Shooting ray into melee

[Baskineli]

If an archer shoots into melee, without precise shot feat, he takes -4 penalty to hit.

Does this apply to a caster, shooting a ray, such as ray of enfeeblement?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Yes, you also take -4 with rays if you do not have Precise Shot.

[Charity]

As it goes, on a sort of related issue, If you get sneak attack damage on a ray, would you have to apply it if you accidently hit a compatriot in combat?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

There is no accidents in 3.5.

You cannot "accidentally" hit a companion and any such claim would be null and void under meta game law.


The exception is firing into a grapple.
If your companion is grappling with one other creature and you shoot into the grapple, there is a 50 % you hit your companion.
Your companion is also denied his dexterity modifier to AC from your attack, so you would apply your sneak attack damage.

[Miles Invictus]

From a realism standpoint, that's ridiculous. Your target is flailing around so much that you accidentally hit your ally, yet you unerringly skewer your friend's left kidney?

[Ikkitosen]

The SRD says:


Sneak Attack If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.


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 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking) her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits) with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

The highlighted sections seem to first imply that the rogue doesn't have to apply the damage before going on to state that thay do deal it. However this second is based on the assumption that they are trying to deal their extra damage to their intended target, and so no, you wouldn't have to apply your SA damage if you accidentally struck your friend in a grapple.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Why would you assume that you do not have to declare that you are trying to make a sneak attack before actually making the attack?

(Or rather, explicitly mention that you are NOT sneak attacking on any attack where you do not want to run the risk of hitting an ally)

[Erk]

Silvanos, that is patently absurd. Sneak attack is a precision attack. How can you miss (which is what you are doing when you hit your friend) but still apply the bonus for a precision strike?

It does, however, lead to some hilarious mental pictures.

[Ikkitosen]

I think you do declare it - "I'm going to sneak attack the bad guy". Sneak attacks aren't some property of a weapon, equally applicable to whomever finally meet s the sharp end, they're target-specific. What is a sneak attack at your unarmoured enemy wouldn't be against your mate in plate.

The ability, as quoted, is pretty easy to interpret as turn-off-and-on-able (cookie for the reference) or not, so I choose the common sense answer.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Silvanos, that is patently absurd. Sneak attack is a precision attack. How can you miss (which is what you are doing when you hit your friend) but still apply the bonus for a precision strike?

It does, however, lead to some hilarious mental pictures.

Realism is not a RAW requirement.
It certainly is not more absurd than allowing sneak attacks when there is a 50 % chance you do not hit the target in the first place.

If you try to hit a vulnerable spot, say a head, there is a good chance that all heads involved in the grapple are rather close.



I think you do declare it - "I'm going to sneak attack the bad guy". Sneak attacks aren't some property of a weapon, equally applicable to whomever finally meet s the sharp end, they're target-specific. What is a sneak attack at your unarmoured enemy wouldn't be against your mate in plate.

The ability, as quoted, is pretty easy to interpret as turn-off-and-on-able (cookie for the reference) or not, so I choose the common sense answer.

Sure, you can conceivably turn it on or off as you please before you attack, but that is not the same as saying that you can do it after the arrow is lodged in your friend's eye.

Sneak attack can be applied whenever the conditions are met, so if you declare that you are making a sneak attack it seems unreasonable to assume that you can retract your statement after making the attack.

The attack roll should account for differences in armor and such.

If the two creatures grappling were different in size or shape an argument could be made that sneak attacking one would not necessarily mean sneak attacking the other.

However, as long as they are similar and grappling face to face such a distinction does not seem reasonable qua that you have the possibility of sneak attacking in the first place.

[Ikkitosen]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. The RAW are unclear, and I cannot see why, where this is the case, common sense should not prevail. Seriously - "the creature's heads are probably quite close together" - are you serious? :smallamused: :smallwink:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I do not see your argument as a common sense argument.

On one eye stalk we say that you can apply your precision based damage when there is a 50 % chance that we are in fact shooting at a different target. (RAW)

Then on another eye stalk we argue that we after the outcome of the attack has been decided can choose whether to apply extra damage and call that realism or common sense.

Illustrative example (possibly slightly exaggerated):
Player: "I am for the head!"
*Rolls a 20*
*Rolls to determine target and rolls: friend*
DM: "You hit your friend in the eye."
Player: "Ok, but that was not a sneak attack, so only normal damage applies"


I find it more important to apply the rules consistently than to try to adapt them to some subjective perception of realism.

[Charity]

There is no accidents in 3.5.

You cannot "accidentally" hit a companion and any such claim would be null and void under meta game law


The exception is firing into a grapple...

I thought if you missed by 1-4 then you hit your ally when firing into combat. Is that not true in 3.5 or 3.0? (we play 3.0 we are a bit behind the times)
What about if an ally is giving an enemy cover? could you not hit the cover?

It does seem absurd to accidently apply sneak attack damage, I guess it comes down to DM ruling on this one.

[Arbitrarity]

How about Elusive Target? You know the flanking function? Yeah.

I can see this image of a rogue stabbing a a character, the character dancing out of the way, and the rogue lodging a dagger in his ally's eye.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

In 3.0 you can strike cover.
Firing into melee when your friend provides would give the target a AC bonus on top of the -4 you take on your attack roll.

Firing into melee does not necessarily mean that you have cover, though.
If your friend does not provide cover you do not run the risk of hitting him, but you still take a -4 penalty.

The -4 penalty represents carefully aiming to avoid hitting your friend when firing into melee.

[Theodoxus]

Absurd or not, LS is correct in his reading of the RAW. Grapple denies dex mod, sneak attack takes advantage of that situation, target of the attack takes full sneak damage.

That is why houseruling on the fly is perfectly acceptible. I'm sure most DMs faced with this uncommon scenario would immediately rule against the sneak attack damage based on the idea of 'how can you be precise on a target you weren't aiming for.' However, a sadistic player who wanted to hurt his partymate would be completely within the rules to argue that by RAW, the damage is applied.

[Erk]

I still disagree that this use is RAW. Again:

if a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

It does not say must, nor that once a sneak attack is declared a rogue's weapon becomes charged with Sneaky Energy that can only be dispelled when the weapon is plunged into unsuspecting flesh. Certainly that is the case with some RAW rules, but with sneak attack it simply doesn't make sense.

It does make sense to transfer criticals that way. If your rogue rolls a critical to hit into melee and then hits his friend, the extra damage has been dictated not by intent but by random luck. Therefore, the crit can go into your friend's soft spots just as easily as the enemy's. However, sneak attacks aren't a random thing: they are an intentional attack gained through skill and practice. It's a pretty clear misreading of both intent and logic to read this rule to mean that a rogue has to sneak attack if s/he hits a flatfooted opponent.

On the flip, as DM I would rule that this also means that a rogue who misses his/her intentional target and hit something/one else instead could not use sneak attack damage, even if the second target was an enemy who was flatfooted. That might be houseruling it slightly, but again I don't think so (it says "can" and it does not specify who decides that the rogue can use extra damage).

[serow]

This might not be RAW but since both the parties involved in the grapple are all denied dex, they're all susceptible to SA.
Unless the SA-er doesn't want to SA, in which case they'd have to declare before making any attack rolls. No such thing as "I miss my target, now I don't SA my friend."
Imagine the abuse I can pull with that as a DM! No fair to my players if I play dirty like that...

[Torek]

The exception is firing into a grapple.
If your companion is grappling with one other creature and you shoot into the grapple, there is a 50 % you hit your companion.

Where can I find this rule?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Where can I find this rule?

It is in a footnote to the table of armor class modifiers.

Table 8-6 on page 151 in the PHB.


3 Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

[Fixer]

On the flip, as DM I would rule that this also means that a rogue who misses his/her intentional target and hit something/one else instead could not use sneak attack damage, even if the second target was an enemy who was flatfooted. That might be houseruling it slightly, but again I don't think so (it says "can" and it does not specify who decides that the rogue can use extra damage).

This is how I rule.

If a character with sneak attack has their attack redirected for ANY reason to a second target their sneak attack does not work. They cannot apply precision damage to a target they were not intending to hit. A rogue using a ray of frost against someone with spell turning cannot sneak attack themselves, for example.

In the case of sneak attacking into a grapple it is simply that before you could line up that 'perfect hit' your target has something else get in the way first and get stabbed (but without precision damage).

[AtomicKitKat]

I have no problem with a Rogue skewering their ally in the kidneys. Kidneys are all generally located in the lower back(slight difference between the genders). As long as both of you are upright, the kidneys are in generally the same area. Now, if you were trying to hamstring the opponent, I might not let your ally get hit by it(in part because it's much harder to hit the thigh muscle than skewer some vital organ, which is where most attacks land. i.e. the torso.)

[Ikkitosen]

I have no problem with a Rogue skewering their ally in the kidneys. Kidneys are all generally located in the lower back(slight difference between the genders). As long as both of you are upright, the kidneys are in generally the same area. Now, if you were trying to hamstring the opponent, I might not let your ally get hit by it(in part because it's much harder to hit the thigh muscle than skewer some vital organ, which is where most attacks land. i.e. the torso.)

This is very much houserule territory. The main question is whether or not sneak attacks are target-sensitive. I mean, if Belkar is being grappled by Windstriker and Haley tries to sneak attack the horse, she's unlikely to be aiming anywhere coincidentally near to Belkar, let alone his weak spots. Yet by some interpretations here she'd still have to apply her sneak attack damage if she accidentally hit him. I disagree, assuming no new sources are presented that clear the matter up.

[Zherog]

I think you do declare it - "I'm going to sneak attack the bad guy". Sneak attacks aren't some property of a weapon, equally applicable to whomever finally meet s the sharp end, they're target-specific. What is a sneak attack at your unarmoured enemy wouldn't be against your mate in plate.

The type of armor (or even the lack thereof) has no effect on sneak attack... Well, unless the armor has the fortification ability, of course.

[Ikkitosen]

The type of armor (or even the lack thereof) has no effect on sneak attack... Well, unless the armor has the fortification ability, of course.

RAW, no, but since the issue is unclear this is a reasonable argument; you certainly don't aim for the same places on armoured and unarmoured foes. "Ah dang, I was going for the ape's kidneys but I accidentally got my friend through the eye slit in his plate helmet. How unlucky is that?"

[Zherog]

I think that's a darn fine explanation of how you accidentally sneak attacked your ally by firing into a grapple.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Lesson to be learned:
Don't grapple if your "friend" is a trigger happy rogue:smallwink:

[Ikkitosen]

I think that's a darn fine explanation of how you accidentally sneak attacked your ally by firing into a grapple.

No way man. You can't accidentally sneak attack someone, it's a deliberate attempt to do more damage based on deliberate precision.

Critical hits can be accidental and should certainly apply, but not sneak attack.

[the_tick_rules]

there is a table in or near the cover and concealment section in the PHB for for people attacking into a grapple that aren't a part of it.

[Erk]

Lesson to be learned:
Don't grapple if your "friend" is a trigger happy rogue:smallwink:

Flipside:
Don't hope your friends will help you out in a pinch if the DM will rule that any slip-up gets you killed.


I think that's a darn fine explanation of how you accidentally sneak attacked your ally by firing into a grapple.

huh? How is that a fine explanation? For a bad-luck critical hit, sure, but how does being really good at aiming for kidneys also mean that any miss just happens to go through eyes and other tiny tender bits?

[Fax Celestis]

For those of you who are talking about how a Sneak Attack is a trained, deliberate ability, please indicate where the mechanics of the ability demonstrate it as such.

One can play off a Rogue's Sneak Attacks as merely an extremely lucky penchant for extraordinarily well-placed strikes--or one can play it off as an incredible focus of skill and prowess.

In truth, it's a fluff decision in that regard. And in combat, fluff never has a mechanical benefit. Mechanics have mechanical benefit, and fluff has fluff description. Sometimes the two are intermingled; Sneak Attack is not (necessarily) one of those cases.

[Jasdoif]

About the sneak attack into a grapple thing, it's exactly like Lord_Silvanos said. When you declare the attack, you declare all the modifiers on that attack before it's resolved, and that's what you get. That's when you find out who you're hitting. Allowing after-the-fact changes to your action makes no sense, and even worse is not fair. "Wait, I hit my friend? Make it a nonlethal attack with the -4 penalty then." "Oh crap, the monster's got DR against slashing, I make the attack do piercing instead." "The attack of opportunity spoiled by spell? I use a withdraw action instead of trying to cast, I'll try the spell with the same slot next turn. Oh, and give me my hit points back." And so on.

And if you want to talk "sense", don't allow sneak attack damage into a grapple in the first place. How are you supposed to claim you have precision to control, when you can't even know which side of the barn you're hitting? :smalltongue:


But I do have a question about the original post.
Yes, you also take -4 with rays if you do not have Precise Shot.Do you have a cite for this one? I was looking in the SRD, and the -4 penalty for shooting or throwing into a melee specifically says "shooting or throwing into a melee", not ranged attacks in general.
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

But I do have a question about the original post.Do you have a cite for this one? I was looking in the SRD, and the -4 penalty for shooting or throwing into a melee specifically says "shooting or throwing into a melee", not ranged attacks in general.

If you are using a ranged touch spell you are also "shooting into melee".

This falls under the weaponlike spells rules and are covered in greater detail in Complete Arcane (page 73 for this particular case).

[Erk]

For those of you who are talking about how a Sneak Attack is a trained, deliberate ability, please indicate where the mechanics of the ability demonstrate it as such.

One can play off a Rogue's Sneak Attacks as merely an extremely lucky penchant for extraordinarily well-placed strikes--or one can play it off as an incredible focus of skill and prowess.

In truth, it's a fluff decision in that regard. And in combat, fluff never has a mechanical benefit. Mechanics have mechanical benefit, and fluff has fluff description. Sometimes the two are intermingled; Sneak Attack is not (necessarily) one of those cases.


The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spotSounds like conscious effort to me, not sheer luck.


About the sneak attack into a grapple thing, it's exactly like Lord_Silvanos said. When you declare the attack, you declare all the modifiers on that attack before it's resolved, and that's what you get. That's when you find out who you're hitting. Allowing after-the-fact changes to your action makes no sense, and even worse is not fair. "Wait, I hit my friend? Make it a nonlethal attack with the -4 penalty then." "Oh crap, the monster's got DR against slashing, I make the attack do piercing instead." "The attack of opportunity spoiled by spell? I use a withdraw action instead of trying to cast, I'll try the spell with the same slot next turn. Oh, and give me my hit points back." And so on.That's pretty weak... in all of those actions, once the attack or action began, it became an irreversible course. Player attacked with lethal force, can't just suddenly change how hard he shot the arrow. Player swung his sword, can't magically make it a thrust. Player... did a whole bunch of things, can't not have done them. In the case of a sneak attack, as I said before, the weapon doesn't get charged with energy. It is targeted at a vital spot, as written in the rules. I can't see how it makes any sense for that to carryover when the attack misses.

But I'm tired of this. The rule's reading seems pretty open to logic to me, and this is one case where the logical extension seems plain. I'm not sure why I'm still arguing it. You guys can DM it however you like, just remind me never to play as or alongside a rogue in your campaigns.

[Zherog]

huh? How is that a fine explanation? For a bad-luck critical hit, sure, but how does being really good at aiming for kidneys also mean that any miss just happens to go through eyes and other tiny tender bits?

Ever seen a movie where the hero and some bad guy dude are wrestling, and another bad guy dude is lining up the hero to put a bullet through him? Then, at the last moment, the hero manages to roll or whatever so that the bad dude ends up taking the bullet, and dies?

Yeah, it's just like that.

[Fax Celestis]

Ever seen a movie where the hero and some bad guy dude are wrestling, and another bad guy dude is lining up the hero to put a bullet through him? Then, at the last moment, the hero manages to roll or whatever so that the bad dude ends up taking the bullet, and dies?

Yeah, it's just like that.

Huh. Bruce Willis is a rogue. I always had him pegged as a barbarian.

[Beren One-Hand]

About the sneak-attack grapple thing:
I always assumed the 50% rule was because the targets are so close together it is that hard to differentiate who is who. You can still see vulernable spots and attack them, but you might find out later it was the wrong guy.

[Erk]

About the sneak-attack grapple thing:
I always assumed the 50% rule was because the targets are so close together it is that hard to differentiate who is who. You can still see vulernable spots and attack them, but you might find out later it was the wrong guy.

best explanation so far, but still full of holes. How could you mistake a bit of horse, or squid, for your plate-armoured fighter buddy?

[AtomicKitKat]

In a grapple(especially with things that have tentacles), you tend to have your limbs tangled all over each other. Rolling all over the floor, etc.

[Blue Paladin]

Tangentially related question here:

Could a rogue sneak attack using a ranged attack on an (not-grappled) opponent that he flanks? I mean, he'd provoke an AoO by doing so, but if he gets SA, it could be worth it. Relevant SRD section re-quote:

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.
The standard argument against it goes, "You don't threaten with ranged weapons." Standard counterargument goes, "I'm wielding two daggers and I throw one of them" or "I have Improved Unarmed Strike, so I still threaten."

Any thoughts on this one?

[AtomicKitKat]

Tangentially related question here:

Could a rogue sneak attack using a ranged attack on an (not-grappled) opponent that he flanks? I mean, he'd provoke an AoO by doing so, but if he gets SA, it could be worth it. Relevant SRD section re-quote:

The standard argument against it goes, "You don't threaten with ranged weapons." Standard counterargument goes, "I'm wielding two daggers and I throw one of them" or "I have Improved Unarmed Strike, so I still threaten."

Any thoughts on this one?

You'd use the Unarmed Strike, or shank the bugger with the dagger. Unless you're a Halfling Rogue(with racial sub levels)/Whisperknife, throwing wouldn't be really any better than just doing a full melee attack action, at that range.

[Fax Celestis]

You'd use the Unarmed Strike, or shank the bugger with the dagger. Unless you're a Halfling Rogue(with racial sub levels)/Whisperknife, throwing wouldn't be really any better than just doing a full melee attack action, at that range.

Well, it could be a ray spell at point blank, in which case the rider effects of the spell are probably worth it.

[AtomicKitKat]

Well, it could be a ray spell at point blank, in which case the rider effects of the spell are probably worth it.

If you're that close, and casting spells, just go with a touch spell. They tend to be even stronger than ray spells(risk vs reward):smallwink:

[Zherog]

Huh. Bruce Willis is a rogue. I always had him pegged as a barbarian.

Nope; the person trying to put a cap in Bruce Willis's ass is a rogue. :smalltongue:

[Fax Celestis]

Nope; the person trying to put a cap in Bruce Willis's ass is a rogue. :smalltongue:

That explains why movie extras are such bad shots! Low BAB! OMG!

[Zherog]

Exactly.

They also likely have poor feat choices, taking things like Skill Focus (Perform: bad acting), rather than useful stuff like Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. :smallbiggrin:

[Blue Paladin]

Unless you're a Halfling Rogue(with racial sub levels)/Whisperknife, throwing wouldn't be really any better than just doing a full melee attack action, at that range.Or if my Dex were significantly greater than Str, to the extreme that it makes a +9 point difference in attack bonus?

[Tormsskull]

In truth, it's a fluff decision in that regard. And in combat, fluff never has a mechanical benefit. Mechanics have mechanical benefit, and fluff has fluff description. Sometimes the two are intermingled; Sneak Attack is not (necessarily) one of those cases.

I have to disagree with you here. Fluff is what explains why the mechanics are the way they are. Without fluff we'd just be playing a computer game where every action, attempted action, and result is a scripted equation with numerical factors.

I don't have to books in front of me, but the way I have understood sneak attack is that it is a deliberate, intentional, specifically placed attack to a vulnerable area. I don't see how you could strike such a precise area when you don't even hit your intended target.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable for a DM to say that you can accidently sneak attack someone, even though I disagree and don't rule that way, but I would strongly advise against dismissing fluff as pointless when it concerns mechanics.



Could a rogue sneak attack using a ranged attack on an (not-grappled) opponent that he flanks? I mean, he'd provoke an AoO by doing so, but if he gets SA, it could be worth it. Relevant SRD section re-quote:


I'm not sure if this question has been sufficiently answered or not, so I'll tell you. The answer is no, because you cannot flank with a ranged weapon. If you look under the description of flank it specifically states a melee attack (I'd post relevant text but once again I'm away from my books).

[Jasdoif]

The standard argument against it goes, "You don't threaten with ranged weapons." Standard counterargument goes, "I'm wielding two daggers and I throw one of them" or "I have Improved Unarmed Strike, so I still threaten."

Any thoughts on this one?Like Tormsskull said, you only get the flanking bonus when you make a melee attack. Thus, you can't flank with a ranged attack.

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.




Or if my Dex were significantly greater than Str, to the extreme that it makes a +9 point difference in attack bonus?If your Dex is really 18-ish higher then your strength, you should really invest in Weapon Finesse instead of trying to throw stuff at 5 feet. Or invest in a crossbow instead, since with that big a gap I'd guess you have a Strength penalty.

[Fax Celestis]

I have to disagree with you here. Fluff is what explains why the mechanics are the way they are. Without fluff we'd just be playing a computer game where every action, attempted action, and result is a scripted equation with numerical factors.

I don't have to books in front of me, but the way I have understood sneak attack is that it is a deliberate, intentional, specifically placed attack to a vulnerable area. I don't see how you could strike such a precise area when you don't even hit your intended target.

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable for a DM to say that you can accidently sneak attack someone, even though I disagree and don't rule that way, but I would strongly advise against dismissing fluff as pointless when it concerns mechanics.


Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

The only thing that implies is "hitting the right place at the right time", which could be either luck-based or skill-based.

[Were-Sandwich]

I think you do declare it - "I'm going to sneak attack the bad guy". Sneak attacks aren't some property of a weapon, equally applicable to whomever finally meet s the sharp end, they're target-specific. What is a sneak attack at your unarmoured enemy wouldn't be against your mate in plate.

The ability, as quoted, is pretty easy to interpret as turn-off-and-on-able (cookie for the reference) or not, so I choose the common sense answer.

Creature Comforts British Gas adverts. Give me my cookie.

[Ardantis]

Sorry to jump in so late, but this very interesting thread is missing a certain logical precursor that is relevant to the debate.

To restate the article in question-

Quote:

Sneak Attack- If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

So-
The wording in question is "her target." The rogue has a 50% to hit her ally during a grapple, but does that mean that she has a 50% to deal damage to the ally, or that she has a 50% TO MAKE HER ALLY HER TARGET?

Because if her ally is NOW THE TARGET, the rules state that she should deal sneak attack damage to her ally. HOWEVER, if the grapple rules state that she has a 50% to deal damage to her ally, her ally is NOT her target and the sneak attack damage is not applied.

If "her target" is still the enemy, but the attack damage is unintentionally dealt to the ally instead, it would be in keeping with the commonsense interpretation that sneaks attacks cannot be dealt accidentally and the evidence is within the rules themselves.

QED

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

The target is determined randomly, so if your ally is struck, the ally is the target.

[Erk]

Uh... silvanos, that doesn't make the struck combatant the target. If I throw a pie at Bill Gates, but my pie deflects off his forcefield and hits nearby Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs was still not my target even though he was the victim of my attack.

Sneak attack specifies that the target takes extra damage. If you hit something other than the target, your sneak attack has failed. Nice catch, Ardantis.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

The point is that when throwing a pie into a grapple the target is randomly determined.

Whether you would like to hit a specific target is irrelevant, you have no control of whom your target is.

[Fax Celestis]

Also, "target/nontarget" doesn't matter. Whoever you shoot (whether you're aiming at them or not) is denied Dex-to-AC and is therefore eligible for sneak attack.

[Blue Paladin]

Like Tormsskull said, you only get the flanking bonus when you make a melee attack. Thus, you can't flank with a ranged attack.Not exactly correct; the bonus to hit when flanking applies to melee attacks only. This is not a contested point. However, the language of Sneak Attack states that it applies "while flanking", not "while making a melee attack on a creature currently flanked by the rogue" which would have been much clearer and to-the-point, and would render this question moot.

Here's the breakdown again:
0 - Sneak Attack works when a) target is denied Dex, b) rogue flanks target.
1 - Rogue has dagger in hand
2 - Rogue also threatens adjacent square via some other method (ie weapon in other hand, improved unarmed strike, whatever)
3 - Rogue throws dagger (provoking AoO, but that's neither here nor there)
4 - Rogue hits with dagger
5 - Rogue rolls damage

The rogue never stops threatening and never stops flanking the target. In other words, SA conditions are all met. Does the rogue get to add SA to step 5?


If your Dex is really 18-ish higher then your strength, you should really invest in Weapon Finesse instead of trying to throw stuff at 5 feet. Or invest in a crossbow instead, since with that big a gap I'd guess you have a Strength penalty.It normally doesn't come up, but when you've taken 15 points of Str damage, suddenly you start trying things you never seriously considered before.

[Ardantis]

Actually, target/nontarget does matter, because the sneak attack entry specifically states that your target is eligible for sneak attack if said target is denied their Dex to AC. Nontargets are not elegible for sneak attack, therefore, even if they are denied their Dex to AC.

If a blindfolded rogue throws a dagger into a room completely full of bound-and-gagged enemies, can she score a sneak attack? No, because she cannot select a target. Can she critical? Yes, because she can throw lucky, even if she doesn't hit an intended target (there is no intended target in this case.)

The problem here is not necessarily with the rules, but with the system. In DnD, sneak attacks are treated as differently than a "lucky hit" or a "called shot." In other systems, such as d10 systems, there is no sneak attack, but extra accuracy results in extra damage. Extra accuracy can result from a combination of weapon training; lucky rolling; and circumstance modifiers including ability to dodge, difference in perception (darkvision in a dark room against an opponent with normal vision,) and other such things.

However, in DnD, no matter how dark the room is, and how quiet your character is (a silenced orc (darkvision) wizard, for example,) a wizard cannot sneak attack. So, the system treats sneak attacks as "targeted" damage rather than "lucky" or "accurate" damage. Rather, sneak attack is intentional "trained" damage. If you have training, you can hit the right spots in the right way for extra damage. If you do not have training, there is no possible way to hit for that extra damage ever. This makes little sense, but that's the weakness in the system.

Regardless, this means that, as per the rules of this system, target selection matters for sneak attack damage, but not for critical hits. Sneak attack is added damage determined by target selection and target condition (loss of AC,) while critical hits are a part of the base damage which is applied wherever the damage lands (even if it is not the intended target.) If you deal damage (or "hit") a person who is not the intended target, you deal critical hit damage but not sneak attack damage.

[Jasdoif]

Not exactly correct; the bonus to hit when flanking applies to melee attacks only. This is not a contested point. However, the language of Sneak Attack states that it applies "while flanking", not "while making a melee attack on a creature currently flanked by the rogue" which would have been much clearer and to-the-point, and would render this question moot.Here's the problem. "Flanked" isn't listed as a condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm). A creature can't be universally "flanked" in the same way that it can be "staggered" or "panicked".

So the only way you can say you're flanking someone, is if you're getting a flanking bonus during an attack. And you only get this bonus when making a melee attack.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, target/nontarget does matter, because the sneak attack entry specifically states that your target is eligible for sneak attack if said target is denied their Dex to AC. Nontargets are not elegible for sneak attack, therefore, even if they are denied their Dex to AC.

If a blindfolded rogue throws a dagger into a room completely full of bound-and-gagged enemies, can she score a sneak attack? No, because she cannot select a target. Can she critical? Yes, because she can throw lucky, even if she doesn't hit an intended target (there is no intended target in this case.)

The problem here is not necessarily with the rules, but with the system. In DnD, sneak attacks are treated as differently than a "lucky hit" or a "called shot." In other systems, such as d10 systems, there is no sneak attack, but extra accuracy results in extra damage. Extra accuracy can result from a combination of weapon training; lucky rolling; and circumstance modifiers including ability to dodge, difference in perception (darkvision in a dark room against an opponent with normal vision,) and other such things.

However, in DnD, no matter how dark the room is, and how quiet your character is (a silenced orc (darkvision) wizard, for example,) a wizard cannot sneak attack. So, the system treats sneak attacks as "targeted" damage rather than "lucky" or "accurate" damage. Rather, sneak attack is intentional "trained" damage. If you have training, you can hit the right spots in the right way for extra damage. If you do not have training, there is no possible way to hit for that extra damage ever. This makes little sense, but that's the weakness in the system.

Regardless, this means that, as per the rules of this system, target selection matters for sneak attack damage, but not for critical hits. Sneak attack is added damage determined by target selection and target condition (loss of AC,) while critical hits are a part of the base damage which is applied wherever the damage lands (even if it is not the intended target.) If you deal damage (or "hit") a person who is not the intended target, you deal critical hit damage but not sneak attack damage.

According to what? The mechanics of the ability say "...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", which means that, whenever those conditions are met, you get your Sneak Attack dice--regardless of whether or not you intended to Sneak Attack on that attack.

[Skjaldbakka]

My two bits: This isn't necessarily RAW, but I have always ruled that you cannot apply any precision based damage if their is a X% chance of missing (like from concealment or target in a grapple). I also allow making sneak attacks from a flanking position with a ranged attack. I figure that the AoO is a even trade-off, and I don't see how having a ranged weapon is less distracting than a melee one (especially when said ranged weapon is a throwable dagger).

[Raum]

If a rogue can catch an opponent (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opponent&x=0&y=0) when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=target&x=0&y=0) 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. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Checked the linked definitions. An ally in a grapple is neither an opponent nor the target even if hit by a rogue targeting the other grappled entity.

In other words, rogues will never cause SA damage to allies (they're not opponents) or to any entity they aren't aiming at (not a target).

[Milandros]

In truth, it's a fluff decision in that regard. And in combat, fluff never has a mechanical benefit. Mechanics have mechanical benefit, and fluff has fluff description. Sometimes the two are intermingled; Sneak Attack is not (necessarily) one of those cases.

Respectfully, I disagree here. You're implying that the so-called "fluff" is just a verbose ancilary to the "crunch", or rather that the mechanical description of an ability is the true description and the text is just a bit of padding to give you a way to visualise it. For those who play D&D more as a wargame, or who are playing D&D miniatures, this may well be a valid interpretation, but many people regard it as entirely the other way round - that the "fluff" is, in fact, the important description of the ability, spell or whatever, and the "crunch" is the mechanical aspect that tries to represent it in game terms.

It's a small but important distinction, and it's the source of arguments between those who, in the extreme, demand that the RAW be followed precisely (including bag-o-rats and commoner railgun features) even if it's obviously a typo, and those who feel no problem in making up houserules and pushing them on their players constantly in-game because it's more "realistic".

In the case in point, it's the sort of thing I'd do a spur-of-the-monment ruling on based on circumstance. If it's a halfling psycho grappling a horse, an accidental sneak attack is unlikely, but if it's a charismatic but clueless bard grappling his identical twin brother I can easily see someone aiming at the wrong kidney by mistake. I might rule based on how "bad" the miss (or hit) was, or use a relfex save on the part of the attacker to avoid messing up.

As a comment, though, I think "fluff" and "crunch" imply a certain worthlessness as opposed to the important stuff. If they were called "fun" and "maths" or "meat" and "bones" or "game" and "work" people would have a different reaction to it.

[Fax Celestis]

Respectfully, I disagree here. You're implying that the so-called "fluff" is just a verbose ancilary to the "crunch", or rather that the mechanical description of an ability is the true description and the text is just a bit of padding to give you a way to visualise it. For those who play D&D more as a wargame, or who are playing D&D miniatures, this may well be a valid interpretation, but many people regard it as entirely the other way round - that the "fluff" is, in fact, the important description of the ability, spell or whatever, and the "crunch" is the mechanical aspect that tries to represent it in game terms.

It's a small but important distinction, and it's the source of arguments between those who, in the extreme, demand that the RAW be followed precisely (including bag-o-rats and commoner railgun features) even if it's obviously a typo, and those who feel no problem in making up houserules and pushing them on their players constantly in-game because it's more "realistic".

In the case in point, it's the sort of thing I'd do a spur-of-the-monment ruling on based on circumstance. If it's a halfling psycho grappling a horse, an accidental sneak attack is unlikely, but if it's a charismatic but clueless bard grappling his identical twin brother I can easily see someone aiming at the wrong kidney by mistake. I might rule based on how "bad" the miss (or hit) was, or use a relfex save on the part of the attacker to avoid messing up.

As a comment, though, I think "fluff" and "crunch" imply a certain worthlessness as opposed to the important stuff. If they were called "fun" and "maths" or "meat" and "bones" or "game" and "work" people would have a different reaction to it.

That's not the way I view it at all. Fluff is just as important as crunch. However, when it comes to mechanics, crunch supercedes fluff. When it comes to story, fluff supercedes crunch.

[Zherog]

My two bits: This isn't necessarily RAW, but I have always ruled that you cannot apply any precision based damage if their is a X% chance of missing (like from concealment or target in a grapple).

Actually, that's exactly raw. Anytime a creature has concealment, it's immune to sneak attacks.

Nice catch.

[Raum]

Respectfully, I disagree here. You're implying that the so-called "fluff" is just a verbose ancilary to the "crunch", or rather that the mechanical description of an ability is the true description and the text is just a bit of padding to give you a way to visualise it. For those who play D&D more as a wargame, or who are playing D&D miniatures, this may well be a valid interpretation, but many people regard it as entirely the other way round - that the "fluff" is, in fact, the important description of the ability, spell or whatever, and the "crunch" is the mechanical aspect that tries to represent it in game terms.While I wouldn't phrase it as "just ancillary," the fluff, description, or story is generally separate from the mechanics. The fact my character may swing his weapon and do 1d8 + Str damage to his target is mechanics. But whether he was swinging a generic longsword, an arming sword, a Scottish broadsword, or even a Chinese Jian is entirely fluff...and far more important to a character description than the damage it does.

Similarly, I could describe a studious rogue who practices long hours to make precise strikes, a lucky rogue who attributes spectacular hits to the whims of fate, or even a dedicated rogue who's strikes are guided by a deity. Very different fluff which indicate extremely different characters. Yet the mechanics don't need to change.

It's been said many times but I'll say it again. Separating story from mechanics does not correlate with war gaming over role playing.


It's a small but important distinction, and it's the source of arguments between those who, in the extreme, demand that the RAW be followed precisely (including bag-o-rats and commoner railgun features) even if it's obviously a typo, and those who feel no problem in making up houserules and pushing them on their players constantly in-game because it's more "realistic".Or maybe not. Just possibly the new house rule supports the campaign or world story.