I was wondering, I could have sworn that pathfinder made it so that if you don't penetrate the DR of a target with the base weapon damage you can't perform a sneak attack.
After re-looking over the rules I can't find it. Was this added later on?
Thanks
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus
Nope, not that I know of.
The printed BETA rules make no mention of it, nor does the latest PDF. If there was such a thing in an earlier version, then I am not aware of it.
Maybe you're misinterpreting the rules for DR:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease.
But it is worth noting that the extra damage from a sneak attack is exactly that: "extra damage". It says so in the class ability.
It is not a special effect.
The passage I quoted regarding DR specifically refers to abilities above and beyond damage. The kind of ability that is delivered to an opponent by wounding them. You cannot coat your sword with an internal poison and then simply wipe it on the enemy's shirt to poison them - you have to make a wound, an open and bleeding wound, through which the poison on your sword can enter their body and do its dirty work.
That's the kind of "special effect" that this passage is referring to.
Sneak attacks just do extra damage.
In fact, (for example) a 9th level rogue wielding a rapier gets in position to sneak attack an enemy. If he rolls to hit, he can simply roll 6d6 for his damage. He does not need to roll 1d6 for his rapier and then separately roll 5d6 for his sneak attack - it's all the same damage, so just roll 6d6 and add it up.
So in this case, it would be impossible to tell which die was the rapier and which 5 dice were the sneak attack. And it wouldn't matter at all, mechanically.
The sneak attack should all be considered one source of damage, so it would be added onto an attack and added together with the rest and then DR would be subtracted from it.
Sneak Attack damage shouldn't ignore DR to my knowledge?
Correct, lump it all together then apply what ever effects should be applied to the damage as a whole.
I'm fairly certain that in the event DR completely negates the base damage of an attack, all other effects of that attack (with the specific exceptions of touch attacks, elemental damage, and level drain listed in the SRD) are negated. On the other hand, I've seen it ruled both ways for sneak attack, and even the official FAQ/rulings/sage-advice have flip flopped on it.
My opinion as a DM was always that it should negate sneak attack. After all, if the DR would prevent a rogue from even breaking an opponents skin normally (dealing a single point of damage), how exactly is their sneak attack going to reach a vital area?
Also from a rules consistency standpoint, I'd classify sneak attack as an "extra effect" because of the way it interacts with Critical hits. Sneak attack, poison, and the like aren't multiplied by a crit, where the base damage is. So in my mind it's Roll base damage, multiply for crits and the like, apply DR, then roll additional dice, in that order.
I'm fairly certain that in the event DR completely negates the base damage of an attack, all other effects of that attack (with the specific exceptions of touch attacks, elemental damage, and level drain listed in the SRD) are negated. On the other hand, I've seen it ruled both ways for sneak attack, and even the official FAQ/rulings/sage-advice have flip flopped on it.
You are right.
But the sneak attack damage is not an "effect of the [negated] attack".
All the sneak attack is, really, is extra damage added to the base attack.
Per RAW.
My opinion as a DM was always that it should negate sneak attack.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Truth is, I mostly agree with you on this one.
After all, if the DR would prevent a rogue from even breaking an opponents skin normally (dealing a single point of damage), how exactly is their sneak attack going to reach a vital area?
DR comes in many forms. For a tarrasque like me, DR might mean that I have super thick scales that turn aside the rogue's blade long before his blade reaches my heart, lung, kidney, or whatever.
In this case, you are right.
But for a troll, for instance, DR might mean the rogue slices him open like a ripe tomato, and then his wound closes (regeneration) almost as fast as it opened.
In this case, if the rogue sliced open the troll's lung, he may very well do all his extra damage, and the troll will need to regenerate for a longer time to heal all that damage.
Which would make you wrong, in this case.
The description of DR specifically references both of these different possible interpretations of DR, but there really is only one mechanic in the game to handle both kinds of DR.
In my opinion, that is a problem, but it one that is mechanically awkward to solve.
So the d20 guys decided to lump them together and define it such that many special effects may not work if the base attack fails to exceed the DR, which can still be weird: put an internal poison on a sword and bounce it off my scales, and I should not be poisoned, but slice open a troll and watch his wound close, and the troll should be poisoned.
Part of this lumping together affects Sneak Attacks.
Since Sneak Attacks are not defined as "effects", but instead are simply defined as "additional damage", they are always applicable to all eligible targets, regardless of DR.
Personally, I hate that.
It means that somehow an inconsequential little halfling pipsqueak with a puny rapier can puncture my lung without actually penetrating my scales, as long as he has a few levels in rogue.
Utterly discusting, from my point of view as a tarrasque.
But it's how the RAW works.
Also from a rules consistency standpoint, I'd classify sneak attack as an "extra effect" because of the way it interacts with Critical hits. Sneak attack, poison, and the like aren't multiplied by a crit, where the base damage is. So in my mind it's Roll base damage, multiply for crits and the like, apply DR, then roll additional dice, in that order.
Well, it's fine for a houserule, and it suit's me, the tarrasque, very well.
But by RAW, it's Roll base damage, multiply for crits and the like, roll additional damage dice, apply DR, and finally apply special effects (like poison or stun) in that order.
The only real reason a sneak attack's extra damage is not multiplied is a mechanical one.
It would make rogues too over-the-top deadly. They're already deadly enough.
But a 15th level rogue, with pick and 8d6 of sneak attack, could conceivably roll 36d6 every time he confirms a crit - that would be absurd.
Besides, it can be justified logically by saying that sneak attacks do the same thing as criticals: they cause extra damage by hitting someone where it really counts.
If you confirm a crit, you do extra damage because you hit the enemy in the lung (et. al.). If you land a sneak attack, you do extra damage because you hit the enemy in the lung (et. al.). If you land a critical sneak attack in the enemy's lung (et. al.) you do extra extra damage (one extra for the sneak attack, and one extra for the critical).
But doing extra extra extra damage is just too much, and it's redudant(one extra for the sneak attack, one extra for the crit, and one extra for the critical sneak attack).
After all, if the DR would prevent a rogue from even breaking an opponents skin normally (dealing a single point of damage), how exactly is their sneak attack going to reach a vital area?
DR comes in many forms. For a tarrasque like me, DR might mean that I have super thick scales that turn aside the rogue's blade long before his blade reaches my heart, lung, kidney, or whatever.In this case, you are right.
But for a troll, for instance, DR might mean the rogue slices him open like a ripe tomato, and then his wound closes (regeneration) almost as fast as it opened.
In this case, if the rogue sliced open the troll's lung, he may very well do all his extra damage, and the troll will need to regenerate for a longer time to heal all that damage.
Which would make you wrong, in this case.
The description of DR specifically references both of these different possible interpretations of DR, but there really is only one mechanic in the game to handle both kinds of DR.
Heh, for the record, I would point out that Trolls have regeneration 5, not DR, for this very reason. But your point is still valid, because other monsters (Lycanthropes for example) do have DR that is hard to describe as simply being too tough to harm, and fits more in the heals so fast it negates damage category.
By the straight out of the book raw, I'd say it's unclear which interpretation is valid. under Sneak attack in the rogue description, it does mention rogues losing the ability to sneak attack when unable to reach an opponents vitals, and give the example of a creature so large the rogue can only attack it's extremities, which is where I was coming from with the argument about being unable to reach a vital spot. But, since neither sneak attack nor damage reduction is using the sort of specific terminology we could use to decide this definitively it's really DM interpretation. Additional effect? Vitals? Neither of these is ever clearly and explicitly defined.
If you include the FAQ there is a ruling that sneak attack does apply to base damage (even though I'm 99% sure they had previously ruled the opposite in sage advice) so I'll cede this one to the it works anyways crowd.
I've always ruled that sneak attack damage only occurs if the weapon penetrated the DR. I've had no problems thus far, ruling this way, but I can see that others would disagree.
As long as everyone is happy.
I would think that 9 times out of 10 a rogue would aim for a place inherently less... DR-y.
Lycanthrope might have DR whatever, but even if a halfling with a 0 strength bonus and a dagger would never break his skin (or DR, whatever) with an attack, his sneak attack to the eye, crotch, or surprisingly-easily-pierced-artery should work fine.
Trying to come up with ways to nerf SA seems mean-spirited to those of us who just want to get the occasional cup of dice to roll...
(Apologies to Tolkein, but it's an easy one many people might recognize) Bard the Archer vs. Smaugh the Dragon: Critical hit with sneak attack? Arrow of slaying? Or outstandingly called shot? Depending on your combat narrative, any of these could be the case.
Or even all of the above.
Heh, for the record, I would point out that Trolls have regeneration 5, not DR, for this very reason.
But for a troll, for instance, DR might mean the rogue slices him open like a ripe tomato, and then his wound closes (regeneration) almost as fast as it opened.In this case, if the rogue sliced open the troll's lung, he may very well do all his extra damage, and the troll will need to regenerate for a longer time to heal all that damage.
You are, of course, quite correct.
I knew this too, and was thinking to write "if a troll had DR" but somewhere that bit was lost.
I picked trolls because we often think of them as fairly soft and rubbery, not like an armored tarrasque.
I suppose a troll barbarian with enough levels to have DR would suffice.
Truly my fault for not being clear.
Amazingly hard scales, yeah. Pull off a sneak attack, and you got through the seam between two scales as the beast turned
Amazingly hard scales?
Check, I got those.
Seams?
Not a chance. I have no seams.
Even my eyelids are armored, and I can blink faster than you can stab.
Even my groin is fully armored, so don't even think about it...
My main concern with Sneak Attack still is that a light ground fog nerfs this ability completely. ^^
|
I dont see why it would. If their anatomy is visible, there shouldn't be any problem. If they are mostly obscured by the fog, that is not a ground fog, than they have concealment, and you can't pinpoint any location, which makes perfect sense. Of coarse, a strict interpretation would also mean that anything wearing non-see-through cloths would be immune to sneak attack. . .
As for the DR, I would rule that you don't deal sneak attack damage if you don't deal normal damage. It seems more realistic to me, and that is all I based my view on. I can't think of a good similar example to compare it too. Best I came up with would be to say a Fighters Weapon Specialization, but even that is different enough to not count.
My main concern with Sneak Attack still is that a light ground fog nerfs this ability completely. ^^
I dont see why it would. If their anatomy is visible, there shouldn't be any problem. If they are mostly obscured by the fog, that is not a ground fog, than they have concealment, and you can't pinpoint any location, which makes perfect sense. Of coarse, a strict interpretation would also mean that anything wearing non-see-through cloths would be immune to sneak attack. . .
As for why it would, well, Pathfinder says so:
Fog: Whether in the form of a low-lying cloud or a mist rising from the ground, fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. Creatures 5 feet away have concealment (attacks by or against them have a 20% miss chance).
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment
So, if there is fog between our eyes and our enemy, it grants concealment. This represents the fact that it's hard to gauge distance, if nothing else. Wisps of fog tend to billow, especially if we're not standing still, so an any given instant, the fog could be thick enough that we can't see him at all, then the next instat that thick billow drifts away and we can see him perfectly. During any given round, that equates to a 20% chance that we don't have a good look at our enemy.
Now, what are we talking about when Magnuskin says "ground fog"?
Surely, if we're talking about a "ground fog" that swirls around our ankles, well, we should still have clear, unconcealed line of sight to our enemy's throat, unless we're sneak attacking snakes.
If we're talking about a "ground fog" that rises up over our head, but if we climb up onto an applecart we might be able to get our head out of the fog and look around, then yes, I would agree with the Pathfinder rule.
Which really sucks for me. My head is four storeys above ground level. I never get to hide in the fog, unless it's really deep and I lie on my belly.
But you guys hide in it all the time.
No fair.
Tarrasques gotta eat too, you know...
I think mist rising from the ground is referring more to a new york steamy manhole than the inch or two tall layer of fog only on the ground I assumned was being referred to.
I've never been to NY, but I was planning to go one day and visit a friend or two.
The prevalence of steamy man-holes is making me reconsider the idea.
Yeah, ahem. My main point still stands... a lowly level one spell ( Obscuring Mist ) nerfs a level 20 rogues Sneak Attack. Completely.
then it works thats kinda what it's made to do ..ya know Obscure stuff
I've always been of the opinion that concealment should provide a sort of fortification effect against sneak attacks. Sure, maybe I can't see well enough to hit, but maybe I can?
The whole dim light/fog = no SA has always been a steaming pile.
Sadly, I rarely run into people who agree with me on this point.
I'd say he get a miss chance as it is more difficult to aim in bad visual conditions. Which he allready gets for his attack roll. I don't think it's require to discern if he hits at all and if he does, if it is SA or not. The 1d6 base damage from a single short sword attack probably won't have a noticeable impact on the whole encounter.
|
|
I've always been of the opinion that concealment should provide a sort of fortification effect against sneak attacks.
It does. . . Heavy.
It makes perfect sense that you can't sneak attack what you are not aware of. Sneak Attack is not a lucky shot nor is it a backstab. It is purposfully aiming for a specific spot on a target. Making head shots, so to speak.
I've always been of the opinion that concealment should provide a sort of fortification effect against sneak attacks.It does. . . Heavy.
It makes perfect sense that you can't sneak attack what you are not aware of. Sneak Attack is not a lucky shot nor is it a backstab. It is purposfully aiming for a specific spot on a target. Making head shots, so to speak.
I have never, in my life, seen a fog so heavy I can't identify someone's head. And I've been in what were essentially some low-lying clouds. I've also been in rooms lit by a single candle, once again no problem pinpointing the location of someone's head, eyes, or heart.
I'm not exactly a world class assassin over here, either.
|
|
That is why it is Concealment rather than Total Concealment. But that is my point, it doesn't matter if you can see their head, it matters that you can't see their groin for a solid kick, their eye for a precise poke, their funny bone for an exact hit, their big toe for a good stomp, the little open spot in their armor/scales/whatever. You can't pinpoint, which is what Sneak Attack is ALL (not mostly) about.
I guess, to balance out his huge disadvantage rogues have even with the lightest concealment, all other melee fighter types should lose their strength bonuses to damage in concealment and all caster types should only deal 1d6 of damage with their spells. Then it´d be perfectly fair.
That is why it is Concealment rather than Total Concealment. But that is my point, it doesn't matter if you can see their head, it matters that you can't see their groin for a solid kick, their eye for a precise poke, their funny bone for an exact hit, their big toe for a good stomp, the little open spot in their armor/scales/whatever. You can't pinpoint, which is what Sneak Attack is ALL (not mostly) about.
But I can, and pretty easily. Of course, I'm the only person in my family that doesn't wear glasses. Must be all the carrots.
I guess, to balance out his huge disadvantage rogues have even with the lightest concealment, all other melee fighter types should lose their strength bonuses to damage in concealment and all caster types should only deal 1d6 of damage with their spells. Then it´d be perfectly fair.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Oh, but hey, don't get too worked up about my objection to this rule. You either disagree with it or you don't, and no one EVER changes their mind on this point. So I'm not trying to talk you into anything, Beckett.
Picture me as a very defeated, frowny bear on this point. I don't even bother to house rule it, as you can't get four people in a room who agree.