PDA

View Full Version : Sneak Attack Your Self!!!



Alcopop
2009-06-13, 12:23 PM
Sneak attacking with a spell deals the same type of damage as the spell, so if you take tomb tainted soul and sneak attacked yourself with a wand of inflict...

1d8 + 1dx sneak in healing.

So, the question for the playground is, what is the most effective way of sneak attacking one self?
(keep in mind i'm trying to get this past a GM who HATES the idea so as rules sturdy as possible!)

Yora
2009-06-13, 12:26 PM
Coup de grace yourself.

Alcopop
2009-06-13, 12:28 PM
Coup de grace yourself.

not very effective, you'd have to make yourself helpless first and also risk dieing evey time you did it.

Jack_Simth
2009-06-13, 12:29 PM
Sneak attacking with a spell deals the same type of damage as the spell, so if you take tomb tainted soul and sneak attacked yourself with a wand of inflict...

1d8 + 1dx sneak in healing.

So, the question for the playground is, what is the most effective way of sneak attacking one self?
(keep in mind i'm trying to get this past a GM who HATES the idea so as rules sturdy as possible!)Take no ranks in balance, and have someone cast Grease underneath you (you're considered flat-footed when Balancing if you don't have at least five ranks in Balance).

Climb up a wall without a climb speed (similar).

The big problem, though, is that you're not dealing yourself damage any more than you would if you were a normal rogue using a wand of cure light wounds.

Dogmantra
2009-06-13, 12:32 PM
Take Tomb-Tainted Soul and have the cleric coup de grace you with Inflict X Wounds:
SRD says:

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent...If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die

Melee touch attack counts as a melee weapon, I believe. You can certainly critical hit with it.
Also, since you're being healed, that's basically negative damage, so it makes the fortitude save easier to overcome. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Easiest way to become helpless is to fall asleep.

I know it's not sneak attacking yourself, but it's an alternative to what the OP says.

Renegade Paladin
2009-06-13, 12:36 PM
If this works, (and I stress the if), you might as well skip the feat and sneak attack yourself with a wand of cure [x] wounds; it works the same way.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-06-13, 01:11 PM
If this works, (and I stress the if), you might as well skip the feat and sneak attack yourself with a wand of cure [x] wounds; it works the same way.

No it doesn't.

You see, Sneak Attacking with a Wand of Cure x Wounds would cure the amount of the cure x wounds spell, then deal your sneak attack damage in positive energy damage, NOT healing.

However, tomb-tainted feat explicitly states that you heal from negative energy damage. So you sneak attack with negative energy, and you deal negative energy damage, which you heal from.

Easiest way: dip a level of Dread Necromancer for Charnel Touch, then Grease yourself, and sneak attack yourself with the Touch.

jcsw
2009-06-13, 01:24 PM
Grease yourself, and sneak attack yourself with the Touch.

Am I the only one who finds this statement immensely wrong?

Artanis
2009-06-13, 01:31 PM
Am I the only one who finds this statement immensely wrong?

No, you're not alone.

Trizap
2009-06-13, 02:02 PM
No, you're not alone.

I agree immensely (on a side note, STUPID TEN CHAR MINIMUM)

Deth Muncher
2009-06-13, 02:22 PM
I'm sorry, this made me think of the noob-cry of WoW: "I crit my pantz! lololololol!"

TheCountAlucard
2009-06-13, 02:45 PM
I actually discussed this with one of my gaming friends a few weeks back, except instead of sneak attacking oneself, one was sneak attacking the other party members.

Rogue: Say, Wizard, Fighter's HP is looking pretty low. You know what to do.
Wizard: (casts Grease)
Rogue: (walks up to Fighter and ganks him in the kidney with a wand of Inflict Serious Wounds) SNEAK ATTACK!
Fighter: (is healed by the negative energy thanks to TTS) Thanks, buddy!

:smallbiggrin:

Yora
2009-06-13, 03:13 PM
not very effective, you'd have to make yourself helpless first and also risk dieing evey time you did it.
No, you can also be voluntarily be helpless by chosing not to resist. And I think you can voluntarily fail saves.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-13, 03:14 PM
However, tomb-tainted feat explicitly states that you heal from negative energy damage.
Or in other words, what causes negative energy damage to others, heals you. Seriously, I don't even know how people can even thinks that this is even remotely close to finding an exploit.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-06-13, 03:28 PM
Or in other words, what causes negative energy damage to others, heals you. Seriously, I don't even know how people can even thinks that this is even remotely close to finding an exploit.

If this is not what you consider an exploit, then pray tell, what is? Is Infinite Healing not enough for you?

#Raptor
2009-06-13, 03:35 PM
Am I the only one who finds this statement immensely wrong?

I'm almost wondering - did you choose this avatar after reading his post?

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-13, 03:46 PM
I'm almost wondering - did you choose this avatar after reading his post?

Because, true exploits such as Pun-Pun, depend on real rule loopholes and synergies.

Here, it's just a not very debatable incorrect reading of the rule.

If you are healed by negative energy damage, you do not take negative energy damage + sneak attack and then heal twice that. Rather, you are simply healed by the negative energy. There is no sneak attack healing.

However, it's a great feat in and of itself. You can make an arcane necromancer who can heal himself or let the evil cleric spontaneously heal you.

Deepblue706
2009-06-13, 03:49 PM
I don't understand why we have to get Grease included into the mix. Can't you just forego your Dex-to-AC and automatically make yourself a valid target for a Sneak Attack?

Curmudgeon
2009-06-13, 03:58 PM
No, you can also be voluntarily be helpless by chosing not to resist. In life? Yes. In D&D? No, that's not an option in the rules. D&D is about heroic striving, not passive failure.

And I think you can voluntarily fail saves. Yes, that's true ever since Rules Compendium changed the conditions for saves. In the core rules you could only fail saving throws for spells.

Narmoth
2009-06-13, 04:13 PM
Well, it's very nice exploitation, but I can't of any reason for your dm to be pleased with it. Do you really want to upset the balance of the adventure he carefully set up in advance?
Basically, you spit all over his unpaid hard work.

sikyon
2009-06-13, 04:17 PM
I would allow it as a DM.

sneak attack means that you are able to use your knowledge of anatomy and ect to critically attack key positions.

No reason it shouldn't work for targeted benificial spells.

Quietus
2009-06-13, 04:22 PM
Sneak attacking with a spell deals the same type of damage as the spell, so if you take tomb tainted soul and sneak attacked yourself with a wand of inflict...

1d8 + 1dx sneak in healing.

So, the question for the playground is, what is the most effective way of sneak attacking one self?
(keep in mind i'm trying to get this past a GM who HATES the idea so as rules sturdy as possible!)

See the bolded. WHY are you trying to do this? If I know a player is trying to do something absolutely ridiculous by exploiting the rules, I'll start with a stern look and a "..really? You're actually going to try that?"

If they push forward, they take the full negative energy strike as damage. It's not RAW, but you're trying to break the world, so the world will break you back. In no way will STABBING YOURSELF IN THE KIDNEY REALLY HARD ever actually *heal* you.

Swordguy
2009-06-13, 04:27 PM
As a DM, I wouldn't allow the sneak attack. That's not based on RAW or any particular reading of the rules - it's based on the player trying to break the game. Infinite HP is a game-breaker.

I WOULD allow it as part of a coup-de-grace action...but you're making your FORT save to avoid dying. Depending on how smarmy the player in question was at my table, I might add on the sneak attack bonus to the DC of the fort save. After all, sneak attack is explicitly bonus damage. This damage just happens to heal you, but it's still damage. And the DC of the Fort save is set by the damage of the attack.

So, if you were one of my players and actually dropping this on me in a game, the response would generally be "stop being a smarmy git and play the game you damn well know it's intended to be played."

Weimann
2009-06-13, 04:39 PM
Well, not to be a killjoy, but it's a bit counter-logic, isn't it?

Sneak attack is based on the idea that a an unprepared target takes more damage due to being unable to defend and the attacker having time to aim carefully (I would suppose).

When you heal (unless you heal in combat) you always have that time to concentrate and aim, and also (in most cases) a compliant target. There's no defense to overcome, and thus there can't be a bonus.

However, I COULD go for it in terms of using healing spells against undead, for the same reasons.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-06-13, 04:42 PM
I WOULD allow it as part of a coup-de-grace action...but you're making your FORT save to avoid dying. Depending on how smarmy the player in question was at my table, I might add on the sneak attack bonus to the DC of the fort save. After all, sneak attack is explicitly bonus damage. This damage just happens to heal you, but it's still damage. And the DC of the Fort save is set by the damage of the attack.

Since you're trying to go against the DM, this seems like an expected reaction. You get your healing; but since you're still fundamentally mortal, you need to save against the unexpected surge of negative energy at your vitals.

TheCountAlucard
2009-06-13, 04:49 PM
Sneak attack is based on the idea that an unprepared target takes more damage due to being unable to defend and the attacker having time to aim carefully (I would suppose).It's also based on the idea that you're striking in a vital spot with it. Isn't that part of the idea behind acupunture, that you're bringing about wellness by accessing vital spots?

MickJay
2009-06-13, 04:49 PM
While Sneak Attacking yourself, why not also steal your purse (while willingly failing spot check for noticing that it disappeared)? That way, you have the stolen purse, and since you did not see it disappear in the first place, then it must mean it's still there! Double your money or your... money... back... or something :smalltongue:

I must suggest it to my DM, he likes munchkinery creativity.

edit: idea might be similar, but acupuncture is not based on stabbing yourself in vital points, but regulating the vital energy by carefuly manipulating its flow (by the means of inserting and turning the needles).

AstralFire
2009-06-13, 04:51 PM
It's also based on the idea that you're striking in a vital spot with it. Isn't that part of the idea behind acupunture, that you're bringing about wellness by accessing vital spots?

I would let it fly as a DM for this reason. What I don't let fly as a DM is, in fact, being able to take the feat in the first place. I find the concept of positive and negative energy to be stupid. And I generally discourage anything involving sneak attack because it's broken. By which I mean way too powerful against anything that allows it, and utterly cripples its wielder any time it can't be used.

Godna
2009-06-13, 04:59 PM
for the sake of unlimited healing spells i recall there being a prestige class for the warlock that lets them heal with their elderich blast so unlimited healing is not as much of a game breaker as some might say it as all it practically means is you always go into combat at full hp.

ChaosDefender24
2009-06-13, 05:11 PM
It's not like it's particularly hard to get unlimited healing outside of Charnel Touch or this wand trick

Ways I can think of off the top of my head:

one of the binder vestige gives you a healing touch and fast healing
Warshaper gives you fast healing
Nature's Warrior gives you fast healing
MoMF into a lot of things gives you fast healing
The Shredder (FC2) gives you regeneration if you sit in it long enough
Crusader gives you "unlimited" healing, as long as you keep fighting stuff.
Shapechange gives you fast healing, regeneration, and a lot of other things
Cheesy, but healing traps.

Weimann
2009-06-13, 05:24 PM
And I generally discourage anything involving sneak attack because it's broken. By which I mean way too powerful against anything that allows it, and utterly cripples its wielder any time it can't be used.Going off on a tanget, I'd call that rather balanced :P

But that's just me. I tend to enjoy those "master of this and crap at that" situations.

Fcannon
2009-06-13, 05:30 PM
No it doesn't.

You see, Sneak Attacking with a Wand of Cure x Wounds would cure the amount of the cure x wounds spell, then deal your sneak attack damage in positive energy damage, NOT healing.

Positive energy damage? ...Would that heal zombies? If it's possible for positive energy to deal damage to living creatures, I'd rule it's possible for negative energy to hurt zombies (or tomb-tainted humans).

AstralFire
2009-06-13, 05:35 PM
Going off on a tanget, I'd call that rather balanced :P

But that's just me. I tend to enjoy those "master of this and crap at that" situations.

Whether selective usefulness is balanced or broken depends on the severity of the swing, the frequency that both conditions are displayed, etc. Quite a few of the most popular high level monsters negate critical hit damage, and that forms the overwhelming bulk of what a rogue can do before you start digging through splat very deeply.

Sneak Attack design doesn't render rogues less effective in a combat situation against those completely immune, it renders them about as useful as a wet noodle. By contrast, even a Warmage could still contribute meaningfully in some way against a spell immune creature.

ChaosDefender24
2009-06-13, 05:36 PM
I'd rule the positive sneak attack damage to be simply an otherwise harmless unpleasant feeling. The only reference to "harmful" positive energy being applied to the living that I know of is the Ravid's positive energy laser, and it does just that to all those who live.

AstralFire
2009-06-13, 05:38 PM
The Positive Energy Plane has some stuff about how it can spontaneously explode your body and kill you.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-13, 06:34 PM
It's not like it's particularly hard to get unlimited healing outside of Charnel Touch or this wand trick

Ways I can think of off the top of my head:

one of the binder vestige gives you a healing touch and fast healing
Warshaper gives you fast healing
Nature's Warrior gives you fast healing
MoMF into a lot of things gives you fast healing
The Shredder (FC2) gives you regeneration if you sit in it long enough
Crusader gives you "unlimited" healing, as long as you keep fighting stuff.
Shapechange gives you fast healing, regeneration, and a lot of other things
Cheesy, but healing traps.

Absolutely, there is nothing wrong with unlimited healing like the above. Healing only serves to limit the number of encounters per day.

The problem with sneak attack healing is that it is too good and too cheap. That is for the cost of a first level spell you get to heal a lot of damage.

The argument is that the feat says you are healed by taking negative energy damage is based on a poor reading of a poorly worded sentence. The feat does not mean that you take damage from negative energy with a sneak attack and then heal that same amount twice. It means that "negative energy damage" is bebeficial to you in that it heals you. And you can't sneak attack healing unless you want to let the player get that much value from a wand of inflict light wounds.

ChaosDefender24
2009-06-13, 07:56 PM
Then I don't see where the problem is at all - the healing is significant for its cost, but it still isn't all that much compared to what else you could be doing in combat.

Because the only advantage I see that this trick has over other fast healing is the speed at which it works in combat. Which just isn't enough when people can do 100+ damage with an attack with ease - it's hardly less negligible than the other forms of healing.

#Raptor
2009-06-13, 08:58 PM
edit: idea might be similar, but acupuncture is not based on stabbing yourself in vital points, but regulating the vital energy by carefuly manipulating its flow (by the means of inserting and turning the needles).

Of course its not acupuncture.

It's HARDCORE acupuncture.

Bonus style points if the rogue gets Exotic Weapon Profiency (Whip) for the sneak attack healing.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-06-13, 09:04 PM
Fools! You have not the knowledge! Use Lesser Vigor instead! :smallbiggrin:

I actually started a thread like this a week or two ago, and the general consensous was that you can't do it :smallannoyed: Its a fun idea though...

Jeristo
2009-06-13, 09:28 PM
I'd personally allow it.

In the early levels, when you can get taken out in one or two hits, it's not going to make you invincible or anything. Later on, I suppose it would make more of a difference, but for the most part just gives you a little more endurance...I guess. And you're still spending the charges and money for healing, even if it is a lot cheaper than alternatives, so it's not like it's unlimited. Also, giving up a feat specifically for this one use, especially if the whole party does it, is pretty painful. Especially if they're playing a more feat starved class.

I'd personally have a rule set up so that you could do that as much as you want, but each time you go over your total hit points with negative energy healing, your body keeps that energy in storage (not temporary hp or anything, just excess energy). I'd say the energy bleeds off over time, but if you keep doing it to yourself, it could have an effect similar to the positive energy plane where you explode or whatever at double max hp (though maybe wouldn't have to go to such extents). Could make it interesting and say that the character doesn't get to know how fast the energy bleeds off of them, so later on it gets to be a calculated risk when you want to use it.

I'd say that as long as the DM controlled the campaign well, there's no reason it should break the game. It just restructures it a little bit. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Oh, and I'd totally say you could sneak attack yourself. It's essentially just the ability to target vital points on an opponent. Most people could figure out quite easily where their own vital points are. Stabbing yourself in the kidney, or some other vital point, would be relatively easy. Only now, actually having a more beneficial effect than curling up and bleeding profusely makes it more reasonable to contemplate doing without previously losing your sanity...

sofawall
2009-06-13, 09:31 PM
We actually had this discussion over on gleemax a while ago.

You can't crit with a healing spell, and for you, Inflict is a healing spell.

Just like you can crit zombies with Cure.

EDIT: And since you can't crit, you can't sneak attack. I forgot to finish my thought lol.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-13, 11:53 PM
Then I don't see where the problem is at all - the healing is significant for its cost, but it still isn't all that much compared to what else you could be doing in combat.

Because the only advantage I see that this trick has over other fast healing is the speed at which it works in combat. Which just isn't enough when people can do 100+ damage with an attack with ease - it's hardly less negligible than the other forms of healing.

There is nothing wrong with it if you are having fun. And if you are playing at the level where an attack can do 100+ damage, then yeah healing probly not the best option in combat. But then at that level healing is plentyful anyways so this is just another way. Again, if your having fun there is no problem even if the correct interpretation of the RAW does not allow it IMHO.

Deth Muncher
2009-06-14, 12:07 AM
While Sneak Attacking yourself, why not also steal your purse (while willingly failing spot check for noticing that it disappeared)? That way, you have the stolen purse, and since you did not see it disappear in the first place, then it must mean it's still there! Double your money or your... money... back... or something :smalltongue:


Oh God. This just BLEW. MY. MIND.

Alcopop
2009-06-14, 12:12 AM
Hrm, okay. As it says in both tomb tainted and acereraks undead healing ability, negative energy heals you, not negative energy damage heals you. which is by raw what we'd need.

Also, to the people saying "you shouldn't be ruining you GMs game"
I'm great friends with my GM and we try to pull this stuff past each other all the time, don't assume to think that i'm just some antagonistic player out to ruin my gms game.

Callista
2009-06-14, 01:09 AM
In life? Yes. In D&D? No, that's not an option in the rules. D&D is about heroic striving, not passive failure.
Yes, that's true ever since Rules Compendium changed the conditions for saves. In the core rules you could only fail saving throws for spells....which means you can voluntarily fail the Fort save for a coup de grace.

Dagren
2009-06-14, 01:31 AM
Hrm, okay. As it says in both tomb tainted and acereraks undead healing ability, negative energy heals you, not negative energy damage heals you. which is by raw what we'd need.What's the distinction? I mean, negative energy can either deal damage or not, like in an Energy Drain. But Inflict X Wounds is definitely negative energy damage. If you're going to make a distinction between negative energy and negative energy damage, then surely the inflict wouldn't work at all. :smallconfused:

Demons_eye
2009-06-14, 02:21 AM
...which means you can voluntarily fail the Fort save for a coup de grace.

Why not? If the pally did some thing to warnt death and his code is to let them hang/choop his head off. Then I would let a play fail the save.

Callista
2009-06-14, 02:27 AM
Yes. Also suicide... though if the character is ambivalent about it he may actually try to make the save... I've never seen it come up in a game, but it could.

Voluntarily failing saves is something you do every time somebody hits your character with a Cure spell. It's not exactly a little-known rule.

Alcopop
2009-06-14, 08:28 AM
What's the distinction? I mean, negative energy can either deal damage or not, like in an Energy Drain. But Inflict X Wounds is definitely negative energy damage. If you're going to make a distinction between negative energy and negative energy damage, then surely the inflict wouldn't work at all. :smallconfused:


By this i mean the negative energy damage stops functioning as damage and functions as healing, which can't crit or sneak. It's not damage healing you it's healing healing you, it just happends to be negative energy.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-14, 08:39 AM
Voluntarily failing saves is something you do every time somebody hits your character with a Cure spell. It's not exactly a little-known rule. No, not for spells. In the core rules that's the limit of where you can fail a saving throw. What's is little-known is the change of the rule in Rules Compendium (page 112) to allow you to fail any saving throw, including the Fortitude save for a coup de grace.

Additionally, Rules Compendium (page 91) also allows you to voluntarily forego your DEX bonus to AC. You still can't choose to get hit in combat, but you can get partway there.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-14, 10:06 AM
FeverFox, if the only remaining issue is sneak attacking yourself, then I would say that's fine. Sneak attack involves hitting a vulnerable spot and since you are doing it to yourself that's not a problem. I think it even adds a cool sado-masochistic falvor, aiming the wand just so, blasting yourself with the negative energy damage and then healing from that...

In fact, you should be able to coup-de-grace yourself just fine too. That's just a suicide attempt by the character like hari-kari or holding a gun to one's head.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-14, 12:08 PM
Umm. . . how is a sneak attack negative energy damage? There is a difference between a wound, which slices you up, and negative energy, which is an alien elan vital. What am I missing here?

MickJay
2009-06-14, 12:36 PM
Well, personally, I'd rule that the person who stabbed themselves in a kidney with a wand as a sneak attack would get the negative energy healing and xd6 of sneak attack (piercing?) damage from the stab itself.

lsfreak
2009-06-14, 01:16 PM
Well, personally, I'd rule that the person who stabbed themselves in a kidney with a wand as a sneak attack would get the negative energy healing and xd6 of sneak attack (piercing?) damage from the stab itself.

By RAW, the sneak attack damage is negative energy. If you'd rule otherwise that's fine, but it's definitely a house rule.

I'd be fine with it. Even for in-combat healing, it's not enough to overcome the damage output of something that warrants needing healing.

sofawall
2009-06-14, 05:34 PM
Again, you cannot crit with healing and if you cannot crit, you cannot sneak attack.

TheCountAlucard
2009-06-14, 05:57 PM
A spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical hit. A spell attack that requires no attack roll cannot score a critical hit.


Range: Touch


When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).


You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.

Sounds like you can crit with it.

MickJay
2009-06-14, 06:04 PM
Nope, look at: "A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can" - if negative energy heals you, it does not deal damage, therefore it cannot score a critical hit. In other words, if you use that wand to deal damage, it can crit, but if you heal with it, no criticals.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-14, 06:26 PM
Umm. . . how is a sneak attack negative energy damage? There is a difference between a wound, which slices you up, and negative energy, which is an alien elan vital. What am I missing here? Most of the answers are in Complete Arcane. From page 85:
WEAPONLIKE SPELLS

Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain.
From page 86:

Any weaponlike spell can be used to make a sneak attack, including ranged spells used against targets within 30 feet (just as with any other ranged sneak attack).
A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals. ... The exception is spells that deal energy drain or ability damage, which deal negative energy damage on a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage. So with a spell that deals negative energy damage, or energy drain or ability damage, the sneak attack damage will be negative energy damage.
When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it. By the requirements specified in Complete Arcane, this is not a weaponlike spell when used against undead (or those with Tomb-Tainted Soul feat) because it cures, rather than deals damage.

This whole argument fails because the premise is flawed.