PDA

View Full Version : Ray of Enfeeblement, point blank shot and sneak attack?



AwfulLawful
2007-01-23, 06:29 AM
My latest character is a wizard/rogue, and I've had som arguments with my DM regarding the uses of Ray of enfeeblement when combined with point blank shot or sneak attack.
I hope you can help me with the following questions.

1) Is it possible to sneak attack with RoE? If it is, does the sneak attack deal hit point damage or strength damage? (The rules can be read in either way)

2) If I have the point blank shot feat, does my RoE then drain an additional strength point from my opponent?

- AwfulLawful

The Glyphstone
2007-01-23, 06:34 AM
1) It is possible. And Complete Arcane specifically says for cases like this, it deals hit point damage. In the case of RoE, it's negative energy damage (for scorching ray, it'd be fire damage, etc.)

2) No, because Strength damage is different than HP damage. However, if you sneak attacked with said ray, PBS would come into play and deal +1 negative energy damage.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-23, 06:42 AM
It isn't possible. Ray of Enfeeblement does not deal ability damage. It imposes a penalty, which is different.

It's not doing any kind of damage, so you can't sneak attack with it.

Wording is important. Read the spell and note the level. Now think; a spell that deals ability damage would work multiple times. But a penalty won't stack with itself.

A level one spell that deals 1d6+1 Strength damage would be horribly, horribly broken.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 07:55 AM
Yuki Akuma is correct. No damage involved here.

Y'know, a level three spell dealing 3d6 Dexterity damage would be horribly broken, too.

I'm looking at you, shivering touch.

Ikkitosen
2007-01-23, 07:58 AM
Nope, no sneak attack. RoE is good enough already.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 07:59 AM
Oh, empowered chained Shivering Touch made a ranged touch by Arcane Reach.

How encounter-ending thou art.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 08:01 AM
Oh, empowered chained Shivering Touch made a ranged touch by Arcane Reach.

How encounter-ending thou art.

How many targets does that hit, anyway?

Because that's the number of dragons you can take out with it, pretty much... (Provided you cast assay resistance first, anyway.)

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 08:03 AM
It hits up to your CL in targets, but they've got to be within 30' of the first target (from which the Chained effect leaps).

Ikkitosen
2007-01-23, 08:07 AM
I can't imagine many DMs that would allow that spell. So...bad...

Thomas
2007-01-23, 08:09 AM
It hits up to your CL in targets, but they've got to be within 30' of the first target (from which the Chained effect leaps).

Hard to fit too many dragons in a 60' diameter sphere, but we can try!

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 08:18 AM
Nah, Dragon Tetris is the Druid's thing...

AwfulLawful
2007-01-23, 09:02 AM
It isn't possible. Ray of Enfeeblement does not deal ability damage. It imposes a penalty, which is different.

It's not doing any kind of damage, so you can't sneak attack with it.

Wording is important. Read the spell and note the level. Now think; a spell that deals ability damage would work multiple times. But a penalty won't stack with itself.

A level one spell that deals 1d6+1 Strength damage would be horribly, horribly broken.

I'm a bit confused now. When I look up the spell description in my PHB it clearly states that it's a Str penalty, but in the spell list on page 192 it says that the ray deals 1D6 +1 per two levels Str damage. Which one is correct?

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 09:07 AM
The spell description (text over table).

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-23, 09:14 AM
Tables are always superfluous. Even with things like class abilities; the description trumps whatever appears on the table.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-23, 01:10 PM
Otherwise you'd have things like the Bloodhound(or was it the other bounty-hunting class?) being able to cast 33 3rd level spells. :P

Thomas
2007-01-23, 05:19 PM
I think the Justiciar of Weald and Woe had a two-figure number of spells at some level? I forget.

Aximili
2007-01-23, 05:34 PM
Has anyone noticed the Seeker of the Song's table? There's like 2 or 3 abilities there that are simply absent in the class description.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-01-23, 05:54 PM
1) It is possible. And Complete Arcane specifically says for cases like this, it deals hit point damage. In the case of RoE, it's negative energy damage (for scorching ray, it'd be fire damage, etc.)

2) No, because Strength damage is different than HP damage. However, if you sneak attacked with said ray, PBS would come into play and deal +1 negative energy damage.

As has been stated numerous times in various FAQs... this is the correct way to do it.

For example, you have a Rog3/Sorc1 shooting a RoE at someone who is flat footed within 30' of the PC.

It would do the 1d6+1 str penalty as per normal, then +2d6 negative energy damage. It would not do additional stat damage, because it is not damage, but a penalty. Also, Damage stacks, Penalties don't. So multiple RoE's will not stack for cumulative effect, only the greatest will be in effect.

Thrawn183
2007-01-23, 06:03 PM
Where is this shivering touch from and what level spell is it?

Douglas
2007-01-23, 06:05 PM
No, it has to actually be doing damage of some sort for sneak attack to apply at all. The damage can be ability damage, in which case the sneak attack damage is of a different type than the spell's normal damage (sneak attack is always hit point damage of some sort), but it has to be damage. Causing a penalty does not qualify. See Complete Arcane page 85 for the full rules text.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 06:08 PM
Where is this shivering touch from and what level spell is it?

Third, like I said. Frostburn. Brokennest spell ever. Even the regular 3rd-level version lets you one-shot dragons slightly over 50% of the time, if you can pass their SR.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-01-23, 06:09 PM
No, it has to actually be doing damage of some sort for sneak attack to apply at all. The damage can be ability damage, in which case the sneak attack damage is of a different type than the spell's normal damage (sneak attack is always hit point damage of some sort), but it has to be damage. Causing a penalty does not qualify. See Complete Arcane page 85 for the full rules text.

Incorrect. Read it again. RoE is specifically cited as an example, and it is specifically listed as additional negative energy damage.

Douglas
2007-01-23, 06:15 PM
The following is the only part of the Complete Arcane text about weaponlike spells, sneak attack, etc. that mentions Ray of Enfeeblement:

Spells that require attack rolls but do not deal actual damage cannot score critical hits. For example, ray of enfeeblement requires a ranged touch attack roll, but since the target of the spell takes a penalty to Strength (rather than Strength damage), the spell cannot score a critical hit.

RoE is not mentioned in the sneak attack section, and there is no mention of any exception to the general rule that anything that can't crit also can't sneak attack, so RoE is not a weaponlike spell and therefore cannot be used to sneak attack.

Enervation is the example spell that deals negative energy sneak attack damage, with energy drain (aka negative levels) qualifying as "damage" for this purpose.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-01-23, 06:29 PM
The following is the only part of the Complete Arcane text about weaponlike spells, sneak attack, etc. that mentions Ray of Enfeeblement:


RoE is not mentioned in the sneak attack section, and there is no mention of any exception to the general rule that anything that can't crit also can't sneak attack, so RoE is not a weaponlike spell and therefore cannot be used to sneak attack.

Enervation is the example spell that deals negative energy sneak attack damage, with energy drain (aka negative levels) qualifying as "damage" for this purpose.

From the Official D&D 3.5 FAQ, page 16 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)
The bonus damage from sneak attack, skirmish, or sudden strike applies to any attack that requires an attack roll, even touch attacks

No mention of requiring it to do do damage. FAQ > Splatbook IMO

Indon
2007-01-23, 06:41 PM
Man, just use Ray of Frost.

Rogue/Scout with a Wand of Ray of Frost can be scary, I tell you what.

Inigo_Carmine
2007-01-23, 06:50 PM
From the Official D&D 3.5 FAQ, page 16 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)

No mention of requiring it to do do damage. FAQ > Splatbook IMO


It doesn't need to be in the splatbook Shneeky. It's already in the core rules.


The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.

Sneak attack is "extra" damage. The attack itself already has to be damaging. That's why you can't sneak attack (or crit, which uses similar wording of "extra" damage) with a cure spell.

Caelestion
2007-01-23, 06:50 PM
Let me guess, Shneekey. You'd apply +1d6 negative energy damage to a disintegrate when fired by a Rog 1/Wiz 11? That just sounds silly (and I'm not talking about if the victim fails their save).

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 06:57 PM
The FAQ is irrelevant, it's a secondary source ... the primary source is in Complete Arcane.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-01-23, 07:01 PM
Let me guess, Shneekey. You'd apply +1d6 negative energy damage to a disintegrate when fired by a Rog 1/Wiz 11? That just sounds silly (and I'm not talking about if the victim fails their save).

Of course not. It would do +1d6 damage of the appropriate type. Since Disintigrate already does damage, it simply does more damage, on a success or failure. So on a failed fort save it would do 22d6+1d6, and on a successfull save, it would do 5d6+1d6.

It was specifically listed in ToB and in UA that ranged attack spells which did not specifically do damage (like RoE) did negative energy damage. If it says something else in the latest splatbook, forgive me for not wanting to continue shelling out more money for the latest in game-breaking abilities. I run SRD + FAQ Core. According to these rules, you can sneak attack with RoE and do additional negative energy damage. If you wish to use splatbooks, that's your choice.

Douglas
2007-01-23, 07:04 PM
Actually, sneak attack with Disintigrate is perfectly legitimate. Disintigrate does damage and requires an attack roll, therefore it is weaponlike and sneak attack applies. In this case, however, it would not be sneak attack damage. Disintigrate deals hit point damage, not ability damage or energy drain, so the additional sneak attack is the same type - unspecified.

As for the FAQ, it is specifically clarifications of existing rules, not new rules, and its answers are only as complete as necessary to answer the specific question at hand. If any part of the FAQ conflicts with a WotC 3.5 edition rules book, the book takes precedence. If an answer in the FAQ were intended to override a book, it would be included in the official errata for that book.

That particular question was about alchemist's fire and acid splash, both of which deal damage, and the person answering that question apparently either didn't think the distinction was worth pointing out or forgot that the distinction exists.

Edit: Where does it say that in ToB? The table of contents isn't giving me any clues. As for Unearthed Arcana, that book is almost entirely a collection of optional variants and has almost no bearing on the core rules. I'd like a page reference for that too, as UA's table of contents is also not proving very helpful.

With regards to the "latest" splatbook, Complete Arcane came out long before ToB, and is generally considered much closer to core, I think.

Scipio
2007-01-24, 11:02 AM
RoE is not mentioned in the sneak attack section, and there is no mention of any exception to the general rule that anything that can't crit also can't sneak attack, so RoE is not a weaponlike spell and therefore cannot be used to sneak attack.


I think you are mixed up on this "general rule". The general rule is that you cannot get sneak attack against a creature that is immune to criticals. This is not what you stated.

RoE requires an attack roll. If you meet the other conditions for sneak attack, I see no reason why you couldn't add sneak attack damage to the spell. If someone can show me where RoE is excluded from the list of "weapon-like" spells, I would change my mind. If you make an attack roll, then it is a weapon-like spell.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-01-24, 11:18 AM
As a Wizard/Rogue, you could sneak attack with a Fell Weaken (Metamagic feat) Scorching Ray within 30'. That would pwn.

Actually, I restate. HAS pwned.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 11:44 AM
You can Sneak Attack touch spells, too.

...that being said, can a Rogue/Cleric sneak attack with a Cure Serious Wounds and heal extra HP? Or would it deal Positive energy damage in addition to the healing?

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-24, 12:11 PM
You can Sneak Attack touch spells, too.

...that being said, can a Rogue/Cleric sneak attack with a Cure Serious Wounds and heal extra HP? Or would it deal Positive energy damage in addition to the healing?

...It would deal positive energy damage. It rocks against undead if you have that feat that lets you burn Turn attempts in order to sneak attack undead.

Ikkitosen
2007-01-24, 12:13 PM
You can only sneak attack with spells that cause damage. So you cannot sneak attack your friends with cure spells, but you can sneak attack undead since the spells damage them.

RoE doesn't cause damage so you can't sneak with it. Negative Levels appear to be a specific exception and are considered damage, but afaik they're the only exception to the rule.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 12:24 PM
...It would deal positive energy damage. It rocks against undead if you have that feat that lets you burn Turn attempts in order to sneak attack undead.

...or the Gravebane spell. (Clr 2, lets you SA undead)

Scipio
2007-01-24, 12:48 PM
You can only sneak attack with spells that cause damage. So you cannot sneak attack your friends with cure spells, but you can sneak attack undead since the spells damage them.

RoE doesn't cause damage so you can't sneak with it. Negative Levels appear to be a specific exception and are considered damage, but afaik they're the only exception to the rule.

Can you quote the source where this comes from? It is my understanding that if you make an attack roll, you can sneak attack.

Douglas
2007-01-24, 12:55 PM
Complete Arcane page 85:
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses. You can even use a number of combat-enhancing feats from the Player's Handbook to improve the effectiveness of weaponlike spells, as noted in Chapter 3 of this book.

With regards to sneak attack I consider this no more than a clarification, as having "extra" damage without having some non-zero base amount of damage already is logically impossible in my mind and sneak attack is specifically described as "extra damage" in the class feature description.

Ikkitosen
2007-01-24, 12:57 PM
Can you quote the source where this comes from? It is my understanding that if you make an attack roll, you can sneak attack.

CA p86 says (I paraphrase) that a successful sneak attack deals extra damage of the same type the spell already deals. I'll quote a short passage directly:


The exception is spells that deal energy drain or ability damage, which deal negative energy damage on a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage.Now although there's a clear passage that says you can sneak attack with any weaponlike spell, the section on weaponlike spells (CA p85) starts with


Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects...(emphasis mine) and goes on to detail the types of damage that count, including ability damage and energy drain but not mentioning penalties to an ability score, which are what RoE inflicts.

It is completely clear. Attack Roll + Damage = Weaponlike.

Weaponlike = Sneak Attack.

RoE is not a weaponlike spell.

Scipio
2007-01-24, 01:41 PM
Thanks for the references. I stand corrected.

Why in the same book that they make this clear do they violate the rule by allowing enervation to count as a weopon-like spell? A normal negative level (not from Enervation) causes you to lose 5 HPs, but Enervation does not say this. So it really doesn't make sense.

Personally, I would have no trouble house ruling that any attack spell is eligible for sneak attack. It isn't exactly game breaking.

Ikkitosen
2007-01-24, 01:56 PM
RoE is strong already, and allowing it to both do damage and inflict a str penalty would overpower it. Not gamebreaking by any means though.

Fhaolan
2007-01-24, 02:49 PM
You can Sneak Attack touch spells, too.

...that being said, can a Rogue/Cleric sneak attack with a Cure Serious Wounds and heal extra HP? Or would it deal Positive energy damage in addition to the healing?

I love having been on this forum long enough to remember bizarre threads from the past:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21431&highlight=stabbity+healing#22

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-24, 02:54 PM
A normal negative level (not from Enervation) causes you to lose 5 HPs, but Enervation does not say this. So it really doesn't make sense.


You receive all the misfortunes of a negative level(s), including the loss of 5 HP, when hit by enervation.

Scipio
2007-01-24, 03:38 PM
You receive all the misfortunes of a negative level(s), including the loss of 5 HP, when hit by enervation.

I agree that it should, but the description in the SRD does not say you lose hit points.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 03:46 PM
I agree that it should, but the description in the SRD does not say you lose hit points.


If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.

One would think that gaining a negative level would give you all the effects of a negative level. They may not all be stipulated within the spell itself, but the spell specifically says it grants negative levels. And negative levels subtract 5 hp.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-24, 03:46 PM
I agree that it should, but the description in the SRD does not say you lose hit points.

Yes, but it does say you gain a negative level.

And the SRD says that when you gain a negative level you lose 5 hp.

Stephen_E
2007-01-24, 04:23 PM
OK. A lot of this argument focuses on the application of definitions. I'll note that people are been selective (unintentional or not) about when they choose to be precise on definitions and when they choose to be loose.

Ray of Enfeeblement does a temporary penalty to strength. The subjects Strength score can not drop below 1 (PHB pg269)
Penalty = negative modifier to dice roll. (PHB pg 311)
Ability Damage = temporary loss of ability score points (PHB pg 304)

Clearly the Ray of Enfeeblements effect isn't a penalty, by the definition of penalties, and just as clearly it is Ability Damage, by definition, so yes, you can sneak attack with it. (And yes, a crit is scary)

Frankly if people have no problem accepting a negatve energy level is "Damage" they shouldn't be having any problem accepting RoE as doing damage.:smallannoyed:

As for this making RoE "To good". Welcome to DnD. Lots of things are "too good". RoE is the least of it.:smallamused:

Stephen

Ikkitosen
2007-01-24, 04:32 PM
Ability Damage is a clearly defined term. Applying a negative modifier isn't ability damage - things which state they are ability damage are ability damage, and that's it.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-24, 04:34 PM
Ray of Enfeeblement does a temporary penalty to strength. The subjects Strength score can not drop below 1 (PHB pg269)
Penalty = negative modifier to dice roll. (PHB pg 311)
Ability Damage = temporary loss of ability score points (PHB pg 304)

The difference: A penalty can't drop you below 1; damage can.

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 04:38 PM
Also, damage innately stacks... if I hit you with two damages in a row, you take two of them. Two penalties, however, will not stack unless they are untyped and from different sources.

Furthermore, unless you have some other effect (healing spell, fast healing, etc.), damage doesn't go away until healed. Penalties go away when the effect ends.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-24, 05:05 PM
The difference: A penalty can't drop you below 1; damage can.

A penalty can drop you below 1. It's Ray of Enfeeblement that specifically can't do that.

The difference is that Ray of Enfeeblement would be so much worse than it is if it did damage, because ability damage would stack. "So, Split Ray... Twin... yeah, take 4d6+20 strength damage."

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-24, 05:08 PM
I love these sorts of arguments. When people try to 'read into' rules text.

It is what it says it is. It infers nothing. Do not take rules text as anything but literal.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-24, 05:11 PM
Hence the term RAW.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-24, 05:13 PM
And Stephen: a penalty is a negative modifier to anything, not just a die roll.

Also, the reason we allow enervation to deal sneak attack damage is... Complete Arcane tells us it should.

Stephen_E
2007-01-24, 05:51 PM
Furthermore, unless you have some other effect (healing spell, fast healing, etc.), damage doesn't go away until healed. Penalties go away when the effect ends.

So you're saying Negative levels aren't damage now?

In short you're wrong. If the effect causeing the damage says it goes away at some other time the effect rules. See Ability Damage: PHB pg 3-4.
You're thinking of the default ways of removing damage.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-01-24, 06:04 PM
And Stephen: a penalty is a negative modifier to anything, not just a die roll.

Also, the reason we allow enervation to deal sneak attack damage is... Complete Arcane tells us it should.

And the PHB says that a penalty is only a negative modifier to rolls.
As I said, people are been picky about when they choose to take the precise wording and when they don't.

It would be most correct to say as per RAW the wording is imprecise.
The word used in the RoE spell, "penalty" can't be correct by the spell effect vs PHB definitions. The spell effect described does fit the definition "Ability damage". Now either the definition is incorrect, or the spell term is incorrect. Can anyone come up with a source to indicate either way?

To top it off we also have two secondary sources, the Comp Arcane and the FAQ, with one potentially further limiting the sneak attack effect from the PHB, and the other leaving it unmodified.

note: that the Comp Aracane is a secondary source. Primary sources are the core books.
(Edit) To be precise the core books are the primary source regarding anything intoduced in them. If something was 1st introduced in the Comp Arcane it would then be the primary source.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-01-24, 06:09 PM
I love these sorts of arguments. When people try to 'read into' rules text.

It is what it says it is. It infers nothing. Do not take rules text as anything but literal.

And in your next post you do exactly that. Take the definition of "penalty" to be something other than the literal rules text.:smallsmile:

Stephen

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-24, 06:10 PM
So you're saying Negative levels aren't damage now?


Negative levels are not damage.

However, Energy Drain cause a loss of 5 HP (among other things).

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-24, 06:35 PM
And the PHB says that a penalty is only a negative modifier to rolls.
As I said, people are been picky about when they choose to take the precise wording and when they don't.


You are referring to the Glossary explanation, which certainly is not exclusive.
There is no blanket statement saying that penalties are only negative modifiers to a die roll.
The RoE description is clear proof of that.





It would be most correct to say as per RAW the wording is imprecise.
The word used in the RoE spell, "penalty" can't be correct by the spell effect vs PHB definitions. The spell effect described does fit the definition "Ability damage". Now either the definition is incorrect, or the spell term is incorrect. Can anyone come up with a source to indicate either way?


It would be most correct to say that the Glossary is not exact or all-inclusive.

The description of RoE certainly does not fit the description of "Ability Damage"
It is a penalty and not damage.
The differences has already been mentioned.



To top it off we also have two secondary sources, the Comp Arcane and the FAQ, with one potentially further limiting the sneak attack effect from the PHB, and the other leaving it unmodified.

note: that the Comp Aracane is a secondary source. Primary sources are the core books.
(Edit) To be precise the core books are the primary source regarding anything intoduced in them. If something was 1st introduced in the Comp Arcane it would then be the primary source.

Stephen


Complete Arcane is the Primary source on Weaponlike Spells. It does do not contradict the PHB, but expands and clarifies the rules.

Even without Complete Arcane RoE would not qualify for extra damage, since it does not deal damage in the first place.

The FAQ also agrees that RoE does not deal damage.

Generally the FAQ can only clarify rules or define terms if they are not well-defined or explained in the RAW. Complete Arcane is RAW and everything in there over rules the FAQ in case of conflicts.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-24, 06:42 PM
Remember kids!

SRD > Core rulebooks > Non-core Wizards-published rulebooks > FAQ > Third-party rulebooks > Anything you hear on this site that contradicts any of the preceeding > That kid in the local game store > CustServ.

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 09:43 PM
So you're saying Negative levels aren't damage now?

No, they aren't. They are, in effect, contingent damage to levels... contingent upon you making your save later. The loss of HP comes as a side effect of the negative level, however.

Raum
2007-01-25, 12:21 AM
SRD > Core rulebooks > Non-core Wizards-published rulebooks > FAQ > Third-party rulebooks > Anything you hear on this site that contradicts any of the preceeding > That kid in the local game store > CustServ. Hehe! The kid at the game store is more authoritative than Customer Service? Entirely appropriate and very funny. :)

Shisumo
2007-01-25, 12:31 AM
Actually, I think it's really


The DM > SRD > Core rulebooks > Non-core Wizards-published rulebooks > FAQ > Third-party rulebooks > Anything you hear on this site that contradicts any of the preceeding > That kid in the local game store > CustServ.

but your point is well taken.

Douglas
2007-01-25, 01:27 AM
Clearly the Ray of Enfeeblements effect isn't a penalty, by the definition of penalties, and just as clearly it is Ability Damage, by definition, so yes, you can sneak attack with it. (And yes, a crit is scary)
Page reference for definition of "penalty", please. I could not find any explicit definition of the term "penalty" anywhere in the PHB, DMG, or SRD, much less one that restricts such things to applying to rolls. Meanwhile, the Condition Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) section includes quite a number of things that give penalties to ability scores and AC, neither of which could be confused with rolls of any kind.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 02:02 AM
Page reference for definition of "penalty", please. I could not find any explicit definition of the term "penalty" anywhere in the PHB, DMG, or SRD, much less one that restricts such things to applying to rolls. Meanwhile, the Condition Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) section includes quite a number of things that give penalties to ability scores and AC, neither of which could be confused with rolls of any kind.

There is not, but he was treating the Glossary (page 311 PHB) as a such.

Douglas
2007-01-25, 02:05 AM
I checked that already. The glossary goes right from "party" to "petrified". "Penalty" should be in between those and it's not, nor is it anywhere else on the page. There's "range penalty", but that's much more specific.

Edit: Ah, there it is, in my old 3.0 PHB. Even if the glossary were considered authoritative primary source, which it is not, we're talking about 3.5.

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-25, 02:07 AM
Sneak attack is "extra" damage. The attack itself already has to be damaging. That's why you can't sneak attack (or crit, which uses similar wording of "extra" damage) with a cure spell.

Actually, if the target is undead, you would deal damage, and I know there is a spell that allows sneak attack for undead.

Douglas
2007-01-25, 02:14 AM
Grave Strike from Complete Adventurer allows sneak attacking undead for 1 round, and yes, you could sneak attack an undead foe with a cure spell for that one round and the sneak attack damage would be positive energy damage.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 02:15 AM
I checked that already. The glossary goes right from "party" to "petrified". "Penalty" should be in between those and it's not, nor is it anywhere else on the page. There's "range penalty", but that's much more specific.

Edit: Ah, there it is, in my old 3.0 PHB. Even if the glossary were considered authoritative primary source, which it is not, we're talking about 3.5.

I was just about to ask you if you were looking in the right PHB :smalltongue:

It is right here in my 3.5 version also.
WotC has an online glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary)too.

penaltyA negative modifier to a die roll. Penalties do not usually have a type, and always stack with other penalties (except those from the same source) unless otherwise stated.
Source: PHB


But it does not really matter. The glossary does not provide a full definition of penalty. RoE is just one example of that.

Douglas
2007-01-25, 02:32 AM
Huh, that's odd. I actually got out my hardcopy of the 3.5 PHB and there it is, but it's completely missing from my pdf of it. Regardless, the glossary is not authoritative primary source. The numerous instances of penalties to things other than die rolls, mostly ability scores and AC, are.

Stephen_E
2007-01-25, 02:35 AM
I checked that already. The glossary goes right from "party" to "petrified". "Penalty" should be in between those and it's not, nor is it anywhere else on the page. There's "range penalty", but that's much more specific.

Edit: Ah, there it is, in my old 3.0 PHB. Even if the glossary were considered authoritative primary source, which it is not, we're talking about 3.5.

Well I'm looking at my 3.5 PHB and it's there, right below "Party" and above "Petrify"

As for it been glossary, which doesn't count, Negative levels causing a 5 hp loss is glossary as well. The Enervation spell doesn't say it does that, and in the DMG pg 293, it says it's a -5 hp penalty. So you people are say penalties can be on things other than dice rolls, and therefore the -5 hp is a penalty and not damage. So Enervation is specifically stated as working with Sneak attack, despite doing no damage, only penalties, which you people assure me aren't damage.

Just curious. Where does it say Glossay doesn't count? I know it says Text overides Tables, but where's this stuff about Glossary not really counting.

Stephen

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 02:53 AM
The term penalty is used loosely on page 293


Energy Drained: The character gains one or more negative levels, which might permanently drain the character’s levels. If the subject has at least as many negative levels as Hit Dice, he dies. Each negative level gives a creature the following penalties: –1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks; loss of 5 hit points; and –1 to effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities). In addition, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from the highest spell level castable.

Glossary does count, but it is not all-inclusive as I have stated several times.
Read some of the other terms and tell me if you agree that there is more to a lot of them than what it says in the Glossary?

Stephen_E
2007-01-25, 03:05 AM
Further points to note -

Comp Arcane pg 86 2nd para, Subtitle Crits - specifically refers to Ray of Enfeeblement as not causing crits because it doesn't do Strength Damage, but instead does Strength penalties. That would support it not been Strength damage, but it still uses the term panalties. It also doesn't say "therefore it's not a weaponlike spell, or mention it again under sneak attack, but that doesn't mean much (although it would've definitive if it had done so).

On the otherhand PBH pg 304, does have "Ability Decrease" whose definition would also fit the spell RoE. Of course this is the Glossary which people seem to disdain.

And we're still left with the problem that under your arguments Enervation doesn't do any damage, only penalties as per DMG pg 293 (since you consider this much more authorative than the glossary). :smallbiggrin:

Stephen

Douglas
2007-01-25, 03:12 AM
There's a difference between a glossary that is a collection of terms entirely for quick and easy lookup and a glossary consisting of primary definitions of terms. The glossary in the PHB is the first kind, meant mostly as a place to find quick reminders about things without having to find the full text. As such, it is not primary source. The glossary in the DMG is almost entirely full definitions of terms that are for the most part not well defined elsewhere. The completeness, detail, and uniqueness of its definitions make that glossary primary source.

One way to distinguish between these two kinds of glossaries besides examining the glossary itself is to check the index. Index entries almost always point to the primary source for any given term. There are several entries in the DMG's index that point to glossary entries, but I could not find even one such entry in the PHB index.

Stephen_E
2007-01-25, 03:14 AM
The term penalty is used loosely on page 293



Glossary does count, but it is not all-inclusive as I have stated several times.
Read some of the other terms and tell me if you agree that there is more to a lot of them than what it says in the Glossary?

Right...., The term "penalty", DMG pg 293, is used loosely and doesn't count. The term "penalty" when applied to RoE is used precisely.

This would indeed support your argument. Of course if it was the DMG reference to negative levels was precise, and the RoE references loose use of the term, your argument would be hammered.

I'm so glad that you know which references weren't really meant and which were.

Stephen

Douglas
2007-01-25, 03:15 AM
And we're still left with the problem that under your arguments Enervation doesn't do any damage, only penalties as per DMG pg 293 (since you consider this much more authorative than the glossary). :smallbiggrin:
This is a problem, how? Complete Arcane specifically lists energy drain as one of the effects that can qualify for a weaponlike spell, therefore whether Enervation does damage or not is irrelevent. Enervation inflicts negative levels, aka energy drain, and is therefore a weaponlike spell.

Edit: No, the term "penalty" is used precisely in both locations. The fact that negative levels cause penalties rather than damage is irrelevant because they are specifically listed as an exception to the damage requirement for weaponlike spells. They are also the only such exception listed.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 03:27 AM
Further points to note -

Comp Arcane pg 86 2nd para, Subtitle Crits - specifically refers to Ray of Enfeeblement as not causing crits because it doesn't do Strength Damage, but instead does Strength penalties. That would support it not been Strength damage, but it still uses the term panalties. It also doesn't say "therefore it's not a weaponlike spell, or mention it again under sneak attack, but that doesn't mean much (although it would've definitive if it had done so).

Complete Arcane cannot be much clearer than it is except perhaps if they made a special chapter devoted to clarifying this.


Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks...
(My emphasis))


Spell that require attack rolls but do not deal actual damage cannot score critical hits. For example, ray of enfeeblement requires a ranged touch attack roll, but since the target of the spell takes a penalty to Strength (rather than Strength damage), the spell cannot score a critical hit.

Weaponlike spells are clearly defined and RoE is clearly not such a spell.
Spells that result in Energy Drain clearly is if they require an attack roll.



On the otherhand PBH pg 304, does have "Ability Decrease" whose definition would also fit the spell RoE. Of course this is the Glossary which people seem to disdain.

And we're still left with the problem that under your arguments Enervation doesn't do any damage, only penalties as per DMG pg 293 (since you consider this much more authorative than the glossary). :smallbiggrin:

Stephen


See my above post.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 03:43 AM
Right...., The term "penalty", DMG pg 293, is used loosely and doesn't count. The term "penalty" when applied to RoE is used precisely.

Yes.



This would indeed support your argument.
yes.



Of course if it was the DMG reference to negative levels was precise, and the RoE references loose use of the term, your argument would be hammered.


Yes, but that is not the case.
RoE clearly states that you take a penalty to Strength. This statement does not conflict with any other in-game effect.

The list of penalties from a negative level is used more loosely since it also lists "-5 hp".
The Glossary also supports this by clarifying that you lose 5 HP.
This is not precise, but there is not any conflict or problem either, since we understand the broader use of the term penalties in this instance.



I'm so glad that you know which references weren't really meant and which were.

Stephen


It is not difficult really :smallsmile:
Most references are correct, but some of them could be a bit more precise.


Edit:
Ohh, you have not told me if you tried reading some of the other terms in the glossary?


Read some of the other terms and tell me if you agree that there is more to a lot of them than what it says in the Glossary?

Douglas
2007-01-25, 03:52 AM
How, exactly, is the use of "penalty" in the definition of energy drain on page 293 of the DMG any less precise than anywhere else? It means exactly the same there as it does anywhere else: a negative modifier to some statistic that is caused by some condition or effect and goes away when its cause does. Also, I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand given that energy drain is specifically listed as a sufficient effect (in combination with an attack roll, of course) to qualify for weaponlike spell status.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 04:06 AM
How, exactly, is the use of "penalty" in the definition of energy drain on page 293 of the DMG any less precise than anywhere else? It means exactly the same there as it does anywhere else: a negative modifier to some statistic that is caused by some condition or effect and goes away when its cause does.

It is imprecise in the sense that it does not say you loose 5 HP or take 5 HP damage.



Also, I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand given that energy drain is specifically listed as a sufficient effect (in combination with an attack roll, of course) to qualify for weaponlike spell status.


It is only relevant in a discussion about whether you take damage from negative levels.
It is not relevant when discussing if Enervation is a Weaponlike Spell.
(It could be relevant if we want to discuss the intend and reasons for including it as such)

Douglas
2007-01-25, 04:21 AM
Again, how does the lack of such a statement equate to lack of precision? A -5 hp penalty due to negative levels is neither a loss of 5 hp nor 5 hp of damage, the critical difference being that a -5 hp penalty goes away automatically when the negative level does while lost hp or damage would not. This distinction, and the fact that they bothered to make it, is an indication of greater precision, not lesser.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 05:03 AM
The question is if they made such a distinction or they were using the term more generally.

The SRD both refers to a loss of HP and has a list of penalties that includes "-5 HP".



ENERGY DRAIN AND NEGATIVE LEVELS

... A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained.
–1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
–1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
–5 hit points.
–1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
...



Energy Drained: ... Each negative level gives a creature the following penalties: –1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks; loss of 5 hit points;...


Since the mechanics for applying penalties (other than damage) to HP is not well defined I assumed that they used penalties loosely in regard to penalties to HP.
That interpretation at least ensures that the SRD is not in conflict with itself.

Stephen_E
2007-01-25, 06:16 AM
Edit:
Ohh, you have not told me if you tried reading some of the other terms in the glossary?

Sorry, I meant to say I'd check later (I was heading off to the Supermarket when I made my last post)

I've skimmed through and with the exception of Class definitions (Paladin, ecetre) and one other definition that specified it was been general, I found all the ones I looked at (and I read quite a few) to be accurate and complete.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2007-01-25, 06:27 AM
Quote:
Also, I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand given that energy drain is specifically listed as a sufficient effect (in combination with an attack roll, of course) to qualify for weaponlike spell status.




It is only relevant in a discussion about whether you take damage from negative levels.
It is not relevant when discussing if Enervation is a Weaponlike Spell.
(It could be relevant if we want to discuss the intend and reasons for including it as such)

It's relevant in that if Negative levels are considered damage for the purpose of Sneak Attack, without actually doing one of the 3 main categorys of damage (PHB pg 307) then they're using a broader definition of "Damage" and it is difficult to authoritively claim that the effects of RoE don't meet those requirements if you can't make clear what those requirements are.

Stephen

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 07:26 AM
Sorry, I meant to say I'd check later (I was heading off to the Supermarket when I made my last post)

I've skimmed through and with the exception of Class definitions (Paladin, ecetre) and one other definition that specified it was been general, I found all the ones I looked at (and I read quite a few) to be accurate and complete.


They are generally rather good (as they should be), but they do not cover the full extend of what they are describing. (As seen in the penalty case)


It's relevant in that if Negative levels are considered damage for the purpose of Sneak Attack, without actually doing one of the 3 main categorys of damage (PHB pg 307) then they're using a broader definition of "Damage" and it is difficult to authoritively claim that the effects of RoE don't meet those requirements if you can't make clear what those requirements are.

The requirements for Weaponlike Spells are very clear and I quoted them directly from Complete Arcane earlier and they have been paraphrased a lot of times by now.

They are not using a broader definition of damage for this purpose, but have chosen to include Energy Drains as a kind of Weaponlike Spell that qualifies for SA and Critical Hits.
Whether they have chosen to include them as an exception or because they also deal damage is irrelevant for this purpose.

Penalties are clearly not indicated as an exception and clearly is not damage, so spells that give penalties are not considered Weaponlike Spells and does not qualify for SA or Critical Hits.

MrNexx
2007-01-25, 07:36 AM
So... anyone going for a degree in Semantics yet, so they can help write version 4.0?

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-25, 08:26 AM
This is fun to read. :smallsmile:

Saph
2007-01-25, 08:29 AM
While we're on the subject - do you take a -4 attack penalty for firing a ray into melee, and does Precise Shot counteract it?

- Saph

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-25, 08:30 AM
While we're on the subject - do you take a -4 attack penalty for firing a ray into melee, and does Precise Shot counteract it?

- Saph

Yes and yes.

Saph
2007-01-25, 08:32 AM
Nice fast answer, thanks. :)

- Saph

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-25, 08:36 AM
Nice fast answer, thanks. :)

- Saph

Spellcasters who plan on focusing on rays do tend to take Precise Shot a lot. It's not exactly a bad feat choice at level 1.

Stephen_E
2007-01-25, 06:33 PM
They are not using a broader definition of damage for this purpose, but have chosen to include Energy Drains as a kind of Weaponlike Spell that qualifies for SA and Critical Hits.
Whether they have chosen to include them as an exception or because they also deal damage is irrelevant for this purpose.

Penalties are clearly not indicated as an exception and clearly is not damage, so spells that give penalties are not considered Weaponlike Spells and does not qualify for SA or Critical Hits.

Hmmm, lets look at the definition of "Damage" from the glissary, PHB pg 307.

Damage is a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect.

Since RoE causes a decrease in Str ("the subjects strength score cannot drop below 1" makes that clear) it does cause damage, even if you don't care to call it "Ability damage".

Re: 4.0 - Having someone with a degree in semantics might help, but just producing the glossary at the start and planking it in front of the writers, and then having the editors run a search on the finished product for all the glossary terms to check that the use matches the glossary would also help. That's the sort of things that computers are great for.

Another issue that's occurred to me through this debate. Why do people consider the SRD to be more authorative than the core printed books. While the core printed books can have errors in them, they are printed and fairly immutable. The SRD is an internet document, which means that it is inherently unstable and, amongst other things, hackable. Also since it was produced from the core books it was quite capable of having errors enter during thr transmission from one medium to another.

Quite simply the SRD is a less reliable than the printed core books. Indeed Internet sources are always inherently less relibale than printed sources. It is far, far harder to forge or falsify printed matter than it is internet material. Even with internet publishing, while you can fiddle with what's getting printed, you then have a solid item that can be taken and checked, unlike a internet document that can be altered in a heartbeat, and then altered back in the next heartbeat (see the problems Wikapedia have had).

Stephen

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-25, 06:38 PM
Because the SRD is updated with the latest errata, and the printed books aren't.

Raum
2007-01-25, 06:50 PM
Another issue that's occurred to me through this debate. Why do people consider the SRD to be more authorative than the core printed books. While the core printed books can have errors in them, they are printed and fairly immutable. The SRD includes errata. Basically, the SRD is equal to the books plus the errata.


The SRD is an internet document, which means that it is inherently unstable and, amongst other things, hackable. Also since it was produced from the core books it was quite capable of having errors enter during thr transmission from one medium to another.

Quite simply the SRD is a less reliable than the printed core books. Indeed Internet sources are always inherently less relibale than printed sources.Unstable? There are multiple instances if one is down. Same solution to potential hacks. In many ways the internet is more stable than other transmission methods because it is distributed and not reliant on any single item.


It is far, far harder to forge or falsify printed matter than it is internet material. Even with internet publishing, while you can fiddle with what's getting printed, you then have a solid item that can be taken and checked, unlike a internet document that can be altered in a heartbeat, and then altered back in the next heartbeat (see the problems Wikapedia have had).Um, why is forging online any harder than in print? Cheaper, sure, but harder? It's not even much cheaper these days with the plethora of self publishing outlets.

Wikipedia is a different subject entirely...it's meant to be altered by it's users. They simply haven't (and probably can't) found a way to ensure all users are trustable.

There are methods to maintain the integrity of web based documents, among other companies, your bank uses them. Some banks do a better job than others. Of course, an individual SRD's integrity won't be as reliable as a bank, but then the SRD really doesn't need to go through the expense. Just pull up a different copy.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 06:52 PM
Hmmm, lets look at the definition of "Damage" from the glissary, PHB pg 307.

Damage is a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects caused by an injury, illness, or magical effect.

Since RoE causes a decrease in Str ("the subjects strength score cannot drop below 1" makes that clear) it does cause damage, even if you don't care to call it "Ability damage".


Allow me to quote the next line you failed to include:


... The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, nonlethal damage, and ability damage ...


A penalty to Strength is neither.

This is also spelled out in the RAW on page 86 of Complete Arcane.

Douglas
2007-01-25, 07:04 PM
Also, since we're being pedantic here, that definition states that all damage is a decrease in any one of various things. It does not state that all decreases in those things are damage. More formally, let A be the set of all damage and B be the set of all things that decrease hit points, ability scores, etc. The glossary definition states that A is a subset of B but does not state that B is a subset of A or that the two sets are equal.

Therefore, "X is damage => X decreases something" is a valid rule but "X decreases something => X is damage" is not. You are trying to go from decrease to damage without a valid rule that works in that direction.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-25, 07:12 PM
Also, since we're being pedantic here...

We were?

Repetitive? Sure, but pedantic? I did not even notice :smallamused:

grinner666
2007-01-25, 08:48 PM
You can only sneak attack with spells that cause damage. So you cannot sneak attack your friends with cure spells, but you can sneak attack undead since the spells damage them.

Actually you can't, not without some remarkable special ability or yet another spell; undead are immune to critical hits and thus immune to sneak attacks.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-25, 09:01 PM
Actually you can't, not without some remarkable special ability or yet another spell; undead are immune to critical hits and thus immune to sneak attacks.

It's been pointed out several times that there's a spell, and a divine feat, that let you sneak attack undead.