal understanding".

I do remember that now. He may have been replying to me. I don't remember, but I don't think sneak attack requires a weapon like spell. You do need to be able to target vital areas which can generally be done while making an attack with an attack roll.

The guy in charge of Golarion is not a rules guy/rules developer. He admittedly said many of the posters know the rules better than him. Working for paizo, does not mean you are a rules guru, or mean you are on the rules team, so he does not count. That is not to day he does know the rules, but he has said he often goes by "the rule of cool" instead of what is in the book.

I asked you that question because I knew you could not do provide the information, which is my way of saying your point does not stand if that is the your reason.

However had I just said "you are wrong" it would not have proven anything. So I just asked for proof, to get my point across.

SKR is often clear about when he disagreed about what a rule "should have been" if him and Jason(lead rules guy) ended up pushing a different rule out. As an example SKR wanted trip weapons to give a +2 while tripping someone, but that was not the final result.

However if SKR says "me and Jason said ....", then he is not making things up. Lying in public would likely not have done him any favors, and cost him the chance to work as freelancer with the company.


Master of Shadows wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Sometimes rules are actually deliberately made less clear for the (justifiable) reason that legalese is boring to parse and thus makes poor prose.
This is a terrible design philosophy, especially since there are several instances in which the rule could be more clearly stated using less words and consistent verbage throughout. If the intent is to stave off boredom, they would have been better off providing descriptive flavor text for the rule in one font, and then providing the rule itself in clear concise language using a separate font. with a statement in the beginning of the book calling out the differences.

That is not true. Rules are not made less clear on purpose. They may be written so the GM can have more wiggle room, but that is different from "half writing" a rule. I think Blakmane is confusing the two.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack. So no Ray of Enfeeblement Sneak Attack for +4d6 STR damage (or whatever).

As for your position on Surprise Spells, I really would like you to explain how Sneak Attack on a fireball works differently with and without Surprise Spells. If you think it's possible to get Sneak Attack on a fireball without that class feature, how do you propose it works? And how do you propose it works differently than getting SA on a fireball with Surprise Spells?

> If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack.

Citation, please.

I think he was saying you don't do 4d6 str damage.

Bolding in his quote is from me. He is not saying you do not get to do 4d6 hit point damage.


wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack. So no Ray of Enfeeblement Sneak Attack for +4d6 STR damage (or whatever).

As for your position on Surprise Spells, I really would like you to explain how Sneak Attack on a fireball works differently with and without Surprise Spells. If you think it's possible to get Sneak Attack on a fireball without that class feature, how do you propose it works? And how do you propose it works differently than getting SA on a fireball with Surprise Spells?

> If you don't do HP damage, you don't get sneak attack.

Citation, please.

I think he was saying you don't do 4d6 str damage.

Bolding in his quote is from me. He is not saying you do not get to do 4d6 hit point damage.

Well...you don't get to do 4d6 pts of HP damage if the baseline attack doesn't do HP damage...

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magic Missile Sneak Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.