spells and sneak attack damage


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Hi all,

We've got a Sorcerer-Rogue concept working in our campaign,
but wonder how the sneak attack stacks on spell damage,

Rays and ranged touch make sense,
but I'm worried about Magic Missile delivering the sneak attack,
since there is no "to hit" roll.

And how would this concept work with area effect spells?
Obviously only one target gets hit by the sneak attack damage,
but does this allow an auto hit to deliver the sneak attack damage?

Any advice/clarification will be greatly appreciated!


Unless they take the Prc Arcane Trickster to level 10, you do not get sneak attack on spells that do not have an attack roll (and do physical HP damage).

Sczarni

^ as he said.

Ray of Frost? Yes
Shocking Grasp? Yes
Magic Missile? No
Fireball? No


So this is a can of worms.

The short answer is spells like Magic Missile and Fireball cannot do sneak attack damage. Unless you take the Arcane Trickster prestiege class area of effect spells cannot do sneak attack. In order to sneak attack you must make an attack roll.

Another important caveat is that you only get sneak attack once per spell, on spells which it is relevant for. So, as an example Scorching Ray. Scorching Ray allows for multiple rays, but only one gets to apply sneak attack damage.

FAQ wrote:

Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).


Thanks guys!
That clears that up and helps a lot!

Chris


One other minor thing, Sneak Attack damage does the same damage type as the spell used to deliver it. So, Scorching Ray would be all Fire damage, Shocking Grasp would be all Electricity, and so on.


Rynjin wrote:
One other minor thing, Sneak Attack damage does the same damage type as the spell used to deliver it. So, Scorching Ray would be all Fire damage, Shocking Grasp would be all Electricity, and so on.

Which can lead to weirdness too. Especially with elemental effects. "Hi, I'm a creature with an elemental resistance to X at Y rating. I can swim in X as long as it doesn't do more than Y dmg. I can open my eyes, I can put it under my arms, I can dip my penis in it! but for some reason, that ray of X shot by a rogue/wizard even tho it never surpasses my resistance, can suddenly become f!@~ing hellball of OMFGDEAD! Because...of reasons."

But I acknowledge my bias. :)


The spell to watch out for is Fiery Shuriken. Don't allow more than one of the shuriken to do sneak attack damage, even though it sort of qualifies for being a spell with multiple attacks. Once per round is plenty.


Gilarius wrote:
The spell to watch out for is Fiery Shuriken. Don't allow more than one of the shuriken to do sneak attack damage, even though it sort of qualifies for being a spell with multiple attacks. Once per round is plenty.

Even if it did qualify (which it doesn't, since they're launched simultaneously. Though if he launched one per round as a Swift it would work), it's not a big deal.

1d8 flat plus Sneak Attack isn't a whole lot of damage. Throwing regular Shuriken (1d2+Str+other modifiers) will likely achieve the same damage.

The Touch Attack bit helps, but as a Sorcerer/Rogue your to-hit i already terrible, so it's really just making up for you being a combo of the worst hitting 3/4 BaB class and a 1/2 BaB class.


Rynjin wrote:
Gilarius wrote:
The spell to watch out for is Fiery Shuriken. Don't allow more than one of the shuriken to do sneak attack damage, even though it sort of qualifies for being a spell with multiple attacks. Once per round is plenty.

Even if it did qualify (which it doesn't, since they're launched simultaneously. Though if he launched one per round as a Swift it would work), it's not a big deal.

1d8 flat plus Sneak Attack isn't a whole lot of damage. Throwing regular Shuriken (1d2+Str+other modifiers) will likely achieve the same damage.

The Touch Attack bit helps, but as a Sorcerer/Rogue your to-hit i already terrible, so it's really just making up for you being a combo of the worst hitting 3/4 BaB class and a 1/2 BaB class.

The reason I say this spell needs some attention, is because in the last game I played in the GM allowed sneak attack to apply to all the shuriken fired off. For a 13th level rogue/alchemist/wizard/arcane trickster (I'm not aware of the precise build), this was a mistake.

When he got the drop on an enemy with both a surprise round and from winning initiative thus casting it twice, he did over 500 damage.

In principle, this isn't too bad compared with the damage output of many martials, but it prevented the bad guy from getting any actions at all, and annoyed the GM.

In many ways, it's like some of the complaints about gunslingers - as long as the GM is aware of the potential problems, they can deal with them. If it comes as a surprise, it's much harder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm unsure of how he's achieving this unless he rolled maximum damage for each.

Best case scenario, he's something like Rogue 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Trickster 7, and Magical Knack.

So he's got a Caster Level of 12, and Sneak Attack of 5d6.

So he's doing 1d8+5d6 per Shuriken. 7 Shuriken.

Maximum damage, if all 7 (14) hit: 266 (532).

MAXIMUM. For 2 rounds worth of attacks, where every attack hit and did max damage.

Average drops that to 154 (308).

Again, for 2 rounds worth of actions.

It should not be unexpected for what amounts to two full attacks to deal that sort of damage at level 13.

Hell, my level 13 Inquisitor deals, with a whip, Favored Target/Bane, and Sneak Attack 1d3+31+8d6 per hit (average damage 60), with two hits for 120 per round. At a higher to-hit, in melee, not fully buffed (stuff like Divine Power makes that SOAR).

Significantly less damage (about 88), but he's not particularly optimized for damage, and he follows the rules.

You're basically beating his damage by half of one of his attacks, but only by cheating.


Sniggevert wrote:
Unless they take the Prc Arcane Trickster to level 10, you do not get sneak attack on spells that do not have an attack roll (and do physical HP damage).

That is no longer true in Pathfinder. That was a 3th edition thing.

In pathfinder any attack can potentially do sneak attack damage.
So you can sneak attack with a fireball even if you are not an Arcane Trickster.


Rikkan wrote:
Sniggevert wrote:
Unless they take the Prc Arcane Trickster to level 10, you do not get sneak attack on spells that do not have an attack roll (and do physical HP damage).

That is no longer true in Pathfinder. That was a 3th edition thing.

In pathfinder any attack can potentially do sneak attack damage.
So you can sneak attack with a fireball even if you are not an Arcane Trickster.

100% incorrect.

You need an attack roll or 10th level arcane trickster to add sneak attack, sorry.


Rikkan wrote:

In pathfinder any attack can potentially do sneak attack damage.

So you can sneak attack with a fireball even if you are not an Arcane Trickster.

The first sentence is true. Rikkan, where you are going wrong is your understanding of what is an "attack."

Fireball is not an attack. It is a spell. A spell CAN be an attack, but it is not automatically one, even if it does damage. An attack is defined as anything where you have to make a roll to hit. Since you don't roll to hit with a fireball, it is not an attack.


Peet wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

In pathfinder any attack can potentially do sneak attack damage.

So you can sneak attack with a fireball even if you are not an Arcane Trickster.

The first sentence is true. Rikkan, where you are going wrong is your understanding of what is an "attack."

Fireball is not an attack. It is a spell. A spell CAN be an attack, but it is not automatically one, even if it does damage. An attack is defined as anything where you have to make a roll to hit. Since you don't roll to hit with a fireball, it is not an attack.

This. Sneak attack with scorching ray as a level 19 wizard, level 1 rogue? Legit. Sneak attack with fireball as a level 19 wizard, level 1 rogue? Nope. Sneak attack with fireball as a level 5 wizard, level 5 rogue, level 10 arcane trickster? Go for it.


Peet wrote:

The first sentence is true. Rikkan, where you are going wrong is your understanding of what is an "attack."

Fireball is not an attack. It is a spell. A spell CAN be an attack, but it is not automatically one, even if it does damage. An attack is defined as anything where you have to make a roll to hit. Since you don't roll to hit with a fireball, it is not an attack.

The rules in the core rulebook (the magic section) disagree with you:
Quote:
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.


Rikkan, you're a broken record. You have brought this up before and been shot down before.

Sneak attack has never worked on spells that don't require an attack roll, unless you have the arcane trickster capstone. Ever.

This has been FAQ'd in the past and the answer was 'no FAQ needed'.

*edit*

And the Arcane trickster HAS been FAQ'd. Here..

So the arcane trickster is working as intended, not broken. The FAQ makes the RAI crystal clear.


Blakmane wrote:

Rikkan, you're a broken record. You have brought this up before and been shot down before.

Sneak attack has never worked on spells that don't require an attack roll, unless you have the arcane trickster capstone. Ever.

This has been FAQ'd in the past and the answer was 'no FAQ needed'.

I do try to correct people whenever they are wrong about the pathfinder rules yes. I can't help it, if people are often wrong about this topic.

Sneak attack never mentions attack rolls in pathfinder. That is something people like to houserule in. But it is not in the rules.
And since the rules never mention needing attack rolls, no FAQ is needed, it is clear they are not required.

Liberty's Edge

Rikkan wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

Rikkan, you're a broken record. You have brought this up before and been shot down before.

Sneak attack has never worked on spells that don't require an attack roll, unless you have the arcane trickster capstone. Ever.

This has been FAQ'd in the past and the answer was 'no FAQ needed'.

I do try to correct people whenever they are wrong about the pathfinder rules yes. I can't help it, if people are often wrong about this topic.

Sneak attack never mentions attack rolls in pathfinder. That is something people like to houserule in. But it is not in the rules.
And since the rules never mention needing attack rolls, no FAQ is needed, it is clear they are not required.

The FAQ does not contradict the passage in the CRB that Rikkan quoted and bolded. It actually looks like Rikkan is correct and everyone elses understanding is incorrect, by RAW. That may not be RAI, but by RAW Rikkan appears correct to me.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malagant wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

Rikkan, you're a broken record. You have brought this up before and been shot down before.

Sneak attack has never worked on spells that don't require an attack roll, unless you have the arcane trickster capstone. Ever.

This has been FAQ'd in the past and the answer was 'no FAQ needed'.

I do try to correct people whenever they are wrong about the pathfinder rules yes. I can't help it, if people are often wrong about this topic.

Sneak attack never mentions attack rolls in pathfinder. That is something people like to houserule in. But it is not in the rules.
And since the rules never mention needing attack rolls, no FAQ is needed, it is clear they are not required.
The FAQ does not contradict the passage in the CRB that Rikkan quoted and bolded. It actually looks like Rikkan is correct and everyone elses understanding is incorrect, by RAW. That may not be RAI, but by RAW Rikkan appears correct to me.

You get interpretations like Rikkan's when you quote RAW in isolation.

**The lesson here folks is that RAW in isolation can be and is often incorrectly interpreted.**

In the greater context of the of the work the RAI clearly shoots him down again and again.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

You get interpretations like Rikkan's when you quote RAW in isolation.

**The lesson here folks is that RAW in isolation can be and is often incorrectly interpreted.**

In the greater context of the of the work the RAI clearly shoots him down again and again.

Read in isolation? Can you explain what that means exactly? Examples please. We are looking for RAW here, not interpretations of RAI.


Malagant wrote:
LazarX wrote:

You get interpretations like Rikkan's when you quote RAW in isolation.

**The lesson here folks is that RAW in isolation can be and is often incorrectly interpreted.**

In the greater context of the of the work the RAI clearly shoots him down again and again.

Read in isolation? Can you explain what that means exactly? Examples please. We are looking for RAW here, not interpretations of RAI.

If nothing else, the capstone ability of the Arcane Trickster is to do exactly what Rikkan is claiming anybody can already do, anyway. They even go out of their way to describe how it works and released a FAQ to clarify even more.

There is no reasonable basis for Rikkan's position if you take all the relevant rules into consideration.


Oh, good. By Rikkan's logic, a rogue/druid can apply sneak attack to entangle. : /

Edit: And hey, now that we're doing damage, how about that dazing entangle?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

Oh, good. By Rikkan's logic, a rogue/druid can apply sneak attack to entangle. : /

Edit: And hey, now that we're doing damage, how about that dazing entangle?

We don't bring up Dazing Spell in civilized conversation...


blahpers wrote:

Oh, good. By Rikkan's logic, a rogue/druid can apply sneak attack to entangle. : /

Edit: And hey, now that we're doing damage, how about that dazing entangle?

Sneak damage on scry spells? Brings all new meaning to Scry N Die.


fretgod99 wrote:

If nothing else, the capstone ability of the Arcane Trickster is to do exactly what Rikkan is claiming anybody can already do, anyway. They even go out of their way to describe how it works and released a FAQ to clarify even more.

There is no reasonable basis for Rikkan's position if you take all the relevant rules into consideration.

That is not true. The capstone of Arcane Trickster has its own rules and functions differently.

For example, it allows you to sneak attack with fireballs from say 600 foot away.
While regular sneak attacks has a 30 foot limit.

And if you don't consider the pathfinder rules a reasonable basis, I don't know what to tell you.

Dark Archive

Well we already know by RAW RAI that precision damage is not added to area spells by default:

Precision damage wrote:
"Attacks which affect areas (such as splash weapons) usually do not deal precision damage."


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Well we already know by RAW that precision damage is not added to area spells by default:

Precision damage wrote:
"Attacks which affect areas (such as splash weapons) usually do not deal precision damage."

What if instead of splash, we used a funnel? Or a series of tubes?

Dark Archive

Losobal wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Well we already know by RAW that precision damage is not added to area spells by default:

Precision damage wrote:
"Attacks which affect areas (such as splash weapons) usually do not deal precision damage."
What if instead of splash, we used a funnel? Or a series of tubes?

Well since a funnel or "series of tubes" isn't RAW I'd say it doesn't really change anything.


Rikkan,I get where you are coming from, but when you take into consideration game balance AND the quote "That Crazy Alchemist" came up with. Besides... Are you seriously claiming that the only thing you get from a lvl 10 prestige class capstone ability is increased range on sneak attacks? Really? That is what everyone is talking about when they say that you are looking at it isolated.


Rikkan wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

If nothing else, the capstone ability of the Arcane Trickster is to do exactly what Rikkan is claiming anybody can already do, anyway. They even go out of their way to describe how it works and released a FAQ to clarify even more.

There is no reasonable basis for Rikkan's position if you take all the relevant rules into consideration.

That is not true. The capstone of Arcane Trickster has its own rules and functions differently.

For example, it allows you to sneak attack with fireballs from say 600 foot away.
While regular sneak attacks has a 30 foot limit.

And if you don't consider the pathfinder rules a reasonable basis, I don't know what to tell you.

Nope. Nope, nope, nope. No sneak attack on Entangle. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

The Pathfinder rules certainly are a reasonable basis. But you're not applying them correctly.

*shrug*


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Well we already know by RAW that precision damage is not added to area spells by default:

Precision damage wrote:
"Attacks which affect areas (such as splash weapons) usually do not deal precision damage."

Where is that quote from? I can't find it in the core rulebook nor on the PRD.

Are you sure that it is in the pathfinder rules and not just something the PFSRD made up?

Dark Archive

Rikkan wrote:
That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Well we already know by RAW that precision damage is not added to area spells by default:

Precision damage wrote:
"Attacks which affect areas (such as splash weapons) usually do not deal precision damage."

Where is that quote from? I can't find it in the core rulebook nor on the PRD.

Are you sure that it is in the pathfinder rules and not just something the PFSRD made up?

Ah, that's what I get for not checking my sources more readily. It's from the d20PFSRD "Common Terms" Page. I've redacted my statement above.

Though the point still stands while not being RAW, it is an accurate description of how precision damage works as RAI.


I've DMed for 10+ years and I've looked time and again, through both D&D and Pathfinder and I've never been able to find a decent definition of precision damage. I don't even see anything in SA that specifically uses the term (at least without looking into the definition on an ooze). Personally I've never allowed spells without attack rolls to do SA based on the rules from 3.0/3.5, which Pathfinder is supposed to be compatible with. In complete arcane they clarified these rules in the category "weapon-like spells" which specified that only spells which require an attack roll and deal damage can be enhanced by effects like SA, Favored Enemy, or the weapon focus/specialization feats.

That said from a purely balance oriented standpoint I'm not sure what the issue here is. Certainly I would require the spell to do damage, thus preventing entangle, but generally speaking a pure wizard or pure rogue will do more damage since spells can only go off once per round.

From a RAW standpoint of course one can argue that the word "strike" requires an attack roll (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).

P.S. Several people in this thread have attempted pointing to the FAQs. As I am relatively new to this board would anyone mind pointing out where I can find these?

Silver Crusade

Terjon_OTBR wrote:


P.S. Several people in this thread have attempted pointing to the FAQs. As I am relatively new to this board would anyone mind pointing out where I can find these?

Upper right corner of the window in which you read this, is a small link called 'help/FAQ'. That takes you to the FAQ's, with a list on the right to choose from.

Edit: scroll aalll the way up.


Ah. Thank you. I had seen the button but missed the list of other FAQs on the side of the page.

Silver Crusade

You bet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terjon_OTBR wrote:

From a RAW standpoint of course one can argue that the word "strike" requires an attack roll (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).

Indeed you can.

Attack Roll wrote:


An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

Additionally, attack is defined in two different ways in the rulebook itself, as Hostile Actions (in the magic section), but only in reference to things with an attack roll in the Combat section.

This implies context is necessary. Melee attacks, Unarmed attacks, Natural Attacks, and Ranged attacks are in one section. Spells in another.

In addition to that, under spells:

Quote:

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

Notice how it says you cast the spell AND THEN make an attack.

Again, showing that they are separate things.

In essence, there is one singular reference to attacks as hostile actions in the Magic section.

Basically every reference to attacks in Combat contradicts this.

Now that we've circumvented this silliness, we can move on to more productive discussion. Not that there was anything to discuss, really.


Wow, condescending much, not to mention arguably wrong?

The reason spells such as fireball and magic missile don't work with sneak attack is they fail the Dex to AC and/or flanking requirements of sneak attack, not that they aren't attacks. Basically, you cant flank with anything but a melee touch spell, and in order for a target to be denied their dex bonus to AC you must target AC.


Right conclusion, wrong reasoning. Enemies can still be denied Dex to AC regardless of your spell's ability to attack said AC. "Denied Dex to AC" is a condition of the enemy.

Spells such as Fireball and Magic Missile don't work because they are not attacks in the same sense, and that's the only reason.


Just because you want to disregard the explicit rule that they are attacks, doesn't mean you can.


Calth wrote:
Just because you want to disregard the explicit rule that they are attacks, doesn't mean you can.

Just because you want to disregard the 5 or so explicit rules that contradict that one example, doesn't mean you can.


Rynjin wrote:
Calth wrote:
Just because you want to disregard the explicit rule that they are attacks, doesn't mean you can.
Just because you want to disregard the 5 or so explicit rules that contradict that one example, doesn't mean you can.

Nothing you posted in anyway contradicts that fireball is an attack. Or do you think magic missile bypasses spells like invisibility or sanctuary, since it isn't an attack?

Or look at Bleed For Your Master, it explicitly refers to attacks that require attack rolls, meaning there are attacks that don't have attack rolls.


ATTENTION: BREAKING NEWS! THE PATHFINDER RULES CONTRADICT THEMSELVES!

Seriously, the rules give two contradictory definitions of attacks:
1. An offensive combat action.
2. An offensive combat action that uses an attack roll.

Definition 2 is absolutely, beyond all doubt, the definition used for when you can apply sneak attack. Definition 1 would literally make the entire concept cease to function in a meaningful way.


Yeah that. Otherwise, you have cases where you grapple a foe AND LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE or dispel magic on a foe and LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE or channel energy to harm a foe AND LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE


Magic Missile can't be aimed at invisible creatures at all, because Magic Missile, like all spells, requires Line of Sight.

Bleed For Your Master is both from a non Core line supplement (notorious for being written by people with far less knowledge of the rules than the actual designers) and does nothing to contradict what I said: That attack is interpreted in two different ways within the rules, and BY FAR the more relevant to the issue at hand is "requires an attack roll".

Charm Person is an "attack". It will break your Invisibility.

It is not an Attack. You will not deal Sneak Attack with it. Ever. Under any circumstances.

The rules contradict themselves in many cases due to them in many places being shoddily copy-pasted from 3.5's rules. Which is why you need to apply a modicum of intelligence and common sense when reading them.


Rynjin wrote:

Magic Missile can't be aimed at invisible creatures at all, because Magic Missile, like all spells, requires Line of Sight.

Bleed For Your Master is both from a non Core line supplement (notorious for being written by people with far less knowledge of the rules than the actual designers) and does nothing to contradict what I said: That attack is interpreted in two different ways within the rules, and BY FAR the more relevant to the issue at hand is "requires an attack roll".

Charm Person is an "attack". It will break your Invisibility.

It is not an Attack. You will not deal Sneak Attack with it. Ever. Under any circumstances.

The rules contradict themselves in many cases due to them in many places being shoddily copy-pasted from 3.5's rules. Which is why you need to apply a modicum of intelligence and common sense when reading them.

Ok, since you want a core case, how about Compel Hostility? Is a caster using magic missile a valid target for Compel Hostility? In my mind the answer is of course.

To note, I am not arguing you can combine magic missile with sneak attack, as I do not believe that it is RAI, and that it sneak attack only should apply when you make an attack roll, as per the old 3.5 FAQ. However, without that FAQ, you can make a RAW argument it applies. Contradictions between RAI and RAW or even RAW and RAW should be pointed out, not dismissed.


Bronnwynn wrote:
Yeah that. Otherwise, you have cases where you grapple a foe AND LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE or dispel magic on a foe and LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE or channel energy to harm a foe AND LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE

Uh, yeah, you can get sneak attack on a grabble, why wouldn't you if you meet the conditions?

The reason you can't sneak attack with spells like dispel magic is due to the ray weapon focus FAQ, which states you can only add hp damage to effects that already do hp damage, which provides a precedent.


Calth wrote:


Ok, since you want a core case, how about Compel Hostility? Is a caster using magic missile a valid target for Compel Hostility? In my mind the answer is of course.

Then in your mind the answer is wrong.


Calth wrote:
Bronnwynn wrote:
Yeah that. Otherwise, you have cases where you grapple a foe AND LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE or dispel magic on a foe and LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE or channel energy to harm a foe AND LOOK I DID SNEAK DAMAGE

Uh, yeah, you can get sneak attack on a grabble, why wouldn't you if you meet the conditions?

The reason you can't sneak attack with spells like dispel magic is due to the ray weapon focus FAQ, which states you can only add hp damage to effects that already do hp damage, which provides a precedent.

You can't sneak attack when you initiate a grapple because you didn't do damage. IIRC you certainly can sneak attack if you roll to do damage as part of a grapple check though: CMB checks are attack rolls.

The arcane trickster FAQ provides a very clear precedent for spells without attack rolls not getting sneak attack.

*edit*

The reason you need to distinguish between the two meanings of 'attack' is because, if you go purely by 'denied dex to AC' as your condition, you get some weird corner cases like scouts being able to sneak attack with fireball if they move more than 10ft in a round.

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / spells and sneak attack damage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.