View Full Version : Can grenade-like weapons be used with sneak attack?
Seharvepernfan
2011-05-23, 01:31 AM
If a rogue throws a flask of acid at a flat footed opponent, will it deal sneak attack damage?
For instance, a 3rd level rogue sneak attacks a troll with a flask of acid, which would be 1d6 acid damage + 2d6 sneak attack. He would essentially deal 3d6 acid damage, correct?
What if he is using a wand of acid splash?
EDIT: Can you provide a source?
Greenish
2011-05-23, 01:37 AM
If there's an attack roll, it can deal precision damage*. Extra damage from SA is the same type as the attack it's a part of.
*Except for volley attacks.
ffone
2011-05-23, 01:42 AM
Second last poster.
Note that 'indirect' targets who may be making a reflex save (or taking damage with no save) vs splash damage, but weren't being attacked with an attack roll, wouldn't take sneak attack damage. For example people within 5' of the primary target of the acid flask take the 1 acid damage with no save, but no sneak attack damage.
Seharvepernfan
2011-05-23, 01:51 AM
I'm sorry, I forgot to ask for a source for the answer. I edited my original post.
Im having trouble finding where it says this anywhere in the books.
Thank you for your help
NNescio
2011-05-23, 02:42 AM
I'm sorry, I forgot to ask for a source for the answer. I edited my original post.
Im having trouble finding where it says this anywhere in the books.
Thank you for your help
The Rogue's SA:
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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 it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. ...
... A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
...triggers off five conditions:
1) The rogue must perform an attack action (anything that requires an attack roll).
2) The target is denied Dex bonus to AC or is flanked.
3) The target must have "vital areas" (not immune to ciritcal hits.)
4) The rogue must be able to see said "vital areas" (target is not under concealment)
5) The rogue must be able to reach said "vital areas".
This is further clarified on Page 42 of the Rules Compendium, under the "Damage Types ->Precision Damage" heading (Sneak Attacks are considered as one type of Precision Damage). In particular:
...Precision damage applies on any attack that meets the requirements of the ability that grants the damage.
...An attacker can deal precision damage with any weapon he can wield.
Splash weapons are repeatedly described as "ranged weapons" in the PHB and DMG (and also the SRD), and hence qualify for precision damage, including sneak attacks.
Page 137 of the Rules Compendium further expands on this issue under the "Spell Results->Weaponlike" spells heading. Weaponlike spells (any spell that requires an attack roll) are explicitly mentioned as being able to deal precision damage repeatedly in this section. Note that an example (Scorching Ray) was also given in the previous section on Page 42.
Finally, the FAQ also addressed the same issue:
Does a rogue apply sneak attack damage when
throwing alchemist fire or casting a spell such as acid
splash?
Yes. The bonus damage from sneak attack, skirmish, or
sudden strike applies to any attack that requires an attack roll,
even touch attacks.
The FAQ does sometimes make erroneous rulings, but in this case it agrees with the rest of the rules, especially the Rules Compendium.
(Do note also that if the attacker can make multiple attacks with an action that is not a full-round action [also known as volley attacks], precision damage [including sneak attack] only applies to the first attack. This is also mentioned in Pages 42 and 137 of the Rules Compendium.)
Since it's relevant: Sneak Attack +1d6, for example, deal 1d6 extra Fire damage when made with Alchemist's Fire, or 1d6 extra Acid damage when the attack was made with Acid. Sneak Attack almost-always carries the same type as the attack made (the exception is for spells that deal ability damage or level drain; those just deal Sneak Attack damage of the Negative energy type rather than Xd6 additional ability damage or level drain).
Note that 'indirect' targets who may be making a reflex save (or taking damage with no save) vs splash damage, but weren't being attacked with an attack roll, wouldn't take sneak attack damage. For example people within 5' of the primary target of the acid flask take the 1 acid damage with no save, but no sneak attack damage.
Strict RAW, I'm not convinced that this is true. You have performed an attack with a weapon, and those targets are being damaged by that attack with that weapon. Provided they're flat-footed and not immune, it seems to me that Sneak Attack and the like would apply.
Furthermore, it's kind of sensible: this is an explosion we're talking about, that these targets are being caught in unawares. Failing their Reflex save means that they are not reacting to it in time. It's not really precision damage here, more surprise damage, but Sneak Attack has always been a bit of both.
I think the main issue is that one of the triggers needed for Sneak Attack is to be able to aim at the vulnerable bits, and outside of a Gun Fu sort of fighting, you don't get that sort of aim with the splashes.
Whether Gun Fu techniques in your D&D are peanut butter and chocolate or not is a matter of individual taste, of course.
OK, how about with the Shape Splash feat (Races of Stone)? The fluff on that feat is that you can... aim your splashes. It's basically Sculpt Spell for alchemical items (it also lets an alchemical item bounce to an adjacent target for a second direct hit and splash).
Qwertystop
2011-05-23, 10:52 AM
The Rogue's SA:
...triggers off five conditions:
1) The rogue must perform an attack action (anything that requires an attack roll).
2) The target is denied Dex bonus to AC or is flanked.
3) The target must have "vital areas" (not immune to ciritcal hits.)
4) The rogue must be able to see said "vital areas" (target is not under concealment)
5) The rogue must be able to reach said "vital areas".
Page 137 of the Rules Compendium further expands on this issue under the "Spell Results->Weaponlike" spells heading. Weaponlike spells (any spell that requires an attack roll) are explicitly mentioned as being able to deal precision damage repeatedly in this section. Note that an example (Scorching Ray) was also given in the previous section on Page 42.
Wait... Aren't there spells that use an attack roll and do not do damage? Like Ray of Enfeeblement? So you could do SA damage with Ray of Enfeeblement?
NICE.
Wait... Aren't there spells that use an attack roll and do not do damage? Like Ray of Enfeeblement? So you could do SA damage with Ray of Enfeeblement?
NICE.
It still has to do damage of some kind, so a penalty doesn't count. SA on top of an ability damage spell gets converted to negative energy HP damage.
Malkav
2011-05-23, 10:57 AM
{Scrubbed}
{Scrubbed}
Says you: I flatly disagree with your assessment of what is sensible. In a lighter-hearted, rule-of-cool-always-wins type of game? Makes absolute sense. See also my post about Shape Splash.
OK, how about with the Shaped Splash feat (Races of Eberron)?
Fixed. :smallwink:
You'd unfortunately fall victim to the usual volley rules if you weren't full-attacking, but otherwise I'd totally go for that.
Ah, is it RoE? I know it's Halfling-only, so I assumed RoS... which may not have had Halflings, now that I think about it. Might have been Gnomes-only as far as the short (and not particularly stocky) people go.
As for volley rules, oh how I hate those. They're poorly designed and invalidate one of the few real advantages that archers get in 3.5. I'd accept them for things like Scorching Ray, but for Manyshot and the like, they're really stupid.
That said, I'm curious what the actual wording on the rules is. Because a splash weapon is most definitely not a "volley", and I seem to remember the wording being more descriptive, rather than a hard-and-fast rule a la "any form of multiple attacks in less than a full-round action"
Of course, as ranged weapons, you're probably taking full-round actions with your alchemical items anyway. You're hoping to most of the time, at least.
Halfings are in Races of the Wild, but Shaped Splash is a halfling-only feat from Eberron.
The volley limit (which doesn't actually use the word "volley" in this instance) from Rules Compendium is indeed the "other than a full-round action" version.
Hm. Shaped Splash lets you "immediately make a second attack" on a hit. That might make it a nonaction action, and thus a separate action from the original throw, thus bypassing the volley rules.
Malkav
2011-05-23, 12:40 PM
Says you: I flatly disagree with your assessment of what is sensible. In a lighter-hearted, rule-of-cool-always-wins type of game? Makes absolute sense. See also my post about Shape Splash.
You can disagree or cite feats all you want. If I am targeting a vital spot on one person, there is no logical (sensible) way to accept this, unless you are throwing a magic vial with the ricochet property from...the deep recesses of creative stupidity.
The fact may be that you can do it with feats and such. But you can also take feats to make a non-magical boomerang hit something and not alter it's return path...very sensible.
Edit: Besides, the initial argument is that SA should be allowed on a splashed opponent as well. Would you rule that an ally nearby would also take the accidental and uncontrollable splash SA as well? Or can you control the splash that conveniently in your world?
I would almost be more accepting of it if you were using a hand of the mage to push the splash into someone else's eyes or something.
You can disagree or cite feats all you want. If I am targeting a vital spot on one person, there is no logical (sensible) way to accept this, unless you are throwing a magic vial with the ricochet property from...the deep recesses of creative stupidity.
The fact may be that you can do it with feats and such. But you can also take feats to make a non-magical boomerang hit something and not alter it's return path...very sensible.
Edit: Besides, the initial argument is that SA should be allowed on a splashed opponent as well. Would you rule that an ally nearby would also take the accidental and uncontrollable splash SA as well? Or can you control the splash that conveniently in your world?
I would almost be more accepting of it if you were using a hand of the mage to push the splash into someone else's eyes or something.
Shaped Splash explicitly allows me to avoid the splash hitting my ally and hit only enemies.
But that's immaterial. I'm objecting to your characterization of all DMs who disagree with you as "insensible". That's simply rude.
Malkav
2011-05-23, 12:51 PM
Shaped Splash explicitly allows me to avoid the splash hitting my ally and hit only enemies.
But that's immaterial. I'm objecting to your characterization of all DMs who disagree with you as "insensible". That's simply rude.
No it isn't.
I read the feat, it is ridiculous. The boomerang ricochet feat specifically states that the SA doesn't hit secondary targets.
{Scrubbed}
This is a game where you can be hit dozens of times by mortal blows and continue to fight like nothing was wrong. This is a game where completely mundane character at level 1 can break the world record for most athletic feats on a regular basis while wearing chain mail. This is a game where a sufficiently skilled and dexterous person can balance on a cloud. This is a game where to be bound by the limits of the real-world human body is to be a low-level NPC, and to be bound by the real-world laws of physics is to be about CR 8, max, no matter how many class levels or HD you have. This is a game where magic is everywhere and even things that are not magic are still impossible.
This is not a nitty-gritty game. This is not a realistic game. This is not a game where the rules rely terribly much on what you would expect to happen in the real world. It's a game about having fun and being awesome, for the most part, and it is simply rude to insult others' preferences for having fun.
Malkav
2011-05-23, 01:02 PM
it is simply rude to insult others' preferences for having fun.
I am apparently in the wrong for wanting a game that can be realistic and a world with magic. My point, was that physics still apply, magic can break those rules, and dragons eat people. Directly, I was simply saying that SA shouldn't apply to splash. And I stand by that.
{Scrubbed}
The boomerang ricochet feat specifically states that the SA doesn't hit secondary targets.
I see. So Boomerang Ricochet is the primary source for the benefits granted by Shaped Splash?
{Scrubbed}
Malkav
2011-05-23, 01:29 PM
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I see. So Boomerang Ricochet is the primary source for the benefits granted by Shaped Splash?
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
You are taking things out of context.
You are taking things out of context.
In the posts I've quoted, I left out:
I read the feat, it is ridiculous.
A simple declaration, which I set aside to adress the actual argument you provided afterward, and:
My point, was that physics still apply, magic can break those rules, and dragons eat people. Directly, I was simply saying that SA shouldn't apply to splash. And I stand by that.
When you plainly had been saying something more than that. If there is other context to be had, please point it out to me.
Malkav
2011-05-23, 01:50 PM
If there is other context to be had, please point it out to me.
The thread was regarding adding SA to secondary/splash attacks/resulting damage.
You clearly are siding against me and nothing can be said at this point to appease your preference for him/his posts over mine...I do not care.
SA shouldn't bounce off and hit secondary targets.
The thread was regarding adding SA to secondary/splash attacks/resulting damage.
Which Veyr and myself along with the others earlier in this thread have both addressed according to the rules of the game. You provided a rules argument as well, and when you did, I responded to it. You also made a number of comments that weren't rules arguments, and I responded to them as well. If you're only interested in responses based on the text of the rules, then by all means, point us toward some that you feel support your view.
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 02:07 PM
Attacks are fairly sharply defined under DnD rules.
The Rogue Sneak Attack entry pretty specifically to 'the rogue's attack'. Splash damage is not an attack. It's a rider effect. For example, if you use a sharktooth greatstaff you get to make a free grapple attempt if you hit with it. That's not saying 'you can make an extra attack action each time you hit with the sharktooth greatstaff, but it must be a grapple attempt'. It's a grapple attempt, without the attendant attack action. There are lots of rider effects in DnD, and some of them come from weapons, like nets or exotic weapons or grenade-like weapons. The rider effects are not extra attacks.
So for the shaped splash feat, for example, you would do your sneak attack on the initial attack, and then you would do your sneak attack on the ricochet, since it is specifically a second attack. Each attack would do it's own 'splash' damage, due to the rider effect on the grenadelike weapon used, but the splash is not an attack and wouldn't get sneak attack damage added to it.
This is the RAW of the situation.
I don't personally think a character existing in DnD who can throw a flask of acid with such inhuman finesse that when it hits what he's aiming at the liquid flying away from the impact squirts onto nearby people's eyes, faces, open mouths, bare arms, hands, open wounds, whatever. DnD is a fantasy game, in which characters can perform fantastical feats. Personally I like to explain this logically in that humans have evolved in these worlds to use magic naturally - to enhance their dexterity, or eyesight, or muscles, or thinking power or whatever. Or maybe they're just naturally tougher due to magic creating so many horrible monsters that the weaker humans have been culled off even more so than in our world.
Regardless of your personal preferences in the matter, however, there is no excuse for insulting someone else and saying that the rules don't say what they actually do say. RAW is RAW, regardless of how you personally enjoy playing, and saying that someone is wrong because their point of view conflicts with your preferred playstyle is just uncouth.
This is the RAW of the situation.
I'd like to see the source on that. Particularly the bit where Sneak Attack doesn't apply to rider effects, and also the bit where the splash damage of a grenade weapon is not a part of that weapon's usual damage. Your argument hinges on those two points, but I don't see the evidence for them.
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 04:26 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack
Throw Splash Weapon
A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Splash weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don’t take the -4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target.
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. (You can’t target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you’re aiming at the creature.)
If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you and 2 through 8 counting clockwise around the grid intersection or target creature. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw.
After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in adjacent squares.
Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time 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 it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
It's pretty clear from that. When something is an attack, or grants extra attacks, it is always specifically called out as doing that. Braid blades, chain lasher armour, etc. Even if you tried to argue that the 'splash damage' is or constitutes an attack, it's clearly the flask doing the damage, not your rogue. So unless you're playing an awakened flask of acid, the flask of acid is unlikely to add any sneak attack damage to it's 'attacks'.
Add to that that various other strange or exotic weapons have rider effects (free trips, entanglement, free grapples, con or negative energy damage) all of which aren't described as attacks but just 'when the weapon hits' effects, it's clear that there are rider effects in the game, and that this is one of them.
To put it more simply. The reason that you get sneak attack damage when you throw the flask and it hits someone and does damage is because that is a 'attack'. Which is a specific rules thing, like 'spell' or 'feat'. The splash damage isn't attack, it's something that automatically happens when your attack hits something.
To again put this into perspective, fireball is not an attack. Some spells are like weapons, so you make 'attacks' with them (post Complete Arcane, at least, you do), but fireball isn't. It does damage, and you made it do damage to people, but it's not a weapon and you don't get sneak attack on it. Splash damage is exactly the same.
I get what you're saying, and I'm not going to claim you're "wrong" (in that I do not have any unambiguous RAW that disproves your argument; it seems a valid interpretation of the rules), but I also think that there is room for alternate interpretations. The rules do not call out the splash as separate from the original attack. It could be argued that the splash is a part of the weapon's damage, and therefore the effect is a part of your attack, and thus carries Sneak Attack. Unless you've got rather direct evidence to the contrary, I'm calling that ambiguous enough to allow either interpretation.
holywhippet
2011-05-23, 04:43 PM
Here's where things get wierd though, what happens if you throw holy water at an evil outsider like a barghest in a way that allows a sneak attack?
By RAW, holy water hurts evil outsiders as though they were burned by acid, but really it's the holy blessing of the water that is doing the damage. So when you hit an evil outsider with it the fact that the water touched it directly does damage. But by the rules, it adds sneak attack damage.
I can understand alchemists fire doing extra damage since it's burning the target in a vulnerable spot, but holy water to me doesn't seem like it should work the same way.
cfalcon
2011-05-23, 05:34 PM
Pretty damned sure you get it versus your primary target, if you hit.
The other targets aren't actually attacked by the rogue- it's a passive effect of there being an acid splash or whatever. There's acid, they take damage.
Furthermore, the whole idea of AOE sneak attack is pretty dumb, so I don't know why you'd chase this down, except to point out an issue with the rules. But the "throw splash weapon" rules are even pretty clear about the weapon doing the damage.
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 05:34 PM
Well, even if that's so (it's not clear from the text on splash weapons, but all the weapons with a rider effect say 'when you hit, it also does' terminology... they're just in the weapon descriptions, so they don't say 'does damage' in between the two bits), you only get precision damage once per attack. So if you're saying it's 'part of the attack', well, you get your precision damage, on the initial target. You cannot get precision damage twice on the same attack, even if it somehow harms multiple targets. If you use a halfling skiprock or something and hit someone with a ricochet, that's a different attack, you get precision damage on that (unless it says you don't, specific > general), but this is clearly not multiple attacks. It's extra damage resulting from a single attack.
@holywhippet;
Why is that weird? Haven't you seen a dracula movie? It's not some 'holy energy' in the water discharging into them making it inert or something - it actually burns them! Like acid! Like, burns into their flesh. Searing, etc. So, if you throw stuff that sears through someone into their eyes, or joints, do you think it's going to hurt them more or less than if you tossed it at their chest or legs?
Malkav
2011-05-23, 05:36 PM
...point us toward some that you feel support your view.
A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact...A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target
The vial/flask breaks, thus not being able to bounce and hit secondary targets.
Shaped Splash...If the second attack succeeds, the secondary target also takes direct hit damage...
This is where the argument for SA on the second attack originates, but there is far more than this one feat to base the decision upon.
Boomerang Ricochet...If the first target is hit by a sneak attack...the second target is not also vulnerable to a sneak attack on the ricochet.
This proves nothing you say? I disagree, it sets precedent and is from the same book. Not convincing?
While I agree that you should be able to use SA damage with splash weapons, I disagree with secondary targets receiving primary precision damage.
Penetrating Shot...ranged attack...projectile...separate attack roll against each...though any extra damage(such as from a sneak attack...)is applied only against the first creature struck.
I may not be able to convince anyone of this...but precision damage stops after first target imho.
Here's where things get wierd though, what happens if you throw holy water at an evil outsider like a barghest in a way that allows a sneak attack?
By RAW, holy water hurts evil outsiders as though they were burned by acid, but really it's the holy blessing of the water that is doing the damage. So when you hit an evil outsider with it the fact that the water touched it directly does damage. But by the rules, it adds sneak attack damage.
I can understand alchemists fire doing extra damage since it's burning the target in a vulnerable spot, but holy water to me doesn't seem like it should work the same way.
It burns "like acid". If Acid can achieve a Sneak Attack by hitting a particularly vulnerable spot, seems like Holy Water could do the same thing.
Well, even if that's so (it's not clear from the text on splash weapons, but all the weapons with a rider effect say 'when you hit, it also does' terminology... they're just in the weapon descriptions, so they don't say 'does damage' in between the two bits), you only get precision damage once per attack. So if you're saying it's 'part of the attack', well, you get your precision damage, on the initial target. You cannot get precision damage twice on the same attack, even if it somehow harms multiple targets. If you use a halfling skiprock or something and hit someone with a ricochet, that's a different attack, you get precision damage on that (unless it says you don't, specific > general), but this is clearly not multiple attacks. It's extra damage resulting from a single attack.
Source on that? I know you can't get Sneak Attack multiple times when you make multiple attacks in less than a Full-Round Action, but to the best of my knowledge there is no such rule when you are making a Full-Round Action. Each attack within a full-attack does not count as a separate action by RAW, so it does not count as a mini-volley as an "Attack Action" within the Full-Round Action, since the "Attack Action" does not actually exist as a separate action type (there is only Standard Attack, Full-Round Attack, Attack of Opportunity, etc.).
Malkav
2011-05-23, 05:41 PM
there is no such rule when you are making a Full-Round Action
Check the Invisible Blade errata. I think it says it there. That may just be for feinting, but it says something about it.
There is very definitely no way rules specific to the Invisible Blade can pertain to Sneak Attacks made by ordinary Rogues with alchemical items in any case, but the only Errata on the Invisible Blade is that they can only Feint once per round despite it being a free action (completely destroying any purpose the class may have had).
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 05:54 PM
Attack Actions actually do exist, they're in Rules Compendium, I believe, but they're also referred to in the PHB and DMG. You can take certain special combat attacks as attack actions, and most of the in-a-grapple actions are attack actions (so you can full attack or flurry them).
It's not about attack actions vs volleys (a full attack is not a volley), it's about attacks. You get ONE when you throw a grenadelike weapon at someone. So you apply precision damage ONCE. Not 'Once to every person hit' - ONCE. It says it right there in the rogue's sneak attack description.
Not to mention that you're on pretty shaky ground trying to classify the splash damage as damage from the attack in the first place.. it's as a result of the attack, but it has it's own separate name the action of the flask hitting something deals the damage, not the attack. (it uses those keywords 'when' and 'deal' so you know it's a triggered effect)
The vial/flask breaks, thus not being able to bounce and hit secondary targets.
1. That's fluff.
2. Specific > General. The feat says the flask hits, bounces, and then hits again. It specifically refers to a 'second attack'. The general rule for flasks says the flask breaks when it hits. Specific > General. So, you get two attacks. Full stop.
Boomerang Ricochet is a specific feat that specifies a specific circumstance. It has nothing to do with a general rule and sets absolutely no precedent since there is a feat in the same goddamn book that does the exact opposite thing.
EDIT: Actually, invisible blade + Surprising Riposte (drow of the underdark) is a decent way to get sneak attacks. Very level intensive, but the levels aren't bad as melee sneak attack PrC levels go.
Attack Actions actually do exist, they're in Rules Compendium, I believe, but they're also referred to in the PHB and DMG. You can take certain special combat attacks as attack actions, and most of the in-a-grapple actions are attack actions (so you can full attack or flurry them).
The phrase "attack action" is used exactly once in Rules Compendium, and that's in the phrase "full attack action". Care to cite me some pages here?
It's not about attack actions vs volleys (a full attack is not a volley), it's about attacks. You get ONE when you throw a grenadelike weapon at someone. So you apply precision damage ONCE. Not 'Once to every person hit' - ONCE. It says it right there in the rogue's sneak attack description.
The word "once" does not appeal in Sneak Attack's description at all. It does say this, though:
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to ACThere may be rules that specifically define "target" as the one you make the attack roll against, but if there aren't, then I think I'd have enough leeway to argue that anyone damaged by the attack was a "target," and thus is eligible for Sneak Attack damage if they're denied Dex to AC.
Not to mention that you're on pretty shaky ground trying to classify the splash damage as damage from the attack in the first place.. it's as a result of the attack, but it has it's own separate name the action of the flask hitting something deals the damage, not the attack. (it uses those keywords 'when' and 'deal' so you know it's a triggered effect)
3.5 doesn't use keywords the way Magic and 4E do, nor is "triggered effect" a defined thing that I can tell, so I'm not convinced on that score.
However... yes, absolutely. I know this is all quite a stretch, and I'm not inclined to either rule or debate with a DM on the basis of strict RAW, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here at this point: I want to see if you can completely, by RAW, rule out Sneak Attack on the splash. I will agree that the situation is at the very least ambiguous, and your interpretation has many more things going for it than mine does, which requires a number of rather dubious rules interpretations. It's shaky, but can you completely topple it?
EDIT: Actually, invisible blade + Surprising Riposte (drow of the underdark) is a decent way to get sneak attacks. Very level intensive, but the levels aren't bad as melee sneak attack PrC levels go.
Surprising Riposte is a decent feat, I'll grant you, and Invisible Blade does improve upon that in a reasonably good way. Here's my issue, though: Invisible Blade requires three hideous feats and three class levels. Surprising Riposte requires another two pretty-poor feats, one of which is completely useless once you have Uncanny Feint. And now you have to make a Bluff check for every attack just to use your class features. This is not a good situation. Six feats and three class levels ought to be doing a lot more than that for you.
Quietus
2011-05-23, 06:56 PM
I get what you're saying, and I'm not going to claim you're "wrong" (in that I do not have any unambiguous RAW that disproves your argument; it seems a valid interpretation of the rules), but I also think that there is room for alternate interpretations. The rules do not call out the splash as separate from the original attack. It could be argued that the splash is a part of the weapon's damage, and therefore the effect is a part of your attack, and thus carries Sneak Attack. Unless you've got rather direct evidence to the contrary, I'm calling that ambiguous enough to allow either interpretation.
If the splash damage required attack rolls, then yes. However, the phrasing of Acid and Alchemist's Fire state that they are "Ranged touch attacks", and that a "Direct hit" does X damage. The attack is resolved, including any sneak attack, followed by the splash damage. Beyond that, even under the interpretation you're looking at, the splash damage would fall under the volley rules, which would also deny sneak attack on the splash.
Here's where things get wierd though, what happens if you throw holy water at an evil outsider like a barghest in a way that allows a sneak attack?
By RAW, holy water hurts evil outsiders as though they were burned by acid, but really it's the holy blessing of the water that is doing the damage. So when you hit an evil outsider with it the fact that the water touched it directly does damage. But by the rules, it adds sneak attack damage.
I can understand alchemists fire doing extra damage since it's burning the target in a vulnerable spot, but holy water to me doesn't seem like it should work the same way.
It works like acid. You hit a human in a joint/wound/face/whatever with acid, it does extra (AKA sneak attack) damage. You hit an evil outsider with holy water in the same way, it also does extra damage.
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 06:58 PM
Triggered effect as in 'triggered by'. As in, 'one thing happens, and then that triggers this other thing to happen'. Maybe I should use 'linked' effect? For example, doing damage is triggered by 'hitting'.
The key point of that quote is still, and always will be, 'attack'. Not 'whenever'. Otherwise every time someone was flatfooted to you, you would do your sneak attack to them infinite times, out of the blue. Constantly accidentally killing your friends and relatives if they relaxed their guard near you.
'Target' and 'Opponent' are used interchangeably in the attack section. Always in the singular, too. That means that the general rule is that each 'attack' is made against one 'target', which would fit with the rules text in the sneak attack section talking about 'rogue's attack' and 'rogue's target'. Every other ability that gives extra attacks says it's doing that. There is no ability that hits an area that lets you do precision damage to the people in the area. The sneak attack entry specifies 'attacks' as the things that can get sneak attack damage added to, and the sneak attack damage is applied to the 'target', which we really can assume due to the identical wording in the combat section of the PHB, is the target of the attack and not some other random target.
At no point do you ever target any of the people getting splashed with splash damage with an attack. They are standing in an area effect of an ability. You're basically arguing that if a warlock shoots a spellfire eldritch blast with a fireball attached to the end of it, anyone hit by the fireball takes sneak attack damage.
If you were talking about Warhulk sweeping strike or something, sure, because then it adds targets to your one attack. Lots of other abilities allow you to make extra attacks after you hit with one attack (shaped splash, boomerang ricochet, lightning mace, leraje's arrow ricochet), but you're talking about a triggered effect 'when flask hits, it does 1 pt of damage to all within 5''. It's not an attack. It doesn't do sneak attack damage. It's a property of flasks. Nothing to do with the attack roll, the target, or the sneak attack damage.
If the splash damage required attack rolls, then yes. However, the phrasing of Acid and Alchemist's Fire state that they are "Ranged touch attacks", and that a "Direct hit" does X damage. The attack is resolved, including any sneak attack, followed by the splash damage. Beyond that, even under the interpretation you're looking at, the splash damage would fall under the volley rules, which would also deny sneak attack on the splash.
They would not if you're making a Full-Round Attack, since those rules specify attacks made in less than a Full-Round Action.
Triggered effect as in 'triggered by'. As in, 'one thing happens, and then that triggers this other thing to happen'. Maybe I should use 'linked' effect? For example, doing damage is triggered by 'hitting'.
The key point of that quote is still, and always will be, 'attack'. Not 'whenever'. Otherwise every time someone was flatfooted to you, you would do your sneak attack to them infinite times, out of the blue. Constantly accidentally killing your friends and relatives if they relaxed their guard near you.
I don't think you can make a statement that any one word is more important. It's quite clear that it applies on "attacks" against the "target" of those attacks. Which brings us to...
'Target' and 'Opponent' are used interchangeably in the attack section. Always in the singular, too. That means that the general rule is that each 'attack' is made against one 'target', which would fit with the rules text in the sneak attack section talking about 'rogue's attack' and 'rogue's target'. Every other ability that gives extra attacks says it's doing that.
Specific (splash weapons have multiple targets) trumps general (weapon attacks usually have one target)? Yeah, even I'm having a hard time with that one...
There is no ability that hits an area that lets you do precision damage to the people in the area. The sneak attack entry specifies 'attacks' as the things that can get sneak attack damage added to, and the sneak attack damage is applied to the 'target', which we really can assume due to the identical wording in the combat section of the PHB, is the target of the attack and not some other random target.
Could you quote the identical wording that you're referring to? I'm having trouble finding it.
At no point do you ever target any of the people getting splashed with splash damage with an attack. They are standing in an area effect of an ability. You're basically arguing that if a warlock shoots a spellfire eldritch blast with a fireball attached to the end of it, anyone hit by the fireball takes sneak attack damage.
This is actually a great argument, but that ability is added to the 'weapon' of the Eldritch Blast, rather than being a part of the weapon itself. It's a really dubious distinction, but for the sake of my advocacy, I could call that akin to something like the Flaming Burst property of a weapon; that's added on and not an intrinsic part of the weapon used the way the splash of a grenade is. (Of course, I realize that your argument the entire time has been that the splash is added on, but again the advocate claims that it's not, it's actually a part of the attack)
If you were talking about Warhulk sweeping strike or something, sure, because then it adds targets to your one attack. Lots of other abilities allow you to make extra attacks after you hit with one attack (shaped splash, boomerang ricochet, lightning mace, leraje's arrow ricochet), but you're talking about a triggered effect 'when flask hits, it does 1 pt of damage to all within 5''. It's not an attack. It doesn't do sneak attack damage. It's a property of flasks. Nothing to do with the attack roll, the target, or the sneak attack damage.
It's not, in itself, an attack, but it is a part of your attack. Or at least, so I am arguing, with ever-decreasing reasonableness. Let me know if this ceases to be an interesting intellectual challenge and my counters just become obnoxiously pedantic.
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 08:04 PM
Show me the rules texts supporting your assertion that splash weapons 'target' anyone at all.
I can't find any text to that effect in the PHB, DMG, or Rules Compendium.
The use of targets in Full Attack refers to the targets of multiple attacks. It does not mean that any one attack has multiple targets. Note that it refers back to 'attack' in the combat section as to what the 'multiple attacks' it refers to getting actually do. So, you're back at square one as regards that.
The combat section of the PHB, under 'standard actions - attack'. Note how it defines 'attack' and talks about the 'opponent' and 'target'. I am, for the purposes of SA, assuming that the 'attack' referred to in the SA entry is the same as the one in the PHB combat section. And that the 'target' is, again, the target referred to in the PHB combat section under 'attack'.
Anything that says 'when the weapon hits, this happens' is 'added on'. It's not part of the attack, it's an effect or ability that 'triggers', that happens, automatically, whenever certain conditions are filled. Like the Cold Burst weapon ability, the one that hits everyone out to 10'. It doesn't say 'your attack hits everyone within 10'. It says 'everyone within 10' takes Xd6 cold damage except you and your friends'.
You are trying to say 'things are being dealt damage by the weapon, that is an attack, or part of an attack, so it gets sneak attack'. But that's not how it works. The game of dnd 3.5 has a specific thing it calls an 'attack'. They hit one target unless you have a special ability that says 'your attack hits multiple targets' NOT 'WHEN your attack hits, enemies within X take 1 pt of damage'. There are ways weapons can deal damage (cold burst, that spell deflecting sword) that aren't attacks. It is a weapon. It is doing damage. It is not an attack.
Only attacks can get sneak attack. Nothing else can.
If the specifics of the flask splash weapon write up said 'when your flask hits, you may make a free 'splash' attack against every enemy or object within 5' of where it hits, each of which automatically always hit, and deal 1 pt of damage' then YES. You could TOTALLY do sneak attack damage on that, and thrower rogues would suddenly get WAY better. But it doesn't. It just does damage. It doesn't make an attack, it isn't part of an attack, it says NOTHING about attacks, it just says 'does damage'.
It's not in the attack entry, it doesn't mention attacks at all. It's caused by an attack, yes, but it isn't an attack.
The Combust spell can catch you on fire. You're arguing that since the combust spell caught you on fire, one round after, when you make a reflex save to put yourself out, you should be able to add any special bonuses you get against spells. Because it's part of the spell. The spell did cause it to happen, but once you caught on fire, now you're just 'on fire' under the rules for 'being on fire' not the rules for the 'combust spell'.
Show me the rules texts supporting your assertion that splash weapons 'target' anyone at all.
I can't find any text to that effect in the PHB, DMG, or Rules Compendium.
You make an attack with them at someone or something. That's the only way "target" is ever defined in 3.5, to my knowledge. The direct target, at least, definitely counts as a target.
The use of targets in Full Attack refers to the targets of multiple attacks. It does not mean that any one attack has multiple targets. Note that it refers back to 'attack' in the combat section as to what the 'multiple attacks' it refers to getting actually do. So, you're back at square one as regards that.
I'm... not entirely sure what you're referring to here. Are you implying that the volley rules apply here? The volley rules simply do not apply at all when you're taking a Full-Round Action. During a Full-Round Action, you would not consult them at all.
By the same token, a Full-Round Attack with a ranged weapon does not, by strict RAW, actually provoke, once or repeatedly. Provoking is a property of the Standard Attack with a Ranged Weapon, and it is never (strictly) applied to a Full-Round Attack at all.
The combat section of the PHB, under 'standard actions - attack'. Note how it defines 'attack' and talks about the 'opponent' and 'target'. I am, for the purposes of SA, assuming that the 'attack' referred to in the SA entry is the same as the one in the PHB combat section. And that the 'target' is, again, the target referred to in the PHB combat section under 'attack'.
That is the Standard Attack action, which is not the only way in which an Attack may be made. Unless you're arguing that Sneak Attack only applies if you take the Standard Attack action?
Anything that says 'when the weapon hits, this happens' is 'added on'. It's not part of the attack, it's an effect or ability that 'triggers', that happens, automatically, whenever certain conditions are filled. Like the Cold Burst weapon ability, the one that hits everyone out to 10'. It doesn't say 'your attack hits everyone within 10'. It says 'everyone within 10' takes Xd6 cold damage except you and your friends'.
This is an assertion.
You are trying to say 'things are being dealt damage by the weapon, that is an attack, or part of an attack, so it gets sneak attack'. But that's not how it works. The game of dnd 3.5 has a specific thing it calls an 'attack'. They hit one target unless you have a special ability that says 'your attack hits multiple targets' NOT 'WHEN your attack hits, enemies within X take 1 pt of damage'. There are ways weapons can deal damage (cold burst, that spell deflecting sword) that aren't attacks. It is a weapon. It is doing damage. It is not an attack.
I've asserted that the splash damage of a grenade weapon is a part of the attack with that weapon, not a secondary effect added on as a Special Property would be. Can you refute that with a rules quote?
Only attacks can get sneak attack. Nothing else can.
No disagreement here.
If the specifics of the flask splash weapon write up said 'when your flask hits, you may make a free 'splash' attack against every enemy or object within 5' of where it hits, each of which automatically always hit, and deal 1 pt of damage' then YES. You could TOTALLY do sneak attack damage on that, and thrower rogues would suddenly get WAY better. But it doesn't. It just does damage. It doesn't make an attack, it isn't part of an attack, it says NOTHING about attacks, it just says 'does damage'.
Ironically, this would run into more trouble at least as far as volley attacks are concerned, at least when you threw it as a Standard Attack.
It's not in the attack entry, it doesn't mention attacks at all. It's caused by an attack, yes, but it isn't an attack.
Errr... "it" here refers to what, exactly? I'm getting a bit confused.
The Combust spell can catch you on fire. You're arguing that since the combust spell caught you on fire, one round after, when you make a reflex save to put yourself out, you should be able to add any special bonuses you get against spells. Because it's part of the spell. The spell did cause it to happen, but once you caught on fire, now you're just 'on fire' under the rules for 'being on fire' not the rules for the 'combust spell'.
"Being on fire" is a status condition defined by the burning rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and therefore not a normal part of the weapon's damage.
And, we are clear that this is merely devil's advocate, right? I'm starting to become concerned that I'm agitating you here. I will absolutely and without qualms accept that your interpretation has everything going for it and the only way I can continue this discussion is by making a striking series of favorable and dubious rules interpretations. Without actively trying to interpret everything such that this was allowed, one would never come to the conclusion that it was. I'm merely wondering if there is any point at which even the most favorable possible interpretations are insufficient to allow this.
Rejakor
2011-05-23, 09:23 PM
You're not agitating me, I just haven't slept in a couple of days. Unless I specifically concentrate on not doing it, my sentences get clipped and I lose joining words. My post might make a bit more sense if you realize the double lines are intended to convey responding to a different part of your assertion.
I'll quote.
You make an attack with them at someone or something. That's the only way "target" is ever defined in 3.5, to my knowledge. The direct target, at least, definitely counts as a target.
I meant that the splash damage ever targets anyone, but I see where you're coming from a bit better now. You've misunderstood the text in the splash weapons entry. That's where the splash damage is differentiated from the attack damage, as well as more vaguely in the attack entry.
I'm... not entirely sure what you're referring to here. Are you implying that the volley rules apply here? The volley rules simply do not apply at all when you're taking a Full-Round Action. During a Full-Round Action, you would not consult them at all.
By the same token, a Full-Round Attack with a ranged weapon does not, by strict RAW, actually provoke, once or repeatedly. Provoking is a property of the Standard Attack with a Ranged Weapon, and it is never (strictly) applied to a Full-Round Attack at all.
Nope, not implying volley rules. A full attack action is a full round action that makes a number of attacks. Normally, making an attack is a standard action, but the full attack specific > generals it by saying you can make a number of attacks using the full round action. You're still making the attacks outlined under 'standard actions - attack', the full attack action is just letting you make a whole bunch at once. The reason it doesn't provoke AoOs is because of specific vs general again. The table for full round action AoOs says full round attacks don't provoke. The ranged attack entry in the standard action AoO table says that they do. Specific vs General, your ranged full attacks don't provoke. RAI, they just put that there because 2/3 attacks (melee, unarmed) don't provoke, and they hadn't differentiated between ranged full attacks and melee full attacks in the full round actions section.
That is the Standard Attack action, which is not the only way in which an Attack may be made. Unless you're arguing that Sneak Attack only applies if you take the Standard Attack action?
Covered this.
If it wasn't referring to the 'attack' entry when it said 'attack', why would it specify that you can take multiple specifically, why does it leave so much undefined that the attack entry defines etc etc.
I've asserted that the splash damage of a grenade weapon is a part of the attack with that weapon, not a secondary effect added on as a Special Property would be. Can you refute that with a rules quote?
Yep.
Throw Splash Weapon
A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Splash weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don’t take the -4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target.
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. (You can’t target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you’re aiming at the creature.)
If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you and 2 through 8 counting clockwise around the grid intersection or target creature. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw.
After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in adjacent squares.
Damage Rolls
If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal damage. Roll the appropriate damage for your weapon. Damage is deducted from the target’s current hit points.
Alright, very first thing of all. See that first bolded sentence? It has a comma. That is actually important, as it separates the two things, lists them. Not damning on it's own, but indicative. Secondly, note that you aren't performing an attack against the ground in the second paragraph... you are NOT DEALING the direct damage and still dealing splash damage.. same thing? Really?
And here's the damning bit. If you miss, you still deal splash damage. And as we can very clearly see from the second quote, the 'damage roll' step of the attack action, which is the same attack used in full attacks, the same set of steps and same set of rules bar AoOs... IF YOU HIT, YOU ROLL DAMAGE.
So, we have, with grenadelike weapons - 1. The text suggests the two effects are separate. It doesn't say much either way, though.
2. The splash damage is dealt even if you opt not to do the direct hit damage, which you can do.
3. The splash damage is dealt even if you miss and deal no 'attack' damage.
It's not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it's pretty damn close.
Ironically, this would run into more trouble at least as far as volley attacks are concerned, at least when you threw it as a Standard Attack.
Volley was a dumb way of saying 'everything except precision damage' on the manyshot feat. The fact it was kept made it even more dumb.
Errr... "it" here refers to what, exactly? I'm getting a bit confused.
The splash damage bit of the splash weapon entry, and the complete lack of support for it in the attack entry.
So there's no support for it in the general entry, and the specific entry doesn't say that it's part of the attack either, while all other things say that they are (like sweeping strike does).
I agree with your large size/bolding of "If you miss the target". That quite clearly specifies that "target" is defined as the one against whose AC you're rolling, and therefore the only one eligible, per the Sneak Attack rules quoted earlier, for Sneak Attack.
That... just about kills anything I had left. Bravo.
Quietus
2011-05-24, 08:35 AM
Fun debate. Just to note, Veyr, it did come across as though you believed in what you were arguing for, rather than giving the impression that you were playing devil's advocate. I'll both give you kudos for that and suggest that you point that out earlier in the debate next time, to avoid the possibility of people getting riled up over nothing :smalltongue:
Rejakor
2011-05-24, 09:29 AM
I don't mind people caring about their point of view. That's perfectly fine. As long as they keep things rational and 'debate' nor 'argument', caring about your point of view isn't a bad thing.
People just seem, as a whole, to be pretty bad at doing that.
Personally I mostly care about being correct, so if someone proves me wrong, that's a good thing, since it means I had an incorrect point of view, and now I don't.
Fun debate. Just to note, Veyr, it did come across as though you believed in what you were arguing for, rather than giving the impression that you were playing devil's advocate. I'll both give you kudos for that and suggest that you point that out earlier in the debate next time, to avoid the possibility of people getting riled up over nothing :smalltongue:
Oh, at first I did. It rapidly became clear that the only way this had a chance was if you were really jumping through hoops to make it work, at which point I switched to devil's advocate. Which still may have been a couple of posts before I mentioned it, but all the same.
I don't mind people caring about their point of view. That's perfectly fine. As long as they keep things rational and 'debate' nor 'argument', caring about your point of view isn't a bad thing.
People just seem, as a whole, to be pretty bad at doing that.
Personally I mostly care about being correct, so if someone proves me wrong, that's a good thing, since it means I had an incorrect point of view, and now I don't.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.