Penetrating Strike question

[Kojiro]

Was just wondering about this; I was talking with a friend about DnD, and pointed out Penetrating Strike to him. He interpreted it in a different way from how I've seen it interpreted normally, though. Specifically, the way he read it, he thought that it wasn't half sneak attack damage on creatures immune, but that it did extra damage equal to half the normal amount of sneak attack dice you would normally deal. An example, a level twenty rogue attempting to hit something with Penetrating Strike would deal normal combat damage, plus tenfive.

Now, when I reread the rules on it, I could see what he's getting at. For reference, I've copied the rules here:


Benefit: Whenever you flank a creature that is immune to extra damage from sneak attacks, you still deal extra damage equal to half your normal sneak attack dice. This benefit does not apply against creatures that cannot be flanked, nor against foes that are otherwise denied their Dexterity bonus to AC or flat-footed but not flanked.

Was there an official Wizards ruling on this or an example of it somewhere? That would be a definite answer to this, although if someone could break this down well enough that may answer it too. Thanks in advance.

[kharmakazy]

I feel that RAW, he is right... but the RAI may have been your way.

[Diarmuid]

Was just wondering about this; I was talking with a friend about DnD, and pointed out Penetrating Strike to him. He interpreted it in a different way from how I've seen it interpreted normally, though. Specifically, the way he read it, he thought that it wasn't half sneak attack damage on creatures immune, but that it did extra damage equal to half the normal amount of sneak attack dice you would normally deal. An example, a level twenty rogue attempting to hit something with Penetrating Strike would deal normal combat damage, plus ten.

Now, when I reread the rules on it, I could see what he's getting at. For reference, I've copied the rules here:



Was there an official Wizards ruling on this or an example of it somewhere? That would be a definite answer to this, although if someone could break this down well enough that may answer it too. Thanks in advance.

Here is an example of how the rule works.

You normally deal 8 dice of sneak attack when appropriate.

You flank a creature normally immune.

You roll normal combat damage (weapon + str, + enhancement, etc) plus 4d6.

[FMArthur]

Was just wondering about this; I was talking with a friend about DnD, and pointed out Penetrating Strike to him. He interpreted it in a different way from how I've seen it interpreted normally, though. Specifically, the way he read it, he thought that it wasn't half sneak attack damage on creatures immune, but that it did extra damage equal to half the normal amount of sneak attack dice you would normally deal. An example, a level twenty rogue attempting to hit something with Penetrating Strike would deal normal combat damage, plus ten.

Now, when I reread the rules on it, I could see what he's getting at. For reference, I've copied the rules here:



Was there an official Wizards ruling on this or an example of it somewhere? That would be a definite answer to this, although if someone could break this down well enough that may answer it too. Thanks in advance.

Actually, 'half your number of sneak attack dice' would be five for a 20th level rogue with his 10d6 SA. Your friend might turn out to be right about the RAW (debatably), but RAI... even when writing the core 3.5 books WotC would have thought of this as a hideously weak trade. Dungeonscape was very very late 3.5, much after WotC had actually worked out how badly melee was getting screwed. I don't think they'd do something like this, as it'd be a waste of paper.

[Kojiro]

Hm. Thanks for the help, but at the same time I was hoping for something more definite; part of the problem is that I'm helping to DM this thing (it's a strange story), so I feel bad about pushing for/making a ruling in my own favor without support from an official source. I wasn't able to find anything on the Wizards site about this, though; am I just not looking hard enough?

[Urpriest]

This really feels like something Curmudgeon should answer. The guy loves rogues, loves that ACF, and loves the most penalizingly literal interpretations of RAW possible. I'm interested in seeing what he says about this.

[dextercorvia]

I'm fairly certain that they express sneak attack in terms of dice of damage. If someone can check the rules compendium, I'm like 85% sure that is the wording used there. Something like "extra damage expressed in dice are not multiplied." That would indicate that the extra damage is being expressed in dice of damage since it isn't a fixed value. Also, you are supposed to roll half the dice when your attack does half damage.

[Cog]

This really feels like something Curmudgeon should answer. The guy loves rogues, loves that ACF, and loves the most penalizingly literal interpretations of RAW possible. I'm interested in seeing what he says about this.
As I recall, he prefers the Lightbringer Rogue (Ravenloft) version instead, precisely because it's less ambiguously worded. (Edit: or perhaps because it still unambiguously counts as SA damage. The first point stands too, though.)

[ffone]

Was just wondering about this; I was talking with a friend about DnD, and pointed out Penetrating Strike to him. He interpreted it in a different way from how I've seen it interpreted normally, though. Specifically, the way he read it, he thought that it wasn't half sneak attack damage on creatures immune, but that it did extra damage equal to half the normal amount of sneak attack dice you would normally deal. An example, a level twenty rogue attempting to hit something with Penetrating Strike would deal normal combat damage, plus tenfive.

Now, when I reread the rules on it, I could see what he's getting at. For reference, I've copied the rules here:



Was there an official Wizards ruling on this or an example of it somewhere? That would be a definite answer to this, although if someone could break this down well enough that may answer it too. Thanks in advance.

I always read this as the half of 2d6 being 1d6, and so on. It says 'half your sneak attack dice' and I suppose half of two dice is one dice. If it said "damage equal to half *the number of* sneak attack dice," then it'd be 1 damage (in that case I'd still figure the RAI is 1d6 but concede the RAW is 1.) I interpret it as going from 3d6 to 1d6 (halves round down) rather than "roll 3d6, divide by 2". (In terms of desirability, you'd lose less by rounding using the latter approach, but at least the former is less rolling.)

And as is the RAI is almost certainly 1d6, and IMO the RAW is also 1d6 (for the above reason) - and it's at least as reasonable a guess as the alternative, so if your DM isn't just ornery it should be no prob.

[Ravens_cry]

This is where you hold their dice rolling hand in place, take your heaviest rule book, and WHAM!
Seriously, this is STUPID. This is idiotic in the extreme. I hate the idiocracy of this with a passion generally reserved for puppy punters and baby bowlers. It's so stupid I had to read halfway through the thread before I realized what was being argued.
:furious:

[Yora]

I think it's very safe to assume that the creators of that ability did not itend that a 20th level rogue gets a +5 Sneak Attack against constructs and undead, compared to +10 to +60 damge against other targets. That damage bonus is just laughable.
+5d6 makes a lot more sense.

[Tancred]

This really feels like something Curmudgeon should answer.

Do we have to say his name three times or something?

Curmudgeon, Curmudgeon, Curmudg- *erk*

[Sir Enigma]

It says "equal to half your normal sneak attack dice". Your normal sneak attack dice, for a 20th level rogue, is 10d6. Half of that is 5d6, not 5.

If it had said "equal to half your normal number of sneak attack dice", your friend would be technically correct, as your number of sneak attack dice would be 10, not 10d6.

[Person_Man]

As a side commentary, I allow all players with precision damage to take an alternate class features, which I call Ranged Skirmish or Backstab. Ranged Skirmish is Skirmish, and only works with ranged attacks. Backstab only works against flanked enemies. And in both cases, nothing is immune. It makes everything a lot simpler. And in general, I've never understood WotC's penchant for convoluted rules.

[FMArthur]

Really? My houseruled Sneak Attack ACF is called No, That's Stupid, You Can Sneak Attack Anything Corporeal, which is in exchange for choosing to play a Rogue, Scout or Ninja. :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

Giving Scouts and Ninjas the ability to sneak attack anything corporeal doesn't really help them.

[Whammydill]

If I'm not mistaken. The Giant himself was involved in Dungeonscape. I wonder if he'd have any input on the matter.

[Yuki Akuma]

If I'm not mistaken. The Giant himself was involved in Dungeonscape. I wonder if he'd have any input on the matter.

I seriously doubt he would.

[Curmudgeon]

Do we have to say his name three times or something?

Curmudgeon, Curmudgeon, Curmudg- *erk*
The wording of Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike and EtCR Lightbringer Penetrating Strike is somewhat different. The former merely says that you deal damage equal to ½ your normal sneak attack dice when flanking an enemy who's immune to sneak attack. The latter says that you deal ½ your normal sneak attack dice in damage. The difference is that Lightbringer Penetrating Strike establishes that it's still sneak attack damage, and hence Craven applies; the former is ambiguous, and thus a DM's call.

As these two ACFs have different names, you're free to choose either one for your Rogue. I prefer the option that doesn't depend on DM judgment.


Good execution on your summoning invocation, Tancred; it was the "*erk*" that did it. :smallwink:

[Quietus]

Any thoughts on the 5 dice vs. 5 damage thing, Curmudgeon?

[Curmudgeon]

Any thoughts on the 5 dice vs. 5 damage thing, Curmudgeon?
It's a fairly common convention in D&D to talk about damage expressed in dice, and "damage equal to half your normal sneak attack dice" is consistent with that convention. Changing that to "damage equal to half your normal number of sneak attack dice" would be a bit ambiguous, but that's not what was stated, even in the poorly phrased Dungeonscape Penetrating Strike; the OP's friend is off base. Again, I prefer the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft phrasing, because "you still gain half of your sneak attack dice as bonus damage" is clear. The Dungeonscape version was an attempt at making a shorter paragraph (6 lines instead of 8) expressing the same thing, but that book could have used a stronger editor.

[Kojiro]

Thanks for the help. I just checked the publishing dates on the two books, and Ravenloft is the older one, yeah. Someone suggested that the Ravenloft version was a misrepresentation of the Dungeonscape one, but as stated above, it's the reverse, with Dungeonscape's being pared down too much.

So, again, thanks. This was very helpful. I thought that the alternate interpretation was a bit too weak, but, well, I wanted to be sure, since I'm new to this and such.

[Person_Man]

Really? My houseruled Sneak Attack ACF is called No, That's Stupid, You Can Sneak Attack Anything Corporeal, which is in exchange for choosing to play a Rogue, Scout or Ninja. :smalltongue:

Oh, none of my players play a Rogue, Scout, or Ninja. They play Rogue/Wizard/Unseen Seer/Spellwarp Snipers and Rogue/Swordsage etc. The desire to play a strait Rogue or Scout or Ninja fades quickly after reading about the Beguiler, Psychic Rogue, and all the various PrC out there.