I don't see why not. It's an attack made by the rogue, so what would prevent it from being used as part of a sneak attack?
Now that Rogues have the ability to get some low level spells, I was wondering, is it possible to use something like Shocking Grasp with Sneak Attack?
Anything that requires an attack roll and does damage. So Shocking Grasp is fine. Ray of Enfeeblement isn't, because, although it requires an attack roll, it doesn't do damage.
That's what Minor/Major Magic are all about...well, that and Obscuring Mist ;)
|
I would have thought that Magic Missile would not be able to be used with it. Because Sneak attack is about picking a vital spot to do more damage and Magic Missile states that you cannot pick the hit location.
you can't because magic missile does not have an attack roll
If it has an attack roll, you can sneak attack with it; this is part of the allure of an Arcane Trickster; it is alot easier to hit most foe's touch ac than normal ac or even flatfooted ac (and really easy to hit a flatfooted touch ac)
don't forget all the damage from the sneak when using a spell is of the spell's type. In the shocking grasp listed above, all the damage from the attack would be elec. The cantrips make useful unlimited sneaking. (ray of frost etc.)
Anything that requires an attack roll and does damage. So Shocking Grasp is fine. Ray of Enfeeblement isn't, because, although it requires an attack roll, it doesn't do damage.
According to this source by Wotc, you are wrong.
Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with an enervation spell deals 1d4 negative levels plus an extra 5d6 points of negative energy damage.
I know, nasty.
If you want to go this way, and your GM allows 3.5 splatbooks, take a look at the Spellwarp Sniper prestige class in the Complete Scoundrel.
A rogue/aberrant bloodline sorcerer/spellwarp sniper could be a lot of fun to play.
"According to this source by Wotc, you are wrong."
You are correct, cunning mongoose, but I think that is from a later book, (spell compendium?) that has several inconsistent, or not well-thought-out stuff. Allowing things that don't do hp damage to be used for sneak attacks opens the door to weird problems.
I would expect that ruling about sneak attacking with Enevation, NOT to carry over to Pathfinder.
"According to this source by Wotc, you are wrong."
You are correct, cunning mongoose, but I think that is from a later book, (spell compendium?) that has several inconsistent, or not well-thought-out stuff. Allowing things that don't do hp damage to be used for sneak attacks opens the door to weird problems.I would expect that ruling about sneak attacking with Enevation, NOT to carry over to Pathfinder.
Makes sense - As a player, I would not be frustrated if my GM ruled it that way.
Also note you can critical hit (double dammage) with ray spells. And that you can use "ray" as a weapon when choosing feats (weapon focus, improved critical, etc.) You could use your rogue talents on some of those I suppose.
"According to this source by Wotc, you are wrong."
You are correct, cunning mongoose, but I think that is from a later book, (spell compendium?) that has several inconsistent, or not well-thought-out stuff. Allowing things that don't do hp damage to be used for sneak attacks opens the door to weird problems.I would expect that ruling about sneak attacking with Enevation, NOT to carry over to Pathfinder.
Makes sense - As a player, I would not be frustrated if my GM ruled it that way.
Also note you can critical hit (double dammage) with ray spells. And that you can use "ray" as a weapon when choosing feats (weapon focus, improved critical, etc.) You could use your rogue talents on some of those I suppose.
Mongoose and Fergie - nope, I'm right. You need an attack roll, and you need damage - that's what I said above.
If you check Ray of Enfeeblement, you'll find it doesn't do damage. Enervation can sneak: Ray of Enfeeblement can't.
Enervation doesn't do HP/ability damage as well.
True. Point is, I wasn't saying in my first post that Ray of Enfeeblement was ineligible because it fails to deal HP damage: it's ineligible because it delivers a 'penalty': that wording is quite precise in terms of sneak attack. If it dealt 1dx Str damage, it would be sneaktastic. (To be clearer, I should have given Chill Touch as an example of something that does work...possibly too well; see spell text and argue till the cows come home :) )
Enervation means the target 'gains 1d4 negative levels': that comes under the Glossary definition of Energy Drain. By the rule quoted above, that's sneakable too. Ray of Enfeeblement still isn't, though.
True. Point is, I wasn't saying in my first post that Ray of Enfeeblement was ineligible because it fails to deal HP damage: it's ineligible because it delivers a 'penalty': that wording is quite precise in terms of sneak attack. If it dealt 1dx Str damage, it would be sneaktastic.
I must say that the exact difference between "ability dammage" and "ability penalty" never was really clear to me - is that a really well though off difference, or only a discrepancy in the wording of the same intended type of effect?
As far as RAW goes, you are correct about Ray of Enfeeblement(my humble excuses), but I think it's overcomplicated, and probably a side effect of not so well done rule planning. RAW is not unusable, it's just a bit complicated and you'll have to make sure you clearly identify all "sneakables" spells (ability dammage or penalty) and rule beforehand how you deal with level loss.
My way to "Pathfinderize" those rules would be, as a rule of thumb, to consider making all spells dealing "ability dammage", if only for clarity and consistency, and refrain from using sneak attack in the case of negative levels dealing spells, like Ennervation, because it can lead to a headhache (Do I apply the sneak dammage before or after the level loss?)
Anyway, that should be a talk to have with your GM if you plan to use ray sneak attacks.
Here's an old thread from enworld on the matter:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/28075-sneak-attack-bonus -ray-enfeeblement.html
The Ray of Enfeeblement wording is specifically referred to in Tome of Blood (apparently; I've never read it), and the distinction between 'damage' and 'penalty' pointed out.
I think it's good wording. I'm not so happy with things like Enervation (not so clear, to my mind) or Chill Touch (which does hit point damage and then ability damage).
Anyway, yes, definitely something to bring up with the DM.
A penalty to ability score and ability damage are very different because ability damage stacks, however, penalties do not. If Ray of E was damage, you could hit creatures over and over again, reducing their strength to zero.
Enervation should not be elegible for sneak attack because it never causes damage. If you check the text for negative levels, it specificly mentions the effects being penalties. (Although negative levels DO stack...)
Text about Negative Levels from SRD:
"These cause a character to take a number of penalties.
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses."
I'd like to make a point to add that if a spell specifies a type of energy, and Precision would not be an applicable damage type (against, say, a non-corporeal target that is otherwise vulnerable to sneak attack), that the extra Sneak Attack damage should more than likely be assigned that damage type for purposes of harming the target.
Example:
Rogue A uses Disrupt Undead on a target that cannot rationally be subjected to Precision damage (let's call it a "Shade" for example's sake - not an actual Shade, but the GM is referring to it as a "Shade" for story's sake) - it has no organs to be precise in stabby-stabby combat with, for crying out loud!
However, unlike, say, an Ooze, this here Shade can in fact take damage from Positive Energy sources - and Disrupt Undead is a wonderful source of Positive Energy. Rogue A is able to use Disrupt Undead, and in so doing, stack an additional 5D6 of Positive Energy Sneak Attack damage on top of it. The Shade is blown away like curtains. Lacy, gently wafting curtains.
On the contrary, this could come back to haunt someone. If the Sneak Attack damage is assigned the same damage type (again, contingent on appropriate circumstances and assuming the target is not otherwise forbidden/excluded from taking Sneak Attack damage of any type whatsoever), and another Rogue thinks "Oh, Rogue A just nailed that Shade with a spell, I'll do the same to this one!" and then fires a spell that does Negative Energy damage... That Shade just got healed for quite a bit of damage.
Just some thoughts that came up during my groups discussion of this very topic in our game last night.
A penalty to ability score and ability damage are very different because ability damage stacks, however, penalties do not. If Ray of E was damage, you could hit creatures over and over again, reducing their strength to zero.
No, because there is already a built-in safegard - you cannot reduce strength below 1 with this spell.
No, because there is already a built-in safegard - you cannot reduce strength below 1 with this spell.
It does that because it's trying to limit a penalty, not damage. I don't know of any spell that does damage that's capped in the same way - one based on avoiding a particular catastrophic result for the target. If the spell did damage, I figure the safeguard would be gone. And appropriately so.
I must say that the exact difference between "ability dammage" and "ability penalty" never was really clear to me - is that a really well though off difference, or only a discrepancy in the wording of the same intended type of effect?
It's a pretty big difference, I'd say. Penalties last until the effect is gone (usually the duration of a spell or temporary condition like fatigue/exhaustion) and then the stat bounces right back, damage must be healed one or two points a day (depending on rest) or via a restoration-family spell.
Yes, I do understand the technical difference, what I do not understand precisely is why there is the need to have two different systems for the same thing (in the broad sense of diminishing/ augmenting ability scores) - it seems overly complicated to me.
I think a unified "ability dammage/penalty" system, with clear interaction with other mechanics (healing, sneak, etc.) would improve the game. Maybe we would need to add a line or two in some spells, but I'd better have the exeptions to the rules in the spells rather that into the base mechanics. Just seems a better design to me.
I would go for the "dammage option" myself, add temporary/non-lethal dammage to rework the penalties mecanism, and also consider bonuses as temporary ability "hp", thus getting this mess in line with the way every dammage is dealed with in the game.
Or, get rid of dammage, use the "penalties only option", tweak the dammage spells to make them a little more powerfull in this regard (longer duration, no capstone, etc.) and allow sneaking with those spells.
It's just the KISS principle, really. One basic system, add permutations in the spells, and not the other way around - as they did with CMB and CMD.
I've always considered a Penalty to be the Subdual Damage of Ability Scores - In the same way that the (Animal's) (Characteristic) spells are "Bonus Hit Points" for your Abilities, so too are Penalties "Subdual Damage" to your Abilities.
They just happen to have fixed durations, can usually be done as a Touch or Ranged Touch attack, and in some cases can mess you up worse than a bag full of Rottweilers ever could hope to do.
So, someone hits you with a Poison that does 2d4 STR, that's 2d4 off of your STR's "HP," as it were. You have to heal it back naturally, even if you kick the poison out of your system (or, you know, use a Restoration or equivalent).
That same someone hits you with a Spell that does 4 points of STR. It lasts until the Spell wears off, or is otherwise nullified.
So basically they -are- the same system, they just have slightly different terms applied to them.
I've always considered a Penalty to be the Subdual Damage of Ability Scores - In the same way that the (Animal's) (Characteristic) spells are "Bonus Hit Points" for your Abilities, so too are Penalties "Subdual Damage" to your Abilities.
They just happen to have fixed durations, can usually be done as a Touch or Ranged Touch attack, and in some cases can mess you up worse than a bag full of Rottweilers ever could hope to do.
So, someone hits you with a Poison that does 2d4 STR, that's 2d4 off of your STR's "HP," as it were. You have to heal it back naturally, even if you kick the poison out of your system (or, you know, use a Restoration or equivalent).
That same someone hits you with a Spell that does 4 points of STR. It lasts until the Spell wears off, or is otherwise nullified.
So basically they -are- the same system, they just have slightly different terms applied to them.
They are not the same system in regard to sneak attacks, but that is exactly the kind of ruling I was talking about (replace "penalty" with "subdual ability dammage") and why I would allow sneak attacking with those "penalty" spells.
Better, follow the sneak attack rules, and sneak attacking with those spells would do subdual dammage - seems perfect to me to balance those spells, and you don't have to remember yet another rule.
That should have been in the book...