Sneak attack + multiple attacks


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Let's say I'm flanking an opponent, and I have the rogue sneak attack ability. I use a full action to attack multiple times. (Using flurry of blows, or two-weapon fighting, or whatever).

Does sneak attack damage apply to each successful attack? or just one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Gentry wrote:
Let's say I'm flanking an opponent, and I have the rogue sneak attack ability. I use a full action to attack multiple times. (Using flurry of blows, or two-weapon fighting, or whatever). Does sneak attack damage apply to each successful attack? or just one?

You continue to flank on each attack, so sneak attack applies to each hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Gentry wrote:

Let's say I'm flanking an opponent, and I have the rogue sneak attack ability. I use a full action to attack multiple times. (Using flurry of blows, or two-weapon fighting, or whatever).

Does sneak attack damage apply to each successful attack? or just one?

If you can keep an opponent flanked or flatfooted you can sneak attack until the catoblepas coe home.


Every attack you make that qualifies as a sneak attack gets the sneak attack damage.

Only in cases where precision damage is specifically limited (such as in the multishot feat) does sneak attack only apply once.

Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Makes sense. Thanks!


Treantmonk wrote:
Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.

I know it's silly, but the FAQs have said that if you sneak attack with a spell, the extra damage is considered whatever damage the spell lists.

Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.


neceros wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.

I know it's silly, but the FAQs have said that if you sneak attack with a spell, the extra damage is considered whatever damage the spell lists.

Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

Dang -.-'

Are you absolutely sure about this? Cause that would be utterly EVIL!


Sort_vampyr wrote:
neceros wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.

I know it's silly, but the FAQs have said that if you sneak attack with a spell, the extra damage is considered whatever damage the spell lists.

Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

Dang -.-'

Are you absolutely sure about this? Cause that would be utterly EVIL!

There is a complete essay regarding Sneak Attack with Ability Damage attacks here.

This is a small extract:
"A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell inflicts extra damage according to the attacker's sneak attack ability, and the extra damage dealt is the same type as the spell deals. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell inflicts 2d4 points of acid damage, plus an extra 5d6 points of acid damage from the sneak attack (note that continuing damage from this spell is not part of the sneak attack). 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."

So, basically, you cannot deal extra CON damage with a Sneak Attack, but you would deal extra Negative Energy damage with your Sneak Attack.


The Wraith wrote:
So, basically, you cannot deal extra CON damage with a Sneak Attack, but you would deal extra Negative Energy damage with your Sneak Attack.

Thankfully.


I think I know the answer, but can you get sneak attack with magic missle?


TheDrone wrote:
I think I know the answer, but can you get sneak attack with magic missle?

No, no attack roll, which means you aren't really "targetting" with it. Same with fireball.


Abraham spalding wrote:
TheDrone wrote:
I think I know the answer, but can you get sneak attack with magic missle?
No, no attack roll, which means you aren't really "targetting" with it. Same with fireball.

Which is why a sorcerer-rogue with ray spells and weapon focus (ray) are a nasty combo.

-Weylin

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
neceros wrote:
Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

No, if the damage isn't HP damage (like Con damage or any other type of damage), then the damage done is HP damage of Negative Energy or Positive Energy type (whichever makes sense.)

It works this way also for spells that don't deal damage (but require attack rolls.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
neceros wrote:
Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

No, if the damage isn't HP damage (like Con damage or any other type of damage), then the damage done is HP damage of Negative Energy or Positive Energy type (whichever makes sense.)

It works this way also for spells that don't deal damage (but require attack rolls.)

I dunno, that's kind of weird for spells, particularly "Touch of Fatige" or "Ray of Exhaustion."

"Oh, I feel so tired... AAHHH! My spleen!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheDrone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
neceros wrote:
Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

No, if the damage isn't HP damage (like Con damage or any other type of damage), then the damage done is HP damage of Negative Energy or Positive Energy type (whichever makes sense.)

It works this way also for spells that don't deal damage (but require attack rolls.)

I dunno, that's kind of weird for spells, particularly "Touch of Fatige" or "Ray of Exhaustion."

"Oh, I feel so tired... AAHHH! My spleen!"

Lethal level fatigue toxin build up in te muscles/organs. People die of exhaustion all the time around the world. Possibly even induces a heart attack from the sudden shock.

"what killed the guard?"
"If I didnt know better, sir, I'd say he marched himself to death."

-Weylin


James Risner wrote:
neceros wrote:
Soooo, if you sneak attack with a CON damaging spell... Keep the thought going.

No, if the damage isn't HP damage (like Con damage or any other type of damage), then the damage done is HP damage of Negative Energy or Positive Energy type (whichever makes sense.)

It works this way also for spells that don't deal damage (but require attack rolls.)

Where do I find the rule for sneak attack dealing negative energy or positive energy if the damage isn't HP damage.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

grasshopper_ea wrote:
Where do I find the rule for sneak attack dealing negative energy or positive energy if the damage isn't HP damage.

In 3.5, Rules Compendium

In 3.p, it is possibly changed but since the 3.5 rules were similar yet the allowance was provided it ultimately may be up to your DM if he carries over the 3.5 line of thinking.

I, for one, do as a DM allow this based on the RC ruling in 3.p games.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Treantmonk wrote:
Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.

Or a flask of acid.

Quote:

Which is why a sorcerer-rogue with ray spells and weapon focus (ray) are a nasty combo.

The flask of acid is why you don't need to be a caster multiclass. Anyone can get a ranged touch attack, one with iterative attacks (if you have Quick Draw) and which benefits from Rapid Shot et. al.


A Man In Black wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
Sneak attack damage is pretty flexible really. You can even sneak attack with a wand of cause light wounds for example.

Or a flask of acid.

Quote:

Which is why a sorcerer-rogue with ray spells and weapon focus (ray) are a nasty combo.

The flask of acid is why you don't need to be a caster multiclass. Anyone can get a ranged touch attack, one with iterative attacks (if you have Quick Draw) and which benefits from Rapid Shot et. al.

I could be wrong here, but I was under the impression Pathfinder made it such that splash weapons (mostly acid flasks and flasks of alchemist fire) couldn't deal sneak attack.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

kyrt-ryder wrote:
I could be wrong here, but I was under the impression Pathfinder made it such that splash weapons (mostly acid flasks and flasks of alchemist fire) couldn't deal sneak attack.

Wow, that is seventeen kinds of retarded. (Found it here.) That and the Ring of Blinking; what other dumb nerfs are there?


A Man In Black wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I could be wrong here, but I was under the impression Pathfinder made it such that splash weapons (mostly acid flasks and flasks of alchemist fire) couldn't deal sneak attack.
Wow, that is seventeen kinds of retarded. (Found it here.) That and the Ring of Blinking; what other dumb nerfs are there?

It was done because people felt it was cheesy and they were trying to bring the fighter and Paladin up and the rogue down.

The problem is the Fighter and Paladin both went up sufficiently the rogue didn't NEED any nerfs.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

kyrt-ryder wrote:
It was done because people felt it was cheesy and they were trying to bring the fighter and Paladin up and the rogue down.

Throwing acid in monsters' eyes when the class's entire combat schtick is cheap shots? How is that cheesy?

Augh, it makes me so angry but it's so easy to patch with a houserule so I shouldn't get worked up.


A Man In Black wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It was done because people felt it was cheesy and they were trying to bring the fighter and Paladin up and the rogue down.

Throwing acid in monsters' eyes when the class's entire combat schtick is cheap shots? How is that cheesy?

Augh, it makes me so angry but it's so easy to patch with a houserule so I shouldn't get worked up.

Yeah, the rogue got shafted in a few places.

(Personally I'm not missing the blink thing, since I never used blink because I hate miss-chances, even if my opponent's got a bigger one than me, and by the time I could afford an improved blink item there were other things that needed buying)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yeah, the rogue got shafted in a few places.

The splash weapon thing was a contradiction. You get to attack a the touch AC because you don't have to be precise, you just have to hit them. It's essentially a single target area effect.

Meh, I'm not totally in love with the splash weapon change either but it wasn't part of some effort to nerf the rogue. If they were trying to nerf the rogue they wouldn't have made them able to sneak attack tons more creatures, given them rogue talents, and done the skill consolidation, etc...


kyrt-ryder wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It was done because people felt it was cheesy and they were trying to bring the fighter and Paladin up and the rogue down.

Throwing acid in monsters' eyes when the class's entire combat schtick is cheap shots? How is that cheesy?

Augh, it makes me so angry but it's so easy to patch with a houserule so I shouldn't get worked up.

Yeah, the rogue got shafted in a few places.

(Personally I'm not missing the blink thing, since I never used blink because I hate miss-chances, even if my opponent's got a bigger one than me, and by the time I could afford an improved blink item there were other things that needed buying)

Ring of blinking + ghosttouch weapon = win. Even on opponents with blindfight you'll have a miss chance unless they have a ghosttouch weapon, and a higher miss chance against non-magical and it works all the time unlike cloak of major displacement. Also ghosttouch is really useful against um ghosts :) that was redundant. Anyways, I like that combo, which should now be obvious. I'm going to stop typing now.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
The splash weapon thing was a contradiction. You get to attack a the touch AC because you don't have to be precise, you just have to hit them. It's essentially a single target area effect.

Then why can you shoot a Searing Ray in someone's vitals with a touch attack?

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Meh, I'm not totally in love with the splash weapon change either but it wasn't part of some effort to nerf the rogue. If they were trying to nerf the rogue they wouldn't have made them able to sneak attack tons more creatures, given them rogue talents, and done the skill consolidation, etc...

They broadened the rogue's abilities, while removing some of the most effective ways to make use of their single combat schtick. That is both a "buff" and a "nerf" and they don't offset each other.

Meh, it just goes back to "Look at all the d6s, it must be uber!" that plague rogues, damage spells, and such.


TheDrone wrote:

I dunno, that's kind of weird for spells, particularly "Touch of Fatige" or "Ray of Exhaustion."

"Oh, I feel so tired... AAHHH! My spleen!"

Actually, I believe spells must do *damage* in order to use sneak attack. It can be ability damage or energy drain (damage), but it can't just be a status effect type thing. So neither of those spells would sneak attack.

Absolutely no backup (at this moment) to that statement. Hopefully someone else can confirm or deny.

As for splash-sneak attack, glad it's gone. I did just think of an interesting compromise on the whole touch-sneak thing though - touch attack to hit, but regular AC to do sneak attack damage.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:


Then why can you shoot a Searing Ray in someone's vitals with a touch attack?

Because you can still target someone's vitals with a ray. Getting them with precision with a splash, fluid dynamics being what they are, is harder.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Majuba wrote:


Actually, I believe spells must do *damage* in order to use sneak attack. It can be ability damage or energy drain (damage), but it can't just be a status effect type thing. So neither of those spells would sneak attack.

Absolutely no backup (at this moment) to that statement. Hopefully someone else can confirm or deny.

It doesn't mention the idea directly, but under the Rogue in the PF core rules, sneak attack is defined as extra damage. For an attack that does no damage, I should think there'd be no potential for extra damage on top of it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Complete Arcane states that spells that have an attack roll but do not deal damage cannot score a critical hit. We can infer from that that they do not get sneak attack either. The section on sneak attack also mentions that sneak attack is extra damage of the type the spell deals, no mention of non-damaging spells getting SA.


A Man In Black wrote:
Quote:
The splash weapon thing was a contradiction. You get to attack a the touch AC because you don't have to be precise, you just have to hit them. It's essentially a single target area effect.
Then why can you shoot a Searing Ray in someone's vitals with a touch attack?

I would guess because searing ray is a ray and therefor a fairly tightly targeted effect where was acid and alchemists fire are "splash" weapons.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Meh, I'm not totally in love with the splash weapon change either but it wasn't part of some effort to nerf the rogue. If they were trying to nerf the rogue they wouldn't have made them able to sneak attack tons more creatures, given them rogue talents, and done the skill consolidation, etc...

They broadened the rogue's abilities, while removing some of the most effective ways to make use of their single combat schtick. That is both a "buff" and a "nerf" and they don't offset each other.

Meh, it just goes back to "Look at all the d6s, it must be uber!" that plague rogues, damage spells, and such.

Splash weapon sneak attack is one of those tricks people learn through word of mouth or via forums. It certainly wasn't an obvious extension of the class and I would guess the average player never used it. Essentially they removed an effective tactic for a relatively small number of players and made the class more effective for all players. Overall it's a big win for the average player and likely neutral for the expert gamers.

(other than me) The group I play with are not the sorts who hang around forums looking for the less obvious character tactics so it's not something they will ever miss.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Complete Arcane states that spells that have an attack roll but do not deal damage cannot score a critical hit. We can infer from that that they do not get sneak attack either. The section on sneak attack also mentions that sneak attack is extra damage of the type the spell deals, no mention of non-damaging spells getting SA.

The combat chapter talks about critical hits and spells:

combat wrote:
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.

Pretty much confirms what you said about criticals. Unfortunately, misses a lot of other implications like sneak attack or spells that do ability damage. I really wish they'd touched on this at least briefly.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Splash weapon sneak attack is one of those tricks people learn through word of mouth or via forums. It certainly wasn't an obvious extension of the class and I would guess the average player never used it. Essentially they removed an effective tactic for a relatively small number of players and made the class more effective for all players. Overall it's a big win for the average player and likely neutral for the expert gamers.

Ring of Blinking was obscure. Acid-flinging rogues my group figured out before the 3.0 class splats, and quite by accident. (Dude just liked the idea of someone who throws acid in peoples' faces.)

But rogues got a bunch of random +1s and situational tricks, but lost out on just plain old combat mojo. Maybe some players didn't know about it, but plenty of players do understand the mid-level melee falloff, and rogues were one of the few classes that managed to escape it.

Reach + flight + offense overwhelming defense mean rogues stop playing the flanking game sometime around level 10. (When enemies can one-round you, it ceases to be a good idea.) Nerfing a high-level tactic of a class that is not overpowered at high levels is not good game design, especially when you didn't do much to fix the melee falloff.

Rrrgh. I just don't get it. Throwing acid in someone's face is flavorful and reasonable, and it wasn't overpowered.


ZappoHisbane wrote:
Michael Gentry wrote:
Let's say I'm flanking an opponent, and I have the rogue sneak attack ability. I use a full action to attack multiple times. (Using flurry of blows, or two-weapon fighting, or whatever). Does sneak attack damage apply to each successful attack? or just one?
You continue to flank on each attack, so sneak attack applies to each hit.

So with a speed weapon and off hand weapon...if you have the creature flanked and hit with all 3 dice...you get sneak attack damage on all 3 hits?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes.

Liberty's Edge

A Man In Black wrote:
Rrrgh. I just don't get it. Throwing acid in someone's face is flavorful and reasonable, and it wasn't overpowered.

I do not see why a Rogue should be able to do more damage than say a Fighter by throwing acid in someone's face.

Also PFRPG prevents adding sneak attack to the splash damage done automatically to all and any creatures within 5 feet of the target (that is a 10 feet square area if you target an intersection, which is near automatic since it is a AC5 for a ranged touch attack).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
The black raven wrote:

I do not see why a Rogue should be able to do more damage than say a Fighter by throwing acid in someone's face.

Cause when the Rogue does it, you REALLY don't expect it!


I feel like one of the considerations in preventing sneak attack with splash is that the minimal damage is allpied to the surrounding squares. Adding 5d6 to the main tarrget and 5 to the surrounding targets of the splash.
5d6 = 3.5x5=17.5 + 8x5=40. The extra damage rolled into the splash is huge!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Splash damage is not based on the direct target damage. It is 1 point of damage, period.


The black raven wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Rrrgh. I just don't get it. Throwing acid in someone's face is flavorful and reasonable, and it wasn't overpowered.

I do not see why a Rogue should be able to do more damage than say a Fighter by throwing acid in someone's face.

Also PFRPG prevents adding sneak attack to the splash damage done automatically to all and any creatures within 5 feet of the target (that is a 10 feet square area if you target an intersection, which is near automatic since it is a AC5 for a ranged touch attack).

In 3.5 Splash damage didn't add sneak attack either, it was only the direct hit that did with splash weapons.

So it isn't PFRG but D20 that prevents splash damage adding sneak attack.


Dennis, the sneak attack ability states the rogue must be able to see and reach a vital area. The vitals are kidneys, heart, lungs, liver, etc...all internal organs. There are very few spells that will allow access to damage these internal organs directly like the requirement for sneak attack. Therefore, no sneak attack with most spells. All the rays do is burn, or frost the outside of the body. The sneak attack is for internal organs.

Don't confuse sneak attack with critical damage. A crit deals extra damage because a fighter hit "just" right and the blade cut deeper or the mace crushed ribs or the stars aligned and that touch spell released a bit more energy. However, a crit is not a sneak attack. Just because an attack can cause a crit doesn't mean that attack can now be used for a sneak attack. Why? Back to those vital internal organs.

Sneak attacks and flanking are one shots as well. Once the opponent receives that first attack, he knows the rogue is there and what he just did HURT! He then begins twisting and moving and putting shield and sword and arms and legs, if necessary, in the way of any further attacks to vital areas. This prevents access to those areas and negates the sneak attack. This access to the vital areas statement is contained in the last paragraph of the Core book (p. 68). This is where the emphasis needs to lie in regard to considering this attack. This should have been in the first paragraph.

Now, I had one player argue that flanking allowed the rogue to stick an opponent under the arm and into the lungs soley because he was flanked. However, we have a rule for called shots in combat and they have a -4 to hit the specific area. Why the -4? Two possible reasons: 1) the area is small or 2) the opponents is not a straw dummy that stands and lets someone hit them. Therefore, the -4.

Just because a rogue is a rogue doesn't mean he can ignore the called shot rule when an opponent is aware of them and defending.

In a flanking situation, I grant that defense would be less than against a single opponent and this is why there is a +2 to hit. However, to hit a specific spot when the opponent is aware requires a called shot and the ensuing penalty. When one takes a called shot and makes it, there is a good reason for extra damage.

Sneak attacks with splash weapons and ray spells and anything that doesn't reach internal organs is a misunderstanding of the rule; eyes and groin and ears are not vital organs. People can live if blind, deaf, or in pain. People cannot live without lungs or kidneys or heart.

What I wrote above has been the intent for the sneak attack since I started playing in 1979. Paizo hasn't changed this intent as far as I read.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Complete Arcane states that spells that have an attack roll but do not deal damage cannot score a critical hit. We can infer from that that they do not get sneak attack either. The section on sneak attack also mentions that sneak attack is extra damage of the type the spell deals, no mention of non-damaging spells getting SA.

The combat chapter talks about critical hits and spells:

combat wrote:
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.
Pretty much confirms what you said about criticals. Unfortunately, misses a lot of other implications like sneak attack or spells that do ability damage. I really wish they'd touched on this at least briefly.


@Janzir
I can't mention on the called shot thing because i haven't yet read that variant rule in the UC yet.
But you are wrong, as long as a rogue (or anyone) flanks an opponent he can use his sneak attack on him. You don't lose your flanking bonus when you attack an enemy with your first attack and as long as you flank an opponent then you can use your sneak attack on him.
Anything else is a house rule.


leo1925 wrote:

@Janzir

I can't mention on the called shot thing because i haven't yet read that variant rule in the UC yet.
But you are wrong, as long as a rogue (or anyone) flanks an opponent he can use his sneak attack on him. You don't lose your flanking bonus when you attack an enemy with your first attack and as long as you flank an opponent then you can use your sneak attack on him.
Anything else is a house rule.

That's a hell of a necro post... twice :)

But yes, flanking does not say "after the first hit you no longer flank", or "only the first hit is sneak attack".
It says "if you're flanking you do sneak attack". And you keep flanking, so you do keep doing sneak attack.

Flanking does not mean "enemy doesn't know you're there" - that would be flat-footed. Maybe that's what you meant, because there are situations where enemies are only flat footed (or lose their Dex bonus) to your first attack, then you won't get sneak attack on the rest of your full-attack.

But flanking means he has to try and defend himself against two sides, against the rogue on the left and the barbarian with the big axe on the right, and that means his defense is sub-optimal, leaving holes that a rogue will exploit, and stick that dagger were it hurts.

If that's how you play your game Janzir, that's fine, but it's not how the rules say it works.


For situations like invisibility and such sure only the first attack gets sneak attack.


So a Level 9 rogue can flank his own party member and "sneak attack" with a wand of cure light wounds to heal 1D8+1+5d6 damage?

Sorry for the thread rez, btw


1 person marked this as a favorite.

NO NO AND NO! ranged spell/touch attacks do NOT get sneak attack damage UNLESS you are a 10th level Arcane Trickster

Surprise Spells: At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

The above is a direct quote from the Arcane Trickster prestige class, and they would not list it as a special, prestige class, level 10 ability if everyone could get it.

Majuba wrote:
TheDrone wrote:

I dunno, that's kind of weird for spells, particularly "Touch of Fatige" or "Ray of Exhaustion."

"Oh, I feel so tired... AAHHH! My spleen!"

Actually, I believe spells must do *damage* in order to use sneak attack. It can be ability damage or energy drain (damage), but it can't just be a status effect type thing. So neither of those spells would sneak attack.

Absolutely no backup (at this moment) to that statement. Hopefully someone else can confirm or deny.

As for splash-sneak attack, glad it's gone. I did just think of an interesting compromise on the whole touch-sneak thing though - touch attack to hit, but regular AC to do sneak attack damage.

Sczarni

That caping ability is meant to be able to sneak attack on a non-attack spell that deals damage like magic missile or an AoE spell like fireball. You can sneak attack with a ray spell (which is a ranged touch attack.), provided that your target is denied its Dex bonus to AC.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caïen wrote:
That caping ability is meant to be able to sneak attack on a non-attack spell that deals damage like magic missile or an AoE spell like fireball. You can sneak attack with a ray spell (which is a ranged touch attack.), provided that your target is denied its Dex bonus to AC.

+1


Caïen wrote:
That caping ability is meant to be able to sneak attack on a non-attack spell that deals damage like magic missile or an AoE spell like fireball. You can sneak attack with a ray spell (which is a ranged touch attack.), provided that your target is denied its Dex bonus to AC.

Magic missile and fireball are definitely attacks.

PRD wrote:

Sneak Attack: 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.

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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Don't see anything in the sneak attack text that would prevent sneak attack on say a fireball from working?

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sneak attack + multiple attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.