Hello Forum,
This isn't the usual 'Can I sneak attack with Shocking Grasp?' Thread. A friend of mine has designed a build (naturally a Halfling!) that utilizes touch attacks and Sneak Attack on a Rogue.
He claims that one can perform a Touch Attack at any point as per this excerpt on Touch Attacks below:
Touch AttacksSome attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
Effectively he would fight without weapons and just touch targets to deal his damage. Because he rolls an attack roll (and assume he is Flanking and/or the target is Flat-Footed or otherwise Denied Dexterity), he believes he is entitled to a Sneak Attack by simply touching the target even when dealing no damage on the initial Touch.
I suppose this query breaks down to 2 parts.
1) Can you just choose to Touch a target in place of a 'regular' attack?
2) If you deal no damage with the initial hit (but do hit), do you still deal Sneak Attack damage?
I understand how this functions with Touch Spells (such as Chill Touch or Shocking Grasp which arms you and qualifies you for a Touch Attack), but is this a large misunderstanding of when Touch Attacks can be dealt?
Is there a RAW or Official Source for this? Not being difficult, I appreciate the fast response to the damage query.
Does the same apply to when a Rogue would deal 0 damage due to something like DR40/-?
You can not do a touch attack except in specific situations such as a touch attack spell. Sneak attack is additional hit point damage. It does not allow you to harm by touching.
It does sound like a neat idea for a ninja/monk archetype, though—a rogue-like PC who gets to inflict Sneak Attack damage with melee touch attacks.
I was on my phone before so I could not cite any rules. Here is what I was talking about with the "extra damage" bit.
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.
Extra is used in situations where you have something and you are getting more. I can't give you an extra apple if you don't already have an apple.
The rules also state that in order to do damage you must make an attack roll. In order to make use touch attacks they have to be called out specifically. Sneak attack itself has no touch attack reference, and reading it and now it applies with weapons is pretty clear. If you could use your finger to do a finger poke of death(damage) instead of using a weapon then you would be better off not using weapons at all. Clearly that is not the intent.
You have players here with years of experience who know the system well. I hope I could help.
This is an interesting question. And while I agree with RAI that wraithstrike is referring to...is there any RAW that says that sneak attack damage cannot be applied via a touch attack.
As an example, let's say a method exists for a ranged touch attack spell that does damage (a ray) to be able to be used as a simple touch attack that does damage. As we all know, in the right circumstances, ranged touch attack spells allow for sneak attack damage.
Is there any reason why the delivery method of the damage should prevent the extra damage from sneak attack?
After all, given the right circumstances (per sneak attack) a thrown dagger (-- ranged attack --) allows for extra damage just like a melee attack with a dagger allows for extra damage as well.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Quintain, sneak attack can be dealt via any touch attack, given that said touch would have the potential to deal damage to the creatures HP without the SA die. Correct me if I'm wrong as I may very well be, but I think this is how it works.
Now I have my own question. I believe someone with SA may deal their SA damage as nonlethal only if their weapon is only capable of dealing nonlethal damage, with like a sap for example. So what about touch attacks that deal nonlethal damage? I would assume they may add nonlethal SA damage to this correct?
Yes. In the case of, say, a merciful shocking grasp, your sneak attack damage converts to non-lethal.
Neato, sure someone would love to know this. Naturally I'd assume this also would work with a ranged spell within SA range?
Quintain, sneak attack can be dealt via any touch attack, given that said touch would have the potential to deal damage to the creatures HP without the SA die. Correct me if I'm wrong as I may very well be, but I think this is how it works.
Now I have my own question. I believe someone with SA may deal their SA damage as nonlethal only if their weapon is only capable of dealing nonlethal damage, with like a sap for example. So what about touch attacks that deal nonlethal damage? I would assume they may add nonlethal SA damage to this correct?
You know, after pausing an actually thinking, I already knew this...I do not know why my brain refused to cough up the information.
Thanks.
Everyone's brain's fart. Its cool. :)
The gloves seem mechanically sound. It is a touch attack that deals damage. Seems to work to me. Although I don't believe it matters what type of damage you are dealing, the SA die are always just considered precision damage. Not sure if it would actually be extra ACID damage per se. Not an expert on this so I could be wrong.
This is an interesting question. And while I agree with RAI that wraithstrike is referring to...is there any RAW that says that sneak attack damage cannot be applied via a touch attack.
As an example, let's say a method exists for a ranged touch attack spell that does damage (a ray) to be able to be used as a simple touch attack that does damage. As we all know, in the right circumstances, ranged touch attack spells allow for sneak attack damage.
Is there any reason why the delivery method of the damage should prevent the extra damage from sneak attack?
After all, given the right circumstances (per sneak attack) a thrown dagger (-- ranged attack --) allows for extra damage just like a melee attack with a dagger allows for extra damage as well.
Inquiring minds want to know.
The problem here is that there is no RAW saying you can use touch attacks whenever you want to, and the basic rules account for attacks. Only special exceptions calls for touch attacks, and RAW like anything else is open to interpretation.
Someone can just as easily say is there any RAW saying that sneak attack works with touch attacks.
Hm, nice to know. What if an attack deals two types of damage? Say a shocking weapon is used for a sneak attack. Would it simply be precision damage of the weapons specified type of damage?
Hm, nice to know. What if an attack deals two types of damage? Say a shocking weapon is used for a sneak attack. Would it simply be precision damage of the weapons specified type of damage?
Precision damage is not a type of damage in the manner that electrical damage is. It is basically damage that relies on you being able to hit an opponent in a vital area. Opponents such as elementals and oozes don't have vital areas so they are not subject to sneak attack.
It would be electricity damage if you were to use shocking grasp.
By RAW I think this works. If the rogue fulfills the condition of attacking his oponent while he's denied of his DEX bonus to AC and the touch spell in questions deals HP damage, it should work. That's Shocking Grasp right at his heart, or Inflict wounds right on his kidney (damn, the bastard had two, doh!).
The rogue will still have to meet all the conditions for the attack to work, like not casting another spell while holding a charge. It's not like he'll be able to do this at will during a full attack.
I appreciate all the responses.
Though I should probably clarify. We have the rules for Touch Attacks and Sneak Attack down with regards to spells (Vampiric stealing life with SA, Shocking dealing Electricity, Chill Touch dealing Negative Energy).
What I was trying to say (but didn't do so clearly) was the following:
Can a Rogue simply Touch a target to deal Sneak Attack damage with no Spell Armed?
It was said earlier (by wraithstrike) that one must need to deal damage to trigger the Extra Dice (apple example), but where is this RAW (extra as a 'keyword')? It just says whenever they make an attack and conditions X, Y, Z are met, Sneak Attack dice are added.
Following that, can you ever just choose to Touch attack an enemy with no Spell Armed? Naturally it won't do anything in most cases as you deal nothing. However it is useful when having Protection From Evil on and trying to Touch an Evil Outsider that was summoned to pop it. Is this called out anywhere? Can you choose to Touch someone as your attack (knowing it deals nothing)? I've seen game masters allow it for logic sake, bit is it a RAW thing?
This combines here.
The counter argument I keep receiving falls back on the change from 3.X to PF, where in the older edition, extra dice only triggered when you dealt damage (including Sneak Attack, Flaming, Holy, etc). In PF there was a post by one of the Devs who said that extra dice now are subtracted with DR, even if damage wasn't dealt. That is to say a 4d6 Sneak Attack on a 2 Damage Attack, totalling 16 Damage would get reduced as a whole on a DR10 monster for 6 Net Damage.
3.X -> Only add Precision Damage and Extra dice IF you deal damage through DR. In the case above, that would mean the 2 damage is reduced to 0 and no dice are added.
PF -> Subtract DR from the total of your Damage Roll + Extra Dice. Even though the hit did nothing by itself, the sneak triggers.
The claim uses this as its basis.
"The Touch itself deals nothing, but nothing in the rules says the Rogue needs to deal damage with its attack roll only the requirements are met to add extra dice."
And backs up the claim with the Dev comment about DR working after its totalled. Ie: 0 + 4d6 damage then subtract DR.
I see the RAI here is obvious, but he will only accept RAW to show it won't work.
Thanks for putting up with me here. On Mobile so finding citations is rough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This line of reasoning is silly.
Dot.
Following that, can you ever just choose to Touch attack an enemy with no Spell Armed? Naturally it won't do anything in most cases as you deal nothing.
One situation where this could be useful (if legal): trying to destroy an armoured enemy's Mirror Images. You'd only need to strike within 5 of their touch AC to get one, so even someone with terrible attack bonuses could probably do it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a Rogue simply Touch a target to deal Sneak Attack damage with no Spell Armed?
This has been answered.
You should reread the posts above.
Also, FYI, if you choose to ignore the responses you've gotten, and instead prioritize a "RAW" answer (whatever you consider that to mean), you will only succeed in creating tension and animosity between you and your respondents.
I suggest you stop using the term now, and change your reason why our answers aren't good enough.
Posters, in the past and currently, will boldfaced reply to a Developer, who is answering their question, with "that's not RAW, you're wrong". And you know what? Those Developers no longer participate in open discussions. They were arguing with brick walls.
Your responses are beginning to sound like that, so I figured I'd make you aware of how you're coming across.
The term "RAW", or "rules-as-written", is 100% in your head. You cannot use it as a justification in a rules debate, because everyone reads and interprets rules differently.
Words are written, and interpreted by the reader, into rules.
We are explaining to you what those rules are. If you disagree, then bring up a valid counterpoint, and the discussion will continue.
But don't just stamp your foot and state, "that's not RAW!"
However it is useful when having Protection From Evil on and trying to Touch an Evil Outsider that was summoned to pop it.
This does not work, you cannot pop summoned creatures by touching them.
...The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature...
And to echo everyone else, if your attack doesn't normally deal HP damage, you cannot apply SA. There is dev commentary to this effect if you care to search for it. They talk about spells like enervation, that do not deal HP damage, not benefitting from SA.
DR that is larger than the base damage of an attack doesn't negate the total damage of the attack because sneak attack adds to the total damage of an attack.
You aren't getting hit with:
3dam from weapon + 11SA dam.
You're getting hit with:
14dam
That's were your confusion is coming from. The SA damage is handled differently when it comes to crits and feats but it is still part of a total damage computation when dealing with DR.
SA needs an initial damage element to be activated, and an unarmed touch doesn't supply that element. That is RAW and RAI.
I see the RAI here is obvious, but he will only accept RAW to show it won't work.
Hmmmm, the tone of your response makes me wonder if the "friend" is actually you...
Regardless...
You don't need RAW to tell you want you can't do, as Nefreet and Kazaan have mentioned. What you actually need is RAW to tell you what you CAN do.
The burden of proof is on you (or your friend) to show just how the RAW supports what he wants to do. You (collectively you and your friend) have found half of it - you can add sneak attack damage to touch attacks. You have not yet found the other half of it - all touches of any kind, even harmless ones, are attacks. If you can find that, then you're golden. If not, then half a RAW is not a rule at all.
On a side note, where would this end? Could your friend sneeze on his enemy and apply sneak attack damage? Could he glare menacingly? Could he think mean thoughts or say mean words? Could he do those things at range as ranged touch sneak attacks?
Hyperbole, yes. But all of those things are NOT attacks. Likewise, caressing an enemy with your fingers is also not an attack.
There is not RAW for this; only common sense. But the burden of proof remains squarely on the person (people) making the claim (that sneak attack damage applies on gentle caresses) so until you (collectively) provide RAW that such things ARE attacks, there is no reason to assume you can do something that is not stipulated in the rules.
I really do agree with you. The reason I am asking from a strict As Written perspective is due to the massive rules lawyery player in question who won't accept anything else (yup).
I don't mean to come off as a rager here (that's not the intent). I am a huge proponent of RAI and things making sense for what they are and using common sense, we were having a discussion regarding a build and his stubborn mind won't move off the fact that d20 rolls can either be Attacks, Saves or Checks.
I have no reason or motivation to disguise this as a friend post, this isn't a 90s public service announcement about fayleaf use.
OK so the touches are possible (maybe not with Pro Evil) but the difference between '0' and '-' damage was something I was looking for. I'm sorry Nefreet because I did see your example with Fatigue and Ennervate but didn't make the connection between 0 and no damage being different.
They talk about spells like enervation, that do not
deal HP damage, not benefitting from SA.
Then this is the route I have to take. I keep getting told the burden of proof is on me and frankly it got (gets) exhausting, so if it appears that way its not due to any of you as youve all been extremely insightful here.
I keep getting told the burden of proof is on me and frankly it got (gets) exhausting, so if it appears that way its not due to any of you as youve all been extremely insightful here.
Actually, the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim that sneak attack damage can be applied to a gentle caress. On this thread, that's you. At your game table, that's your friend. The burden of proof should not be on the people offering advice, though sometimes we're more than glad to provide it...
So here's another angle, a metagame one.
Part of the limiting factor on Sneak Attack (let's ignore for a moment all the discussions of whether it SHOULD be limited and just accept that, as written, it is) is the fact that it requires an attack roll to use it. Attack rolls are not always easy for most of the classes who have Sneak Attack. Letting them do touch attacks against their enemy's much lower (usually) Touch AC would make Sneak Attacks much more powerful.
This was obviously not the intent of the developers - when they intend to let people use a Touch Attack, they say so. In other words, if they wanted it to be a Sneak Touch Attack, they would have called it that. We can debate about whether or not it's possible to do it, but it's obviously NOT a Sneak Touch Attack by name or by its own specific rules text (nothing about touch attacks anywhere in the Sneak Attack rule).
So if it's not designed as a touch attack, and doing a touch attack makes it much more powerful, then we're changing the game mechanics, we're making Sneak Attack more powerful.
Does it make sense to do so? From a metagame perspective, no it doesn't. If we want to argue that Sneak Attack is too weak and needs to be improved, then by all means, consider that possibility, but don't just automatically assume it's the baseline when clearly it was not designed that way.
I really do agree with you. The reason I am asking from a strict As Written perspective is due to the massive rules lawyery player in question who won't accept anything else (yup).
This is the type of guy that makes rules lawyers look bad, and if the is just a player then don't argue with him. Tell him it does not work and move on, or you can make him show you where it says in very specific words that he can make touch attacks whenever he wants to.
He cant find a rule because such a rule does not exist.
It is like trying to find a rule that says I can not jump and make a 90 degree turn while I am in the air and change direction. There is no rule saying I can't do it, but if I do that it is really "flying", not jumping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're familiar with Occam's Razor? The solution most simple is almost always the right one?
Well this falls under a similar thing I like to call Munchkin's War Razor. The solution most beneficial to the power gamer is almost always the wrong one.
|
If you want him to do Sneak Attack with touch there are a number of ways.
My favorite was level 1 Rogue/level 1 Clerics armed with wands of inflict light wounds deal 1d8+1 neg energy (Will save for half) + Sneak attack damage as touch attacks. Great minions to send against PCs who are otherwise hard to hit.
Grab a CLW wand for sneak attacking undead, and healing your party (maybe)
You could get a wand of brand for cheaper, deals 1 damage as a touch attack + sneak attack damage.
If you want to stick with pure rogue, max UMD and grab either Skill Focus, a trait and/or skill increasing items. You could also go one level of warpriest, inquisitor or oracle if you wanted.
Cloak of the Hedge Wizard gives you Acid Splash at will which can be used for Ranged SA but that is hard to get under most circumstances.
If you want him to do Sneak Attack with touch there are a number of ways.
My favorite was level 1 Rogue/level 1 Clerics armed with wands of inflict light wounds deal 1d8+1 neg energy (Will save for half) + Sneak attack damage as touch attacks. Great minions to send against PCs who are otherwise hard to hit.
Ahhh, man, if only the good old (worthless) Inflict Minor Wounds orison had made the Pathfinder switch- now that would be a nice combo, your Rog1/Clc1 with 1,440 touch sneak attacks every day...
|
A rogue walks into a bar and taps the bartender on the shoulder. The bartender dies of massive internal damage.
Honestly, if I had a player that was being as much of a pain as this one is sounding, I would give it to him ... and have it apply to all things he touches. He shakes the hand of the lord mayor ... sneak attack damage. He touches his horse ... sneak attack damage. He grabs the priceless vase ... sneak attack damage. He seeks the romantic embrace of his preference ... sneak attack damage.
The PC would quickly draw the wrath of all powers that be, ultimately be imprisoned/executed, and the player would need to work up a PC that is not an excuse to try to bend the rules to his whims.
Now if the player wants to run with a legal way to accomplish this, along the lines of what Taenia suggests, then go for it. The concept is valid, the player's attempted execution is not.
but that's just my 2cp. ;)
Again I want to say thanks, I had to play devils advocate here and the information provided and the presentation really does help for it.
I didn't mean to come off as grating, thankfully the community is good here which is why I chose this avenue.
I'll see how it flies (or Air swims), and if not just drop it for now.
Thanks!