Sneak Attacking Spells

[Fax Celestis]

Spells are weaponlike in their nature, at least ray spells are. But when an order of operations is required for their use, does the Sneak Attack damage come before or after the spell's effects? For instance, a rogue/cleric can sneak attack with harm. Does the Sneak Attack damage come before or after the harm's damage? Similarly, does Sneak Attack damage come before or after an avasculate reduces the target's hp by 50%?

[oriong]

Only spells that actually inflict damage can be sneak attacked I believe, and sneak attack adds to the damage inflicted. If a spell simply reduces a target's hp by 1/2 then it probably isn't actually inflicting damage.

[PinkysBrain]

It's extra damage, just not subject to a save. How does the timing matter? Avasculate doesn't do damage (and neither did 3.0 harm).

[Fax Celestis]

It's extra damage, just not subject to a save. How does the timing matter? Avasculate doesn't do damage (and neither did 3.0 harm).

It still has an attack roll. As such, it is SA-able, and deals extra negative energy damage. Read the Weaponlike Spells description.

Timing matters in the cases of particular spells (Avasculate and Harm in particular: 50% then 4d6 is going to have a different result than 4d6 then 50%, and Harm can't kill you, but the Sneak Attack can.).

[Yuki Akuma]

Not all spells that require an attack roll are able to be used with Sneak Attack. A ray that imposes a penalty, for example, can't be used with Sneak Attack.

[Fax Celestis]

Not all spells that require an attack roll are able to be used with Sneak Attack. A ray that imposes a penalty, for example, can't be used with Sneak Attack.

Granted. Losing 50% of your current hp isn't a penalty, though, and neither is taking damage from Harm.

[oriong]

Actually if Harm can't kill you then neither can the sneak attack damage. Sneak attack damage is additional damage, not seperate damage, it follows all the same rules as the original attack and simply adds the result of it's dice on top of it.

[Fax Celestis]

So the Sneak Attack damage from a disintegrate would still dust you then? Hm.

[Yuki Akuma]

So the Sneak Attack damage from a disintegrate would still dust you then? Hm.

What would make you think it wouldn't?

[Kevka Palazzo]

Harm doesn't do 50% of your HP, it does a flat 10 x the caster level (max 15, for a total of 150 damage max), subject to a will or fort save (can't remember which) to do 1/2 of that damage (max of 75) but you cannot be taken below 1 hp if you make the save.

If you can't find the answer to your question, just ask your DM to houserule it.

[Fax Celestis]

Harm doesn't do 50% of your HP, it does a flat 10 x the caster level (max 15, for a total of 150 damage max), subject to a will or fort save (can't remember which) to do 1/2 of that damage (max of 75) but you cannot be taken below 1 hp if you make the save.

If you can't find the answer to your question, just ask your DM to houserule it.

I know Harm doesn't. Avasculate does.

[Fax Celestis]

What would make you think it wouldn't?

//shrug

My own stupidity, I suppose.

[Kevka Palazzo]

What book is avasculate in? I can't find it in the SRD.

[Fax Celestis]

It's in the Spell Compendium.

[Douglas]

By RAW, Avasculate does not deal damage and therefore cannot gain sneak attack benefits. But, just for an opportunity to explain how it might work, let's assume you're playing with a house rule that it "deals damage equal to half the target's current hp" instead of "the subject is reduced to half its current hit points." With this house rule, the calculation would go as follows:

Target has 100 hp, you have 4d6 sneak attack.
1) Determine damage. At this point, the target has taken no damage, so half is 50. Damage is determined all at once before any of it is applied, so you would add the bonus 4d6 to that 50.
2) Deal damage. Take the number calculated in part 1 (50+4d6) and deal that much damage.

For Harm, you would get the normal 10/caster level damage plus your 4d6 sneak attack and all of that would be counted as a single lump of damage. With a 15th level caster and 4d6 sneak attack, you would do 150+4d6 damage, and the entire amount would be halved and prevented from killing on a successful save.

[PinkysBrain]

Granted. Losing 50% of your current hp isn't a penalty, though
I'd call it a rather big penalty ... that said, the spell doesn't say it does damage equal to half your current hp.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

By RAW, Avasculate does not deal damage and therefore cannot gain sneak attack benefits. But, just for an opportunity to explain how it might work, let's assume you're playing with a house rule that it "deals damage equal to half the target's current hp" instead of "the subject is reduced to half its current hit points." With this house rule, the calculation would go as follows:

Target has 100 hp, you have 4d6 sneak attack.
1) Determine damage. At this point, the target has taken no damage, so half is 50. Damage is determined all at once before any of it is applied, so you would add the bonus 4d6 to that 50.
2) Deal damage. Take the number calculated in part 1 (50+4d6) and deal that much damage.

For Harm, you would get the normal 10/caster level damage plus your 4d6 sneak attack and all of that would be counted as a single lump of damage. With a 15th level caster and 4d6 sneak attack, you would do 150+4d6 damage, and the entire amount would be halved and prevented from killing on a successful save.

I beg to differ. By the wording of the RAW, Sneak attack is additional damage of the same type. It says NOTHING about being part of the original damage. In fact, being 'additional damage' pretty much means it isn't original damage. In which case, sneak attacking with a Harm can, in fact, reduce someone below 1 hit point. Contrarywise, additional damage from a Disintegrate will not dust someone, it has to come from the original damage, although it can still quite easily kill someone.

[Fax Celestis]

I beg to differ. By the wording of the RAW, Sneak attack is additional damage of the same type. It says NOTHING about being part of the original damage. In fact, being 'additional damage' pretty much means it isn't original damage. In which case, sneak attacking with a Harm can, in fact, reduce someone below 1 hit point. Contrarywise, additional damage from a Disintegrate will not dust someone, it has to come from the original damage, although it can still quite easily kill someone.

See, this is the impression I was under.

[The_Werebear]

So, if they had one HP after disintigrating, and then the sneak attack damage kicked in, they would be a burned and charred corpse, but not dusted.

Apparently, distintigration to the kidney hurts more than regular.

So, according to this, you can't sneak attack with ray of enfeeblement. I was told last that you could, but was never quite certain. It has never come up, so I had never had to rule.

[oriong]

I beg to differ. By the wording of the RAW, Sneak attack is additional damage of the same type. It says NOTHING about being part of the original damage. In fact, being 'additional damage' pretty much means it isn't original damage. In which case, sneak attacking with a Harm can, in fact, reduce someone below 1 hit point. Contrarywise, additional damage from a Disintegrate will not dust someone, it has to come from the original damage, although it can still quite easily kill someone.

If this were the case then sneak attack dice wouldn't bypass damage reduction and a rogue would have to subtract DR from both his sneak attack damage and his original damage.

If anything 'additional damage' means exactly that it is part of the original damage, it isn't seperate, it's just more damage added on of the same type.

[Arceliar]

The harm thing makes a good point for one reason...
Harm cannot kill someone. It can reduce to 1 hp but no less.
Sneak attacks on weaponlike spells deal the same type of damage.
That makes it seem illogical that harm could kill even with a sneak attack. I for one thing the intent was clearly that it's considered to be part of the original attack, but RAW does seem to leave a bit of ambiguity to it.

The best argument I can think of is that sneak attacks are considered part of the original attack with weapons, IE: If you attack a creature with damage reduction, you don't reduce both the weapon's damage and the sneak attacks. Therefore, sneak attacks, as far as I can tell, should be considered part of the original weapon's damage regardless of weapon type. The same should apply to weaponlike spells, and I would certainly DM it that way.

So, following that logic, harm sneak-attacked could not kill.

The one problem is that sneak attack is not multiplied by critical multipliers, so it's already not 100% identical to weapon damage.. I usually try to do things like so:

[Weapon damage + Str + Enchantement + Bonus (Weapon spec, power attack, etc)] X (Critical, if applicable, else 1) + Sneak attack = Final damage, all identical to the weapon's base.

If the weapon is a spell such as harm, then I'd use it'd all be negative energy damage that can't kill. I can't say for sure it's correct RAW, but ultimately everything is DM's decision.

EDIT: I see oriong just beat me to the damage reduction comment. Bravo.

[cupkeyk]

It says that any weapon like spell can deal SA. this is obvious for energy damage rays like scorching ray or Melf's Acid Arrows. Then it says that energy drain and ability *damage* deal negative energy. Although the phrasing says that you can use SA with non-energy drain, non-ability damage, non-energy damaging spells it does not say what type the SA would be or it will be allowed. Examples would be Ray of Exhaustion and Ray of Enfeeblement. This would also imply that Ray of Stupidity will deal negative energy damage despite being an Enchantment.

Ho-Hum.

I think, as classified as precision based damage Arceliar's equation functions and Harm+SA and Avaculate+SA can kill. Heck, Point Black Shot+ Harm should stagger the guy.

[Douglas]

A spell that does not deal hit point damage of some sort, ability damage, or energy drain is not a weaponlike spell. Ray of Exhaustion, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Ray of Stupidity do none of these and are therefore not weaponlike spells and do not benefit from sneak attack.

[Yakk]

So a L 1 rogue has a dagger, and attacks a target with DR 5/piercing.

The Rogue hits. 4 damage on the dagger, 6 on the sneak attack.

Does the rogue do 10 damage or 5 damage? 10 I think.

Similar situation, but the monster has DR 50/-.

Does the rogue do 0 damage or 6 damage? 0 I think.

Similar situation, but the monster has DR 5/slashing.

Does the Rogue do 5 damage (damage is added, then DR is applied) or 6 damage (sneak attack ignores DR) or 1 damage (both have DR applied seperately)? 5 I think.


The Rogue fights a monster who is "heals twice the damage dealt by daggers". Does the sneak attack damage heal the target as well?

[Lapak]

So, if they had one HP after disintigrating, and then the sneak attack damage kicked in, they would be a burned and charred corpse, but not dusted.

Apparently, distintigration to the kidney hurts more than regular.That makes perfect sense to me. You disintigrate my kidney. It's not enough to turn my whole body to dust, but I immediately die from 'lack of essential internal organs.'

Similarly, Harm hits you up with negative energy. Normally, this is not enough to kill you as it is distributed over your entire body's 'life force'. When channeled right to the heart, however, the additional stress causes you to die.

I have no problem with interpreting spell + sneak attack in this way.

[Yuki Akuma]

Similar situation, but the monster has DR 5/slashing.

Does the Rogue do 5 damage (damage is added, then DR is applied) or 6 damage (sneak attack ignores DR) or 1 damage (both have DR applied seperately)? 5 I think.

10. Daggers can deal slashing damage, too. :smallwink:

[Arceliar]

Heck, Point Black Shot+ Harm should stagger the guy.

Last I checked harm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/harm.htm) was a touch spell.

[Yakk]

10. Daggers can deal slashing damage, too. :smallwink:

He's a rogue. So he likes stabby stabby. ;)

[Nahal]

See I'd be inclined to throw the sneak attack damage first, since it's a function of WHERE you hit the target. Normally you do 4d6 extra dagger damage because you hit someone in the spleen, which makes for a nastier wound. Because the extra die come ONLY because you hit them in the spleen, I'd be inclined to apply it at the moment of impact (i.e. before the spell spreads throughout their body, doing the rest of the damage). It's kind of like sneak-attacking with a poisoned weapon, only instead of poison it's magic. The impact damage comes first, followed shortly after by the special effects.

So if you apply it to Avasculate, they'd wind up like this:

Sneak attack to spleen: 4d6 destructive damage as spleen ruptures, hindering bodily function and causing special trauma to the body.

Effects of Avasculate: Spell spreads to rest of body, causing massive blood loss and resulting in the loss of 1/2 the remaining HP.

Using the 100HP example, the initial effect would be 4d6 ruptured spleen damage (say 14), leaving 86 HP. The second (and nastier) effect causes the loss of 1/2 the remaining HP, dropping them to 43 HP.

If they were to make their save against a CL15 harm effect, they would thus be left with 11 HP as normal.

The net effect is that spells that aren't supposed to kill you won't, but the sneak attack will still add to the damage dealt. It may not seem like a major difference, but that's how I'd play it.

[Arceliar]

See I'd be inclined to throw the sneak attack damage first, since it's a function of WHERE you hit the target.

I for one would be inclined to do the opposite. In the case of the spleen example, a dagger to the spleen is going to cut through your skin before it gets to the spleen.

[cupkeyk]

Oh hahahaha, I have this automatic mind idea that everyone gets beholderkin (eyeball) and opts that their familiar gets Point Blank Shot ASAP. It's like the only worthwhile familiar. Anyhoo.

[Nahal]

I for one would be inclined to do the opposite. In the case of the spleen example, a dagger to the spleen is going to cut through your skin before it gets to the spleen.


A fair point, and really I feel like it boils down to GM fiat.