Flour Pouch Sneak Attack?

[roguemetal]

A player of mine discovered the item "Flour Pouch" in Dungeonscape p.32, and I'm not sure if the wording for it allows touch sneak attacks. While, like other splash weapons, it seems viable for ranged touch sneak attack, it's wording for touch use is [B]"...can strike an invisible opponent as a touch attack."

Does this mean it can ONLY be used against invisible opponents at touch range and thus unusable for sneak attack? Also not sure if the item is viable at all, since it doesn't seem to do damage and the wording for sneak attack is "extra damage".

If it doesn't work, are there cheaper alternatives to holy water or acid flask?

[Ziegander]

A player of mine discovered the item "Flour Pouch" in Dungeonscape p.32, and I'm not sure if the wording for it allows touch sneak attacks. While, like other splash weapons, it seems viable for ranged touch sneak attack, it's wording for touch use is [B]"...can strike an invisible opponent as a touch attack."

Does this mean it can ONLY be used against invisible opponents at touch range and thus unusable for sneak attack? Also not sure if the item is viable at all, since it doesn't seem to do damage and the wording for sneak attack is "extra damage".

If it doesn't work, are there cheaper alternatives to holy water or acid flask?

While Sneak Attack never explicitly states it, I believe the intention is that you can only use it when attacking with a weapon. So Holy Water and Acid Flasks technically work because they are considered Splash Weapons, and Scorching Ray also works because it is considered a Weapon-Like Spell. But spitting on a guy, though it may be resolved as a ranged-touch attack, is not using a weapon. Likewise, a pouch of flour shouldn't be considered a weapon either.

[Toliudar]

Although this really makes me want to create a rogue character that can kill you just by spitting on you.

[Piggy Knowles]

Although this really makes me want to create a rogue character that can kill you just by spitting on you.

Shape Soulmeld (Dissolving Spittle) and call it a day.

[mattie_p]

Doesn't matter, for see below:


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.


An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, including darkvision. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat.

[roguemetal]

Likewise, a pouch of flour shouldn't be considered a weapon either.
It calls itself a splash weapon, it just doesn't do damage.


Doesn't matter, for see below:
And yes, I'm aware, I was asking if the wording for the item meant it could still be used against non-invisible opponents.

[Flickerdart]

It can be used against non-invisible opponents, since it's just a bag of flour. Since it's a bag of flour, however, it doesn't deal damage, so you can't Sneak Attack with it.

[Zubrowka74]

It can be used against non-invisible opponents, since it's just a bag of flour. Since it's a bag of flour, however, it doesn't deal damage, so you can't Sneak Attack with it.

It could deal damage as an improvised weapon, but I think it's meant to crack open on impact. You best guess would be to use it as a "cloud" of airborn flour that just will beg for an open flame to light it up.

Personnally though, I'd give the bonus to hit but obvioulsy no damage.

[Venger]

While Sneak Attack never explicitly states it, I believe the intention is that you can only use it when attacking with a weapon. So Holy Water and Acid Flasks technically work because they are considered Splash Weapons, and Scorching Ray also works because it is considered a Weapon-Like Spell. But spitting on a guy, though it may be resolved as a ranged-touch attack, is not using a weapon. Likewise, a pouch of flour shouldn't be considered a weapon either.

sneak attack can only be used with stuff that deals HP damage, or, as described in complete arcane, weaponlike spells that deal ability damage or negative levels (in which case the SA dice are negative energy) so I think that since the flour sack doesn't deal damage, no dice.

[Ziegander]

It calls itself a splash weapon, it just doesn't do damage.

Well, that makes things much more dicey...


sneak attack can only be used with stuff that deals HP damage, or, as described in complete arcane, weaponlike spells that deal ability damage or negative levels (in which case the SA dice are negative energy) so I think that since the flour sack doesn't deal damage, no dice.

Sneak Attack doesn't mention anything about needing to be used with "stuff that deals HP damage." It doesn't have a clause remotely like that. Huh. Man, I don't know. I'm going to say that technically, since a Flour Pouch is a Splash Weapon, you can use it to Sneak Attack someone, even without taking a -4 penalty for it being an improvised weapon.

However, I would personally rule that it must be used as an improvised weapon in order to Sneak Attack with it, and that it deals 1 nonlethal damage on a successful ranged attack roll made at a -4 penalty. If the attack misses AC but would hit Touch AC, then it deals no damage (nor Sneak Attack damage), but it does still cover them in flour.

[Darrin]

If it doesn't work, are there cheaper alternatives to holy water or acid flask?

Gloves of the Uldra Savant (3100 GP, MIC). Ray of frost at will.

Or you could try...

Masterwork Lasso (301 GP) + Least Crystal of Acid Assault (600 GP). This is a bit dodgy, as it's not entirely clear if an augment crystal can add damage to a weapon that does no damage.

Blister Oil (15 GP, Races of Stone). Also quite dodgy, but assuming you can convince your DM that it can be thrown as a grenade-like weapon... each vial contains 1d8 applications, and on a failed DC 15 Fort save the target takes Xd4 untyped damage. This works out to be about 11.25 damage + sneak attack, if your DM allows it.

Flask of Oil (1 SP) + Weapon Capsule Retainer (100 GP) + Quickflame (25 GP). The capsule retainer can be wrapped around the flask, and presumably picked up later and re-used. Swift action to activate the quickflame, which does 1d6, and then this ignites the oil for two rounds of additional 1d6 fire damage.

Wand of Water to Acid (11250 GP, Stormwrack). 1 charge = 5 cubic feet of acid = 37.5 gallons of acid = 300 flasks of acid (flask = 1 pint). 50 charges = 15000 flasks of acid, 450 GP for 15000 flasks, so a grand total of 138,300 GP in savings, or 0.78 GP per flask of acid.

[Ziegander]

Wand of Water to Acid (11250 GP, Stormwrack). 1 charge = 5 cubic feet of acid = 37.5 gallons of acid = 300 flasks of acid (flask = 1 pint). 50 charges = 15000 flasks of acid, 450 GP for 15000 flasks, so a grand total of 138,300 GP in savings, or 0.78 GP per flask of acid.

That is hilariously strong! lol, nice!

[Curmudgeon]

Sneak Attack doesn't mention anything about needing to be used with "stuff that deals HP damage." It doesn't have a clause remotely like that. It doesn't need a clause when a single word (noun adjunct) will suffice.

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. You can't have extra damage if you don't have damage. Extra or bonus damage adds to your damage die roll, so you'll need to be making such a roll in order for sneak attack to apply.

[Ziegander]

You can't have extra damage if you don't have damage. Extra or bonus damage adds to your damage die roll, so you'll need to be making such a roll in order for sneak attack to apply.

Uh-huh. And where is that rule printed exactly?

[CodeRed]

Uh-huh. And where is that rule printed exactly?

S'mores rule. How can you have s'more if you haven't had any at all?

[Piggy Knowles]

Uh-huh. And where is that rule printed exactly?

You seriously need a rule to tell you that you can't sneak attack without doing damage? Otherwise you'd be able to deal SA damage by just touching someone. Hey, cool no need for wraithstrike!

Anyhow, the section on "weaponlike spells" in Complete Arcane further expands on the point and says that to get sneak attack, you need an attack roll and something that either deals HP damage, ability damage or negative levels if that attack roll is successful.

[Ziegander]

You seriously need a rule to tell you that you can't sneak attack without doing damage? Otherwise you'd be able to deal SA damage by just touching someone. Hey, cool no need for wraithstrike!

Yeah, actually, that rule does need to be there. Somewhere, if not in the Sneak Attack entry, then "Extra damage" needs to have a rules definition somewhere. There are many examples of poorly worded abilities in D&D. This is not the only one, but it is the one we're discussing.


Anyhow, the section on "weaponlike spells" in Complete Arcane further expands on the point and says that to get sneak attack, you need an attack roll and something that either deals HP damage, ability damage or negative levels if that attack roll is successful.

That's not really relevant since it only applies to Sneak Attacks involving weaponlike spells. If it for some reason said, "As a clarification, in order to make a Sneak Attack you must use a weapon or weaponlike spell that deals at least 1 point of hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain, and you must make an attack roll, a ranged attack roll, a ranged touch attack roll, or a touch attack roll. This is to be considered errata of the Sneak Attack special ability," then your point would be valid.

[roguemetal]

Lasso (1 GP) + Least Crystal of Acid Assault (600 GP). This is a bit dodgy, as it's not entirely clear if an augment crystal can add damage to a weapon that does no damage.

Wand of Water to Acid (11250 GP, Stormwrack). 1 charge = 5 cubic feet of acid = 37.5 gallons of acid = 300 flasks of acid (flask = 1 pint). 50 charges = 15000 flasks of acid, 450 GP for 15000 flasks, so a grand total of 138,300 GP in savings, or 0.78 GP per flask of acid.
Love that wand. What book is the Crystal of Acid Assault from?


It doesn't need a clause when a single word (noun adjunct) will suffice.
You can't have extra damage if you don't have damage. Extra or bonus damage adds to your damage die roll, so you'll need to be making such a roll in order for sneak attack to apply.
Sound logic. Works for me, and the entry in Complete Arcane solidifies the intent. Though I would like to see a rule statement on 'extra damage' as Ziegander mentioned for pure RAW purposes.

[Darrin]

Love that wand. What book is the Crystal of Acid Assault from?


Magic Item Compendium. A couple augment crystals also appeared in Expedition to Undermountain.

Correction: Lasso needs to be masterwork (+300 GP) in order to attach a Least Augment Crystal.

[Piggy Knowles]

That's not really relevant since it only applies to Sneak Attacks involving weaponlike spells. If it for some reason said, "As a clarification, in order to make a Sneak Attack you must use a weapon or weaponlike spell that deals at least 1 point of hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain, and you must make an attack roll, a ranged attack roll, a ranged touch attack roll, or a touch attack roll. This is to be considered errata of the Sneak Attack special ability," then your point would be valid.

Well sure - I understand that the CArc section doesn't actually define non-spell interactions. I'm just saying that you can extrapolate from that passage that this is how sneak attacks work, in case you were unclear what "extra" meant.

Besides, if SA wasn't contingent on damage of some sort, then you wouldn't need rules for weaponlike spells - any spell with a touch or ranged touch range (dealing damage or no) could deal sneak attack damage.

[Kazyan]

Uh-huh. And where is that rule printed exactly?

Though I can't give you a source on adding to the damage roll, Curmudgeon's argument relies on the definition of the word "extra". As in, on top of what's already there. It is not required for RAW to tell us that words mean things.

[Ziegander]

Though I can't give you a source on adding to the damage roll, Curmudgeon's argument relies on the definition of the word "extra". As in, on top of what's already there. It is not required for RAW to tell us that words mean things.

His argument hedges on the assumption that you can't have more than "none." Which is never actually the case. It should be required for RAW to tell us how to interpret what words mean in the context of the game rules and logic. There are weapons in the game, that you can make attacks rolls with, that don't deal damage when you hit. Do they deal 0 damage? OR are they incapable of being used to deal damage? The distinction is, to my knowledge, never explained.

Sneak Attack doesn't even technically require an attack be made with a weapon, or that any damage actually be dealt, just that the Rogue make a successful attack, of any kind, against a target that she flanks or that is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC. So how can it be assumed that "extra damage" must be added to an attack with an associated damage roll, when no damage might be interpreted any number of ways, since it is not defined, and when, using real world logic, any amount of damage is "extra" when compared to none at all?

In fact, there is evidence that "extra" damage can be applied to an attack that deals no damage at all. When using a weaponlike spell to deal energy drain. Using Enervation, for example, you bestow 1d4 negative levels and add your extra Sneak Attack damage in the form of negative energy damage.

[Kazyan]

In fact, there is evidence that "extra" damage can be applied to an attack that deals no damage at all. When using a weaponlike spell to deal energy drain. Using Enervation, for example, you bestow 1d4 negative levels and add your extra Sneak Attack damage in the form of negative energy damage.

There we go, a refutation. I...don't have an answer to that.

[Psyren]

Uh-huh. And where is that rule printed exactly?

Rules Compendium:


A successful precision damage attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals unless that spell deals ability damage or ability drain, or it bestows negative levels. Spells that fall into these categories instead deal extra hit point damage in the form of negative energy.


Those last three (ability damage, ability drain, negative levels) are the only non-HP-damage situations that benefit from sneak attack. Other scenarios that don't deal damage (like Ray of Enfeeblement), do not apply. This would presumably extend to bags of flour.

[LanSlyde]

That's not really relevant since it only applies to Sneak Attacks involving weaponlike spells. If it for some reason said, "As a clarification, in order to make a Sneak Attack you must use a weapon or weaponlike spell that deals at least 1 point of hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain, and you must make an attack roll, a ranged attack roll, a ranged touch attack roll, or a touch attack roll. This is to be considered errata of the Sneak Attack special ability," then your point would be valid.



In fact, there is evidence that "extra" damage can be applied to an attack that deals no damage at all. When using a weaponlike spell to deal energy drain. Using Enervation, for example, you bestow 1d4 negative levels and add your extra Sneak Attack damage in the form of negative energy damage.

I am pretty certain you just disregarded Piggy Knowles post and then turned around and used it against Kazyan.

[mattie_p]

Here might be a hint:


Nonabilities
Some creatures lack certain ability scores. These creatures do not have an ability score of 0—they lack the ability altogether. The modifier for a nonability is +0. Other effects of nonabilities are detailed below.

A flour pouch doesn't do 0 damage, it just flat out has no ability to do damage.

[Ziegander]

I am pretty certain you just disregarded Piggy Knowles post and then turned around and used it against Kazyan.

Except that, instead of using that as proof that you have to deal damage in order to gain extra Sneak Attack damage (like Piggy Knowles did), I used it as an example of a case in the game where you specifically do not have to deal damage in order to gain extra Sneak Attack damage - in order to point out that there is really a huge, ambiguous, gray area in the rules for how exactly Sneak Attack works that is up to interpretation.

Also,


Here might be a hint:

[...]

A flour pouch doesn't do 0 damage, it just flat out has no ability to do damage.

This is such faulty logic... what is this I don't even - Oh, I see, you've given me another prime example for exactly why the RAW must "tell us that words mean things," to quote Kazyan, because if they don't we go assuming that they mean whatever we think they mean instead of what they are supposed to mean in the game's context.

[NotScaryBats]

So, we're just going to ignore Psyren's /thread three posts up?

"Rules Compendium:

Quote:
A successful precision damage attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals unless that spell deals ability damage or ability drain, or it bestows negative levels. Spells that fall into these categories instead deal extra hit point damage in the form of negative energy.
Those last three (ability damage, ability drain, negative levels) are the only non-HP-damage situations that benefit from sneak attack. Other scenarios that don't deal damage (like Ray of Enfeeblement), do not apply. This would presumably extend to bags of flour."

[toapat]

so, whats the point of this argument exactly?

as far as RAW, the sack of flower is not actually for dealing sneak attacks, its for hitting an invisible enemy with so that you negate your inability to sneak attack them

It actually does no damage, not because it is a weapon, but because it is a weapon that performs a spell like effect

[Psyren]

so, whats the point of this argument exactly?

as far as RAW, the sack of flower is not actually for dealing sneak attacks, its for hitting an invisible enemy with so that you negate your inability to sneak attack them.

Actually, you still won't be able to do that:


Coating an invisible creature in flour... reduces the miss chance to 20%.


Any degree of concealment foils the ability to deal precision damage.

What this item does is allow you to know what square they're in without needing a full-round action to grope first each time.

[Ziegander]

so, whats the point of this argument exactly?

as far as RAW, the sack of flower is not actually for dealing sneak attacks, its for hitting an invisible enemy with so that you negate your inability to sneak attack them

It actually does no damage, not because it is a weapon, but because it is a weapon that performs a spell like effect

The point of the argument is that, actually, the RAW doesn't support your claims. There is an example of using a weapon (a weaponlike spell, specifically) that deals no damage with which you may apply your extra Sneak Attack damage. There are NO examples or rules that state that you must use a weapon or deal damage in order to apply your extra Sneak Attack damage. So, technically, if you throw a Flour Pouch at a guy who's denied his Dexterity bonus to AC and you hit him, you may apply your Sneak Attack damage, because you have fulfilled all of the requirements for making a Sneak Attack.

Also, yes, technically you can simply walk up and poke a guy with your fingers when he's not looking and apply your Sneak Attack damage that way.

I'm not arguing that this is how it should be. I'm not saying that this is how I run it in my games, or that I think Sneak Attack should apply to attacks that deal no damage. I'm simply saying that, given what is written (and more importantly, what is not), this is technically how it works. In my first two posts in this thread I wrote about what I felt was implied by the rules, and how I felt it should be ruled. But now I'm talking about the RAW.

[NotScaryBats]

Again, here's some RAW for you:
"A successful precision damage attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals unless that spell deals ability damage or ability drain, or it bestows negative levels. Spells that fall into these categories instead deal extra hit point damage in the form of negative energy."

So, if you attack with your finger poke (unless a monk) you deal no damage. Your sneak attack deal 'extra damage of the same type' which in this case is none.

So, enjoy your extra 4d6 of non damage (the same type of non damage inflicted by your finger poke)

Or, do you read that differently than me?

[Psyren]

The point of the argument is that, actually, the RAW doesn't support your claims. There is an example of using a weapon (a weaponlike spell, specifically) that deals no damage with which you may apply your extra Sneak Attack damage.

That's because there is a specific exception for spells that:

1) do ability damage
2) do ability drain, or
3) inflict negative levels.

That's it. Flour and finger pokes and ability penalties etc. do not get SA bonuses (or crits.)

[Unusual Muse]

All I can say is, I can't wait to make a build that focuses on running up to someone, tickling them with a feather (which does require an attack roll), and doing 4d6 Sneak Attack damage. :smallsmile:

[toapat]

*snip*

Im guessing a gust of Wind spell to clear out the flour cloud would also count for the full round action that im assuming is needed to dust yourself off

[demigodus]

Again, here's some RAW for you:
"A successful precision damage attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals unless that spell deals ability damage or ability drain, or it bestows negative levels. Spells that fall into these categories instead deal extra hit point damage in the form of negative energy."

So, if you attack with your finger poke (unless a monk) you deal no damage. Your sneak attack deal 'extra damage of the same type' which in this case is none.

So, enjoy your extra 4d6 of non damage (the same type of non damage inflicted by your finger poke)

Or, do you read that differently than me?

I'm pretty sure poking someone with a finger is not a spell. That quote is specifically for spells (and spell-likes I guess) only.

[thriceborn]

I'm pretty sure poking someone with a finger is not a spell. That quote is specifically for spells (and spell-likes I guess) only.

The quote would still work for weapons though. If I hit a guy with a maul, the samage is precision, but its budgeoning precision damage. Sneak attack wouldn't make sense otherwise. If I shank a guy with a pointy stick, the bonus damge from that should also be of the stabby kind.

[demigodus]

The quote would still work for weapons though. If I hit a guy with a maul, the samage is precision, but its budgeoning precision damage. Sneak attack wouldn't make sense otherwise. If I shank a guy with a pointy stick, the bonus damge from that should also be of the stabby kind.

I thought we were discussing RAW, not "what makes sense"?

Also, I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that "extra damage" can't be applied to 0 damage. At least in math/physics, I have seen the word extra used on things that can sometimes be 0 (and the extra stuff was added still if the original was 0). Just the phrase "extra damage" doesn't negate the possibility of it functioning with something that does 0 damage.

Although in that vein, how would you rule if, say, before a sneak attack, a rogue did 3 damage with her dagger, on a barbarian with DR 3/-? Would you rule that since there is no damage pre-sneak attack, the rogue doesn't do any damage at all? After all, you are trying to apply "extra damage" to 0 damage total.

[NotScaryBats]

Right now, we're not arguing that bit, but the "damage is of the same type" so it would still be piercing dmg in this case.

[Zherog]

Also, I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that "extra damage" can't be applied to 0 damage. At least in math/physics, I have seen the word extra used on things that can sometimes be 0 (and the extra stuff was added still if the original was 0). Just the phrase "extra damage" doesn't negate the possibility of it functioning with something that does 0 damage.

Depends on the math. In relational databases, there's a difference between zero and null - zero being a number and null being, basically, "no value." Any sort of mathematical manipulation of NULL gives a result of NULL. That is,

NULL + 10 = NULL
NULL - 10 = NULL
NULL x 10 = NULL
NULL / 10 = NULL
and
10 / NULL = NULL

So, now, does no value in this case equal zero or does it equal NULL?

[toapat]

So, now, does no value in this case equal zero or does it equal NULL?

Null, if the bag of flour is used in order to coat a target

0, if the bag is used as an improvised bludgeon

[Flickerdart]

Possibly relevant: the minimum damage for an attack is 1, but only if penalties reduce it to less than 1.

[Curmudgeon]

It should be required for RAW to tell us how to interpret what words mean in the context of the game rules and logic. Sound point -- which you should take up with Wizards of the Coast, not just the followers of this forum. However, you are overlooking exactly that sort of definition in this case; see below.

In fact, there is evidence that "extra" damage can be applied to an attack that deals no damage at all. When using a weaponlike spell to deal energy drain. Using Enervation, for example, you bestow 1d4 negative levels and add your extra Sneak Attack damage in the form of negative energy damage.
You would need to be using a weaponlike spell, not a flour pouch, for this specific exception in the rules to apply. Your argument doesn't get any support from that.

One hardly needs to go outside the D&D books to find a rule which applies here. You just need to consult any thesaurus to find that "extra" and "bonus" are synonyms. After that, everything you need is in the Glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B):
bonus

A positive modifier to a die roll. Unless you're already making a damage roll, you don't get to add bonus damage.

[Ravens_cry]

Possibly relevant: the minimum damage for an attack is 1, but only if penalties reduce it to less than 1.
DR can reduce it to zero, but not less than. Another rule is that contact poison can work if a weapon does zero damage, but not injury poison.
There is a lot of quirks to 3.X, but sometimes they make nice, neat, logical sense.

[olentu]

Sound point -- which you should take up with Wizards of the Coast, not just the followers of this forum. However, you are overlooking exactly that sort of definition in this case; see below.

You would need to be using a weaponlike spell, not a flour pouch, for this specific exception in the rules to apply. Your argument doesn't get any support from that.

One hardly needs to go outside the D&D books to find a rule which applies here. You just need to consult any thesaurus to find that "extra" and "bonus" are synonyms. After that, everything you need is in the Glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B): Unless you're already making a damage roll, you don't get to add bonus damage.

Hmm, are you mixing rules defined terms and common English. That doesn't look like a very good argument.

[TuggyNE]

Hmm, are you mixing rules defined terms and common English. That doesn't look like a very good argument.

Surprisingly, it is, for the simple reason that WotC never bothered to define anywhere near all their terms. For example, they negligently gave no definition for "is". Thus, in the absence of full explanations, we must fall back on conventional English definitions for anything not specifically excepted. (This actually fits pretty well with an exception-based rule system.)

[nyjastul69]

Hmm, are you mixing rules defined terms and common English. That doesn't look like a very good argument.

Why doesn't it look like a good argument? The ruleset only needs to define terms that are game specific and deviate from the common dictionary definition. Why would the ruleset have to define the term extra if it was anything other than a dictionary definition? The rules don't define what the word is is . Nor does it define what the word means means. That doesn't mean that these words can't have meanings within the ruleset. The word extra needs no game definition.

Edit: Dang ninjas!

[Unusual Muse]

Hang on a sec... Let's say you attack someone with a silver dagger, which does 1d4-1 (-1 because it's silver), and you qualify for sneak attack of 1d6 extra damage. Let's then say you roll a 1 on your damage roll, which with the -1 means the dagger does 0 damage, but you would still do the 1d6 sneak attack damage.

[Flickerdart]

Hang on a sec... Let's say you attack someone with a silver dagger, which does 1d4-1 (-1 because it's silver), and you qualify for sneak attack of 1d6 extra damage. Let's then say you roll a 1 on your damage roll, which with the -1 means the dagger does 0 damage, but you would still do the 1d6 sneak attack damage.
No, the dagger does a minimum of 1 damage. See the rule above.

[olentu]

Surprisingly, it is, for the simple reason that WotC never bothered to define anywhere near all their terms. For example, they negligently gave no definition for "is". Thus, in the absence of full explanations, we must fall back on conventional English definitions for anything not specifically excepted. (This actually fits pretty well with an exception-based rule system.)

OH it is true that they did not define all their terms, but that is not what I am talking about. He is using the common English definition when claiming that extra and bonus are synonymous (as evidenced by the use of a thesaurus). However he is then switching to the D&D specific definition that is not covered by a thesaurus when talking about the specific and very much not common English definition of bonus in the D&D rules.

Using one definition or the other would be just fine, but equating the common English and D&D definitions (or mixing them as I put it originally) is not.


Why doesn't it look like a good argument? The ruleset only needs to define terms that are game specific and deviate from the common dictionary definition. Why would the ruleset have to define the term extra if it was anything other than a dictionary definition? The rules don't define what the word is is . Nor does it define what the word means means. That doesn't mean that these words can't have meanings within the ruleset. The word extra needs no game definition.

Edit: Dang ninjas!

As above, the D&D definition bonus is not equal to the English definition of bonus, and thus something equivalent to the English definition of bonus is not necessarily equal to the D&D definition of bonus.

[Unusual Muse]

No, the dagger does a minimum of 1 damage. See the rule above.

Oops... all these years playing 3.5 and I never knew that! :smallredface: Where does that rule come from?

[Flickerdart]

SRD, under the combat rules. It's why cats can have attacks of 1d2-4 and still hurt stuff.

[TuggyNE]

As above, the D&D definition bonus is not equal to the English definition of bonus, and thus something equivalent to the English definition of bonus is not necessarily equal to the D&D definition of bonus.

The way I see it, the D&D definition of bonus has been specialized, not re-invented from the ground up. It does not mean something entirely different; it means a specific sort of (ordinary English) bonus, with certain constraints and implications. As such, going from an undefined term with a fairly clear plain English meaning to a synonym that has a specialized D&D meaning based on its English meaning does not seem wholly unwarranted. Now, if you could find an example of "extra" damage that wasn't "bonus" damage, or if "extra" was defined separately in the glossary or elsewhere, you would have more of a case.

Common-sensically, also, the understanding of null as formalized in an earlier post is fairly widespread: one does not generally ask for "more tea" if you haven't had any yet, nor ask a prospective employer to give you a "pay raise".


Oops... all these years playing 3.5 and I never knew that! :smallredface: Where does that rule come from?

SRD has it under combat statistics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#minimumDamage). It's why housecats, for example, always do 1 point of damage (even on a crit).
Fakeedit: Bah! Ninjas!

Note that DR is an exception, and can specifically reduce total damage to 0 (after the usual minimum damage rule is applied).

[olentu]

The way I see it, the D&D definition of bonus has been specialized, not re-invented from the ground up. It does not mean something entirely different; it means a specific sort of (ordinary English) bonus, with certain constraints and implications. As such, going from an undefined term with a fairly clear plain English meaning to a synonym that has a specialized D&D meaning based on its English meaning does not seem wholly unwarranted. Now, if you could find an example of "extra" damage that wasn't "bonus" damage, or if "extra" was defined separately in the glossary or elsewhere, you would have more of a case.

Common-sensically, also, the understanding of null as formalized in an earlier post is fairly widespread: one does not generally ask for "more tea" if you haven't had any yet, nor ask a prospective employer to give you a "pay raise".

How interesting. So when the rules say "extra" at any point they always only mean "A positive modifier to a die roll" and absolutely nothing else. That is what you are saying isn't it. That since bonus has been "specialized" all synonyms for bonus in common English have likewise been "specialized". Or perhaps you can give me a reason why damage is given special treatment with regards to what it "specializes" while other uses in the rules do not.

Meh, a correct answer can be arrived at with a bad argument but that doesn't make the argument good.

[TuggyNE]

How interesting. So when the rules say "extra" at any point they always only mean "A positive modifier to a die roll" and absolutely nothing else. That is what you are saying isn't it. That since bonus has been "specialized" all synonyms for bonus in common English have likewise been "specialized".

No, that's not what I'm saying, although I suppose I was not as clear or thorough as I could have been. (For example, gaining an extra attack obviously doesn't and can't convert.) I would say, though, that the term "extra damage" pretty much always means "bonus damage"; one reason is that "extra damage" is (under most circumstances) exactly the case where you'd expect the D&D definition of "bonus" to apply, since it has to do with adding always-positive numbers to what are usually dice.

In the absence of a counter-example where extra damage probably shouldn't be considered bonus damage, it's reasonable to read the rules in the way that creates the fewest implicit specialized definitions. Programming aside: implicitly declares the fewest variables on use. Pity WotC didn't have "use strict" or Option Strict, no? :smallyuk:


Or perhaps you can give me a reason why damage is given special treatment with regards to what it "specializes" while other uses in the rules do not.

Special treatment? Not really; it's just a case where (off-hand) I can only think of one meaning ("extra damage" -> "bonus damage"), so it's sensible to mentally convert it to that one meaning in all cases. If there were significant exceptions, then it would probably either be more complicated, or that wouldn't happen at all. The same algorithm would be used for other such terms, although I can't think of a great example at the moment.

[olentu]

No, that's not what I'm saying, although I suppose I was not as clear or thorough as I could have been. (For example, gaining an extra attack obviously doesn't and can't convert.) I would say, though, that the term "extra damage" pretty much always means "bonus damage"; one reason is that "extra damage" is (under most circumstances) exactly the case where you'd expect the D&D definition of "bonus" to apply, since it has to do with adding always-positive numbers to what are usually dice.

In the absence of a counter-example where extra damage probably shouldn't be considered bonus damage, it's reasonable to read the rules in the way that creates the fewest implicit specialized definitions. Programming aside: implicitly declares the fewest variables on use. Pity WotC didn't have "use strict" or Option Strict, no? :smallyuk:



Special treatment? Not really; it's just a case where (off-hand) I can only think of one meaning ("extra damage" -> "bonus damage"), so it's sensible to mentally convert it to that one meaning in all cases. If there were significant exceptions, then it would probably either be more complicated, or that wouldn't happen at all. The same algorithm would be used for other such terms, although I can't think of a great example at the moment.

Okay, so are you saying that "extra damage" is a game defined term as the reason why the common definition of the words must be discarded or what. I really don't see anything that makes "extra damage" a special application of the word extra that would give it some sort of special definition under the rules. If you want this particular combination of words to be a special case I am going to need to see some support beyond it seeming like a good idea to you.

What, seriously. No, without some convincing, there is no way I am going to agree that the default source of definition for words that are not explicitly defined in the rules is something other then the English language. If you want to change the source of the definitions of words we can discuss it but I'm not going to roll over on this one without a proper investigation.

So no better reason for the special treatment other then that it "makes sense". Yeah that does not really seem like a good reason. I mean, why should we go with what "makes sense" to you, instead of what "makes sense" to me, or what "makes sense" to any old random person.

[TuggyNE]

I apologize in advance for my jargon-y (and perhaps jumbled) post. It's late, so I'm unable to properly simplify my intuitions as I'd prefer.


Okay, so are you saying that "extra damage" is a game defined term as the reason why the common definition of the words must be discarded or what. I really don't see anything that makes "extra damage" a special application of the word extra that would give it some sort of special definition under the rules. If you want this particular combination of words to be a special case I am going to need to see some support beyond it seeming like a good idea to you.

"Extra damage" is a moderately common idiom in the text; it's nowhere defined, except by usage and common English meanings, so we look to its usages and the common English meanings to figure out what it means more exactly. It's reasonable, at that point, to attempt to reduce several apparently synonymous usages to the same definition where available and practical: "extra damage" and "bonus to damage rolls" are, so far as I know, synonymous except that the former is not explicitly defined and therefore is not so precise to a cursory reading.

I'm also explicitly not saying that the common meaning of the word "extra" should be discarded. Quite the contrary: I'd say it is at least as common for extra to only be valid with an existing (non-null) quantity as the reverse. Both versions are, of course, valid in various contexts; the context here suggests that the specific restriction under "bonus" be applied to disambiguate "extra damage" to mean roughly "an increase to the damage dealt by a particular attack, if applicable".


What, seriously. No, without some convincing, there is no way I am going to agree that the default source of definition for words that are not explicitly defined in the rules is something other then the English language. If you want to change the source of the definitions of words we can discuss it but I'm not going to roll over on this one without a proper investigation.

Since I don't disagree with this at all, and haven't, and my argument in fact largely depends on using plain English meanings where not specifically defined, I'll just leave that where it is.


So no better reason for the special treatment other then that it "makes sense". Yeah that does not really seem like a good reason. I mean, why should we go with what "makes sense" to you, instead of what "makes sense" to me, or what "makes sense" to any old random person.

I am, in fact, arguing essentially for the third of those positions. That is, by the conventions of reading a text that defines some of its specialized terms but fails to explicitly define other specialized terms that it uses, "any old random person" should correctly deduce the reading roughly as I've given. In theory, at least. (In practice proper reading of a text can be surprisingly involved and most people are not taught much of it; I myself know considerably less than I would like. See the classic How To Read A Book for a good textbook.)

[olentu]

I apologize in advance for my jargon-y (and perhaps jumbled) post. It's late, so I'm unable to properly simplify my intuitions as I'd prefer.



"Extra damage" is a moderately common idiom in the text; it's nowhere defined, except by usage and common English meanings, so we look to its usages and the common English meanings to figure out what it means more exactly. It's reasonable, at that point, to attempt to reduce several apparently synonymous usages to the same definition where available and practical: "extra damage" and "bonus to damage rolls" are, so far as I know, synonymous except that the former is not explicitly defined and therefore is not so precise to a cursory reading.

I'm also explicitly not saying that the common meaning of the word "extra" should be discarded. Quite the contrary: I'd say it is at least as common for extra to only be valid with an existing (non-null) quantity as the reverse. Both versions are, of course, valid in various contexts; the context here suggests that the specific restriction under "bonus" be applied to disambiguate "extra damage" to mean roughly "an increase to the damage dealt by a particular attack, if applicable".



Since I don't disagree with this at all, and haven't, and my argument in fact largely depends on using plain English meanings where not specifically defined, I'll just leave that where it is.



I am, in fact, arguing essentially for the third of those positions. That is, by the conventions of reading a text that defines some of its specialized terms but fails to explicitly define other specialized terms that it uses, "any old random person" should correctly deduce the reading roughly as I've given. In theory, at least. (In practice proper reading of a text can be surprisingly involved and most people are not taught much of it; I myself know considerably less than I would like. See the classic How To Read A Book for a good textbook.)

The problem with making a change in definition without considering all places where it is used, is that you then would quite possibly preclude any alternate usage due to a coloring of your perceptions. Someone that has not restricted their view would not think to randomly make an exception to a rule that to them does not actually exist. And so when one, who has formed such a rule of convenience, reads the text they would perhaps automatically discount a completely valid interpretation purely because it does not follow their rule of convenience.

For example making such a rule of convenience means that any time someone publishes, say, a ray that deals a fixed amount of damage they would need to explicitly say that the ray allows sneak attack to avoid the rule of convenience. However, unless the person authoring that ability has made the same rule of convenience, that person would probably not automatically assume that the "extra" = "bonus" and thus can never be applied to an attack that deals a fixed damage number since that is not a damage roll. And since that exception would never occur to the author it is unlikely that he would make an exception to a rule that he does not consider to exist.

Yeah, about that. The fact that you are not saying the common definition of extra should be discarded is even more problematic to me then if you were. At least if you were completely discarding the common definition then there would not be this random "makes sense" justification in there on top of the whole redefinition deal.

But does it. If that is really what you are saying then I am completely missing it. So far as I can tell your position is that the plain English should be discarded in a case where the meaning is not explicitly defined. I guess I am completely misunderstanding you or something and I would be grateful if you would try explaining again.

Ah, but here is the thing, assuming that one agrees with that, how does one know what the interpretation of the masses happens to be. One can not just make a construction, without proper statistical data, without running the danger of coloring it with their perceptions.

And anyway, I do not agree that the popular reading should be the one that is chosen. I have too often seen a large group of people make the wrong reading of the often convoluted D&D 3.5 rules to believe with certainty that the masses would get it right. They might, but then again they might not. I mean really, I have seen many interpret things in ways that are explicitly contradicted by the rules and that does not fill me with confidence. No, I feel that it would be best to just say that things are not sufficiently defined for an answer if things are not sufficiently defined for an answer, especially over the alternative of a popular ruling.

[TuggyNE]

The problem with making a change in definition without considering all places where it is used, is that you then would quite possibly preclude any alternate usage due to a coloring of your perceptions. Someone that has not restricted their view would not think to randomly make an exception to a rule that to them does not actually exist. And so when one, who has formed such a rule of convenience, reads the text they would perhaps automatically discount a completely valid interpretation purely because it does not follow their rule of convenience.

For example making such a rule of convenience means that any time someone publishes, say, a ray that deals a fixed amount of damage they would need to explicitly say that the ray allows sneak attack to avoid the rule of convenience. However, unless the person authoring that ability has made the same rule of convenience, that person would probably not automatically assume that the "extra" = "bonus" and thus can never be applied to an attack that deals a fixed damage number since that is not a damage roll. And since that exception would never occur to the author it is unlikely that he would make an exception to a rule that he does not consider to exist.

That is, indeed, a fair point. It's strengthened by the obvious fact that such things have actually happened in 3.5. Unfortunately, I'm not precisely sure what you're suggesting to do about it: people will, inevitably, have to interpret the text minimally even to get RAW, and writers (not to mention gamers) will, almost inevitably, fail to properly understand or account for various rules, whether obscure, implied, obvious, or explicit. Saying "no, you can't use ordinary induction to determine probable meaning of an implicitly defined term" is not the right solution though, I think. (A better solution would be to add more discipline to the writing process: explicitly define more terms, review for undefined terms, review for failure to account for rules in other places, centralize and simplify rules according to their sphere of influence, and so forth.)

As it happens, there actually are some spells that do fixed amounts of damage without mentioning damage dice: cure/inflict minor wounds. It's possible to consider Sneak Attacking with those to be unfortunate casualties of a strict RAW reading, although it would be ideal to either houserule that away or correct the published texts to remove the ambiguity and explain what's necessary for Sneak Attack to trigger.


But does it. If that is really what you are saying then I am completely missing it. So far as I can tell your position is that the plain English should be discarded in a case where the meaning is not explicitly defined. I guess I am completely misunderstanding you or something and I would be grateful if you would try explaining again.

OK, let's see. The usages of "extra" in the text, combined with the ordinary meaning (including ordinary synonyms) should be studied to induce what the likely meaning is in any given case. Since "bonus" is similar to "extra", and since "bonus" is a defined term while "extra" is not, some consideration should be given to cases where the definition of "bonus" should reasonably be extended to the implicit meaning of "extra". "Extra damage" seems like such a case, since it is ambiguous enough on the face of it to need clarification; the definition of "bonus", if considered to extend to it, does clarify it.

I suspect what's tripping you up here is that I'm starting with the plain English meanings but assuming, from the various obviously specialized uses in the text, that "extra" is implicitly a special term with certain additional meanings. Since it's actually fairly common for texts to define terms implicitly (and often difficult for any but a very patient or very skilled writer to tease out all the places their assumptions of a specialized meaning could require an explicit definition), I don't think this is unreasonable.


Ah, but here is the thing, assuming that one agrees with that, how does one know what the interpretation of the masses happens to be. One can not just make a construction, without proper statistical data, without running the danger of coloring it with their perceptions.

And anyway, I do not agree that the popular reading should be the one that is chosen. I have too often seen a large group of people make the wrong reading of the often convoluted D&D 3.5 rules to believe with certainty that the masses would get it right. They might, but then again they might not. I mean really, I have seen many interpret things in ways that are explicitly contradicted by the rules and that does not fill me with confidence. No, I feel that it would be best to just say that things are not sufficiently defined for an answer if things are not sufficiently defined for an answer, especially over the alternative of a popular ruling.

I don't much care what the "masses" say, to be fair; I do care what the correct reading is, and I believe it's discoverable for the most part using existing (and theoretically common-sensical/intuitive) principles of reading English, combined with a certain number of specific guidelines in the 3.5 rules themselves. The fact that most people do not properly understand those rules (myself included, to some degree) is not the fault of those principles. :smalltongue:

(Statistically examining the entire text of all the sourcebooks, DrMag articles, and web enhancements, not to mention errata and perhaps FAQs, would be an enormous undertaking. I work with what I have.)

[olentu]

That is, indeed, a fair point. It's strengthened by the obvious fact that such things have actually happened in 3.5. Unfortunately, I'm not precisely sure what you're suggesting to do about it: people will, inevitably, have to interpret the text minimally even to get RAW, and writers (not to mention gamers) will, almost inevitably, fail to properly understand or account for various rules, whether obscure, implied, obvious, or explicit. Saying "no, you can't use ordinary induction to determine probable meaning of an implicitly defined term" is not the right solution though, I think. (A better solution would be to add more discipline to the writing process: explicitly define more terms, review for undefined terms, review for failure to account for rules in other places, centralize and simplify rules according to their sphere of influence, and so forth.)

As it happens, there actually are some spells that do fixed amounts of damage without mentioning damage dice: cure/inflict minor wounds. It's possible to consider Sneak Attacking with those to be unfortunate casualties of a strict RAW reading, although it would be ideal to either houserule that away or correct the published texts to remove the ambiguity and explain what's necessary for Sneak Attack to trigger.



OK, let's see. The usages of "extra" in the text, combined with the ordinary meaning (including ordinary synonyms) should be studied to induce what the likely meaning is in any given case. Since "bonus" is similar to "extra", and since "bonus" is a defined term while "extra" is not, some consideration should be given to cases where the definition of "bonus" should reasonably be extended to the implicit meaning of "extra". "Extra damage" seems like such a case, since it is ambiguous enough on the face of it to need clarification; the definition of "bonus", if considered to extend to it, does clarify it.

I suspect what's tripping you up here is that I'm starting with the plain English meanings but assuming, from the various obviously specialized uses in the text, that "extra" is implicitly a special term with certain additional meanings. Since it's actually fairly common for texts to define terms implicitly (and often difficult for any but a very patient or very skilled writer to tease out all the places their assumptions of a specialized meaning could require an explicit definition), I don't think this is unreasonable.



I don't much care what the "masses" say, to be fair; I do care what the correct reading is, and I believe it's discoverable for the most part using existing (and theoretically common-sensical/intuitive) principles of reading English, combined with a certain number of specific guidelines in the 3.5 rules themselves. The fact that most people do not properly understand those rules (myself included, to some degree) is not the fault of those principles. :smalltongue:

(Statistically examining the entire text of all the sourcebooks, DrMag articles, and web enhancements, not to mention errata and perhaps FAQs, would be an enormous undertaking. I work with what I have.)

Yes, sure, there will always be problems but that doesn't mean that they should just be ignored when noticed. Your solution seems rather unworkable given the ended nature of the rules what we are currently discussing. Perhaps it would be best to consider a solution that could actually be implemented, say, to avoid making strict rules bases on what seems probable.

Well I guess you could do that if you believe that by a strict RAW reading "extra" = "bonus". However I can not do that since by strict RAW I can see no written rule that forces those two words to have exactly the same meaning.

Yeah that is exactly what is tipping me up. You say "my argument in fact largely depends on using plain English meanings where not specifically defined" and then you go on to equate "extra" with the very much not plain English D&D definition. And after that you start justifying not using the plain English meanings due to what you believe is implied in the text and as such is not specifically defined. But perhaps you are just much much more confidant in your ability, then I am in mine, to accurately draw out the intentions of the menagerie of authors that have contributed to the rules over the years.

Eh, even though it is possible to get the correct meaning there is not really any way to confirm when that has happened. To have so much faith as to make an absolute rule on the subject with no more evidence then what seems to make sense from the text, however, is a bit much in my opinion.

[TuggyNE]

To have so much faith as to make an absolute rule on the subject with no more evidence then what seems to make sense from the text, however, is a bit much in my opinion.

How else would you do it?

No, really, in a discussion of RAW what other possible method could you use that would not be described in the same way? (I.e. "mak[ing] an absolute rule on the subject with no more evidence then what seems to make sense from the text".)

Of course, once you know what RAW is, you're free to adjust it in ways that make sense, or try to determine what the authors intended rather than what they wrote. In fact, I'm generally strongly in favor of ignoring stupid parts of RAW once you know what it says and what would be more sensible. But that's not at all the same thing as saying "there is no possible way ever to determine RAW, because the designers forgot to define 'extra' or 'treated' specifically". (A bit of an exaggeration, of course.)

[olentu]

How else would you do it?

No, really, in a discussion of RAW what other possible method could you use that would not be described in the same way? (I.e. "mak[ing] an absolute rule on the subject with no more evidence then what seems to make sense from the text".)

Of course, once you know what RAW is, you're free to adjust it in ways that make sense, or try to determine what the authors intended rather than what they wrote. In fact, I'm generally strongly in favor of ignoring stupid parts of RAW once you know what it says and what would be more sensible. But that's not at all the same thing as saying "there is no possible way ever to determine RAW, because the designers forgot to define 'extra' or 'treated' specifically". (A bit of an exaggeration, of course.)

If the rule is too vague or imprecise for a definite answer to be given then the rule is too vague or imprecise for a definite answer to be given. If that is the way it is then that is the way it is.

From time to time, there can be arrangements made to get around some of those kind of things so long as all the various parties in the discussion can agree on using a particular interpretation. With that a discussion can be had and perhaps rules can even be agreed upon.

Edit: But, to be clear, that is not to say that the current situation is untenable, just that sometimes the rules are a bit too vague for an agreement to be reached.

[Ashtagon]

It can't be used as a sneak attack weapon because a) sneak attack damage is precision damage, and thus relies on these weapon actually doing damage in and of itself, and b) sneak attack relies on being able to see a vital point.

If you like, houserule that flour does 0 tickle damage, and that all creatures are immune to the tickle energy type. Then the sneak attack definitely doesn't work.

[TuggyNE]

If the rule is too vague or imprecise for a definite answer to be given then the rule is too vague or imprecise for a definite answer to be given. If that is the way it is then that is the way it is.

From time to time, there can be arrangements made to get around some of those kind of things so long as all the various parties in the discussion can agree on using a particular interpretation. With that a discussion can be had and perhaps rules can even be agreed upon.

Edit: But, to be clear, that is not to say that the current situation is untenable, just that sometimes the rules are a bit too vague for an agreement to be reached.

I do agree that sometimes RAW is just far too complicated and contradictory to make any direct sense as is. I'd also agree that this is not such a case. :smallwink:

[olentu]

I do agree that sometimes RAW is just far too complicated and contradictory to make any direct sense as is. I'd also agree that this is not such a case. :smallwink:

So shall we get back to the matter at hand, or is that just a vague way of saying that the discussion is effectively over.

[Tvtyrant]

S'mores rule. How can you have s'more if you haven't had any at all?

You can always have more tea. You can't have any less.

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/alicepic/disney-movie/mad-hatter-2.jpg