|
Let's say you are a little hobbit rogue with a dagger and very low strength (-3 bonus) and you hit with a bit of sneak attack (1d6) and your dagger is +1 flaming.
Damage is 1d3 - 3 + 1d6 + 1 (dagger) + 1d6 (fire)
What's going to happen here:
Do you roll 1d3-3+1 first, turn that into 1 non-lethal hp of damage (minimum - assume you roll a 1), then add another 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for sneak and 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for fire?
Or do you roll 1d3 + 1d6 - 2 and only turn into non-lethal if you roll two 1s?
Richard
I don't know for sure, but at my table it would be 1d3+1d6-2 P or S damage + 1d6 fire.
I don't know for sure, but at my table it would be 1d3+1d6-2 P or S damage + 1d6 fire.
I think we would run it as you suggest at my table as well. It's my understanding that sneak attack mimics the damage type of the base damage dice (so sneak attacking with a rapier deals extra piercing damage, and with a club bludgeoning, etc.). As such, it appeals to my logic that you calculate sneak attack before applying bonuses (or in this case penalties).
However, I could also see another argument: that both sneak attack and the flaming weapon quality apply bonus damage dice instead of bonus damage. Following that thought leads me to think that penalties and bonuses apply to the base damage dice only. For example, say you landed a critical with the character listed above. Wouldn't the order of operations suggest that you calculate damage as 2d3-4 and then apply sneak attack damage and flaming weapon damage dice? That leads me to believe that the calculation for damage in the original example would be 1d3-2 P/S plus 1d6 P/S (but must match base damage type) plus 1d6 fire.
It's not normally a distinction that matters but I could see it making the difference of a few points of damage here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say you are a little hobbit rogue with a dagger and very low strength (-3 bonus) and you hit with a bit of sneak attack (1d6) and your dagger is +1 flaming.
Damage is 1d3 - 3 + 1d6 + 1 (dagger) + 1d6 (fire)
What's going to happen here:
Do you roll 1d3-3+1 first, turn that into 1 non-lethal hp of damage (minimum - assume you roll a 1), then add another 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for sneak and 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for fire?
Or do you roll 1d3 + 1d6 - 2 and only turn into non-lethal if you roll two 1s?
Richard
You roll all the damage together. If the creature has fire resistance then you would roll the normal damage and the fire damage seperately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You roll all the damage together. If the creature has fire resistance then you would roll the normal damage and the fire damage seperately.Let's say you are a little hobbit rogue with a dagger and very low strength (-3 bonus) and you hit with a bit of sneak attack (1d6) and your dagger is +1 flaming.
Damage is 1d3 - 3 + 1d6 + 1 (dagger) + 1d6 (fire)
What's going to happen here:
Do you roll 1d3-3+1 first, turn that into 1 non-lethal hp of damage (minimum - assume you roll a 1), then add another 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for sneak and 1d6 (lethal or non-lethal) for fire?
Or do you roll 1d3 + 1d6 - 2 and only turn into non-lethal if you roll two 1s?
Richard
This. It's one damage pool. If sneak attack and other precision damage were a rider, Rogues would virtually never be able to injure anything with damage reduction, particularly if it's 10+.
And the sneak attack damage is the same type of damage as the attack it's attached to. So if the attack does nonlethal damage (e.g., using a sap), so does the sneak attack. If the attack does fire damage (e.g., Scorching Ray), so does the sneak attack.
This. It's one damage pool. If sneak attack and other precision damage were a rider, Rogues would virtually never be able to injure anything with damage reduction, particularly if it's 10+.
And the sneak attack damage is the same type of damage as the attack it's attached to. So if the attack does nonlethal damage (e.g., using a sap), so does the sneak attack. If the attack does fire damage (e.g., Scorching Ray), so does the sneak attack.
I didn't mean to suggest that DR applies separately to each part of the damage. I think we are all in agreement that DR would only apply at the end of the calculation, but I am still not certain if the damage is:
A) 1d3-2 + 1d6 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
B) 1d3+1d6-2 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
C) 1d3+1d6+1d6(fire)-2
Yeah it's 1d3-3+1+1d6(sneak attack) all together. Either it overcomes the minimum damage or only deals 1 non-lethal damage.
As for the fire damage, that 1d6 is separate and applies against energy resistance only.
This. It's one damage pool. If sneak attack and other precision damage were a rider, Rogues would virtually never be able to injure anything with damage reduction, particularly if it's 10+.
And the sneak attack damage is the same type of damage as the attack it's attached to. So if the attack does nonlethal damage (e.g., using a sap), so does the sneak attack. If the attack does fire damage (e.g., Scorching Ray), so does the sneak attack.
I didn't mean to suggest that DR applies separately to each part of the damage. I think we are all in agreement that DR would only apply at the end of the calculation, but I am still not certain if the damage is:
A) 1d3-2 + 1d6 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
B) 1d3+1d6-2 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
C) 1d3+1d6+1d6(fire)-2
Does it matter? Short of energy resistance and damage reduction, it's going to be the same.
But generally speaking (because you don't always know if energy resistance is relevant), it's probably best to roll it all at once but note for your GM that there is fire damage. So in practice, it'd look like (1d3 + 1d6 + relevant modifiers) + 1d6 fire.
When I roll something like this, I roll it all at once and I'll tell my GM I got, e.g., 12 damage 3 of which is fire or 9 damage plus 3 fire. Usually it doesn't matter, but I'm not the person who will know if this is a situation where it does.
Does it matter? Short of energy resistance and damage reduction, it's going to be the same.
But generally speaking (because you don't always know if energy resistance is relevant), it's probably best to roll it all at once but note for your GM that there is fire damage. So in practice, it'd look like (1d3 + 1d6 + relevant modifiers) + 1d6 fire.
When I roll something like this, I roll it all at once and I'll tell my GM I got, e.g., 12 damage 3 of which is fire or 9 damage plus 3 fire. Usually it doesn't matter, but I'm not the person who will know if this is a situation where it does.
It specifically matters in this example because he is taking a penalty to damage. In Option A, if you roll a 1 or a 2 on your d3 you will be dealing nonlethal damage (67% chance). In Option B, you would have to roll a 1 on both your d3 and your d6 (~6% chance) in order to do nonlethal damage. And in Option C, you would always do lethal damage. That's a pretty significant difference, worth clarifying IMO.
Does it matter? Short of energy resistance and damage reduction, it's going to be the same.[...]I am still not certain if the damage is:
A) 1d3-2 + 1d6 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
B) 1d3+1d6-2 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
C) 1d3+1d6+1d6(fire)-2
No it won't. Does that -3 get absorbed into 1 non-lethal or does it negate some of the sneak attack?
An example. Say the 1d3 rolls 1, the 1d6 SA is 5 and the 1d6 fire is 4.
- A) 1-2 + 5 + 4 = 9 Lethal, 1 Non-lethal
- B) 1+5-2 + 4 = 8 Lethal
- C) 1+5+4-2 = 8 Lethal
Now, say that same attack on a target that has 5 DR/-.
- A) 1-2 + 5 + 4 = 9 Lethal, 1 Non-lethal
=> Net after DR: 4 Lethal, No Non-lethal
- B) 1+5-2 + 4 = 8 Lethal
=> Net after DR: 0 Lethal, No Non-lethal
- C) 1+5+4-2 = 8 Lethal
=> Net after DR: 3 Lethal, No Non-lethal
My argument for not lumping the 1d6 sneak in when deciding if the initial weapon damage did lethal or non-lethal is that precision damage is not added in until after calculations on a crit.
So I wouldn't add that d6 in until after the 1d3+magic-str was calculated out whether a normal or crit. Its probably not going to really matter much since that 1d3+1 dagger avg damage is 3 and with a -3 str penalty your net is 0.
For speeding up play, roll all the dice (I like my rogue players to use a different color d6 for sneak - typically plain old white yahtzee dice) they know its not multiplied on a crit, but I'd prefer to get the damage stated as "2 piercing plus 8point of sneak damage, and add on another 5 for the flaming fire. Total is 15".
Your GM knows if the monster is DR/piercing; flame immune; precision/crit immune - and I don't like to let on to the players immediately about that kind of thing. By getting the damage stated by types it lets me toss that portion out w/o the players knowing immediately. Especially if its a home-brew or re-skinned monster. If I have to say, "OK 15 damage, but how much of that was piercing/sneak/fire?" Its immediately going to tip off the players to meta-game the monster has some kind of resistance. I'd prefer to just apply the 5 fire, and after the first full round of combat (maybe 2) I'd start dropping clues about how certain weapons seem to be less effective or ask for a knowledge check if they didn't ask to make one right at the outset.
That makes sense. I guess it's less of an issue in my game to ask such a question because I'm very transparent with resistances and DR if the players are capable of seeing their target. I'll say something like, "You landed a blow but its rocky skin prevents your attack from being as effective" if they fail to bypass DR, or, "A mostly translucent shield absorbs some of the blast of the fireball" for resistances.
Does it matter? Short of energy resistance and damage reduction, it's going to be the same.[...]I am still not certain if the damage is:
A) 1d3-2 + 1d6 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
B) 1d3+1d6-2 + 1d6(fire)
- OR -
C) 1d3+1d6+1d6(fire)-2No it won't. Does that -3 get absorbed into 1 non-lethal or does it negate some of the sneak attack?
An example. Say the 1d3 rolls 1, the 1d6 SA is 5 and the 1d6 fire is 4.
- A) 1-2 + 5 + 4 = 9 Lethal, 1 Non-lethal
- B) 1+5-2 + 4 = 8 Lethal
- C) 1+5+4-2 = 8 Lethal
Now, say that same attack on a target that has 5 DR/-.
- A) 1-2 + 5 + 4 = 9 Lethal, 1 Non-lethal
=> Net after DR: 4 Lethal, No Non-lethal
- B) 1+5-2 + 4 = 8 Lethal
=> Net after DR: 0 Lethal, No Non-lethal
- C) 1+5+4-2 = 8 Lethal
=> Net after DR: 3 Lethal, No Non-lethal
Fire damage isn't reduced by DR. Also, note that I said short of damage reduction. I was responding to a post that was discounting how DR interacts with this.
So if DR is involved, deal with all the physical stuff first, subtract DR, then add the fire damage back in.
Option 1: 1-2+5-5 = 0 plus 4 fire
Option 2: 1+5-2-5 = 0 plus 4 fire
Option 3: Inapplicable.
For nonDR attacks, Sneak Attack is a part of the attack and does the same type of damage. If the attack does nonlethal damage, so does the sneak attack. You can't have nonlethal weapon damage and lethal sneak attack damage. Add it all together.
My argument for not lumping the 1d6 sneak in when deciding if the initial weapon damage did lethal or non-lethal is that precision damage is not added in until after calculations on a crit.
Treat it like you do the extra damage from Vital Strike. That's also not multiplied by a critical hit. There's no question it comes into the calculation before DR is considered, though.
(Apologies for the wall of math) So with no DR in the equation, say you rolled a 1 on the base damage die, a 5 on the sneak attack, and a 4 on the fire damage---
Option A: Base damage is 1-2 = 1 nonlethal damage; (then apply sneak attack damage) +5 = 6 nonlethal damage plus 4 fire
Option B: Weapon damage is 1-2+5 = 4 lethal damage plus 4 fire
Option C: Total damage is 1-2+5+4 = 8 lethal damage, 4 of which is fire --same basic result as option B
---------------------
Or in a different example, say you rolled a 1 on the base damage die, a 1 on the sneak attack, and 4 on the fire damage---
Option A: Base damage is 1-2 = 1 nonlethal damage; (then apply sneak attack damage) +1 = 2 nonlethal damage plus 4 fire
Option B: Weapon damage is 1-2+1 = 1 nonlethal damage plus 4 fire
Option C: Total damage is 1-2+1+4 = 4 damage, 4 of which is fire
---------------------
Do you see my point that changing the order of how you calculate it can affect the final damage significantly? On a separate note, if you do nonlethal damage with a flaming weapon, is the extra fire damage considered nonlethal too?
The answer is all physical damage is combined together, energy damage is separate. Yes, it means that because you have a -3 penalty to damage you run a not insignificant risk of doing the minimal 1 non-lethal damage.
(Apologies for the wall of math) So with no DR in the equation, say you rolled a 1 on the base damage die, a 5 on the sneak attack, and a 4 on the fire damage---
Option A: Base damage is 1-2 = 1 nonlethal damage; (then apply sneak attack damage) +5 = 6 nonlethal damage plus 4 fire
Option B: Weapon damage is 1-2+5 = 4 lethal damage plus 4 fire
Option C: Total damage is 1-2+5+4 = 8 lethal damage, 4 of which is fire --same basic result as option B
---------------------
Or in a different example, say you rolled a 1 on the base damage die, a 1 on the sneak attack, and 4 on the fire damage---
Option A: Base damage is 1-2 = 1 nonlethal damage; (then apply sneak attack damage) +1 = 2 nonlethal damage plus 4 fire
Option B: Weapon damage is 1-2+1 = 1 nonlethal damage plus 4 fire
Option C: Total damage is 1-2+1+4 = 4 damage, 4 of which is fire
---------------------
Do you see my point that changing the order of how you calculate it can affect the final damage significantly? On a separate note, if you do nonlethal damage with a flaming weapon, is the extra fire damage considered nonlethal too?
I will try this again.
Unless someone has DR or fire resistance that damage is all lumped together.
No DR and no fire resistance =
"Option C: Total damage is 1-2+5+4 = 8 lethal damage, 4 of which is fire --same basic result as option B"
For your other example the answer is also C.
Option C: Total damage is 1-2+1+4 = 4 damage, 4 of which is fire
Fire damage is lethal damage also.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fire damage is fire damage. Damage modifiers apply to weapon damage. So as Claxon said, you add up all the physical damage with relevant modifiers before applying rider effects (like energy damage, poison, etc.).
As I said, treat it like you would Vital Strike. You do not calculate weapon damage, then add Vital Strike damage afterwards; it is all one thing.
EDIT: wraith snuck in there before me. Must have dipped Ninja last level up.
I must have missed the "damage penalty brings total to zero = non lethal" line somewhere. I was under the impression that the minimum was 1 damage, without non-lethal conversion.
As to order of operations, (1d3-2 <minimum 1>), +1d6 sneak attack (it's precision damage, not regular weapon damage), + 1d6 fire (again, not weapon damage but energy damage).
At least that's my read.
Edit: got penalty wrong.
From a single attack, all physical damage is added together, regardless of source, before comparing it to dr.
So your weapon damage is added to your strength bonus (or penalty) including the weapons enhancement bonus and other static modifies (bard song etc) and then other modifiers like sneak attack, bane, vital strike. All of that is added up and figured out as the damage you do, and compared against damage reduction. All of this damage will also have the base characteristics of the weapon dealing it (bludgeoning, piercing, silver, adamantine etc.)
Energy damage is separate, and is only compared against resistance (or immunity) except for the corner case of creatures with hardness.
Choosing to do non-lethal damage with a sneak attack is different than having your damage converted to do 1 non-lethal damage.
In the above scenario, the character's damage is 1d3 (dagger) -3 (from low strength) + 1 (magic dagger) +1d6 (sneak attack) + 1d6 fire damage.
If the player rolls a 1 on dagger damage and a 1 on sneak attack damage he would deal 1-3+1+1, which would be 0 physical damage. Instead of dealing 0 damage, it automatically converts to 1 non-lethal damage. (Unless the creature has DR, which would completely negate the damage).
Fire damage is applied separately.
^ Those two know what's up.
Something that is a little late. A character knows after 1 blow if the attack did less damage than expected. They don't know how much less or why, but they do know if the attack does less than normal.
"Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective)"
and
"Sometimes damage reduction represents instant healing. Sometimes it represents the creature's tough hide or body. In either case, other characters can see that conventional attacks won't work."
both show that you notice your thing isn't working.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<stuff>
Claxon stated how it works correctly.
SA is of the same type (its not a separate type) as the base damage, and is added to the base damage to determine overcoming DR, being greater than 0, etc. If a monster is immune to SA the GM needs to tell you not to roll it, or not to add it in.
You add all the physical damage together.
Apply DR if appropriate.
Convert 0 damage to 1 non-lethal if appropriate.
Then add rider effects and their damage like flaming if appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules do not say SA damage cannot be nonlethal. In fact, it unquestionably can. The rules prohibit you from intentionally using a lethal weapon to get nonlethal SA damage.
That does not mean that your attack with a lethal weapon couldn't be so ineffective that even with SA damage, you do minimal (less than 1) damage. It also defies reason that you could strike a foe so weakly that you do nothing more than maybe cause some slight bruising to the skin, and yet still effectively strike them so precisely that you cause relatively serious harm. It's one or the other. The SA overcomes what ordinarily would be a negligible hit to cause actual damage to a vulnerable target, or the entire attack is ineffective.
|
Here's how I would do this. First roll 1d3, 1d6, and 1d6, noticing carefully which is which among the d6's.
The full formula was:1d3 - 3 + 1d6 + 1 (dagger) + 1d6 (fire)
I would first calculate 1d3-3+1, which is 'normal damage.' This must be at least 1.
Now add the 1d6 for sneak attack. This is the full 'physical damage.' Any DR is subtracted from this. The result can be zero or a positive number.
Finally, the 1d6 for flaming is added to the previous result. The final answer here is how much damage the enemy took.
Sneak attack and weapon damage are the same thing. You do not treat sneak attack damage (or vital strike damage, bane etc) as a separate pool you roll it all together and apply the modifiers.
Elemental damage is accounted for separately.
(1d3+1d6+1-3)+(1d6)
GM1990 you are making this way too hard. We already told you how it works.
Do you not like the rule, or are you still having trouble understanding?
If there is something you don't understand could ask what it is specifically that you don't understand?
Sneak Attack damage is not multiplied just like that fire damage is not multiplies on crits.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage are never multiplied.
Sneak attack and the energy damage are not part of a dagger(just an example) normal damage so it is not multiplied. Therefore it is just added on. There is not "before" or "after".
It doesn't matter if you Add A+B+C or C+A+B. The result is the same.
1+2+3 is the same as 2+1+3.
Sneak attack is also not a rider affect that depends on you doing lethal damage first. Also by the rules sneak attack is not nonlethal unless you use certain weapons.
I thought you were the OP since you kept asking. I forgot Devlin started the convo. <facepalm>
He has not replied so I guess he has an answer.
Honestly though - I really don't want someone spending hours looking for an actual reference over 1 or 2 points of damage in a corner case. we probably already spent way more brain power on it than the OP thought we would....unless that was the genius of it.
I don't need to spend hours looking for one. It doesn't exist. The ruling that weapon and SA damage are a single package comes from the logical inference of how SA interacts with DR - and conversely how rider effects like poison interact with DR (you need to overcome the DR to get the rider effect).
Its also a logical inference of how weapons applies wounds. If I stab someone with a weapon and have SA, I don't stab them, then the SA makes a second wound appear on them. It is all a single wound. If its all a single wound, then damage as a whole was applied to that wound. If I stab someone with a flaming weapon though, they receive a weapon wound, then the flames also burn and sear their skin as a second wound of a different type.
While I agree with most of the above posts (SA adds to the base damage of the attack before DR/Resists are applied), I feel we really could use some clarification on:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease.I've seen a fair amount of debate on what is or isn't a "special effect", especially if that "special effect" adds damage.
This also comes up frequently for monsters which have "bad stuff" happen in addition to their natural weapon damage.
Those would be "rider" affects. They are things that need for damage to happen before the affect can take place, which are different from things that happen in addition to damage, just because a hit took place. As an example if you have a flaming weapon that fire damage is not dependent upon damage taking place.
When something requires damage for it to work it is normally called out.
Example:
Stunning Fist: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Stunning Fist forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally
Sneak attack does not say damage had to take place.
They're usually pretty easy to figure out: if it says "on a hit" or "extra damage" it's dependent on the attack roll, if it says "when damaged", it's dependent on the attack doing damage and can be negated by DR.
Compare disruption and spell storing.
I think the real problem here is that people think for some reason that sneak attack damage is a separate pool from weapon damage.
It's not. It's treated differently with regards to critical hits, but that is explicitly spelled out. Sneak attack damage is a a result of precisely hitting a vulnerable spot on an enemy with your attack. It's part of whatever weapon you used to deal the damage (including a spell if you use it to deal sneak attack instead of a weapon).
It's all one damage pool, and thus you total it up to determine how DR is applied and things like having it be converted to non-lethal damage if you deal too little damage.
If you tried to have it be a separate damage pool, it would also need to apply against DR separately.
Yes there are different mathematical ways to calculate it, but only 1 is correct.
Total all the physical damage from a single attack together. Then rules for DR or converting to non-lethal apply.
Generally the non-lethal conversion rule doesn't come up often because you don't have many cases of dumped str unless someone is doing a dex based build, dumped strength, and hasn't obtained a method for dex to damage yet.
|
|
Sorry - I thought the thread had finished a while back and hadn't realised how much it had moved on.
In the example I gave, the distinction between weapon damage, strength damage and sneak attack isn't so much, however this would become more of an issue if you were doing 1d3 - 3 + 10d6 sneak attack. If you applied the zero damage becomes 1 non-lethal damage rule on the 1d3-3 alone then you could argue that you only ever do non-lethal damage with an attack like that.
I think I'm right in saying that if you use a non-lethal attack with sneak attack, then your sneak attack is non-lethal (correct)?
One could then argue that hitting with a dagger at 1d3-3 means you're not capable of doing lethal damage with the dagger. Perhaps you're not strong enough to break the skin. If ordinarily, i.e. without sneak attack, you cannot do lethal damage, is it not the case then that your attack is essentially a non-lethal attack?
(no axe to grind over this, BTW, lethal or non-lethal - just wondering what the world-view was)
Richard
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you ordinarily cannot do lethal damage with your dagger, then yes you'll always do nonlethal damage. However, making a Sneak Attack is not ordinarily attacking with your dagger; you get significant bonus damage.
Sneak attack is added to the normal weapon damage before that rule comes into play. So if you strike a vital target and deal 1d3-3 points of damage you then have to add your sneak attack damage before you determine the lethality of your strike.
The algorithm then isn't:
1. If (Weapon Damage +/- STR) > 0, then Lethal
2. If Lethal, then Sneak Attack is Lethal, Else Sneak Attack is Nonlethal.
The algorithm is:
1. If (Weapon Damage +/- STR + Sneak Attack) > 0, then Lethal, Else damage is 1 Nonlethal
You can't determine whether your attack with a normally lethal weapon is nonlethal or not prior to attacking (assuming you're not attempting to make a nonlethal attack with a lethal weapon - which isn't compatible with sneak attack, anyway) before you roll damage. Sneak Attack is a part of that damage, just like Vital Strike damage, Critical Hit damage, a Swashbuckler/Duelist's Precise Strike damage, etc. It is all taken into account before determining whether the attack is lethal. Either all of your damage together exceeds 0, or you do 1 nonlethal damage. You do not do 1 nonlethal damage because your weapon attacks are ordinarily weak then add a bunch of nonlethal sneak attack, vital strike, critical hit, or precision damage on top of that. It's one pool of damage, and it's all the same type (ordinarily speaking).