can sneak attack boost the damage of a fireball?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I don't think RAI was much in question in the first place.

In terms of RAW (or at least FAQ), scrolling through it though there is a useful FAQ linked saying that multi attacks from spells don't get sneak attack damage, so the area spells serve no purpose here and may as well only focus on single target ones that are more flavorful anyway.


Crimeo wrote:


If it inherits the type and there is no type, then it does untyped damage, doesn't seem a problem to me. Lots of things do untyped damage. Though as above, the only reason to be interested in this is the AoE aspect of it, regardless of this, other spells are still in question, like phantasmal killer above or the ear piercing scream.

The point is that because Aura of the Unremarkable does 0 damage, then you cannot add SA damage onto it, anymore than you could apply SA to a charm person spell (even with surprise spells). This isn't a case of it doing untyped damage. This is a case of a non-damaging spell.


Quote:
The point is that because Aura of the Unremarkable does 0 damage, then you cannot add SA damage onto it, anymore than you could apply SA to a charm person spell (even with surprise spells).

SA adds Xd6. It doesn't multiply or anything. Why should it matter if the original amount of damage was 0? 0 + 1d6 = 1d6. Unless I'm mistaken, if you stabbed a creature with DR1/slashing with a spear for 1 hp of damage (reduced to 0), wouldn't you also still get to add SA despite base damage being 0?


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
The point is that because Aura of the Unremarkable does 0 damage, then you cannot add SA damage onto it, anymore than you could apply SA to a charm person spell (even with surprise spells).
SA adds Xd6. It doesn't multiply or anything. Why should it matter if the original amount of damage was 0? 0 + 1d6 = 1d6. Unless I'm mistaken, if you stabbed a creature with DR1/slashing with a spear for 1 hp of damage (reduced to 0), wouldn't you also still get to add SA despite base damage being 0?

In your example, the final damage is 0, but the base damage is not 0. You add sneak attack before you subtract DR or resistance.

You also have to understand there's a difference between doing 0 net damage and not actually having a damage component in the first place. Mathematically they may be identical but conceptually they are quite distinct.


Okay, still, I don't see it saying minimum ___ base damage or anything, so why does it matter?


The difference is like saying

"I have $0 in my bank account"

and

"I don't have a bank account"

Although they both have a similar linguistic outcome (no money), you can add money to the first one to make it a positive number, but you can't add money to the second --- 'no bank account' is not a number, not even 0.

Replace bank account/money with damage and it becomes clear charm person + sneak attack isn't 0 + 1d6, because charm person doesn't have a damage component to add to in the first place.


Crimeo wrote:
Okay, still, I don't see it saying minimum ___ base damage or anything, so why does it matter?

As I pointed out earlier, none of this matters, because if we want to read the rules as strictly as you do, you can only sneak attack people within reach.

Might as well use a weapon, rather than cast a spell that does no damage.


What is the "bank account" in this situation? I need some sort of physical meta bookkeeping entity to exist in order to be damaged? Seems to me like damage applied to any situation like reading a book or playing on a jungle gym still = getting damaged.


Crimeo wrote:
What is the "bank account" in this situation? I need some sort of physical meta bookkeeping entity to exist in order to be damaged? Seems to me like damage applied to any situation like reading a book or playing on a jungle gym still = getting damaged.

I think they are trying to say that sneak attack can only be added to spells that list damage.

If a spell doesn't list damage, it isn't treated as 0 damage, it's treated as 'this isn't a damage based spell, numbers are not allowed'.

I'm simply trying to paraphrase earlier people, not taking sides or stating my own beliefs right now.


Quote:
If a spell doesn't list damage, it isn't treated as 0 damage, it's treated as 'this isn't a damage based spell, numbers are not allowed'.

Okay, is this RAW?

(And this still doesn't matter much, because the FAQ already ruled out AoE and thus I have no reason to use the aura spell or other AoEs to begin with. Can just use damaging single target spells like ear piercing scream or phantasmal killer)


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
If a spell doesn't list damage, it isn't treated as 0 damage, it's treated as 'this isn't a damage based spell, numbers are not allowed'.

Okay, is this RAW?

It's a reductio ad-absurdum and a basic linguistic interpretation necessary for large swathes of text to make any kind of sense.

For example:

"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack"

"Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even non-magical fire) ignore damage reduction."

Slumber hex is an attack in the same manner as charm person, and does not ignore damage reduction as it is a supernatural ability. By your definition, slumber hex would not work against anything that has damage reduction (0-DR = negated).

Of course, DR isn't actually negating anything because slumber doesn't actually have a damage component, so this doesn't work. Similarly, sneak attack does not add to slumber (or charm person etc) because there is no damage component to add to.

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

*edit*

Another example would be the Dhampir's sorcerer favoured class bonus:

"Add +½ point of negative energy damage to spells that deal negative energy damage"

By your definition, the vast majority of spells deal 0 negative energy damage and, as the FCB doesn't specify a positive integer, they are all now dealing 1/2 level damage.

There are many, many more examples of why this interpretation is completely unreasonable. You absolutely must treat damage as a qualitative, not quantitative, property of an ability for the system to work.


alexd1976 wrote:

As I pointed out earlier, none of this matters, because if we want to read the rules as strictly as you do, you can only sneak attack people within reach.

Might as well use a weapon, rather than cast a spell that does no damage.

It's pretty clear from the description of sneak attack that they mean in reach of the attack not of the person making it. This comes from noting the 30' range limit for SA and having a general awareness that the rules are designed for typical medium sized creatures.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If a spell doesn't list damage, it isn't treated as 0 damage, it's treated as 'this isn't a damage based spell, numbers are not allowed'.
Okay, is this RAW?
"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack"

This implies that an attack which deals 5 damage + 30 sneak attack damage would deal 0 damage versus a creature with DR 5/-. I don't know of anyone who runs it this way.

Quote:
"The rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

This is the more likely explanation. "extra" taken to mean "in addition to the damage already there". So if there isn't any damage in the first place, you can't have extra of it.

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

In any case, these are two things which are distractions from the core question posed:
Can attacks which don't have attack rolls benefit from sneak attack?

Other questions should be considered as separate issues, as they don't affect the answer to the above question.


Byakko wrote:


This implies that an attack which deals 5 damage + 30 sneak attack damage would deal 0 damage versus a creature with DR 5/-. I don't know of anyone who runs it this way.

Not at all. You have misquoted me. That text is relevant only insomuch it is applied to my slumber example and the nature of damage-dealing as a qualitative property of abilities. In any case if you read up you'll see that DR and sneak attack was already mentioned earlier in an unrelated example where I clearly state it is applied before DR..


Quote:
By your definition, slumber hex would not work against anything that has damage reduction

No damage was reduced, 0 damage = no damage. These are synonymous.

Quote:
the vast majority of spells deal 0 negative energy damage

Similarly, dealing 0 of something is not dealing anything. If I sell you 0 apples, I've not sold you any apples. So this one doesn't work.

And the same is true of sneak attack. Doing 0 damage = not doing damage. I am not and have not been suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying I don't see any rules that suggest you cannot add damage to lack of damage, OR rules that say you cannot add damage to zero damage, OR rules that say add damage to no damage... phrase it however you like, this isn't a rule in any of these (synonymous) phrasings AFAIK.

In other words, it's not the "0" versus "none" distinction that matters here. It was the claim that "Adding damage to no damage ISN'T ALLOWED" that I challenge the validity of.

Quote:
This is the more likely explanation. "extra" taken to mean "in addition to the damage already there". So if there isn't any damage in the first place, you can't have extra of it.

This is some pretty thin kool aid you're selling. Doing damage when you normally wouldn't is squarely an example of "extra damage" in my book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly can't believe we are still feeding this troll of a question. The OP is clearly not going to change his mind. He's not here to discuss how the rules work, he's here to twist words and intentions to make incendiary points to start a pointless argument. I implore my fellow posters to let this thread die.


Quote:
This is the more likely explanation. "extra" taken to mean "in addition to the damage already there". So if there isn't any damage in the first place, you can't have extra of it.
This is some pretty thin kool aid you're selling. Doing damage when you normally wouldn't is squarely an example of "extra damage" in my book.

It's well established that you can't add damage to spells, attacks, or effects which do no base damage. While I admit there is a little room for argument, this really is a much broader question than Sneak Attack specifically.

Btw, I think the bank example was great. Another for computer science people, is that there is a distinct difference between the value 0 and a null value. Adding to 0 is fine. Adding to null is undefined. (unless your language is doing stuff behind the scenes on your behalf)


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Crimeo wrote:
What is the "bank account" in this situation? I need some sort of physical meta bookkeeping entity to exist in order to be damaged? Seems to me like damage applied to any situation like reading a book or playing on a jungle gym still = getting damaged.

In finance there is a difference between processing a nil transaction and not processing a transaction. My time is billed out to my clients partly based on the number of transactions I process. When options lapse (for example) our software processes that as a "sale" for zero dollars.

I think it's the same thing here - I can imagine being damaged for zero hit points and it's not the same as not being injured (a paper cut, perhaps?).


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I honestly can't believe we are still feeding this troll of a question. The OP is clearly not going to change his mind. He's not here to discuss how the rules work, he's here to twist words and intentions to make incendiary points to start a pointless argument. I implore my fellow posters to let this thread die.

The OP's point is perfectly valid. No where in Sneak Attack does it state that an attack roll is required. He noted this and posed the question.

There's nothing wrong with bringing such things up. Indeed, this is how many great discoveries are made. While this is almost certainly a case of poor wording, the question is still reasonable to make.


Quote:
It's well established that you can't add damage to spells, attacks, or effects which do no base damage.

Is there a FAQ or something then?

Quote:
Btw, I think the bank example was great. Another for computer science people, is that there is a distinct difference between the value 0 and a null value.

I understand the conceptual distinction between 0 and null just fine. What I don't understand is why somebody would think that it applies here. What is making you think it is null-like or invalid to add damage when none is dealt, versus just "none has occurred yet/by default"?

RAW, FAQ, dev posts on forums, anything? Where is this coming from?

I really don't think that bank account type systems are the most natural of the two interpretations in the actual world / physics at large, such that you would ever assume this sort of setup just by default. In most cases in the world, you add matter or energy or whatever, and it just adds, without conditional prerequisites, or meta organizational structures.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Crimeo wrote:

I understand the conceptual distinction between 0 and null just fine. What I don't understand is why somebody would think that it applies here. What is making you think it is null-like or invalid to add damage when none is dealt, versus just "none has occurred yet/by default"?

RAW, FAQ, dev posts on forums, anything? Where is this coming from?

For me it's just intuitive understanding of what hit points represent. A trivial wound seems like taking zero hit points damage, whereas the comfy chair doesn't inflict any damage.


Crimeo wrote:
No damage was reduced, 0 damage = no damage. These are synonymous.

No, they are not synonymous. That is your flawed central premise. Lack of a qualitative property is not the same as no quantity of that qualitative property.

Spells have at least three properties regarding 'damage':

Does the spell deal damage? (qualitative - yes/no)

How much does it deal? (quantitative - dice plus integer)

What type of damage? (qualitative - linguistically defined IE fire, piercing, typeless etc)

A Charm person spell does not deal damage (no to first answer). Mathematically speaking, the second question is not 0, it is N/A.

Linguistically we might say a charm person spell does no damage or '0' damage, but ultimately this has a distinct and different meaning to a fireball spell doing 'X' damage when we start trying to apply numerical values to them. You cannot add +1 damage to charm person because there is no integer to add that +1 to.


Quote:
Lack of a qualitative property is not the same as no quantity of that qualitative property.

Not sure what you're talking about here at all. Very lost. You think damage is BOTH qualitative and quantitative at the same time...?

Qualitative MEANS not quantitative.

Damage and hitpoints are both arithmetic numerical systems and are thus quantitative things, simple as that. At no point do you officially discuss damage nor hitpoints in subjective ways, etc. (you may do so for roleplaying flavor, but not part of the rules mechanics)

Quote:
Does the spell deal damage? (qualitative - yes/no)

The game mechanics don't mention any such categorical distinction as mattering anywhere I see, it appears to have been invented by you on this forum just now. And yes, the thing you just invented is a qualitative system. One that doesn't seem to be in the game.

Again, unless I'm missing some RAW, FAQ, whatever. If so please share.

(by analogy, money is always quantitative. The additional optional organizational structure of accounts and customers and such of banks is an overarching qualitative system on top of that. Some meta orgaanization system like that could exist here, but it seems silly to assume such a thing by default if not mentioned)


Crimeo wrote:


Qualitative MEANS not quantitative.

A value is either qualitative or quantitative, yes. However, the property of a value can be qualitative while the value is quantitative. Only pure mathematics has no qualitative properties at all.

'Does something do damage' is a distinct and valid question before you can ask 'how much damage does it do'. Obviously charm person does no damage ie null damage, not 0 damage.

As for your dev comment:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


You're not stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules are written assuming the reader isn't stupid. Stop acting like you don't understand that the rules don't have the room to spell out every possible allowed combination and spell out every disallowed combination.

You're being disingenuous.

Pathfinder is a common-sense, not legalistic, ruleset. It is almost painfully clear that sneak attack should not apply to spells like charm person that have no way of directly inflicting injury on an enemy. Twisting the definition of 'no damage' is being deliberately obtuse. You know it doesn't work like this, we know it doesn't work like this --- why continue to play the charade?


Sure, but it's not "stupid" to think that by default, you can add things to lack of things and have it work just fine.

That's how like... 99.99% of the world works. The only exceptions are extremely formalized manmade abstract systems like coding languages, bank accounts, high level math, etc.

If anything is disingenous or not common sense, I submit that it would be assuming such abstract, highly engineered systems exist by default when not told that they do. Not the other way around. When not instructed otherwise, you should probably assume the way that the vast majority of things in general work, not the tiny minority.


Crimeo wrote:

Sure, but it's not "stupid" to think that by default, you can add things to lack of things and have it work just fine.

So you are telling me it's not "stupid" to think that you can add sneak attack to charm person? That it is common sense to assume sneak attack can be added to absolutely any spell that qualifies as an 'attack', regardless of whether or not it does damage?

If yes... seriously?

If no, what exactly are you arguing for?


Crimeo wrote:

Sure, but it's not "stupid" to think that by default, you can add things to lack of things and have it work just fine.

That's how like... 99.99% of the world works. The only exceptions are extremely formalized manmade abstract systems like coding languages, bank accounts, high level math, etc.

If anything is disingenous or not common sense, I submit that it would be assuming such abstract, highly engineered systems exist by default when not told that they do. Not the other way around. When not instructed otherwise, you should probably assume the way that the vast majority of things in general work, not the tiny minority.

It's not purely limited to obscure things.

If I asked what the height above sea level of Los Angeles is, you could tell me the answer. The same for New York, etc. You could even give me negative values for some places. Finally, you could tell me "0" feet above sea level for some queried locations.

What if I asked you for the height above sea level of a rose's smell? Or of the feeling of being happy? Or the color red? These are things for which the value is not merely 0, but completely undefined and nonsensical.

I could now tell you that the sea level has dropped by 5ft and you could work out new numbers for the above locations. And those places which were initially 0ft are now 5ft above sea level.

If you try to do the same for the second set, it just doesn't work. The height of smells, feelings, colors, etc, are still undefined... they have not become 5ft above sea level.


Oh yeah charm person is probably stupid yes. But if so it's purely because of a lack of a narrative explanation if anything, not because of any malarkey about null variables or bank accounts etc. that have nothing to do with any pathfinder rules.

And the narrative issue is a spell-by-spell thing. Even if charm person is stupid for that reason, adding damage to the spell Light-Dark is NOT stupid narratively. It's targeting light sensitive creatures in particular, already dazzling them. If you can position it so it hits their vital areas (eyes) more squarely and intensely, increasing the consequences from dazzling to damage is a reasonable narrative.

There could be 25 other spells that qualify and have reasonable narratives too. I don't know. As long as there's at least one, the underlying mechanical / logical rules questions are still relevant.

Quote:
What if I asked you for the height above sea level of a rose's smell? Or of the feeling of being happy?

That sort of level of things doesn't fit this situation.

All these spells are targeting creatures (that's one of the requirements). Creatures have hitpoints. Damage is thus something that will in every one of the situations be logistically possible to apply / is defined, unlike adjusting happiness' altitude.


Quote:
Quote:
What if I asked you for the height above sea level of a rose's smell? Or of the feeling of being happy?

That sort of thing doesn't fit this situation.

All these spells are targeting creatures (that's one of the requirements). Creatures have hitpoints. Damage is thus something that will in every one of the situations be logistically possible to apply / is defined, unlike adjusting happiness' altitude.

It completely fits.

It's not the creature we're analyzing, but the spell.

Charm person doesn't say "This spell deals 0 damage.", but rather, lacks any reference to damage at all. Thus, its "damage" property is not simply 0, but completely absent.

While humans, by convention, are accustomed to assuming a 0 value when the property being measured is missing, this is not actually mathematically correct.


Byakko wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
What if I asked you for the height above sea level of a rose's smell? Or of the feeling of being happy?

That sort of thing doesn't fit this situation.

All these spells are targeting creatures (that's one of the requirements). Creatures have hitpoints. Damage is thus something that will in every one of the situations be logistically possible to apply / is defined, unlike adjusting happiness' altitude.

It completely fits.

It's not the creature we're analyzing, but the spell.

Charm person doesn't say "This spell deals 0 damage.", but rather, lacks any reference to damage at all. Thus, its "damage" property is not simply 0, but completely absent.

While humans, by convention, are accustomed to assuming a 0 value when the property being measured is missing, this is not actually mathematically correct.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say, thanks Byakko.

Before you can check the numerical value of a subject's property you must first determine whether it contains said property.


Not having something!=0 is also how things like Caster Level and effective level for class features work.

A rogue with an Orange Prism Ioun Stone doesn't count as a first level caster in any way, shape or form, and a Wizard doesn't get Bravery and Armor Training I from wearing a Sash of the war champion. Likewise, a charm person spell doesn't get SA added on to it's damage, since it doesn't do damage. Not "it does 0 damage", but "it doesn't do damage". Despite being interchangeable in common English, these phrases are not synonymous.


Quote:
Charm person doesn't say "This spell deals 0 damage.", but rather, lacks any reference to damage at all. Thus, its "damage" property is not simply 0, but completely absent.

Nothing in the rules suggests that spells have any such binary "damage property" that matters for anything. This is purely an invention of this forum thread it seems. Most of nature doesn't really work like that, certainly at least for damage. A fluffy pillow launched at 100,000 mph will kill everyone, etc.

If I'm wrong, and they DO establish this somewher,e then you're absolutely right. But this is what I've been asking for RAW/FAQ/anything and I get crickets.

Quote:
A rogue with an Orange Prism Ioun Stone doesn't count as a first level caster in any way, shape or form

...and where are you getting this from either? RAW? FAQ? Anything?

It would be perfectly reasonable and logical that he does in fact now have a caster level of one, but since he can't cast any spells, who cares? It never becomes relevant.

Quote:
a Wizard doesn't get Bravery and Armor Training I from wearing a Sash of the war champion.

Agreed, but that would simply be because the sash doesn't say that he gains any abilities.

What it says is you treat your fighter level as 4 higher for those abilities. Sure, why not? I can perfectly well say he DOES now treat his fighter level as 4 now, whenever he uses those two abilities. (which the sash didn't give him, so he can't. But whenever he does these impossible things, his fighter level is 4.)

Again, without actual RAW, FAQ, anything otherwise, you're just making it up that it doesn't apply (not that it matters in this case)

Grand Lodge

Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Charm person doesn't say "This spell deals 0 damage.", but rather, lacks any reference to damage at all. Thus, its "damage" property is not simply 0, but completely absent.

Nothing in the rules suggests that spells have any such binary "damage property" that matters for anything. This is purely an invention of this forum thread it seems. Most of nature doesn't really work like that, certainly at least for damage. A fluffy pillow launched at 100,000 mph will kill everyone, etc.

If I'm wrong, and they DO establish this somewher,e then you're absolutely right. But this is what I've been asking for RAW/FAQ/anything and I get crickets.

Quote:
A rogue with an Orange Prism Ioun Stone doesn't count as a first level caster in any way, shape or form

...and where are you getting this from either? RAW? FAQ? Anything?

It would be perfectly reasonable and logical that he does in fact now have a caster level of one, but since he can't cast any spells, who cares? It never becomes relevant.

Quote:
a Wizard doesn't get Bravery and Armor Training I from wearing a Sash of the war champion.

Agreed, but that would simply be because the sash doesn't say that he gains any abilities.

What it says is you treat your fighter level as 4 higher for those abilities. Sure, why not? I can perfectly well say he DOES now treat his fighter level as 4 now, whenever he uses those two abilities. (which the sash didn't give him, so he can't. But whenever he does these impossible things, his fighter level is 4.)

Again, without actual RAW, FAQ, anything otherwise, you're just making it up that it doesn't apply (not that it matters in this case)

i

This is a surious arguement. The rules are designed to call out things that exist, not things that don't exist. Stop asking people to provide you with things that don't exist. You are trying to prove something that doesn't exist. You are linking things together incorrectly to come up with you supposition. I'm not even going to try and create an example because it only muddies the the conversation. Flat out, can you find any example of your point of view expressed in any of Piazo's products that backs your position. Because I'm sure if what you say is true, a game designer would have created an NPC that would've this stratagy over and over again against a game party. Find one example of this anywhere and post it here.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
Charm person doesn't say "This spell deals 0 damage.", but rather, lacks any reference to damage at all. Thus, its "damage" property is not simply 0, but completely absent.

Nothing in the rules suggests that spells have any such binary "damage property" that matters for anything. This is purely an invention of this forum thread it seems. Most of nature doesn't really work like that, certainly at least for damage. A fluffy pillow launched at 100,000 mph will kill everyone, etc.

If I'm wrong, and they DO establish this somewher,e then you're absolutely right. But this is what I've been asking for RAW/FAQ/anything and I get crickets.

Quote:
A rogue with an Orange Prism Ioun Stone doesn't count as a first level caster in any way, shape or form

...and where are you getting this from either? RAW? FAQ? Anything?

It would be perfectly reasonable and logical that he does in fact now have a caster level of one, but since he can't cast any spells, who cares? It never becomes relevant.

Quote:
a Wizard doesn't get Bravery and Armor Training I from wearing a Sash of the war champion.

Agreed, but that would simply be because the sash doesn't say that he gains any abilities.

What it says is you treat your fighter level as 4 higher for those abilities. Sure, why not? I can perfectly well say he DOES now treat his fighter level as 4 now, whenever he uses those two abilities. (which the sash didn't give him, so he can't. But whenever he does these impossible things, his fighter level is 4.)

Again, without actual RAW, FAQ, anything otherwise, you're just making it up that it doesn't apply (not that it matters in this case)

rules in pathfinder ALLOW stuff. not the other way around.

So, in fact, it is YOU that need to provide a rule that says "you can add damage to something that doesn't deal damage"

"increase damage" or "extra damage" mean in fact that there is something to "increase" or to "add to" respectivly (the language used in sneak attack). So, a spell doing 1 damage can be increased to 1+10d6, or have 10d6 added to it.

the only thing you need to prove your point, is a rule that specifically says: "you can add damage where there is none".

good luck.


Quote:
The rules are designed to call out things that exist

Yeah I agree, like for example, oh I don't know, when it says "Add 1d6 damage" that would be a rule calling out something now existing: 1d6 damage that didn't exist before.

If you want to claim it doesn't, then YOU need a rule that overrides that one. Otherwise all we have is one rule... the one that says that the new damage exists. So it wins unless opposed.

Quote:
So, in fact, it is YOU that need to provide a rule that says "you can add damage to something that doesn't deal damage"

Uh, the sneak attack rules. They're posted on the first page dude:

Quote:
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...

It says to add 1d6 damage. It doesn't give any stipulations or conditions or restrictions or caveats or disclaimers on this relevant to whether or not the attack was already belonging to some imagined category of yours of "damage dealing attacks" or not or whatever mumbo jumbo. It just says add 1d6. It's quite simple.

Unless you tell me about any such restrictions written in the rules, then you do exactly what it says on the tin: you add 1d6 extra damage to the attack.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
The rules are designed to call out things that exist

Yeah I agree, like for example, oh I don't know, when it says "Add 1d6 damage" that would be a rule calling out something now existing: 1d6 damage that didn't exist before.

If you want to claim it doesn't, then YOU need a rule that overrides that one. Otherwise all we have is one rule... the one that says that the new damage exists. So it wins unless opposed.

Quote:
So, in fact, it is YOU that need to provide a rule that says "you can add damage to something that doesn't deal damage"

Uh, the sneak attack rules. They're posted on the first page dude:

Quote:
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...

It says to add 1d6 damage. It doesn't give any stipulations or conditions or restrictions or caveats or disclaimers on this relevant to whether or not the attack was already belonging to some imagined category of yours of "damage dealing attacks" or not or whatever mumbo jumbo. It just says add 1d6. It's quite simple.

Unless you tell me about any such restrictions written in the rules, then you do exactly what it says on the tin: you add 1d6 extra damage to the attack.

EXTRA damage.

that stipulates that there is damage there to begin with.


I have asked the question about the Arcane Trickster and fireball before. The official source at the time said that yes you get the backstab damage, but to only 1 target. same with Magic Missle. Before we got this semi official ruling, Magic Missle had become the ultimate spell of doom.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
If a spell doesn't list damage, it isn't treated as 0 damage, it's treated as 'this isn't a damage based spell, numbers are not allowed'.
Okay, is this RAW?

Are you poking fun at the game?

Some people ask these kinds of questions seriously. This forces all kind of complexities on the developers. They will need to account for every awkward and strange question that is obvious. Such as "can dead people take actions"? I don't see a rule that says what you can do once you are dead?


shroudb wrote:


EXTRA damage.

that stipulates that there is damage there to begin with.

How are you concluding that...?

Quote:

extra

adjective ex·tra \ˈek-strə\

: more than is usual or necessary

If it's a dagger, that normally does 1d4, 1d4+1d6 is more than the usual.

If it's something that doesn't normally do damage, then 1d6 is also more than the usual none.

Throw a dog in a cathedral, and it now has more than its usual zero dogs in it. Add electricity to an iron fencepost and it now has a greater voltage than its usual zero volts. And yes for damage and injury too: poke me solidly right in my vital cornea, and you'll cause more injury than the usual non-vital zero injury poking me solidly almost anywhere else. In no way is it logically necessary or implied that a hitpoint of damage needed to be done for damage to be added to something. That's just straight up bonkers to assume without anything telling you that.

Quote:
Are you poking fun at the game?

What I'm doing exactly what the game tells me to do: Adding 1d6 damage. I'm suggesting that when the rules say to add 1d6 damage in XYZ conditions, and XYZ conditions are met, what we should do is... wait for it... add 1d6 damage. *gasp* *outrage* *you must want to play dead characters*

Apparently NOT doing what the rules tell you to do is the only actual logical proper procedure, unless you can produce yet another rule confirming "yes, ACTUALLY do what the first rule said" or something? I'm still not quite sure the logic here really.


Crimeo wrote:
shroudb wrote:


EXTRA damage.

that stipulates that there is damage there to begin with.

How are you concluding that...?

Quote:

extra

adjective ex·tra \ˈek-strə\

: more than is usual or necessary

If it's a dagger, that normally does 1d4, 1d4+1d6 is more than the usual.

If it's something that doesn't normally do damage, then 1d6 is also more than the usual none.

Quote:
Are you poking fun at the game?

Writing things in a more outraged tone doesn't make it a more logical argument.

Yes I am serious. Throw a dog in a room, and it now has more than its original zero dogs in it. Add electricity to an iron fencepost and it now has a greater voltage than its original zero volts. And yes for damage and injury too: poke me solidly right in my vital cornea, and you'll cause more injury than the usual non-vital zero injury poking me solidly almost anywhere else.

The game tells you to do something: Add 1d6 damage. I'm suggesting that what we should do when the rules say this is... wait for it... add 1d6 damage. *gasp* *outrage* *you must want to play dead characters*

Apparently NOT doing what the rules tell you to do is the actual logical proper procedure, unless you can produce yet another rule confirming "yes, ACTUALLY do what the first rule said" or something. I'm still not quite sure the logic here really.

A)because this is how language actually works.

You don't go to McDonald's and ask for "a burger and an extra coke", you ask for " a burger and a coke". If there was menu A though, that had a burger and a coke, you could very easily ask for "a menu A with an extra coke".

Or, to use your own fence example:
An electrified fence is a " fence with electrical current running through it". It's NOT a "fence with EXTRA electrical current flowing through it."

Extra stipulates that there is something already.

B)I don't get if you are trying to play the smart one, or if you genuinely believe what you say.

To put it simply: when everyone,except you, reads and understands the rules one way, and only you can't, then it's not the rules' fault.

dude you are wrong. Everyone here already explained countless times why. If you can't get it, you are still wrong. Have fun finding a DM running the game as you understand it.

Grand Lodge

And once again we still have no precedence for this type of damage being done before. If Paizo wanted this to exist, they would have used it. THe passages you call out do not in fact back up your argument, Crimeo.

Prove an actual example of this in print, from a Paizo product. Any of them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Herald wrote:
Prove an actual example of this in print, from a Paizo product. Any of them.

I'm not certain he isn't just poking fun at us and the game. I don't yet believe he is sincere with his assertion.

Shadow Lodge

I love how riled up everyone gets over this topic.

The truth of the matter is that You're basically all wrong. Because Paizo didn't bother to thoroughly vet all their rules we have multiple different sections defining Attack differently. As a result you can pretty much sneak attack with spells that deal damage even when they don't require attack rolls. THIS IS RAW. it is also contrary to the way everyone on the planet plays the game. just because they don't want it to be true and stubbornly refuse to accept it doesn't make it untrue. NOR does it mean that this is the way the rules were intended to function. I think it's pretty clear that the intent was that to be a sneak attack you need to make a roll and deal damage.

What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.

Shadow Lodge

Master of Shadows wrote:


What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.

This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Master of Shadows wrote:

sneak attack with spells that deal damage even when they don't require attack rolls. THIS IS RAW.

why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time.

Using previous FAQ as a model, we have tons of examples where two groups believed the rules said two different things. The FAQ makes it clear what the rules say, but often they don't change the text of the rules.

In this case, should it get FAQ, it would probably not result in a change in the rules text. Whether or not it comes down agreeing with your or me I can't say. But I'd wager a beer it comes down agreeing with the assertion you can't Sneak Attack on an effect that doesn't deal hit point damage and doesn't require an attack roll.

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:

sneak attack with spells that deal damage even when they don't require attack rolls. THIS IS RAW.

why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time.

Using previous FAQ as a model, we have tons of examples where two groups believed the rules said two different things. The FAQ makes it clear what the rules say, but often they don't change the text of the rules.

In this case, should it get FAQ, it would probably not result in a change in the rules text. Whether or not it comes down agreeing with your or me I can't say. But I'd wager a beer it comes down agreeing with the assertion you can't Sneak Attack on an effect that doesn't deal hit point damage and doesn't require an attack roll.

I'd take that bet! Even knowing I'd lose, just for the opportunity to nerd out over a beer!

I would love once, just once to see a rules set in which the rules and the flavor text were clearly separated by differences of font, and have this separation stated clearly in the beginning of the book. I would also like to see rules written clearly and concisely in a way where the result is unequivocal. IMHO saying that some rules sometimes are written ambiguously in an attempt to keep the text conversational to prevent boredom is merely a cop out to avoid taking responsibility for poor writing.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Master of Shadows wrote:
I would also like to see rules written clearly and concisely in a way where the result is unequivocal.

My experience tells me this is absolutely impossible unless you are talking to an army of clones of yourself.

For ever player or GM like you and I who can read a line of text and come to a conclusion, there are others who have trouble understanding the rules, have a different interpretation than we do, or didn't read it and just wing it based on what they think it should be.

In short, it is something the developers of the world don't attempt. They write rules in natural language and avoid precisely spelling out everything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gol Zayvian wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:


What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.
This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.

Using an alias to agree with your own post is really, really lame.

Shadow Lodge

Gallo wrote:
Gol Zayvian wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:


What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.
This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.
Using an alias to agree with your own post is really, really lame.

HAHAHA It's just that important to me. ;)

Sovereign Court

James Risner wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
I would also like to see rules written clearly and concisely in a way where the result is unequivocal.

My experience tells me this is absolutely impossible unless you are talking to an army of clones of yourself.

For ever player or GM like you and I who can read a line of text and come to a conclusion, there are others who have trouble understanding the rules, have a different interpretation than we do, or didn't read it and just wing it based on what they think it should be.

In short, it is something the developers of the world don't attempt. They write rules in natural language and avoid precisely spelling out everything.

Not to mention that even the attempt would be several times as much text and much harder to understand. Ever read a book of laws or regulations? Ugh. And even then, much is up in the air for judges to make judgement calls on.

Just use logic & common sense. Like in this case... obviously you can't strike precisely with a FIREBALL!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallo wrote:
Gol Zayvian wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:


What I don't understand is why Paizo keeps allowing this argument to crop up from time to time. apparently someone somewhere in their organization gets his jollies off by watching these threads explode with the nerd rage of an atomic bomb. Otherwise they would make the simple adjustments to the sneak attack rules that would immediately clarify the intent so that it is impossible to misunderstand. and they could do it without overly expanding their ever precious word count.
This is the nail being struck soundly on the head.
Using an alias to agree with your own post is really, really lame.

At least he didn't also favorite it.

101 to 150 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / can sneak attack boost the damage of a fireball? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.