Sneak attack question

[Endency]

Can you add sneak attack damage to a touch attack? No spells or anything, just wanting to make a touch attack.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The attack has to do damage in order to add SA damage to it.

Same goes for say... using the Enervation spell. It is weapon-like, but does no damage.

Not sure how it works in PF for spells that do ability damage; in 3E those spells would inflict the SA as negative energy (hit point) damage.

[Seranov]

Does this mean that if you had the Brand cantrip, you could use it to deliver Sneak Attacks?

[CrazyGnomeLady]

I've played a multiclassed Rogue/Sorceress who dealt SA damage when she attacked with the Ray of Frost (a Cantrip which is a RTA). Way cool when you're actually able to attack a foe flat-footed touch (lowest AC you can get) ;)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Does Brand do damage? If so, yes. If not, no.

CGL: Yeah, Ray of Frost is especially nice on fire subtype creatures, who are vulnerable to cold, so your 6d6 sneak attack effectively becomes 9d6 (for example). I usually prefer acid splash, though, since it doesn't allow SR and is even less commonly resisted.

[Seranov]

...damnit, now I sorta want to roll up an Arcane Trickster that does sneak attacks from range with cantrips and stuff.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Or just buy a wand or scrolls and Use Magic Device them as a rogue / better rogue (Viv. Alchemist or Ninja)

[Seranov]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Or just buy a wand or scrolls and Use Magic Device them as a rogue / better rogue (Viv. Alchemist or Ninja)

...Wizard 3/Vivisectionist 3/Arcane Trickster?

Hmmmm, to the Myth-weavers!

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wiz 3 / Viv 3 / AT 10 / back to wizard is how I'd do it.
That or Wiz 4 / Viv 1 / Assassin 1 / AT 10 / back to wizard.

Specifically, I'd do Viv. Mind Chemist Internal Alchemist, using the Cognatogen to boost Int. For Wizard, definitely Teleportation subschool Conjuror (the Shift only uses level to determine distance moved, not uses per day or action type) or Admixture Evoker (Versatile Evocation uses wizard level for *no parameters at all*).

Not using Wiz level is nice because... until extremely high levels, you'll only have 3-4 wizard levels.

Prohibit Divination and something else. I'd go with Abjuration, you won't have the CL to dispel very well and most other classes get the important abjurations anyway.

[Soryn Ambereye]

In theory, I was supposed to be writing a report today.

HAH, NAH!

Spoiler:

Wizard (Admixture Evoker w/ Necromancy and Enchantment opposed schools) 3/Alchemist (Vivisectionist + Mindchemist) 3/Arcame Trickster 1

I didn't put down the spells yet because my OCD would require me to link to every single one, and I'm just too damn lazy for that right now.

[james maissen]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Same goes for say... using the Enervation spell. It is weapon-like, but does no damage.

Not sure how it works in PF for spells that do ability damage; in 3E those spells would inflict the SA as negative energy (hit point) damage.

Negative levels no longer deal 5hp in damage per?

-James

[StreamOfTheSky]

That's not damage any more than lost hp for Constitution drain is.

[Peshgil]

Consider this:
You are a first-level rogue who put all of his skill points into disguise, escape artist, and appraise. You approach someone who is knowingly hostile and who is looking right at you. As you approach, you tell him you're going to attack. You tell him how and where you will strike. No matter.
At that very moment, he is being attacked by an angry, normal, lizard on the opposite side -- perhaps the Geico Gecko. It can do damage, so you move in to the opposite side. By rule, you are "flanking."
Therefore, by ridiculous rule, you are "sneaking."

You are nude carrying no weapons, so you attack with one fingernail.
You scratch him for one HP of damage.

But by rule, you get an extra d6 with that fingernail because you have made a NON-SNEAK "sneak" attack. You can do 6x as much extra damage with your fingernail. He had 5 HP, so you killed him with your fingernail. Why call in a 20th level martial artist ("monk"), when a first-level pickpocket will do?

NO OTHER CLASS can do 6x extra damage at first level with ANY weapon, but every single "rogue" can do it (even one in a wheelchair with only one hand) just because someone writing rules didn't know what they were doing.

The situation above is no different from how many players currently exploit this rule.

----------------------------

Thieves (PC term: "rogues") are not designed for combat, and they should stay out of it. NO, they are NOT experts at finding weaknesses; that rationale is historically and tactically wrong. It was designed by a thief-lover to make rogues into fighting machines. Strike it. This rule needs to be completely revised. If rogues want to enter combat, let them use magic items to gain extra bonuses -- the same way other non-combat classes do.

The whole notion of walking straight up to someone who is looking directly at you and getting a "sneak" attack is not rational. Let alone being able to shoot someone from 30' away, then attack multiple times in melee ... all while someone is aware of your presence and defending against you. This repercussion is clearly an unforeseen error that should be corrected.

I have no problem with a true SNEAK attack being treated as such and gaining extra damage. D&D had that going on all the way back to the first edition, and it made sense originally. It's the "flanking" situation that seems to makes no sense. Someone's at each side, and the rogue just goes to town. This is unrealistic, and the combat system was SUPPOSED to have an element of realism to it.

I have no problem with the +2 flanking bonus ... provided that
a) the defender opts to defend against BOTH (all) threats. If the defender actively defends against the rogue and lets the gecko attack at will, then ONLY THE gecko should get the flanking bonus. This would be up to the defender.
or b) the defender chooses not to defend against the rogue.

To be counted as a SNEAK attack, one of the following needs to hold.
a) the opponent is unaware of the rogue's presence -- regardless of location AND DISTANCE. This applies to the first round of combat ONLY.
b) the opponent is surprised, stunned, asleep, etc. (defenseless) AND flanked. This applies to any round of combat.

I suggest that the extra damage be restricted only to the following situations, since the additional damage dealt is also problematic.
The damage should be limited to additional damage die for the weapon used (levels add extra dice, as they do now), and again, you should only get a "sneak" attack if you really sneaked up on someone. I'm also okay with replacing the additional damage with an enlarged critical threat range. That makes sense too.

[Corren28]

Peshgil wrote:

At that very moment, he is being attacked by an angry, normal, lizard on the opposite side -- perhaps the Geico Gecko. It can do damage, so you move in to the opposite side. By rule, you are "flanking."

Therefore, by ridiculous rule, you are "sneaking."

An opponent that small doesn't threaten the spaces around it and therefor provides no flank bonus for someone on the opposite side. Also, flanking =/= sneaking. They're two very different mechanics with two very different effects.

Peshgil wrote:

You are nude carrying no weapons, so you attack with one fingernail.

You scratch him for one HP of damage.

That's one heck of a fingernail but I'll run with it anyway. Improved unarmed strike? If not then there is no sneak attack damage. In fact the target would get an attack of opportunity against you because you're provoking by making an attack with a "weapon" you aren't proficient with.

Peshgil wrote:

NO OTHER CLASS can do 6x extra damage at first level with ANY weapon, but every single "rogue" can do it (even one in a wheelchair with only one hand) just because someone writing rules didn't know what they were doing.

It sounds great when you say it like that. 6x extra damage...except you're applying that multiplier to a single point of damage. When you look at the hard numbers any two-handed weapon character with a decent strength puts a rogue to shame at level 1, and usually with a better attack modifier to boot.

Honestly, it sounds like you've allowed some PCs to abuse their rogue abilities inappropriately somewhere along the line and now have a jaded view of how they work. Kinda makes me wonder what you'd do with a rogue who threw stealth to the wind and walked into combat with a greatsword and started flanking.

[MechE_]

Peshgil wrote:

A long rant on why sneak attack is bad...

It sounds to me like you've had some really bad experiences with the sneak attack mechanic... I'm not exactly sure how that happened since the rogue is generally considered a fairly weak class. (Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist, maybe...) Best to just house rule the mechanic out of any games you GM and hope the players are ok with it... If you're a player, I don't know what to say - this seems like a fringe complaint to me and I doubt you'd get a group of 4 or 5 people to agree that sneak attack is a mechanic that should be removed from the game...