What counts as an "attack"? More complicated than we may think?

[gadren]

So, I've played 3/3.5/PF since it came out, and for as long as I can remember I've defined something as an "attack" if it has an attack roll.
So, if you are a rogue/wizard, Scorching Ray applies sneak attack damage, but Magic Missile doesn't, because sneak attacks only apply to "attacks".

However, in a recent thread about Path of War: Expanded, ATalsen posted some excerpts from the PF SRD I was not aware of.



This is what I was able to dig up from the rules on magic
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic)

"Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone."


To me, this says that a spell like fireball is considered an attack.

This is what I was able to dig up from the rules on magic
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic)

"Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone."


So, would magic missile actually apply sneak attack or similar effects that are added to "attacks"?
It seems clear from other things published by Paizo that even (at least some of) the designers feel that it is only supposed to apply to things with attack rolls (For example, see the Surprise Spells feature of the Arcane Trickster PrC).

Is there something I'm missing here?

[MisterKaws]

Sneak Attack only applies to weapon attacks(whether manufactured or natural) and weapon-like spells.

[Troacctid]

There is a separate definition of "attack" that is used for the purposes of spells like Invisibility. It's one of those terms that the rules use multiple different ways, like "level".

[LTwerewolf]

Sneak Attack only applies to weapon attacks(whether manufactured or natural) and weapon-like spells.

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.

Sneak attack doesn't say that. In fact "precision damage" as defined by the rules compendium makes no mention of it needing to be done with a weapon (or that it requires an attack roll). You still need to be within 30 feet. so you're not getting the advantage from the range unless you're using the sniper's shot spell.

[Godskook]

A PF designer's opinion on the issue(Sean K Reynolds):

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2loim&page=3?Sneak-Attack-and-Scorching-Ray#104

[LTwerewolf]

It's entirely reasonable to rule it (in fact I do). I was just pointing out that in 3.5, it's not actually RAW.

[Gallowglass]

I'm not really going to get into the RAW of this because its patently clear that two different designers wrote two different passages in the rule book and the editors didn't collate them. That happens over and over and over and over.... ad nauseum.

The point of "sneak attack" or "precision damage" is inherent in the name. "precision". You make an attack roll with a weapon or a weapon like spell (meaning one that requires an attack roll) you are aiming and you have the ability to be precise about where you hit and how you hit.

Fireball, magic missile, other area spells or spells without attack rolls, you have no opportunity to aim or be precise.

How is a thief supposed to "hit that guy where it hurts" with a fireball? He can't. Its just an explosion of fire in the area the guy is in.

If I was confronted by a player who showed off your passages and explained your RAW logic, that is the argument I would use for my decision about how it runs in the game. I'm sure he'd sullenly mutter about "house rules" even though my more logical ruling is in fact just as valid way of parsing the language of the multiple conflicting sources as the "RAW" argument he favors, but whatever.

[Psyren]

Yes, Magic Missile is an attack.
No, it cannot apply precision damage - that requires an attack roll, or the Surprise Spells class feature from the Arcane Trickster capstone.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Complete Arcane, page 85, Weaponlike Spells, has several paragraphs going over this very subject.

Have at 'er.

[LTwerewolf]

Sneak attack is not mentioned there. It says they fall under the same rule as weapons. Since precision damage makes no requirement of a weapon, it doesn't actually make any difference here.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Sneak attack is not mentioned there. It says they fall under the same rule as weapons. Since precision damage makes no requirement of a weapon, it doesn't actually make any difference here.

That is addressed on page 86, with multiple paragraphs.

I've no stake in this debate, I'm just providing direction towards published information.

[Forrestfire]

Yes, Magic Missile is an attack.
No, it cannot apply precision damage - that requires an attack roll, or the Surprise Spells class feature from the Arcane Trickster capstone.

Out of curiosity, do you have a citation for that in Pathfinder? The rules for precision damage on the d20pfsrd say that area of effect attacks can't apply precision damage, but says nothing about attack rolls. Knowing that that site is often unreliable, I tried to look into it on the PRD, but couldn't find the rules. I've been trying to figure out just how far the cascade of rules weirdness off of defining attacks as "all offensive combat actions" goes, and that knowledge would help quite a bit :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

Out of curiosity, do you have a citation for that in Pathfinder? The rules for precision damage on the d20pfsrd say that area of effect attacks can't apply precision damage, but says nothing about attack rolls. Knowing that that site is often unreliable, I tried to look into it on the PRD, but couldn't find the rules. I've been trying to figure out just how far the cascade of rules weirdness off of defining attacks as "all offensive combat actions" goes, and that knowledge would help quite a bit :smallsmile:

In PF, right now it's cited from a dev quote. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2loim&page=3?Sneak-Attack-and-Scorching-Ray#104)

[Forrestfire]

So we have a clear RAI on it. Shame about the lack of actual rules on it to solve the issue when analyzing it outside of a game with houserules, but that's good enough for me. I know I'll be houseruling it to follow the RAI, now that the silliness here got pointed out :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

You can call it a houserule and nobody can stop you, sure, but PF players take dev statements as authoritative. When Mark Seifter clarified how the Kineticist Gather Power worked, nobody wrote that off as "RAI" and it even got cited in the handbooks. But like I said, do as you wish. *shrug*

[Anlashok]

SKR isn't a dev though. He was, but he isn't now.

[Psyren]

SKR isn't a dev though. He was, but he isn't now.

That post was from when he was, therefore it stands. I'd wager that most of the folks who wrote 3.5 errata have moved on from that role too.

[Anlashok]

That post was from when he was, therefore it stands. I'd wager that most of the folks who wrote 3.5 errata have moved on from that role too.

Yeah, but that's neither errata nor FAQ. That's some guy on a forum making a post.

It has about as much weight on how the game works as your own posts. Not that your opinions aren't usually interesting, but some guy on the internet saying how he wants something to works only has so much weight.

[Elder_Basilisk]

How is a thief supposed to "hit that guy where it hurts" with a fireball? He can't. Its just an explosion of fire in the area the guy is in.

Unless the guy is hiding behind an arrow slit or something in which case, the thief gets an attack roll to sneak the fireball through the arrow slit and (presumably) hit the guy behind it. Fireball has some really old concepts built into the text that don't consistently mesh with the rest of the mechanics.

[gadren]

I always have and will continue to rule that sneak attack only applies to things with attack rolls, but I'm just curious what the RAW backing is, people have claimed that it does back that, but no citations have been posted other than and SKR forum post (and based on other things he's posted in the past, I take what he says with a grain of salt. Or a pound. Sorry.)

[LTwerewolf]

Like I said earlier, it's very reasonable to rule that, it's just not RAW. RAW is pretty silly sometimes, but I would keep an open mind for certain circumstances. Skirmish for example works differently than sneak attack, and there could be a decent enough argument for allowing it with some non-conventional spells.

[Psyren]

Yeah, but that's neither errata nor FAQ. That's some guy on a forum making a post.

It has about as much weight on how the game works as your own posts. Not that your opinions aren't usually interesting, but some guy on the internet saying how he wants something to works only has so much weight.

Like I said, you're welcome to believe that. It's not how Pathfinder works, but you're welcome to believe it.

Not every game is as strict about these things as 3.5 was. 5e issues rulings via Twitter even. These games don't have a Primary Source rule for you to wave around and silence debate with. It's about what works best for the dev team and the playerbase, not what you personally consider to be official.

[Godskook]

Yeah, but that's neither errata nor FAQ.

True.


That's some guy on a forum making a post.

False. The guy who helped designed the game is an authority figure on the subject of what designers meant when they wrote the rules of the game.


It has about as much weight on how the game works as your own posts.

Directly dependent on the above, and thus, false.


some guy on the internet saying how he wants something to works only has so much weight.

The entire pathfinder ruleset can be described as "some guys on the internet saying hwo they want something to work". Except those "guys" are the "designers". This "guy" is one of those "designers". If you don't want to consider "employed designer's opinion" as valid RAW, then there's probably a reasonable argument to be made, but if you're trying to say he's "just some guy on the internet", you don't have a leg to stand on.

[LTwerewolf]

People make the exact same argument for the 3.5 FAQ that it's not RAW. The same argument applies here. It's clear intent, but not necessarily RAW imo.