Sneak attack and DR (3.5)

[Fouredged Sword]

Ok, question.

I am remembering a rule, but can't find it. Can someone please point me in the right direction or correct my memory?

If a sneak attacker can't do enough damage to deal at least one point of damage, their sneak attack damage is not counted, IE

A rogue stabs Mcdwarf with a knife for 1d4+2 (rolls 3 total) damage +3d6 (rolls 18). Mc dwarf has DR 3/- from adimantium full plate so ignores the 3 damage from the attack and thus also ignores the 3d6 sneak attack damage.

Am I remembering the rules right, and if so, where is the rule that states this?

[Khedrac]

Nope - that would be true for a poison on the sword, but the sneak attack is part of the weapon damage and is summed with it for the DR calculation

[MrNobody]

I think it's not RAW, but i apply it as an homerule. It's like when you have a weapon critical threat of 17/20, you get 17 on a roll but it's not enough to overcome the enemy AC. It's a crit but it doesn't it (it's critical but not an automatic success): you stab your enemy in the point where his heart is but you fail breaking his armour.

The same is with sneak attack: you would have dealt a lot of damage with your attack if you where able to cut through your enemy defense. Sneak attack it's not based on how much strenght you put no your attack, but in your finesse and the ability on hitting the right spot. You could hit the right place, but if you fail cutting through your enemy protection your blow it's worth nothing.

[Khedrac]

That's a horrible house-rule. You are basically saying to the rogue "You know how you can manage to do good damage under certain circumstances only? - Well forget it against creatures with a high DR."

Fighter-types get through the DR with brute force, rogues with placing. Most fighter types use power attack and two-handed weapons and similar to do large amounts of damage all the time. Quite often it is better for a fighter to keep to a weapon that won't overcome DR than switch to on that will as the DR is less than the difference in damage they do with the weapon.

Rogue Sneak Attack is their only way of doing large amounts of damage, and situations where it cane be used are limiting at best - and now you made it worse. That would leave no reason to play a rogue, not even roleplaying ones - other classes can support the roleplaying and be more useful (e.g. beguiler).

[eggynack]

That's a horrible house-rule. You are basically saying to the rogue "You know how you can manage to do good damage under certain circumstances only? - Well forget it against creatures with a high DR."

Fighter-types get through the DR with brute force, rogues with placing. Most fighter types use power attack and two-handed weapons and similar to do large amounts of damage all the time. Quite often it is better for a fighter to keep to a weapon that won't overcome DR than switch to on that will as the DR is less than the difference in damage they do with the weapon.

Rogue Sneak Attack is their only way of doing large amounts of damage, and situations where it cane be used are limiting at best - and now you made it worse. That would leave no reason to play a rogue, not even roleplaying ones - other classes can support the roleplaying and be more useful (e.g. beguiler).
I wouldn't go quite that far. I don't like the house rule at all, but it's probably not enough to ruin rogues forever.

[Fouredged Sword]

Thanks for the clarification. I appear to be miss remembering a rule in a subconscious attempt to have my character not die as I lost initiative and got torn up by a rogue bug creature that did 144 damage in one round.

To a 6th level character. :smalltongue:

My Dm be mean.

[MrNobody]

That's a horrible house-rule. You are basically saying to the rogue "You know how you can manage to do good damage under certain circumstances only? - Well forget it against creatures with a high DR."

Fighter-types get through the DR with brute force, rogues with placing. Most fighter types use power attack and two-handed weapons and similar to do large amounts of damage all the time. Quite often it is better for a fighter to keep to a weapon that won't overcome DR than switch to on that will as the DR is less than the difference in damage they do with the weapon.

Rogue Sneak Attack is their only way of doing large amounts of damage, and situations where it cane be used are limiting at best - and now you made it worse. That would leave no reason to play a rogue, not even roleplaying ones - other classes can support the roleplaying and be more useful (e.g. beguiler).

I agree that this rule make things more difficult for rogues but it's not gamebreaking as you say: the main effect is inviting the rogue (and expecially assassins) to be more subtle and study their target before attacking. I give my rogues all the support they need for knowing the nature of their enemies and getting the right weapon to overcome their resistence.
It's like an ever-running side-quest for the rogue! Plus, this search involves all the group: the sneaky rogue discovers details on the enemy, reports to the mage and cleric that, with their knowledge, say him how to deal with such a foe. Finally the warrior (or othe weapon expert) give him advice for the appropriate type of weapon and where to find/buy it.

However this is not a rule I apply in every campaign: i use it when i want the game to be more realistic. If i'm for the "super-duper-epic-the-heroes-always-win" kind of game i don't use it.

[Person_Man]

And in general, I would say that it's a good idea to avoid any rule or houserule that makes the game more fiddly (ie, carves out an additional exception or very limited set of circumstances) unless it also makes the game more fun.

[Gorfnod]

For some reason I am remembering the same rule as the OP. Could it have been from 3.0?

So I was remembering it wrong. It is in the Rules Compendium and it just refers to secondary effects such as injury posion and diseases not working if the DR is not penetrated. Like everyone else said, sneak attack is just added to regular damage before DR is taken in to account.

[ericgrau]

Ahh, nerfing those who really don't need nerfing for the sake of "realism". The rogue tends to be the biggest victim. Remember it is a game first of all, so don't make anyone unplayable. If you must have "realism" then find something else to make up for it. I put it in quotation marks because often these attempts do something utterly ridiculous. This is perhaps the most sensible one I've seen but even with this one you have to remember that the combat system itself is an abstraction and starting to adjudicate only certain things is unequal enforcement of "realism".

[Barsoom]

If you must have "realism" then find something else to make up for it.Yeah, I never understood why those people who are such great fans of "realism" have to spend their time playing games with elves who shoot magic missiles from their fingertips.
There's plenty of "realism" to be had in reality, keep it out of my game please!

[Fouredged Sword]

Thanks everyone for all the responses. I got everything I needed.

The issue has been resolved, and I just wanted to check my memory vs the playground before I went to my DM.

My character is legitimately dead, fair is fair, and though my DM killed my ECL 6 character with DR10/-, let see how he does with my character who has DR20/adi and 12/-, tons more armor, and crusader levels.

[Boci]

There's plenty of "realism" to be had in reality, keep it out of my game please!

You do realize that any consistent structure in a game is generally going to be at somewhat there for realism right? There's nothing wrong with realism and versimultitude. The problem is when they make the game less fun or break the way it works. So don't decry this rule because it caters to realism, decry it because it breaks the rogue by canceling out their damage potential against certain enemies.

[Barsoom]

The logical jump from "realism" to "verisimilitude" is the weak point in your argument. There is no need whatsoever for the former to achieve the latter. You can have a fictional world, consistent with its own rules and internal logic, which happens to also be completely unrealistic.

[Boci]

The logical jump from "realism" to "verisimilitude" is the weak point in your argument.

There was no logical jump, I group them together because they are similar. Realism deals with what we can relate to (gravity, human behavior), versimultitude deals with which we cannot (magic, dragons, echanted items).


There is no need whatsoever for the former to achieve the latter. You can have a fictional world, consistent with its own rules and internal logic, which happens to also be completely unrealistic.

Not completly unrealistic. Swords will still do slashing damage, because of realism.

[Barsoom]

There was no logical jump, I group them together because they are similar. That'd be, like, your opinion. But they are not. Realism is the real world as we know it. Verisimilitude is the fictional world as we are getting to know it. There would have been a lot less arguments at gaming tables if people would just distinguish the terms and not lump them together.


Not completly unrealistic. Swords will still do slashing damage, because of realism.I can easily imagine a fictional world where everything has such a thick skin that it can't be pierced and the only way for a sword to deal damage is to use it as an improvised club, possibly holding it from the wrong end. It would make sense within the fiction.

[Sylthia]

And in general, I would say that it's a good idea to avoid any rule or houserule that makes the game more fiddly (ie, carves out an additional exception or very limited set of circumstances) unless it also makes the game more fun.

Words to live by. I also add, don't alter the game in a way that nerfs martial classes.

[Boci]

That'd be, like, your opinion. But they are not. Realism is the real world as we know it. Verisimilitude is the fictional world as we are getting to know it. There would have been a lot less arguments at gaming tables if people would just distinguish the terms and not lump them together.

You just described the two terms with the same sentance structure. That tends to imply they are similar (or polar opposites).


I can easily imagine a fictional world where everything has such a thick skin that it can't be pierced and the only way for a sword to deal damage is to use it as an improvised club, possibly holding it from the wrong end. It would make sense within the fiction.

It would make sense, I'm not arguing that. But too many of those and roleplaying that world would become difficucult because you are constantly desctracted by how wierd the world is and your ability to imagine yourself in your characters shoes becomes strained

I'm just saying as a general rule, whatever game you play, there will be elements of realism in it, because roleplaying generally requires realism and, if the setting calls for it, versimultitude.

[Barsoom]

But too many of those and roleplaying that world would become difficucult because you are constantly desctracted by how wierd the world is and your ability to imagine yourself in your characters shoes becomes strained.Not sure I agree. When I RP, I want to sort of lose myself in the fantasy. At least for those three-four hours, it would be nice. Weird world = good.

In fact, I'd argue the converse, that even one nonsense rule outside the game distracts me much more than dozen weird in-game things.

[Curmudgeon]

I also add, don't alter the game in a way that nerfs martial classes.
I think that might be going too far. People doing funky math with Pounce and Charge multipliers can stand a bit of nerfing (I'm looking at you, Valorous), or that quickly becomes the "right" path to "win" the game. I'm tired of always seeing a 1-level Barbarian dip with Lion Spiritual Totem ACF on every martial character's sheet.

[Boci]

Not sure I agree. When I RP, I want to sort of lose myself in the fantasy. At least for those three-four hours, it would be nice. Weird world = good.

You can lose yourself in fantasy, but unless you want a comedy game you will still need some level of realism, because there are two ways we can react to things not working the way they are meant to: "That's creepy" and "That's funny", and people will default to the latter after a while.


Weird world = good.

Wierdness is relative. If nothing makes sense it loses its impact.

[Drelua]

The main problem I see with this houserule is that it just doesn't make any sense. People are saying it's realistic, but it's really not. I mean, picture a rogue sneaking up on a barbarian in an adamantine breastplate. This rogue is certanly not going to strike at the barbarian's plated breast. So why would the extraordinary hardness of the breastplate stop the rogue from stabbing the guy in the neck?

Of course it also makes no sense that the breastplate would make this wound any less serious, but this all that houserule does is make things even more ridiculous.

[Boci]

The main problem I see with this houserule is that it just doesn't make any sense. People are saying it's realistic, but it's really not. I mean, picture a rogue sneaking up on a barbarian in an adamantine breastplate. This rogue is certanly not going to strike at the barbarian's plated breast. So why would the extraordinary hardness of the breastplate stop the rogue from stabbing the guy in the neck?

that's one example of damage reduction. Most of it comes from the creature itself (or a magical item/spell). So it cannot simply be bypassed. Although if you fluff DR as instantenous healing then you SA with penetrating DR with the base damage does make sense.

[Grayson01]

that's one example of damage reduction. Most of it comes from the creature itself (or a magical item/spell). So it cannot simply be bypassed. Although if you fluff DR as instantenous healing then you SA with penetrating DR with the base damage does make sense.

Yes that is one example of Damage reduction, but here is another that doesn't make sense with this house rule of "realism". A Warlock has damage reduction 2 coldIorn and a Halfling rouge sneaks up on him and stabs him right in the liver with a Dagger for 2 damage. The 2 points of damage is ignored but you still just got stabbed in the (Add four letter word here) LIVER! That is still going to do more Damage then your reductions is going to handle hence adding in the 7d6 of Sneak Attack.

MrNobody: Do you also ignore a critical hit if the base damage would have not been enough to beat the DR? EX: Dragon Shaman Stabs Barb with a Dagger rolls a 20 and crit and confirms, the first role is a 3 this dose not over come the Barbs DR So dose he not get to apply the crit? That is the exact same as Sneak Attack?

[Boci]

Yes that is one example of Damage reduction, but here is another that doesn't make sense with this house rule of "realism". A Warlock has damage reduction 2 coldIorn and a Halfling rouge sneaks up on him and stabs him right in the liver with a Dagger for 2 damage. The 2 points of damage is ignored but you still just got stabbed in the (Add four letter word here) LIVER! That is still going to do more Damage then your reductions is going to handle hence adding in the 7d6 of Sneak Attack.

That makes sense: The DR prevented the dagger from piercing the skin, so no the liver was not stabbed.

I don't support the rule, but that above scenario can work, and would be an interesting variant rule if SA worked like it did in 4th ed: a bonus to the rogues damage, rather than the sole source of it.

As I said before: Alternativly the DR represents near instant healing, but cannot handle the damage to the vital organs, merely the wound leading there. Hence and explanation for how to have SA when DR isn't pierced.

[TuggyNE]

For the thread topic, Sneak Attack and weapon damage are almost inextricably linked; a single stab/slash/bash is responsible for the whole of the damage. Any kind of threshold that separates them just makes things weird. So this houserule is not a good idea, logically or game-wise.


Of course it also makes no sense that the breastplate would make this wound any less serious, but this all that houserule does is make things even more ridiculous.

If the Barbarian in question is at least 10th level, the adamantine breastplate is irrelevant, because DR does not stack.

[Lateral]

My character is legitimately dead, fair is fair, and though my DM killed my ECL 6 character with DR10/-, let see how he does with my character who has DR20/adi and 12/-, tons more armor, and crusader levels.
O_o

...You know, our game is a little nuts, isn't it?

[ericgrau]

I don't doubt that no weapon damage preventing sneak attack is semi-plausible. The thing is not only is it an unnecessary nerf, it's nit picky. You could waste a lot of time on many other realism things too and all you'd accomplish would be more confusion and hurting a lot of poor classes that don't need it. And it's so small you'd be nearly as far from realism/verisimilitude as before.

[Krazzman]

I think it's not RAW, but i apply it as an homerule. It's like when you have a weapon critical threat of 17/20, you get 17 on a roll but it's not enough to overcome the enemy AC. It's a crit but it doesn't it (it's critical but not an automatic success): you stab your enemy in the point where his heart is but you fail breaking his armour.

That's not a houserule.

From the srd:


Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on the attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.
...
Increased Threat Range

Sometimes your threat range is greater than 20. That is, you can score a threat on a lower number. In such cases, a roll of lower than 20 is not an automatic hit. Any attack roll that doesn’t result in a hit is not a threat.


The other thing... is just bad.

[CRtwenty]

That makes sense: The DR prevented the dagger from piercing the skin, so no the liver was not stabbed.

Except the damage is added to the attack before the DR comes into play because that's how damage bonuses like Sneak Attack work. The dagger obviously pierces, because the Rogue was able to find a weak spot in the skin and take advantage of it.

This rule is incorrect by RAW, and as a houserule stupidly nerfs an ability that doesn't need to be nerfed to begin with.

[Darth Stabber]

Sneak attack is "precision" damage. That means you are hitting somewhere vulnerable (as evidenced by the fact that discernible anatomy is a condition). If you are getting a vulnerable spot, you are obviously going to pick a spot with thinner skin or something. Rogues already suck at combat, and sneak attack is already worse than hitting really hard, don't take the nerfbat to them. Would you make an argument that you shouldn't get strength damage if the base weapon damage doesn't get through? People already joke that "melee can't have nice things", why also take the okay things that they come with. The sorcerer's metamagic'd orb of force is already going to hit harder than everything but an ubercharger.

And why are people saying that DR represents some sort of rapid healing? There is an extant mechanic for emulating fast healing, if only I could remember what the name of the fast healing mechanic was.

[CRtwenty]

if only I could remember what the name of the fast healing mechanic was.

I think it's "Rapid Curing". :smallsmile:

[Gwendol]

Yeah, this is a rule that fails being consistent with how the ability is supposed to be working. I mean, if your ranger fires arrows with the flaming property against a chosen enemy, and the weapon damage fails to overcome DR (which isn't always near-instantaenous healing, zombies and skeletons come to mind) is the favored enemy not burned? It's a hit after all. Should the FE damage bonus not be taken into account?
How about scouts, or is that extra damage different from SA damage?

[Boci]

Sneak attack is "precision" damage. That means you are hitting somewhere vulnerable (as evidenced by the fact that discernible anatomy is a condition). If you are getting a vulnerable spot, you are obviously going to pick a spot with thinner skin or something.

That works for DR that stems from thick skin.


And why are people saying that DR represents some sort of rapid healing? There is an extant mechanic for emulating fast healing, if only I could remember what the name of the fast healing mechanic was.

It was an explination fo how rogues could SA creatures with DR, and is distinctcly different from fast healing (large amounts, faster, but a one off).


This rule is incorrect by RAW, and as a houserule stupidly nerfs an ability that doesn't need to be nerfed to begin with.

I don't disagree.

[eggynack]

That's not a houserule.

From the srd: "Stuff about crits."

I think it actually is a house rule. In particular, his rule is that on a critical threat that misses the enemy's AC the character still misses, but he breaks the enemy's armor or something. The specifics are a little unclear, but the gist seems to be non-damage effects on critical "misses". I don't think it makes much sense, personally.

[Ashtagon]

...

And why are people saying that DR represents some sort of rapid healing? There is an extant mechanic for emulating fast healing, if only I could remember what the name of the fast healing mechanic was.

rapid healing (of the near-instantaneous kind) is one of the two things that DR is explicitly described as representing in the DMG glossary.

The more you know...

[Krazzman]

I think it actually is a house rule. In particular, his rule is that on a critical threat that misses the enemy's AC the character still misses, but he breaks the enemy's armor or something. The specifics are a little unclear, but the gist seems to be non-damage effects on critical "misses". I don't think it makes much sense, personally.

Nope. Not what he wrote. His PLayer rolled a 17 to hit and this triggers his Critical threat but sadly the enemy has an ac of 25 against his meager +7 to hit bonus. He is stopped by his enemies armor but would've otherwise hit his enemies heart.

A failed Confirmation resulting in a miss is something what I consider another stupid houserule if this affects the player characters too.

[eggynack]

Nope. Not what he wrote. His PLayer rolled a 17 to hit and this triggers his Critical threat but sadly the enemy has an ac of 25 against his meager +7 to hit bonus. He is stopped by his enemies armor but would've otherwise hit his enemies heart.

A failed Confirmation resulting in a miss is something what I consider another stupid houserule if this affects the player characters too.
On a rereading, I think you are correct. The line I was referring to was, "you stab your enemy in the point where his heart is but you fail breaking his armour," which technically means that you fail to stab his heart, but you are successful at breaking his armor. It's not grammatically correct, even in that form, but it would only require a comma to fit my interpretation. However, the likely truth is that the intended line was, "you fail at breaking his armor." That makes a lot more sense, actually, so I'm inclined to agree with you. Still, it was a logical mistake to make, given the ambiguity of the grammar. He really didn't write what either of us said he did, because the sentence was just incorrectly written. It's an odd thing.

[Person_Man]

I would add that this discussion illustrates why the Precision damage mechanic is poor rule design.

If you're going to give the player a bonus or special ability based on a set of limited circumstances, you generally want control of those circumstances to be in the player's hands, not the DMs. If you want to encourage and reward a player for doing X (flanking, charging, etc) then make a mechanic that only functions when the player does X. But if you make a mechanic that only occurs when the monster has Y properties, you're basically just artificially raising or lowering the difficulty of an encounter for that player when the DM wants to use that type of monster.

That would be fine if D&D was a one player game. But the Rogue is part of a party. When the DM throws Sneak Attack immune creatures at the party, he's making the game much more difficult for the Rogue, and only the Rogue. It doesn't make combat more balanced, it doesn't make the game more fun, and it's not really more "realistic" then any other damage bonus in the game.

[eggynack]

I would add that this discussion illustrates why the Precision damage mechanic is poor rule design.

If you're going to give the player a bonus or special ability based on a set of limited circumstances, you generally want control of those circumstances to be in the player's hands, not the DMs. If you want to encourage and reward a player for doing X (flanking, charging, etc) then make a mechanic that only functions when the player does X. But if you make a mechanic that only occurs when the monster has Y properties, you're basically just artificially raising or lowering the difficulty of an encounter for that player when the DM wants to use that type of monster.

That would be fine if D&D was a one player game. But the Rogue is part of a party. When the DM throws Sneak Attack immune creatures at the party, he's making the game much more difficult for the Rogue, and only the Rogue. It doesn't make combat more balanced, it doesn't make the game more fun, and it's not really more "realistic" then any other damage bonus in the game.
This is an argument I can solidly get behind. Giving a monster effective immunity to a whole class is an incredibly artificial form of spotlight creation. It actually strikes me as similar the artificial spotlight creation that is trap disarming, but that's a different topic. One might argue that rogues have access to certain resources that allow them to overcome these immunities, thus granting them power over their own destiny. However, those resources came later in the system, so giving certain creatures near perfect immunity to a whole class was an intrinsic part of the game's design. That's a really problematic approach to design.

[Gwendol]

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Penetrating strike is an afterthought, clearly.

[Boci]

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Penetrating strike is an afterthought, clearly.

Even that has its problems:
WotC: "We've sorry rogue for making a significant portion of the enemies immune to your main source of damage. Here have this"
Dagger wielding rogue: "Wow, thanks. This'll sure help"
Bow wielding rogue "Err...over here?"

[Curmudgeon]

WotC: "We've sorry rogue archer for making a significant portion of the enemies immune to your main source of damage. Here have this"
... Wind Wall ... :smallbiggrin:
Bow wielding rogue anyone: "You really hate me, don't you?"
I've adjusted this post a bit, to expand on the point.

[flare'90]

There is the Force enhancement, but yeah archery is really subpar in 3.5 (without full caster support). Kinda like mounted combat. And crossbows.

[Curmudgeon]

There is the Force enhancement, but yeah archery is really subpar in 3.5 (without full caster support).
I don't see how Force helps.
These force projectiles automatically overcome damage reduction and suffer no miss chance against incorporeal targets, but they don't damage creatures immune to force effects.
If you're firing at an incorporeal target on the other side of a Wind Wall I could maybe see how this could be a workaround, but in general it doesn't look like a solution to the problem.