If a rogue is fighting someone, can catch them without their Dex to AC, can he add his precision damage to a sunder attempt on the targets armor or weapon?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
No, objects are immune to precision damage.
claudekennilol wrote: No, objects are immune to precision damage. I thought so, too. But when looking for rules to back it up I was unable to find it (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
What I found and did not know is that you can't sunder items with piercing weapons.
Just a Guess wrote: claudekennilol wrote: No, objects are immune to precision damage. I thought so, too. But when looking for rules to back it up I was unable to find it (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
What I found and did not know is that you can't sunder items with piercing weapons. The rule is under the "smashing an object" section (kinda).
Quote: Immunities: Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits. As far as I'm aware, everything that says it's precision damage also says that immunity to crits prevents it, but "precision damage" itself is never actually defined properly anywhere.
I could find no text that states that immunity to crits gives immunity to precision damage as well.
But I could find a creature subtype (Aeon) that is immune to crits but not to precision damage.
I may have been misremembering. You can't crit an object. There are probably some forms of precision damage that are still applicable but sneak attacks are not one. You can't flank an object, an object can't be flat-footed, the only way I could see a DM allowing this is if you can convince them that the object is unaware of you (unless someone finds an actual tile regarding this), and even that wouldn't work if the person wielding it is aware of you.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mysticbelmont wrote: If a rogue is fighting someone, can catch them without their Dex to AC, can he add his precision damage to a sunder attempt on the targets armor or weapon? Last I checked, weapons and armor don't have vital organs, so no.
LazarX wrote: mysticbelmont wrote: If a rogue is fighting someone, can catch them without their Dex to AC, can he add his precision damage to a sunder attempt on the targets armor or weapon? Last I checked, weapons and armor don't have vital organs, so no. Neither do constructs
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote: LazarX wrote: mysticbelmont wrote: If a rogue is fighting someone, can catch them without their Dex to AC, can he add his precision damage to a sunder attempt on the targets armor or weapon? Last I checked, weapons and armor don't have vital organs, so no. Neither do constructs They do in the form of articulated parts.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sneak attack talks about a vital spot, not organs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There is a goblin feat that lets you use sneak attack on unattended objects. However, that does not "prove" that you can or cannot sneak attack an object. Until someone finds a clear definitive statement somewhere it is not RAW that you cannot sneak attack an object being held.
Goblin Vandal
Prerequisite: Goblin, sneak attack class feature.
Benefit: You treat unattended objects as if they were vulnerable to your sneak attack, but you only deal half as much damage as you would against an actual creature.
For instance, if you rolled 12 extra damage from the sneak attack you would deal an extra 6 damage to the object. This only applies when attacking unattended objects.
I am not sure that there is an exact quotable rule to answer this, but here are three reasons the answer is almost surely "no":
1. The first line of the sneak attack description (Rogue class ability) seems to preclude using it to strike items:
"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."
So, if you catch the opponent unable to defend, you strike that opponent's vital spot (not an object).
I challenge you to convince me that the opponent's armor or weapon is his "vital spot".
2. Consider that a sneak attack is an attack that uses your BAB+modifiers, while a Sunder is a combat maneuver that uses your CMB. While Sunder can be used in place of an attack, the very act of declaring the roll and deciding what to roll and what to add is different between sneak attacks and sunder attempts so it is clear that these are different things. Yes, CMB rolls are attacks, but they are handled differently.
You would need to convince me that this difference can be ignored completely before I would agree to adding sneak attack damage to any combat maneuver.
3. If you want to hit a shield that is lying on the floor, you make a sunder attempt vs. a very low AC (3, if it's a medium shield). But, except for that weird goblin feat, you CANNOT sneak attack a shield lying on the ground. Ever. Which means you can only do normal sunder damage to a shield on the ground. Now, if some guy picks it up and you manage to catch that guy when he cannot defend himself, you COULD attack the shield with a sunder attempt but it's AC goes up because the guy is carrying it.
If you attempt a sunder and hit the shield, why in the world would it make sense to do MUCH more damage to this carried shield than you could ever do when it was lying on the ground?
I don't think you could ever convince me that the shield is more susceptible to damage when being carried by an unaware guy than it is when it's just lying on the ground.
In my opinion, any one of those points would sway to believe that you cannot deal precision damage on a sunder attempt, but all three of them together is rock solid.
DM_Blake wrote: I am not sure that there is an exact quotable rule to answer this, but here are three reasons the answer is almost surely "no":
1. The first line of the sneak attack description (Rogue class ability) seems to preclude using it to strike items:
"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."
So, if you catch the opponent unable to defend, you strike that opponent's vital spot (not an object).
I challenge you to convince me that the opponent's armor or weapon is his "vital spot".
You mean beside a lich who uses an adamantine shield/sword/helmet as a phylactery? Point is when you do a normal sneak attack you are not required to explain the nature of your attack. The rules only require a a die roll. Any explanation is just flavor.
DM_Blake wrote: 2. Consider that a sneak attack is an attack that uses your BAB+modifiers, while a Sunder is a combat maneuver that uses your CMB. While Sunder can be used in place of an attack, the very act of declaring the roll and deciding what to roll and what to add is different between sneak attacks and sunder attempts so it is clear that these are different things. Yes, CMB rolls are attacks, but they are handled differently.
You would need to convince me that this difference can be ignored completely before I would agree to adding sneak attack damage to any combat maneuver.
I'm tempted to buy into this except that sunder reads "if your attack is successful deal damage to the object normally." For some characters Precision Damage is part of their normal attack. For other characters precision damage is also sneak attack damage.
DM_Blake wrote: 3. If you want to hit a shield that is lying on the floor, you make a sunder attempt vs. a very low AC (3, if it's a medium shield). But, except for that weird goblin feat, you CANNOT sneak attack a shield lying on the ground. Ever. Which means you can only do normal sunder damage to a shield on the ground. Now, if some guy picks it up and you manage to catch that guy when he cannot defend himself, you COULD attack the shield with a sunder attempt but it's AC goes up because the guy is carrying it.
If you attempt a sunder and hit the shield, why in the world would it make sense to do MUCH more damage to this carried shield than you could ever do when it was lying on the ground?
I don't think you could ever convince me that the shield is more susceptible to damage when being carried by an unaware guy than it is when it's just lying on the
...
I can't buy into this. You base your example on a rule that doesn't exist. There is no rule that says you cannot sneak attack the unattended shield. There is also no rule that says you can. The confusion is never clearly addressed. A character can sneak attack a construct made of Iron armor but we are never told its impossible to sneak attack the same pile of armor when it is not a construct.
I wouldn't use sneak attack on an object. But not because of anything you said here. I wouldn't do so because there rules don't exist for it as a definitive yes or no and I despise table variation.
If the rogue is an ogre or has racial heritage (ogre), and takes the Savage Critical feat, and hits the object with a Vital Strike, the sneak attack damage is added to the damage from the attack. This makes it not count as precision damage, and thus affect objects.
Imbicatus wrote: This makes it not count as precision damage, and thus affect objects. Expect table variance on this concept, as it doesn't directly say it is no longer precision and it still calls it Sneak Attack damage.
Quote: and thus affect objects. Except it says on the feat that it happens when you hit a creature.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
