|
Flavor text, while true that is has no basis in RAW, helps show us what is RAI.
Calth, can you at least agree that the developers quite clearly intended for fireballs and other 'attack roll-less' effects to not apply sneak attack damage, despite not clearly outlining it as well as you'd have liked them to?
If "Yes": Then we are in agreement and there really is no further reason to argue. RAW is only as good as it is written and arguing does not add more words to the page and will not change it. But if we agree on RAI then all is good and we should all just set aside our differences and grab a drink together at Ye Olde Tavern.
If "No": Well....good luck finding a group that agrees with you I guess?
Because this is flavor text, not rules text. Vital Spot and unable to defend are not game defined terms.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:
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.
Hmmm, sort of but also sort of not.
Vital Spot is further elaborated on when you take into accoutn what sorts of creatures are immune to Sneak Attacks: Oozes, Constructs, and Elementals, who all have a uniform construction with no part being more valuable than another.
Meaning a vital spot is a spot you can strike that would be particularly devastating to certain creatures. In a human's case, the heart, the eyes, and all the other organs, basically.
From this you can determine that a Fireball isn't really valid here: It is an indiscriminate attack. Detonating the Fireball on the person's head, foot, or 20 feet away results in the exact same effect. Similarly, you can't Sneak Attack with splash weapons.
Being unable to defend oneself is self-explanatory in many cases, just because it's plain English, not unique rules text. Rules-wise a few other conditions imply it in their wording (Helpless creatures are "at their opponent's mercy", Flat-Footed creatures are "unable to react normally", and so on).
|
|
What I have been arguing this thread is that the RAW supports sneak attack on spells like Fireball, and this is a bad thing, since we have significant evidence that this is not RAI. But ignoring the RAW or trying to bend or break other rules is counter-productive. To get sneak attack with spells fixed, we need to acknowledge that the RAW is broken and needs to be changed. Pretending there isn't an issue does nothing.
Go back and look at 3.5. They had to both issue a FAQ and an eventual complete rules section in complete arcana to clarify how sneak attack works with spells. And since Pathfinder copy-pastad sneak attack without the fixes, guess what, the same issue pops up.
But yes, I would never in a game try and apply sneak attack to fireball with out the trickster capstone, and rule against it as a GM, but that is going by RAI and not RAW. And the ideal is to have RAW and RAI match.
OK good so we are largely on the same page then, the only issue is that you see the RAW not being concrete enough as a really bad thing whereas I find it kind of 'meh, whatevs'.
Ultimately it really isn't an issue as long as everyone is doing it right already. Despite popular belief this game isn't meant to be played by the strictest adherence to RAW. It's fine if you do, unless things like this come up at your table, then there's a promblem. But as long as this kind of stuff isn't coming up then where is the problem? Everyone knows what it's supposed to be, so everyone does it correctly. There are a LOT of rules like this in Pathfinder, the Devs simply don't have the time or the resources to spell out concretely every possible variation of every rule and how they react to each other. They do their best to, and we are expected to use common sense to figure out the rest.
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.
While Calth and Rikken are failing to understand the context of 'attack' as used in sneak attack, the above is a mix of fluff and crunch.
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.
Is fluff.
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Is the crunch.
How so? If a 3' halfling is standing next to a 30' giant, can he even reach any vital spots? Achilles tendon maybe might be considered a vital spot, but even if it is, if the giant is wearing an armored boot can he see the spot to strike?
So the crunch is "target has concealment" blocks SA. Additional similar crunch is "oozes are immune to SA". The rest of that paragraph though is fluff.
If your interpretation of this allows you to apply sneak attack damage when casting Silence on somebody, you're doing it wrong. What kind of damage does "Silence sneak attack" do, anyway?
What about Slow or Interposing Hand? What kind of damage do those spells do when you sneak attack with them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A silence sneak attack would clearly do unsonic damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your interpretation of this allows you to apply sneak attack damage when casting Silence on somebody, you're doing it wrong. What kind of damage does "Silence sneak attack" do, anyway?
What about Slow or Interposing Hand? What kind of damage do those spells do when you sneak attack with them?
To be fair, this is covered by a separate FAQ (the weapon focus spells FAQ) that in order to increase a spells HP damage it must do HP damage in the first place.
I am honestly trying to grasp why people are so hostile to the idea that there is an issue in the RAW. Its not like this is the first time this exact issue has come up. There were huge issues in 3.5, and when they made Pathfinder they copied the broken version of sneak attack not the fixed one. Is it so much to ask that they add "with an attack roll that deal HP damage" after attacks in the description to make what they wrote match their intentions?
But if everybody already knows what the intention of the rules are, why do we need developer commentary clarifying it?
If you know how the rules are intended to function (as everybody seems to), what is the point of pressing an interpretation of arguably (at best) unclear rules language if you know 1. that isn't the intent, and 2. nobody plays it that way, anyway?
FAQs are only necessary if the question is actually frequently asked. Who is confused by how this is supposed to work?
The reason I feel why the RAW doesn't require modification is because RAW will always need interpretation in a "Role-Playing Game". RPG's involve complex rules with the intent to let players try anything, thus there is no way to perfectly encapsulate all possibilities and due to the limits of the English language there will be potential confusion when a word is used in multiple ways which occurs with frequency in English.
In this case we have attack being used in at least 2 ways. One to establish that someone has committed an act that is clearly hostile to another and to thus bring to bear appropriate consequences as outlined by the rules and whatever else may be appropriate.
In the second case we're talking about a targeted damaging attack that must overcome the protections that are in place. Such an attack can possibly target weaknesses of the creature being attacked if placed correctly if such a possibility is possible (ie sneak attack).
To me it seems very clear that this is what the rules say. I'm not big on separation of rules into fluff and crunch as it has never been clear to me how to determine where the separation is. It can not just be because some terms appear on a table or according to some seem to be defined game terms. Again, this is a RPG. If you want to be limited by RAW to me what you want is to be playing a board game or a computer game. There the actions allowed are clearly defined and limited and "RAW" is what matters since it's all you can actually do.
Now does this mean she should never need FAQ's or Errata. No, it means we need Errata when it is very unclear how something should operate after taking into account possible interpretations, what effect the various possibilities have on the balance of the game, and how they seem to fit in with precedence for similar items. When we've done this and it's still very unclear is when we need some help.
I have never seen anybody even imply that Fireballs would deal Sneak Attack damage before now. I've never heard anybody utter it aloud, either.
I fail to see how this is in any way a Frequently Asked Question, or worthy of a clarification.
Even if it were, the only valid answer would be "Read the Arcane Trickster class, ya dingus".
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have never seen anybody even imply that Fireballs would deal Sneak Attack damage before now. I've never heard anybody utter it aloud, either.
I fail to see how this is in any way a Frequently Asked Question, or worthy of a clarification.
I've said before that I've never seen this come up in a previous thread or in over 250 games of PFS (played + GMed).
This simply, from my perspective, isn't something anyone is confused about in real life. It is one of those gems of "if I read the language in a pedantic way I get a cool gem". But there is no way to read the text in that way, when we have a clear understanding of what the text means and the AT class tells us more and the FAQ to the AT class clarifies this precise question.
Even if it were, the only valid answer would be "Read the Arcane Trickster class, ya dingus".
How do offensive magics work with sneak attacks? Don't read the sneak attack description and magic sections, ya dingus, read this one prestige class ability to find out!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
How do offensive magics work with sneak attacks? Don't read the sneak attack description and magic sections, ya dingus, read this one prestige class ability to find out!
Even if it were, the only valid answer would be "Read the Arcane Trickster class, ya dingus".
Actually, most new players don't immediately get that a spell that kills you with a save or die should be considered an attack because it doesn't require an attack roll.
As a result, most new players immediately exclude all spells or effects (like fireball) that don't require an attack roll from allowing Sneak Attack to be applied.
The Arcane Trickster ability reinforces this innate understanding. The most common rules gem that requires expanding "attack" beyond to hit roll effects is invisibility.
Actually, most new players don't immediately get that a spell that kills you with a save or die should be considered an attack because it doesn't require an attack roll.
As a result, most new players immediately exclude all spells or effects (like fireball) that don't require an attack roll from allowing Sneak Attack to be applied.
The Arcane Trickster ability reinforces this innate understanding. The most common rules gem that requires expanding "attack" beyond to hit roll effects is invisibility.
Save or die is different from spells like magic missile. Magic missile automatically hits, it seems reasonable conceptually to think it would be easier to specifically target a vital area with a pinpoint spell that automatically hits.
Targeting one person's vital bits for the fireball's point of impact and doing sneak attack to them while everyone else takes normal explosion damage seems reasonable as well to me.
Coming at it fresh as written without knowing the history of 3e sneak attack and the historical use of "attack" for breaking an invisibility spell as opposed to attack rolls in combat I can see reasonably concluding that hp attacks get sneak attack.
Even save or die death spells that do lots of hp damage I can see narratively as sneak attacking from the inside or against a life force's weak point ("I necromantically attack his heart").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, most new players don't immediately get that a spell that kills you with a save or die should be considered an attack because it doesn't require an attack roll.
As a result, most new players immediately exclude all spells or effects (like fireball) that don't require an attack roll from allowing Sneak Attack to be applied.
The Arcane Trickster ability reinforces this innate understanding. The most common rules gem that requires expanding "attack" beyond to hit roll effects is invisibility.
Save or die is different from spells like magic missile. Magic missile automatically hits, it seems reasonable conceptually to think it would be easier to specifically target a vital area with a pinpoint spell that automatically hits.
Targeting one person's vital bits for the fireball's point of impact and doing sneak attack to them while everyone else takes normal explosion damage seems reasonable as well to me.
Coming at it fresh as written without knowing the history of 3e sneak attack and the historical use of "attack" for breaking an invisibility spell as opposed to attack rolls in combat I can see reasonably concluding that hp attacks get sneak attack.
Even save or die death spells that do lots of hp damage I can see narratively as sneak attacking from the inside or against a life force's weak point ("I necromantically attack his heart").
But the only rule people rely on when supporting these arguments equally supports the idea that you get sneak attack on Entangle, and everybody recognizes that as being silly.
The only real question I've ever had come up on any of these from new and uninitiated players is whether sneak attack applies to Magic Missile. It's a reasonable question. It's also incredibly easy to answer because the spell itself says explicitly "Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out." So no sneak attack. As for any of the rest of the issues (e.g., Fireball), it's as simple as saying, "Do you make an attack, as in an attack roll, when you use any of those spells? If not, then you don't get sneak attack."
It's only when someone who scours the rule book for different circumstantial definitions of "attack" that comes back and says "This counts as an attack for these limited reasons, so I should get sneak attack" that there's a question. Nobody thinks you should get sneak attack on Silence. But the rule relied upon to allow sneak attack on a Fireball is the exact same one the language of which mandates you should get sneak attack on Silence (it never mentions anything about HP damage). When they still try to press the issue, you ask them to then explain the purpose of the AT capstone ability. Virtually nobody I've ever encountered (even on the internet) has ever not been convinced at like step one or two in the process. And by the time you get to the AT capstone ability, there's maybe one person (who is also in this thread) who refuses to accept that this is how the rules work.
Nobody is really all that confused, especially after they're told "You need to make an attack roll." It's only when people really try to read a rule in a vacuum and force it to stick that this problem comes up. A lot of rules don't necessarily follow what might be conceptually most obvious when you sit and think about it and you are coming without any experience in the system (it makes perfect conceptual sense that a person with a longspear could attack someone standing next to him/her without taking penalties; it makes perfect conceptual sense that you can intimidate someone out of combat in a few seconds with only a glare). That doesn't necessarily mean the rules don't make sense or that they absolutely need to be changed simply because someone without any experience in the system might conceive that things work differently.
But the only rule people rely on when supporting these arguments equally supports the idea that you get sneak attack on Entangle, and everybody recognizes that as being silly.
Sure. Unless you interpret extra as requiring a prerequisite of doing damage first.
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.
That's the reason the damage is the same type as the underlying attack an why it only works on hp attacks correct? So even though in the combat section of the CRB combat maneuvers state they use attack rolls and are often described as attacks (see bull rush), they don't normally cause sneak attack damage.
The only real question I've ever had come up on any of these from new and uninitiated players is whether sneak attack applies to Magic Missile. It's a reasonable question. It's also incredibly easy to answer because the spell itself says explicitly "Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out." So no sneak attack.
Right, it does say that and it is narratively taken care of from descriptive elements of both sneak attack and magic missile.
As for any of the rest of the issues (e.g., Fireball), it's as simple as saying, "Do you make an attack, as in an attack roll, when you use any of those spells? If not, then you don't get sneak attack."
And the rules basis you rely upon is that sneak attack says attacks and most attacks are defined in the combat section as requiring attack rolls.
It's only when someone who scours the rule book for different circumstantial definitions of "attack" that comes back and says "This counts as an attack for these limited reasons, so I should get sneak attack" that there's a question.
Such as the magic section or the combat maneuver section or the cover section talking about bonuses against reflex targeting attacks, or the saving throw section describing attacks against each save.
Nobody thinks you should get sneak attack on Silence.
It narratively does not make sense.
But the rule relied upon to allow sneak attack on a Fireball is the exact same one the language of which mandates you should get sneak attack on Silence (it never mentions anything about HP damage).
Right, it only mentions it doing extra damage. But you agree there is a hp requirement, correct? Ray of enfeeblement requires an attack roll but I don't think you'd suggest it is a vehicle for sneak attack even though it is a ranged attack? What rules basis do you cite for excluding non-hp attacks?
When they still try to press the issue, you ask them to then explain the purpose of the AT capstone ability. Virtually nobody I've ever encountered (even on the internet) has ever not been convinced at like step one or two in the process. And by the time you get to the AT capstone ability,
AT is a little wierd, it applies to everyone in a fireball instead of one targeted person affected by the fireball, but not to multiple magic missiles striking multiple targets. It allows sneak attacks beyond 30 feet. It looks like it is not foiled by concealment. I think it and its FAQ are a poor reference for saying how general sneak attack rules generally apply.
there's maybe one person (who is also in this thread) who refuses to accept that this is how the rules work.
Rikkan brought up the RAW argument in this thread. Malagant agreed with him. Then Calth.
That Crazy Alchemist argued the RAW are contradictory and unclear so it is up to DMs to decide.
I've been playing for years but mostly with an understanding that it is mostly like 3.5 but small changes throughout the rules system so look up specifics as needed or the fancy strikes me.
"sneak attack is precision damage that applies when an attack roll is made that causes hp damage" is how I understood it in 3e from FAQs and clarifications in things like Tome and Blood but looking to the rules references in the PRD and those cited by Rynjin and such I'm not seeing that clearly spelled out for pathfinder in its rules.
The RAW is unclear if you look at one rule in isolation (the same one that implies you get sneak attack on Entangle). That is the point. When you look at the rules in conjunction, it's not unclear.
The RAW is unclear if you look at one rule in isolation (the same one that implies you get sneak attack on Entangle). That is the point. When you look at the rules in conjunction, it's not unclear.
Make a rules reference then. Here are some for the proposition that attacks are not just rolling an attack roll to cause damage.
Attacks are also:
Non attack roll attacks
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.
Again, things that target reflex saves
Cover and Reflex Saves: Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.
Special attacks including Aid Another and Combat maneuvers which use attack rolls to do things other than cause damage:
Aid Another
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.
Combat Maneuvers:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack rolland add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
Bull Rush:
If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet.
Disarm:
If your attack is successful,
Overrun:
If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone.
etc.
Going outside the combat section into the common terms section of the PRD
Saving Throw: When a creature is the subject of a dangerous spell or effect, it often receives a saving throw to mitigate the damage or result. Saving throws are passive, meaning that a character does not need to take an action to make a saving throw—they are made automatically. There are three types of saving throws: Fortitude (used to resist poisons, diseases, and other bodily ailments), Reflex (used to avoid effects that target an entire area, such as fireball), and Will (used to resist mental attacks and spells).
Or the ability score definitions
You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
• Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
• Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
• Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.
The RAW is unclear if you look at one rule in isolation (the same one that implies you get sneak attack on Entangle). That is the point. When you look at the rules in conjunction, it's not unclear.This is a horrible argument. The very next rule in the same section is on bonus stacking. So according to your argument racial and circumstances only stack when they come from spells, since that is the sole mention.
Nope, that's not what I said at all.
What I said is that it's difficult to argue the attack rule being used here for justifying sneak attack on fireballs when that very same rule, taken explicitly RAW (which is what you're arguing here), also supports sneak attack for Entangle, which everybody recognizes as being ridiculous. The point being, perhaps the rule you're relying on is being taken out of context and doesn't mean what you're trying to say it means.
The RAW is unclear if you look at one rule in isolation (the same one that implies you get sneak attack on Entangle). That is the point. When you look at the rules in conjunction, it's not unclear.Make a rules reference then. Here are some for the proposition that attacks are not just rolling an attack roll to cause damage.
But you referenced everything that is necessary to reference in your post before this one. You basically walked through why everybody has the correct understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.
The RAW is unclear if you look at one rule in isolation (the same one that implies you get sneak attack on Entangle). That is the point. When you look at the rules in conjunction, it's not unclear.This is a horrible argument. The very next rule in the same section is on bonus stacking. So according to your argument racial and circumstances only stack when they come from spells, since that is the sole mention.Nope, that's not what I said at all.
What I said is that it's difficult to argue the attack rule being used here for justifying sneak attack on fireballs when that very same rule, taken explicitly RAW (which is what you're arguing here), also supports sneak attack for Entangle, which everybody recognizes as being ridiculous. The point being, perhaps the rule you're relying on is being taken out of context and doesn't mean what you're trying to say it means.
What rule basis do you rely upon for saying sneak attacks are for hp damage attacks only? How does that rationale apply to the attack roll only concept of attacks but not the broader concept of attacks?
If it is that sneak attacks only do "extra damage" (implying an add on only to existing hp damage from an attack and not to an attack that does not do hp damage) this applies to entangle spells as well as to overrun attacks.
But you referenced everything that is necessary to reference in your post before this one. You basically walked through why everybody has the correct understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.The RAW is unclear if you look at one rule in isolation (the same one that implies you get sneak attack on Entangle). That is the point. When you look at the rules in conjunction, it's not unclear.Make a rules reference then. Here are some for the proposition that attacks are not just rolling an attack roll to cause damage.
Is this the part that explains the attack rolls position?
And the rules basis you rely upon is that sneak attack says attacks and most attacks are defined in the combat section as requiring attack rolls.
However the combat section also refers explicitly to non attack roll attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Entangle can't "strike a vital spot".
Fireball can't "strike a vital spot".
Stinking cloud can't "strike a vital spot."
Pffft! "flavor text"! This line is every bit a part of the rules as any other bit that seems more clearly defined to the anti-flavor crowd.
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.
These three conditions are natural English language variations on clearly defined game terms.
- "unable to defend himself" = flatfooted or denied DEX;- "from her attack" = using a weapon or an attack that is defined as equivalent to using a weapon (although this is the most debatable of the three); and
- "strike a vital spot" = deal precision damage.
This is all very clear to any normal reading of the text on sneak attack damage, and it is bourne out by the exceptions in the Arcane Trickster. Moreover, this is the way it was in DD3.5 and there is no explicit change in the mechanic to be found anywhere. We all know full well that many rules details (and some complete systems) were changed between DD3.5 and PF. But sneak attack isn't one of them.
...but I could walk into a PFS game tomorrow and insist on sneak attack on my magic missile, and if the GM denied it, he would be wrong by the PFS rules.
It should be a simple enough exercise to go find a PFS GM who will allow it then, and when you can't find one to find a VC that will straighten said GM's out for you.
I await your report on this exercise :).
Contorting one section of the rules to try and make a point that the rules "aren't clearly defined", and thus allow X doesn't make it so.