spells and sneak attack damage

[Calth]

Rynjin wrote:

Calth wrote:

Ok, since you want a core case, how about Compel Hostility? Is a caster using magic missile a valid target for Compel Hostility? In my mind the answer is of course.

Then in your mind the answer is wrong.

So I have a rule that says magic missile is an attack, and you have nothing saying it isn't, so Im wrong, got it.

[Rynjin]

There's plenty that says you're wrong. I posted a little bit of it earlier.

But there's nothing I can post that will teach you how to use context clues.

The rule you keep referring to is this, in its entirety:

Attacks wrote:

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Notice the difference in language between references to Attacks in the Combat section.

Most notably, the bolded line.

Check spells like Invisibility, and I believe many Illusion spells.

[Calth]

Rynjin wrote:

There's plenty that says you're wrong. I posted a little bit of it earlier.

But there's nothing I can post that will teach you how to use context clues.

Posting the rules for touch attacks doesn't suddenly make magic missile not an attack. How can you literally ignore the rule that says that all spells that affect enemies are attacks?

Edit: As you are so obsessed with the combat section, how about this:

Saving Throws

Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class and level (see Classes), and an associated ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:

Base save bonus + ability modifier

Saving Throw Types: The three different kinds of saving throws are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will:

Fortitude: These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health. Apply your Constitution modifier to your Fortitude saving throws.

Reflex: These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks and unexpected situations. Apply your Dexterity modifier to your Reflex saving throws.

Will: These saves reflect your resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects. Apply your Wisdom modifier to your Will saving throws.

Notice all the references to magical attacks and attacks against your saves?

[Rynjin]

Calth wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

There's plenty that says you're wrong. I posted a little bit of it earlier.

But there's nothing I can post that will teach you how to use context clues.

Posting the rules for touch attacks doesn't suddenly make magic missile not an attack. How can you literally ignore the rule that says that all spells that affect enemies are attacks?

Again, Context. You posted before I finished my edit.

That rule is under "Special Spell Effects". Read the rest of the section and things it refers to to see what I mean.

Applying that universally across all spells is like applying the rules for Bringing Someone Back From The Dead (which is under the same heading) to all spells.

At best/worst it applies to all spells that mention attacking. Which neither Fireball nor Magic Missile do.

With anyone reasonable, it is taken on a case-by-case basis.

[Calth]

Rynjin wrote:

Calth wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

There's plenty that says you're wrong. I posted a little bit of it earlier.

But there's nothing I can post that will teach you how to use context clues.

Posting the rules for touch attacks doesn't suddenly make magic missile not an attack. How can you literally ignore the rule that says that all spells that affect enemies are attacks?

Again, Context. You posted before I finished my edit.

That rule is under "Special Spell Effects". Read the rest of the section and things it refers to to see what I mean.

Applying that universally across all spells is like applying the rules for Bringing Someone Back From The Dead (which is under the same heading) to all spells.

At best, it applies to all spells that mention attacking. Which neither Fireball nor Magic Missile do.

That is a complete misinterpretation of the "some spells mention attacking." The rule is what you use to determine what an attack is for spells like Compel Hostility, and the answer is anything that affects an opponent.

Spell (i.e. Compel Hostility) mentions something that happens when an attack is made.

What is an attack?

Answer: Anything that affects an opponent.

[Rynjin]

Which does not make sense when applied universally.

In your example, with Compel Hostility, you would essentially be forcing the caster to change targets AFTER THE SPELL IS CAST.

Which isn't possible. The target is chosen when the spell is finished casting. The caster has no capability to change targets once the spell is cast.

Quote:

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

Conversely, when attacking with a weapon, you choose your target before making the attack roll.

Spells with attack rolls are the same (you make the attack roll after choosing the target, which is after the spell is cast).

Ruling otherwise is both against RAW and opens up a big can of worms in allowing a caster to change targets after casting.

[Caliban_]

Calth wrote:

To note, I am not arguing you can combine magic missile with sneak attack, as I do not believe that it is RAI, and that it sneak attack only should apply when you make an attack roll, as per the old 3.5 FAQ. However, without that FAQ, you can make a RAW argument it applies. Contradictions between RAI and RAW or even RAW and RAW should be pointed out, not dismissed.

So you agree that it works the way everyone else says it works and now you are just arguing the point in order to prove that you weren't actually wrong when you said it COULD work that way.

<shakes his head and slowly backs away from the thread>

[Calth]

Caliban_ wrote:

Calth wrote:

To note, I am not arguing you can combine magic missile with sneak attack, as I do not believe that it is RAI, and that it sneak attack only should apply when you make an attack roll, as per the old 3.5 FAQ. However, without that FAQ, you can make a RAW argument it applies. Contradictions between RAI and RAW or even RAW and RAW should be pointed out, not dismissed.

So you agree that it works the way everyone else says it works and now you are just arguing the point in order to prove that you weren't actually wrong when you said it COULD work that way.

<shakes his head and slowly backs away from the thread>

No, I am agreeing that with the majority on the RAI, saying the RAW is unclear, and that RAW, spells are attacks.

Rynjin wrote:

Which does not make sense when applied universally.

In your example, with Compel Hostility, you would essentially be forcing the caster to change targets AFTER THE SPELL IS CAST.

Which isn't possible. The target is chosen when the spell is finished casting. The caster has no capability to change targets once the spell is cast.

Quote:

You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.

Conversely, when attacking with a weapon, you choose your target before making the attack roll.

Spells with attack rolls are the same (you make the attack roll after choosing the target, which is after the spell is cast).

Ruling otherwise is both against RAW and opens up a big can of worms in allowing a caster to change targets after casting.

That is exactly what compel hostility does, change the target after its been selected if the creature fails a will save.

[Rynjin]

Not quite.

Compel Hostility makes you change targets when you make an attack.

Here's how the normal progression of actions works:

Choose target ---> roll attack roll ---> Make attack.

Here's how spells work:

Cast spell ---> Choose Target and make attack roll (if applicable).

There is no intervening period between choosing the target and the attack being completed in the case of a spell.

Essentially Compel Hostility makes the person change targets mid sword swing.

However, the caster has no control over most spell's target after the spell has gone off. Choosing the target and the spell taking effect are simultaneous.

I can see it in the case of spells that are moves (such as whatsit called. Flaming Sphere?), but not the majority.

[Calth]

Rynjin wrote:

Not quite.

Compel Hostility makes you change targets when you make an attack.

Here's how the normal progression of actions works:

Choose target ---> roll attack roll ---> Make attack.

Here's how spells work:

Cast spell ---> Choose Target and make attack roll (if applicable).

There is no intervening period between choosing the target and the attack being completed in the case of a spell.

Essentially Compel Hostility makes the person change targets mid sword swing.

However, the caster has no control over most spell's target after the spell has gone off. Choosing the target and the spell taking effect are simultaneous.

I can see it in the case of spells that are moves (such as whatsit called. Flaming Sphere?), but not the majority.

Nothing in the mechanics of compel hostility require anything you are describing, only that an attack is made against an ally.

[Rynjin]

It requires the capability of changing the target once the attack has been made.

Which is impossible with a spell.

You can't force someone to change targets after they've already fired a gun.

[Calth]

Rynjin wrote:

It requires the capability of changing the target once the attack has been made.

Which is impossible with a spell.

You can't force someone to change targets after they've already fired a gun.

Yeah, I think Im done if you are going to make up rules that don't exist.

[Caliban_]

Calth wrote:

Caliban_ wrote:

Calth wrote:

To note, I am not arguing you can combine magic missile with sneak attack, as I do not believe that it is RAI, and that it sneak attack only should apply when you make an attack roll, as per the old 3.5 FAQ. However, without that FAQ, you can make a RAW argument it applies. Contradictions between RAI and RAW or even RAW and RAW should be pointed out, not dismissed.

So you agree that it works the way everyone else says it works and now you are just arguing the point in order to prove that you weren't actually wrong when you said it COULD work that way.

<shakes his head and slowly backs away from the thread>

No, I am agreeing that with the majority on the RAI, saying the RAW is unclear, and that RAW, spells are attacks.

Yes, that is what I said.

[Avoron]

I disagree with Rynjin on this, but I think this is a side issue. You could use Compel Hostility when a target attacks with a spell. However, "attack" as a transitive verb, and especially "attack against" definitely refer to Attacks (attacks with attack rolls).

The primary point is that the one rule in the magical effects section does not deal with how everything in the game interacts with things called "attacks." So go on believing that the rules say you can sneak attack with entangle if you want to, but you are wrong.

[Calth]

Avoron wrote:

I disagree with Rynjin on this, but I think this is a side issue. You could use Compel Hostility when a target attacks with a spell. However, "attack" as a transitive verb, and especially "attack against" definitely refer to Attacks (attacks with attack rolls).

The primary point is that the one rule in the magical effects section does not deal with how everything in the game interacts with things called "attacks." So go on believing that the rules say you can sneak attack with entangle if you want to, but you are wrong.

And you can go on conflating RAI with RAW, and the fact that acknowledging when RAI and RAW don't match or when RAW conflicts with RAW are important things to be done on this forum.

[Rynjin]

Calth wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

It requires the capability of changing the target once the attack has been made.

Which is impossible with a spell.

You can't force someone to change targets after they've already fired a gun.

Yeah, I think Im done if you are going to make up rules that don't exist.

I posted the exact rule that determines this.

Not my fault you have a problem with the order of operations here.

[Malagant]

Rynjin wrote:

I posted the exact rule that determines this.

Not my fault you have a problem with the order of operations here.

Me thinks you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the spell works. When an enemy that you threaten attacks an ally, the spell forces them to redirect the attack to you (or your eidolon if you have one). With a successful will save, the compulsion is ignored.

Back on topic though, nothing in this thread has yet shot down that spells (that deal damage) are attacks that can apply sneak attack damage should the conditions for a sneak attack be met. Is it RAI? I don't think so; I would not rule so. Is it RAW? It sure appears to be. Any confusion can be rectified with a simple FAQ on the subject...

[Rynjin]

Malagant wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

I posted the exact rule that determines this.

Not my fault you have a problem with the order of operations here.

Me thinks you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the spell works. When an enemy that you threaten attacks an ally, the spell forces them to redirect the attack to you (or your eidolon if you have one). With a successful will save, the compulsion is ignored.

I recognize that.

It doesn't change the fact that if no redirection is possible, or would do nothing, the spell will not work.

Once the spell is completed, the target is chosen, and the spell takes effect simultaneously.

He can't change the bullet's trajectory once it has been fired.

Malagant wrote:

Back on topic though, nothing in this thread has yet shot down that spells (that deal damage) are attacks that can apply sneak attack damage should the conditions for a sneak attack be met.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

[Bob Bob Bob]

This is real simple.

Sneak Attack wrote:

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.

You don't aim a magic missile, it just hits. Therefore you can't pick out a vital spot. You aim the fireball bead but it's the only part that could possibly do sneak attack damage, the resulting fireball can't. Explosions can't be aimed. So if you can't aim at a weak point, you can't sneak attack.

It just so happens we do have an easy way to tell which things can be aimed and which can't, the ones that can be aimed are the ones you have to make an attack roll to hit with. Real simple.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

Good lord this is still going huh?

Look, no one is going to win here. "Attack" is ill-defined enough to where it will require a GM to determine what constitutes an attack or not. Most reasonable people here probably agree that an attack requires an attack roll, though many munchkins trying to get sneak attack on a fireball without actually having the Arcane Trickster capstone would disagree.
The RAW cannot be argued in this case because it is too badly written, it's in the hands of the GM to define it.

[Rikkan]

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Good lord this is still going huh?

Look, no one is going to win here. "Attack" is ill-defined enough to where it will require a GM to determine what constitutes an attack or not. Most reasonable people here probably agree that an attack requires an attack roll, though many munchkins trying to get sneak attack on a fireball without actually having the Arcane Trickster capstone would disagree.
The RAW cannot be argued in this case because it is too badly written, it's in the hands of the GM to define it.

The RAW is very very clear.

Quote:

All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.

Makes it perfectly clear that fireballs are attacks.

You're not a munchkin if you follow the rules of the game, just because many people dislike it and houserule it.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

Rikkan wrote:

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Good lord this is still going huh?

Look, no one is going to win here. "Attack" is ill-defined enough to where it will require a GM to determine what constitutes an attack or not. Most reasonable people here probably agree that an attack requires an attack roll, though many munchkins trying to get sneak attack on a fireball without actually having the Arcane Trickster capstone would disagree.
The RAW cannot be argued in this case because it is too badly written, it's in the hands of the GM to define it.

The RAW is very very clear.

Quote:

All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.

Makes it perfectly clear that fireballs are attacks.

You're not a munchkin if you follow the rules of the game, just because many people dislike it and houserule it.

Did you even read the crap-ton of other examples listed above, many of which are instances where attack is defined differently that what you just said? "Attack" is very poorly defined, and is not clear on the RAW level.

And yes, "Following the Rules" as an excuse for performing wildly unbalancing and clearly untended acts is the very definition of munchkining. Munchkins don't cheat, they "follow the rules" to the precise letter and interpret them in whatever way most benefits them....and then get on forums to argue their point relentlessly even though they know full well, while not wrong, that are not right either.

[Rikkan]

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Did you even read the crap-ton of other examples listed above, many of which are instances where attack is defined differently that what you just said? "Attack" is very poorly defined, and is not clear on the RAW level.

I have seen 0 examples that contradict the fact that fireball is an attack.

Attack might be poorly defined, but that damage dealing spells are attacks is 100% clearly defined.
Keep in mind, just because spells like fireball are attacks, that does not mean all spells are attacks nor does it mean all attacks are spells.

[That Crazy Alchemist]

The section you quoted is taken out of context though. That particular definition of "attack" was written referring to spells such as Invisibility and such that refer to "attacks". It is defining attacks for the purposes of spells. When spell effects are in place an "attack" is pretty much anything harmful, for the purposes of those spells.

But earlier in the book it covers Attack Types: Melee attack, Ranged Attack, which require an attack roll. It does not mention spells anywhere as being an attack type. It also liberally uses the word "strike" when defining those attack types.

Additionally, the book defines an attack roll: "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round"

While sneak attack uses the same terminology of "striking" an opponent twice in its definition.

As Rynjin said earlier, "attack" is currently not fully defined and it's definition is different depending on the context.

[Calth]

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

The section you quoted is taken out of context though. That particular definition of "attack" was written referring to spells such as Invisibility and such that refer to "attacks". It is defining attacks for the purposes of spells. When spell effects are in place an "attack" is pretty much anything harmful, for the purposes of those spells.

But earlier in the book it covers Attack Types: Melee attack, Ranged Attack, which require an attack roll. It does not mention spells anywhere as being an attack type. It also liberally uses the word "strike" when defining those attack types.

Additionally, the book defines an attack roll: "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round"

While sneak attack uses the same terminology of "striking" an opponent twice in its definition.

As Rynjin said earlier, "attack" is currently not fully defined and it's definition is different depending on the context.

You need to reread the section in Combat on saving throws where magical attacks are referenced multiple times.

[Claxon]

Paging Mark Seifter

[Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM]

The purpose of quantifying damage dealing spells as attacks in the Magic section is quite clear. It's to prevent players from doing things like charming an opponent and then spamming magic missile or fireball on them. It's closing the loophole where they can say, "But I didn't attack him. I may have burned the hell out of him, but I didn't roll an attack roll, so it doesn't break my enchantment." And other ilk of this nature.

Though it is amusing to see a statement made to prevent munchkin behavior being used for munchkin behavior.

Further, it's clear that area affect and auto-hit spells don't target vital spots which is called out as a necessity under Sneak Attack, so the argument is already null and void from that aspect as pointed out by TCA. So even if it is an attack it's not the right kind. We can all move on now.

Calling Seifter in for this when there are very real mechanics needing resolution (I'm looking at you Overrun mit charge!) makes me sad which since I'm a dwarf actually just makes me grumpy.

[Claxon]

Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM wrote:

Calling Seifter in for this when there are very real mechanics needing resolution (I'm looking at you Overrun mit charge!) makes me sad which since I'm a dwarf actually just makes me grumpy.

I agree that it makes me sad that it is necessary to ask for commentary from developers to satisfy a vocal minority that is purposefully misconstruing the rules for their own benefit. However, sometimes it is necessary.

In this instance, the rules could be more explicitly clear. Besides which, it would only require a very short statement. Something to the effect of,

"Sneak attack (and all precision damage) requires an attack roll to be applied". If an attack (such as Magic Missile or Fireball) does not require an attack roll, it cannot apply precision damage. The exception to this is the Arcane Trickster prestige class capstone ability, or any similar abilities which specifically override this."

[That Crazy Alchemist]

Calth wrote:

You need to reread the section in Combat on saving throws where magical attacks are referenced multiple times.

Yes, that's precisely my point, actually. "Attack" is defined multiple times throughout the book, and poorly. As a result, it is a GM call as to what constitutes an "attack" for the purposes of sneak attack, since it is never concretely defined.

And sane GM's rule in favor of balance and intention rather than loose, horribly unbalanced, and very much unintended munchkin interpretations.

[Avoron]

People who keep saying "RAW says we can do this" need to remember that written rules are a form of communication between the writers and the readers, and the act of reading involves attempting to understand the ideas that the writers are attempting to communicate. The Rules As Written are not just a collection of words, they are a collection ideas that can only be understood by actually trying to comprehend them.

[Rikkan]

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Yes, that's precisely my point, actually. "Attack" is defined multiple times throughout the book, and poorly.

Luckily though, in the case of spells it is perfectly clear.

Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM wrote:

Further, it's clear that area affect and auto-hit spells don't target vital spots which is called out as a necessity under Sneak Attack, so the argument is already null and void from that aspect as pointed out by TCA. So even if it is an attack it's not the right kind. We can all move on now.

Disagree. The Arcane Trickster FAQ makes it very clear area attacks like say fireball, can qualify for sneak attacks.

[Avoron]

Arcane Tricksters get a special ability that alters the rules for sneak attacks to allow them to add sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage.

[Calth]

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

Calth wrote:

You need to reread the section in Combat on saving throws where magical attacks are referenced multiple times.

Yes, that's precisely my point, actually. "Attack" is defined multiple times throughout the book, and poorly. As a result, it is a GM call as to what constitutes an "attack" for the purposes of sneak attack, since it is never concretely defined.

And sane GM's rule in favor of balance and intention rather than loose, horribly unbalanced, and very much unintended munchkin interpretations.

But there are no multiple definitions of attack. It is defined in exactly one place, and nothing in the general rules exist that contradicts it in any way.

The problem with sneak attack and spells is the wording of sneak attack itself, not the definition of attack. If the devs want it to only work with attacks that have attack rolls, then say that. This is a complete repeat of the same issue in 3.5, where again, the RAW initially allowed sneak attack on spells like fireball, and they had to issue FAQs and special rules in Complete Arcana to make the RAI match the RAW.

[Nefreet]

Claxon wrote:

Paging Mark Seifter

For some reason this reminded me of the movie "Airplane".

"The White Zone is for the immediate loading and unloading of trolls only".

[Calth]

Nefreet wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Paging Mark Seifter

For some reason this reminded me of the movie "Airplane".

"The White Zone is for the immediate loading and unloading of trolls only".

Im sorry, I wasn't aware that discussing the RAW and how it needs to change to match the probable RAI in the rules forum was trolling, I'll refrain from that in the future.

[blackbloodtroll]

Every game I have ever played in(including PFS), has always had a very clear "no attack roll, no sneak attack" understanding of the rules.

This is, a weird debate, in my opinion.

Who would want to take away from the Arcane Trickster?

[James Risner]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Every game I have ever played in(including PFS), has always had a very clear "no attack roll, no sneak attack" understanding of the rules.

This is, a weird debate, in my opinion.

I agree. I've never had a scenario that allowed sneak attack without attack rolls.

[Wheldrake]

Bob cubed had the only relevant RAW statement that would allow to determine once and for all whether you can get sneak attack damage on spells that don't use attack rolls:

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.

Three logical tests are specifically called out to determine when a rogue gets sneak attack damage:

1) It's an attack
2) The opponent is unable to defend
3) The rogue strikes a vital spot.

As we have seen from the above discussion, the first criterion is unclear in the RAW, and subject to multiple interpretation. The second criterion is clear, we all agree when an opponent is unable to defend.

But it is really the third criterion which decides the issue. Sure, a fireball or a magic missile are attacks But they do not allow the rogue to "strike a vital spot".

The extensive and divisive argument over the first criterion is in fact irrelevant to the point under contention. Regardless of the extent to which a damaging spell that doesn't use an attack roll is considered an "attack", it fails on the third criterion required to get sneak attack damage.

Now, guys, feel free to go to town. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing any ways this argument can be circumvented. Certainly not through reference to the arcane trickster, a clear exception to the general rules.

[Rikkan]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Every game I have ever played in(including PFS), has always had a very clear "no attack roll, no sneak attack" understanding of the rules.

This is, a weird debate, in my opinion.

Who would want to take away from the Arcane Trickster?

That is probably because it was the case in the 3.x edition of the rules. And people don't realize it changed in pathfinder.

But why would you want to take away from the Rogue (which many consider the weakest class in pathfinder)?

[blackbloodtroll]

I don't really see the change.

You could "attack" someone, with harsh words, but you would apply Sneak Attack damage to an insult.

[Rynjin]

Wheldrake wrote:

But it is really the third criterion which decides the issue. Sure, a fireball or a magic missile are attacks But they do not allow the rogue to "strike a vital spot".

The extensive and divisive argument over the first criterion is in fact irrelevant to the point under contention. Regardless of the extent to which a damaging spell that doesn't use an attack roll is considered an "attack", it fails on the third criterion required to get sneak attack damage.

Now, guys, feel free to go to town. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing any ways this argument can be circumvented. Certainly not through reference to the arcane trickster, a clear exception to the general rules.

Explicitly fails, which Rikkan ignores.

since he wants to play the RAW game (meaning using the RAW he ikes and ignoring the RAW he doesn't like, but we'll go forward pretending this post has purpose): "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.".

No attack roll, no strike.

[Rikkan]

Wheldrake wrote:

But it is really the third criterion which decides the issue. Sure, a fireball or a magic missile are attacks But they do not allow the rogue to "strike a vital spot".

Now, guys, feel free to go to town. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing any ways this argument can be circumvented. Certainly not through reference to the arcane trickster, a clear exception to the general rules.

An arcane trickster does have specific rules that only apply to the arcane trickster. Let's quote it:

Arcane trickster wrote:

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.

It does not create an exception which allow you to bypass sneak attack requirements. Thus you can't use that ability to sneak attack foes with concealment. You must also still be able to see your target well enough to pick out a vital spot and be able to reach such a spot.

Since the FAQ makes it clear that the ability works on fireball, it stands to reason that you can pick out a vital spot and be able to reach a vital spot, with a fireball attack.

- Edit: can you guys stop with the personal attacks please? The forum rules require me to ignore those posts :(.

[Blakmane]

Rikkan wrote:

Since the FAQ makes it clear that the ability works on fireball, it stands to reason that you can pick out a vital spot and be able to reach a vital spot, with a fireball attack.

My god, you are so close to understanding, and yet incalculably far. It's honestly painful to watch.

In pathfinder, specific trumps general. The specific text of Surprise spells (+ FAQ) allows you to trump the general rule of no sneak attacks without an attack roll. Surprise spells is letting you sneak attack on damage-dealing spells, something you ordinarily can't do. That's the whole point of the ability.

[Avoron]

The arcane trickster does not have an ability that does nothing. They do not have an ability that says, "You can sneak attack with spells, but it otherwise has to follow the normal rules of sneak attack."

The arcane trickster has an ability that says the can add their sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. They just add the damage to any spell. It's not at all a normal sneak attack. Those are specific rules that ignore the normal rules of sneak attack and add an alternate way for the arcane trickster to deal that quantity of damage.

[Heart of Mithril]

I'm a little hesitant about sticking my foot into this kiddie-pool of evil, but I had a question here that I don't think has been adequately answered.

Specifically: The text of fireball states "A glowing, pea-sized bead
streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a
material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed
range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact
results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead
through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you
must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the
bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

Now, if the target satisfies every other requirement of a sneak attack, would this not satisfy the attack requirement from any perspective? I mean, exploding a fireball inside the eye slit of a person's helmet has got to be a bad thing.

I understand this is a highly specific case, but I am curious as to how people would rule on this. As a DM, I would allow it if the player gave me a reasonable description of what they were doing with that fireball pea, and I realize that is subjective, thus my curiosity about how others would approach it.

Oh, and to Losobal:

Losobal wrote:

Which can lead to weirdness too. Especially with elemental effects. "Hi, I'm a creature with an elemental resistance to X at Y rating. I can swim in X as long as it doesn't do more than Y dmg. I can open my eyes, I can put it under my arms, I can dip my penis in it! but for some reason, that ray of X shot by a rogue/wizard even tho it never surpasses my resistance, can suddenly become f~@+ing hellball of OMFGDEAD! Because...of reasons."

But I acknowledge my bias. :)

a) Thanks for my morning chuckle, and

b) I don't know if this helps but the way I see it is that if said creature with resistance is sneak attacked, the elemental attack has just overwhelmed the resistance of a creature. It can wash in the stuff b/c its hide is just that tough, but get underneath that hide and ouchiness ensues. Note, we're just talking resistance here, and immunity would negate all that, so, I don't have a problem with the scenario as you present it.

Thanks for your time and attention, and have a spiffy day :)

[Avoron]

Paladin Panda, in the situation you mentioned, you would not be making an attack roll against a creature, you would be making an attack roll against the area of empty space that you are trying to shoot the fireball through.

However, if you have the Vandal feat, go ahead and see how much sneak attack damage you do to the air.