| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC have stated in teir "all about Sneak Attack" http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a
that all spells that need an attack Roll for damage can be used to apply Sneak Attack damage from a Rogue.
I think the wording this is derived from is still pretty much the same in Pathfinder:
a) Sneak Attack is Precision Damage
b) Critical Damage is Precision Damage
c) Spells that require an attack roll can score Critical
together with Minor Magic this makes a pretty powerful tool at Level2.
It gets even better once a Rogue has enough ranks in UMD to use a wand and not only by pass Armor but also can do so without trigering an AoO while flanking.
My DM is pointing at Surprise Spells of Level 10 Arcane Tricster so say no (otherwise there'd be no point to this feat)
Is there some official (more direct) ruling from Paizo on this?
|
Eh, not as powerful a tool as you'd think on first glance.
Minor magic lets you use the 0th lvl spell only 3/day. Also, you can't flank with spells, or threaten with them, so you only get to sneak attack with ranged spells when your opponent is flat-footed, or after you've spent a round hiding from them.
But, yes, in order to sneak attack with a spell, you need an attack roll and a damage roll both. Surprise spell removes the attack roll requirement, which lets you add sneak attack to stuff like fireball. The sneak attack damage is the same damage type as the spell that caused it.
In comparison, if you were going twf, you could flank with your fighter buddy and get 1-8 attacks/round dealing sneak attack damage.
With the spell, you get one attack with the spell and then have to do something to conceal yourself again.
If you like the arcane trickster stuff, check out the undefeatable: arcane trickster you can look at in the pazio store. There's a feat that helps entry a lot.
|
|
Also, you can't flank with spells, or threaten with them, so you only get to sneak attack with ranged spells when your opponent is flat-footed, or after you've spent a round hiding from them.
Actually you can flank when delivering a touch spell as you are considered armed. Chill touch is a nice spell for a rogue's magic talent.
Flameblade is even better for a rogue with UMD.
-James
You can flank with the touch attack from it, but not the spell itself, and not ranged attacks. Plus, you have to spend the time casting it, and moving or eating the /provoke :/
In comparison, if you were going twf, you could flank with your fighter buddy and get 1-8 attacks/round dealing sneak attack damage.
unfortunately twf doesn't qualify me for Major Magic
as for I can't flank with the feat:
as a spell like ability it has no somatic component, which leaves me both hands free to threaten/flank with any other weapon.
also I can flank and sneak attack an opponent where I can't normally reach a vital spot.
I was actually thinking about Acid Splash as the spell:
No saving throw, no spell resistance and hardly anything that can be Sneak attacked has resistance to acid. 0Level so pretty cheep in a wand.
|
|
Well, I'm just going to lay out with you my thoughts here :P I've wrestled with making a good rogue sneak attacker who used touch attacks or ranged touch attacks.
The problems I ran into with the rogue ability is that it's a standard action to use, which limits you to one per attack. Yes, there's no components, but it still provokes attacks of opportunity to use, so you'll either be close enough to provoke, far enough away not to threaten, or you'll be using a reach weapon, which has its own benefits/drawbacks.
For me, the biggest drawback was only one sneak attack per round, and the fact that without being able to flank with the spell, you can't make sneak attacks with it.
Also, a bow would provide the same coverage, but have the same potential drawbacks in regards to being able to supply consistent sneak attacks, as well as being able to benefit from multiple attacks.
Also, lunge = awesome in so many ways for a rogue :D
...you can't flank with spells...
This part is completely incorrect. You can flank with spells (such as chill touch), you simply can't flank with ranged attacks of any kind. So IF (and currently there isn't) you had a cantrip that was a melee touch attack then you could sneak attack with it by flanking.
Also even if the spell like ability takes a standard to use (and it does) a spell like chill touch can be used multiple times in the same round after it is cast.
So you could make an AoO with chill touch, and full attack with it (if you have enough attacks, though you couldn't two weapon fight with two uses of chill touch since casting another spell while chill touch is active would cancel out the chill touch -- you could two weapon fight with chill touch and a weapon though *like a short sword in one hand and chill touch in the other*).
The problems I ran into with the rogue ability is that it's a standard action to use, which limits you to one per attack. Yes, there's no components, but it still provokes attacks of opportunity to use, so you'll either be close enough to provoke, far enough away not to threaten, or you'll be using a reach weapon, which has its own benefits/drawbacks.
as a 3per day feat it would only be used when I win initiative, in which case I'm far enough away, or don't provoke an AoO coz them others is flat footed.
The original question wasn't about Power but source of Rule, something more oficial than the 3 step logic I posted.
Though you are helping to make me not too unhappy for having to chose another spell.
Wrong. You can't flank with spells, though you might be able to use the benefits of those spells to flank with. See the difference?This part is completely incorrect....you can't flank with spells...
Quite frankly no. Unless you mean this in the same way I would say, "You can't flank with weapons." Meaning the weapon isn't flanking the character is.
If you are in a flanking position and have the reach to strike the foe you are flanking. It doesn't matter what you decide to do or what you are using exluding ranged attacks and even then you are flanking you simply can't take advantage of it for the ranged attack.
|
|
Really. So you don't see the difference between being able to flank with a spell *which doesn't threaten in any way, because it's a spell* vs being able to flank with the results of the effect after you've cast it?
Well, I just don't see anyone threatening with one of their spells ever. Spells don't threaten anything, and casting one provokes an aoo. If you are in a flanking position and have the reach to strike the foe, you're still not flanking with a spell. And trying to cast one is going to get you smacked.
Now, once you've cast a spell and resolved its effects, depending on the spell, you might be left with a weapon with which you can flank *as would be the case with chill touch*. But you're still not flanking or threatening with the spell.
Really. So you don't see the difference between being able to flank with a spell *which doesn't threaten in any way, because it's a spell* vs being able to flank with the results of the effect after you've cast it?
Well, I just don't see anyone threatening with one of their spells ever. Spells don't threaten anything, and casting one provokes an aoo. If you are in a flanking position and have the reach to strike the foe, you're still not flanking with a spell. And trying to cast one is going to get you smacked.
Now, once you've cast a spell and resolved its effects, depending on the spell, you might be left with a weapon with which you can flank *as would be the case with chill touch*. But you're still not flanking or threatening with the spell.
Then yes you are arguing sematics. Technically you don't flank with a weapon either since weapons don't flank.
You might get an effect from the weapon that will let you flank better but the weapon doesn't flank.
Your argument is... unhelpful. Not that you are "wrong" but it doesn't contribute anything.
Like I said IF you are in position you flank. It doesn't matter what you do. Your action may or may not take advantage of the flanking, but that doesn't mean you aren't flanking.
Please read that last part again -- you are flanking, you simply don't utilize that condition in some cases (like casting fireball or mage armor or using a splash weapon or using a ranged weapon).
Again your argument is similiar to saying weapons don't flank -- of course they don't, it doesn't matter --
The question is do you have the flanking position and are you taking an action that benefits from flanking.
you can flank with touch attacks, but not range touches.
you do threaten when you have a spell in your hand, but putting it there provokes an AoO.
you can charge and get the +2 to hit with a touch too.
you can also make AoO's with a touch spell if you are holding the charge.
so can I flank with a sword and then sneak attack with a range touch spell cast from a wand?
|
so can I flank with a sword and then sneak attack with a range touch spell cast from a wand?you can flank with touch attacks, but not range touches.
you do threaten when you have a spell in your hand, but putting it there provokes an AoO.
you can charge and get the +2 to hit with a touch too.
you can also make AoO's with a touch spell if you are holding the charge.
no, range touches and range attacks never get flanking bonus'.
if you attack with a sword and happen to be flanking that does get the bonus. same with a non-range touch. a range attack has separate rules and penealties involved.
can you show me the rule saying non-range touches don't get flanking bonuses? if so i have a hat to eat, but there is no such wording. a melee touch attack gets flanking bonuses. there is nothing implying otherwise except you.
you are attempting to twist and pervert what i've stated. if you flank with a sword you get the sneak attack. however even tho you are flanking with a sword, you only get the bonus from flanking with melee attacks or melee touch attacks, not range touch attacks. ranged attacks of any sort are never considered to be flanking
|
|
Making a statement about spells, such as that you can flank with them, is inherently misleading and confusing. A spell can provide you with a particular type of weapon with which you can flank, but the spell itself doesn't.
If you're not clear, you're going to cause problems down the road. Also, the comparison with weapons doesn't work :p
Additionally, flanking only kicks in when making a melee attack. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Page 197
So you're not flanking until you're making a melee attack and your target is threatened by another creature or character.
The difference is far from semantics. If you're in position to flank, You're not flanking until you make a melee attack.
The question is are you and an ally in a mutual threat position, and are you making a melee attack. If you're not, you're not flanking :p
Magicdealer I think you need to reread the section on flanking. Flanking is a position. It has nothing to do with your actions.
You flank independent of your actions.
Your actions may or may not take advantage of the fact you have the flanking position.
The weapon is a perfect example of the same "thing" you are saying -- to whit if you are using a bow you might flank but you won't get the flanking bonuses while using the bow for ranged attacks. This does not mean you are not flanking -- it simply means that the flanking position you are in doesn't do you any good -- though it may still help your friend.
Position = flanking. Not the attack, not an action, not what you do or do not carry -- the position is what gives you flanking.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
so I can threaten and provide the bonus with a ranged weapon.
The bonus is granted on the ground that the flanked is distracted. Aiming a loaded crossbow at him is a threat (-ening distraction), otherwise the flanked should not be able to claim an AoO when it is fired: If he didn't feel threatened from a crossbow he was ignoring it and didn't see it being fired,
or at least should be denied Dex on AC for not looking out for being fired at, which brings us back to to Sneak Attack :-p (ok, this bit is not in the rules, which is a shame)
|
|
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.so I can threaten and provide the bonus with a ranged weapon.
The bonus is granted on the ground that the flanked is distracted. Aiming a loaded crossbow at him is a threat (-ening distraction), otherwise the flanked should not be able to claim an AoO when it is fired: If he didn't feel threatened from a crossbow he was ignoring it and didn't see it being fired,
or at least should be denied Dex on AC for not looking out for being fired at, which brings us back to to Sneak Attack :-p (ok, this bit is not in the rules, which is a shame)
not quite. a ranged weapon doesnt threaten the adjacent square.
"Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity. "
you can't make a melee attack with a crossbow so aiming a crossbow doesnt threaten the square and doesnt give flanking bonus's to other people. now if you had armor spikes or something you would be threatening the adjacent square, but standing there with a loaded crossbow doesnt threaten or provide flanking bonus
^^
aw snap
time to buy that crossbow bayonet then
^^
aw snap
time to buy that crossbow bayonet then
Other choices include these feats:
Catch off guard
Improved Unarmed strike
^^
aw snap
time to buy that crossbow bayonet thenOther choices include these feats:
Catch off guard
Improved Unarmed strike
Or a cestus.
|
|
Or a cestus.^^
aw snap
time to buy that crossbow bayonet thenOther choices include these feats:
Catch off guard
Improved Unarmed strike
or spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, a natural attack, a Barbed beard, or quick-drawing any actual melee weapon.
also boot daggers, and a few other hidden weapons (elbow daggers, ect)
Or a cestus.^^
aw snap
time to buy that crossbow bayonet thenOther choices include these feats:
Catch off guard
Improved Unarmed strikeor spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, a natural attack, a Barbed beard, or quick-drawing any actual melee weapon.
also boot daggers, and a few other hidden weapons (elbow daggers, ect)
I was suggesting cestus as it seems maximum effect for minimum price. Natural attack is a big investment, spiked gauntlets suck, armor spikes... are about even with the cestus me thinks.
How does quickdrawing work? Do you quickdraw it at the end of every turn, just to put it back when it's your turn again? Quick draw makes it a free action, not an immediate one, IIRC.
|
Also even if the spell like ability takes a standard to use (and it does) a spell like chill touch can be used multiple times in the same round after it is cast.So you could make an AoO with chill touch, and full attack with it (if you have enough attacks, though you couldn't two weapon fight with two uses of chill touch since casting another spell while chill touch is active would cancel out the chill touch -- you could two weapon fight with chill touch and a weapon though *like a short sword in one hand and chill touch in the other*).
Sadly, one of the designers (M. Bulmahn, I believe) stated some time ago in another thread that you cannot make multiple attacks per round with a spell, unless that spell's effect behaves exactly like a weapon (ie, Flame Blade).
Thus, you can use the Chill Touch attack only once each round, no matter how high your BAB is.
For the same reason and with the same caveat, you cannot apply Vital Strike to a spell.
|
|
Found the thread here.
There are in fact 2 posts in this thread explaining this (from the esteemed Mr Jacobs and not the revered Mr Bulmahn as I wrongly wrote above).
However, from the way Holding the charge for a touch spell is worded in the core rulebook, I would say that you can full attack with Chill Touch as long as you do it with normal unarmed attacks or natural weapons. Thus against the normal AC and NOT the Touch AC.