sneak attack dispute

[TGWG]

hello, sorry, I just need help settling a arguement. provided that the opponent is flat-footed, do you get sneak attack per attack, or per turn?

[Hyfigh]

Per attack. As long as the opponent meets the conditions for sneak attack to be applied, it is applied.

[Dragonmuncher]

Per attack.

If the argument is that it seems like a lot, compare it to a fighter or barbarian with high Strength and a greatsword. Sneak Attack is like saying "Rogues are generally not as effective as fighters in melee, but in very specialized circumstances they can become just as good."

[Reinboom]

ninjd ----

[ocato]

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.

Emphasis mine. It's any time you hit them with no dex or they are flanked. Got 2 weapons? Sneak attack twice. Full attack? Sneak attack 1-3 times. Get 431 attacks a round? I hope you like rolling d6s. The only time you don't get sneak attack for hitting (during appropriate circumstances) is when the feat or ability that grants the extra attacks specifically says that you only deal precision damage on the first one.(like manyshot)

Full attack has no such claim. Sneak Attack freely my friend.

[TGWG]

thank you, this'll help things go smother.

[Citizen Joe]

Here, I'll quote the whole thing... and point out the part most people miss.



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.

[Yeril]

Fakumi-bari I think are a good (atleast at a glance) weapon for sneaks. tiny expertly crafted needles that you hold with your mouth and blow them at the enemy

Exotic weapon, range inc of 5ft (maybe 10ft) (very short range) and 1 point of damage. sounds lame?

but Fakumi-bari are so small you can fire three of them per attack, each with different rolls and each qualifiying for sneak attack.

Skirmish? Run your 30ft, blow, 3 attacks each qualifying for skirmish

Rogue sneak attack? Full attack for Lots of +d6

Sneeeak attack.

[Telonius]

If I'm guessing right, the other person is confusing different categories of flat-footed.

If you're acting in the surprise round, you'll generally only get one attack. You get sneak attack (unless your target is immune for some reason) because your target is flat-footed, and flat-footed means no dex to AC. He's flat-footed because he's surprised.

If you get a higher initiative than your target, you could potentially get a full attack. If your target is not otherwise immune, all of the attacks qualify for extra sneak attack damage since the target is flat-footed. He's flat-footed because he lost initiative.

One noteworthy exception: the Manyshot feat. The feat text specifically says that only one of the arrows qualifies for sneak attack damage. So if you hit the target with a manyshot, even if the target is flatfooted, only one of the arrows deals the extra sneak damage.

[Jasdoif]

If I'm guessing right, the other person is confusing different categories of flat-footed.

If you're acting in the surprise round, you'll generally only get one attack. You get sneak attack (unless your target is immune for some reason) because your target is flat-footed.

If you get a higher initiative than your target, you could potentially get a full attack. If your target is not otherwise immune, all of the attacks qualify for extra sneak attack damage since the target is flat-footed.Just to avoid confusion: An attack qualifies as a sneak attack when your target is denied its Dex bonus to AC against you, or when you're flanking your target. A flat-footed foe is denied their Dex bonus to AC in most cases (uncanny dodge provides an exception), but that's not the only way it can happen. You lose your Dex bonus to AC against an attacker you can't detect (ie invisible), for instance.

This might be another cause for confusion: If you're using the standard invisibility spell, the effect breaks after you attack. So after your first attack in the a round, you're no longer invisible...so if invisibility is the only reason your target can be sneak attacked, only that first shot in the round can get sneak attack damage.

[Person_Man]

Note that Uncanny Dodge prevents you from losing your Dex bonus when you lose Initiative or fight an Invisible enemy. And thus it prevents Sneak Attack if you lose Initiative. Its commonly overlooked by new players.

[Krelon]

Fakumi-bari I think are a good (atleast at a glance) weapon for sneaks. tiny expertly crafted needles that you hold with your mouth and blow them at the enemy

Exotic weapon, range inc of 5ft (maybe 10ft) (very short range) and 1 point of damage. sounds lame?

but Fakumi-bari are so small you can fire three of them per attack, each with different rolls and each qualifiying for sneak attack.

Skirmish? Run your 30ft, blow, 3 attacks each qualifying for skirmish

Rogue sneak attack? Full attack for Lots of +d6

Sneeeak attack.

not sure that it works. the manyshot feat gives you extra damage only on the first shot, fire shuriken from spell compendium (works exactly like those Fukami-bari, you fire up to 6 per attack) and explanations on sneak attack with touch spells and ray spells say that only the first missile that hits gets the additional sneak attack damage.
The general rule seems to be: 1 attack gives only 1 sneak damage roll.

[Techonce]

Fakumi-bari I think are a good (atleast at a glance) weapon for sneaks. tiny expertly crafted needles that you hold with your mouth and blow them at the enemy

Exotic weapon, range inc of 5ft (maybe 10ft) (very short range) and 1 point of damage. sounds lame?

but Fakumi-bari are so small you can fire three of them per attack, each with different rolls and each qualifiying for sneak attack.

Skirmish? Run your 30ft, blow, 3 attacks each qualifying for skirmish

Rogue sneak attack? Full attack for Lots of +d6

Sneeeak attack.

Only 1 of them would get Sneak attack. THese are the same as shuriken.

[Kaelik]

not sure that it works. the manyshot feat gives you extra damage only on the first shot, fire shuriken from spell compendium (works exactly like those Fukami-bari, you fire up to 6 per attack) and explanations on sneak attack with touch spells and ray spells say that only the first missile that hits gets the additional sneak attack damage.
The general rule seems to be: 1 attack gives only 1 sneak damage roll.

Right. But they have three separate attack roles and therefore are three separate attacks and therefore get SA on all three.

[Krelon]

Right. But they have three separate attack roles and therefore are three separate attacks and therefore get SA on all three.

no, with scorching ray you also get three seperate attacks rolls that can be directed at one or more targets but only the first gets the sneak, same with fire shuriken.

It is one attack.

High BAB, Rapid Shot and Two-weapon Fighting give you more attacks (and sneak).

[Techonce]

I don't know what book your sewing needs of death are in but I'd rule only the first one, or none of them.

Getting 3 attacks in the span of a standard action is a bit harsh, and the delivery method would be a little hard to be precise with, so sneak attacks would be difficult.

WotC's "All about Sneak Attacks" has a bit about volley attacks that nerfs the needles.

[Kaelik]

no, with scorching ray you also get three seperate attacks rolls that can be directed at one or more targets but only the first gets the sneak, same with fire shuriken.

I'm curious, where does this come from. SA explicitly states that all attack roles get SA. While I might limit things a bit as DM I see no reason from the perspective of the rules that that should be the case. Manyshot explicitly limits precision damage. Scorching Ray does not.

[Person_Man]

Here's the exact text from the article (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3217357):



Volley Type Attacks

Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack.

So, you basically need to take Greater Manyshot (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicFeats.html#greater-manyshot), or you can gain extra attacks via various feat/spells/items (like TWF, Haste, Snap Kick, etc), or you need to convince your DM that the extra attack from your Fukami-bari or whatever counts as a separate attack action.

[tainsouvra]

I'm curious, where does this come from. SA explicitly states that all attack roles get SA. Technically, I believe it says "attacks" rather than "attack rolls"...that technicality is being used to make Scorching Ray only apply precision damage once, as the spell constitutes one attack split several ways. There is a great deal of room for interpretation there, but I would be inclined to follow the "one sneak attack per attack action, regardless of how many ways it is split" line of reasoning when I DM.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm curious, where does this come from. SA explicitly states that all attack roles get SA. It's on page 86 of Complete Arcane. Scorching Ray is specifically mentioned as the example of a volley spell that applies precision damage only to the first shot.

[Krelon]

I'm curious, where does this come from. SA explicitly states that all attack roles get SA. While I might limit things a bit as DM I see no reason from the perspective of the rules that that should be the case. Manyshot explicitly limits precision damage. Scorching Ray does not.

Complete Arcane, Chapter 4, page 86, sneak attack, multiple hits
Scorching ray is an explicit example.

the idea is same as with Manyshot: one attack with multiple warheads, no matter if all hit or if you roll to hit for each, it is still one attack so only one sneak attack.

EDIT: ninja'd 3 times over!! yeay new world record :smallbiggrin:

[Seffbasilisk]

Note that Uncanny Dodge prevents you from losing your Dex bonus when you lose Initiative or fight an Invisible enemy. And thus it prevents Sneak Attack if you lose Initiative. Its commonly overlooked by new players.

I'd like to call that into question. Uncanny dodge does not prevent all sneak attacks. It just means that instead of hitting your flatfooted AC, they have to hit your regular AC to grab the surprise round sneak attacks. You retain your dex to AC, but are still considered flatfooted, and as such, still qualify for sneak attack.

[Curmudgeon]

You retain your dex to AC, but are still considered flatfooted, and as such, still qualify for sneak attack. This is bogus reasoning, Seffbasilisk. Flat-footed is not a condition that, by itself, permits sneak attack.
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. There's no mention of being flat-footed here. Since Uncanny Dodge prevents you from losing your DEX bonus to AC, you don't meet the requirements for sneak attack.

[Krelon]

I'd like to call that into question. Uncanny dodge does not prevent all sneak attacks. It just means that instead of hitting your flatfooted AC, they have to hit your regular AC to grab the surprise round sneak attacks. You retain your dex to AC, but are still considered flatfooted, and as such, still qualify for sneak attack.

I would like to play it this way, too.

but: (from SRD (http://srd.plush.org/rogue.html))
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.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

this really gives barbarians and such an edge over rogues, since you cannot sneak them (once they get improved uncanny dodge it's really over)

[Zherog]

this really gives barbarians and such an edge over rogues, since you cannot sneak them (once they get improved uncanny dodge it's really over)

Not true at all; it just becomes harder to sneak attack them. You probably need to rely on teamwork to pull off the sneak attack.

Spells such as hold person still put the barbarian in a condition (helpless) that allows sneak attack.

Being grappled still causes the barbarian to lose his Dex to everybody outside the grapple.

Being stunned still causes the loss of Dex.

Striking the barbarian while he's climbing means he's denied his Dex to AC, and is therefore sneak attackable.

Feinting in combat (something that doesn't require the help of your friends), still denies AC, and therefore still allows for sneak attack.

[Hawriel]

Yes you can. If the Rogue has 4 rogue levels above the target with uncanny dodge, uncanny dodge is ignored

A correction to my statment.

Im reading the rules for uncann dodge and Imp uncanny dodge page 50 PHB 3.5 under Rogue class.

uncanny dodge.
you retane dex bonus to ACeven if flatfooted or struck by an invisable attacker. If immobilized dex bonus to AC is lost.

It does notsay you are immune to sneak attack. It only said you keep your dex bonus to AC for the attack. normaly the attacker would ignore the AC bonus hitting the target more easily.

improved uncanny dodge. this is located right under the uncanny dodge listing on the same page.

a rogue of 8th level or higher can no longer be flanked. She can react to opponents on opposite sides of her just as easily as if she was facing a single attacker. This defence denies another rogue the ability to sneak attack the character flankingher. Unless the attacker has four rogue levels or more rogue levels than the target.

this stats that a rogue of 8th level, or other character with the uncanny dodge ability, does not suffer the penalties of fighting wile flanked. Nore do the flanking attackers reseave a bonus for flanking. A rogue cannot sneak attack the character unless they have four morerogue levels than the target. This mentions a character being flanked in active combat. It in no way sais a rogue is immune to sneak attack if attacked from suprise, or by an invisable/consealed attacker. as with uncanny dodge the character would keep the dex bonus to AC for such an attack. If the character is flat footed IE a condition in witch a target would lose the dex bonus to AC the character can still be sneak attacked even with imp uncanny dodge. even if you think they cant I refure back to if the attacker hasfour or more rogue levels higher than the target the imp. uncanny dodge defence is ignored.

[Krelon]

as reply to last two posts.

it becomes very hard compared to THW power attack which always works.

Btw, Feint would be great if the defender didn't get his BAB as bonus on the sense motive check.

Anyway, I still like playing rogues, just saying sneak attack has its limitations.

[Curmudgeon]

Technically, I believe it says "attacks" rather than "attack rolls"...that technicality is being used to make Scorching Ray only apply precision damage once, as the spell constitutes one attack split several ways. Having found the page 86 Complete Arcane reference, the RAW is clear. I think the game balance reasoning behind this rule is that normal full attack volleys
use up your entire action for the round,
need to hit regular AC, and
have a decreasing chance of hitting with each subsequent shot;
whereas volleys from spells like Scorching Ray
only take a standard action,
only need to hit touch AC, and
use your full BAB for each and every shot.
Allowing precision damage with Scorching Ray-type volleys is just out of line with non-spell volleys.

[Zherog]

Btw, Feint would be great if the defender didn't get his BAB as bonus on the sense motive check.

Yep - adding BAB to the Sense Motive check definitely makes it less nice; it's still an option, though; and with proper buffing, you can still pretty much guarantee you'll succeed.

[ocato]

[quote=SRD] At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels [/quote=SRD]

That seems to lend to the idea of a spirit of 'No sneak attacking with Uncanny/Improved Uncanny dodge' and not a technicality of AC levels. The reason you get sneak attack on an enemy without his dexterity bonus is because he's not moving, so you can focus your attack very specifically. If he has his dexterity, he's moving and therefore that precision is impossible. You get sneak attack while flanking because its pretty hard to protect your vital goodies while you're fighting something else. Unless, of course, you're a rogue of such skill (at least four more rogue levels than the target has Xclass levels) and then you've got the mastery to out stab their pathetic attempt at supernatural dodging.

[Zherog]

At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels

That seems to lend to the idea of a spirit of 'No sneak attacking with Uncanny/Improved Uncanny dodge' and not a technicality of AC levels.

Sure, if you want to bold only part of the sentence.

[Hawriel]

great my post is lost of the first page because 5 other posts have been made wile I was writing mine:smallmad:

Zherog....best avitar ever

[Fax Celestis]

At 5th level and higher, a barbarian can no longer be flanked. This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target has barbarian levels

That seems to lend to the idea of a spirit of 'No sneak attacking with Uncanny/Improved Uncanny dodge' and not a technicality of AC levels. The reason you get sneak attack on an enemy without his dexterity bonus is because he's not moving, so you can focus your attack very specifically. If he has his dexterity, he's moving and therefore that precision is impossible. You get sneak attack while flanking because its pretty hard to protect your vital goodies while you're fighting something else. Unless, of course, you're a rogue of such skill (at least four more rogue levels than the target has Xclass levels) and then you've got the mastery to out stab their pathetic attempt at supernatural dodging.

The whole quote that you provided is actually "This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him...", not that he is immune to Sneak Attack. You use Fortification armor for immunity.

[ocato]

Sorry, I misbolded. Drag me outside and shoot me.

If I understand correctly, the arguement is that if one can't lose his DEX due to being flatfooted, being flatfooted still grants sneak attack despite the fact that the sneak attack comes from the loss of DEX.

Sneak attack applies every time they lose their DEX, and flat-footedness is one such situation. If you cannot lose your DEX due to flat-footedness, flat-footedness no longer qualifies as a DEX denying situation. So, why would it give sneak attack?

[Zherog]

Sorry, I misbolded. Drag me outside and shoot me.

OK - lemme go get my rubberband gun. :biggrin:


If I understand correctly, the arguement is that if one can't lose his DEX due to being flatfooted, being flatfooted still grants sneak attack despite the fact that the sneak attack comes from the loss of DEX.

Sneak attack applies every time they lose their DEX, and flat-footedness is one such situation. If you cannot lose your DEX due to flat-footedness, flat-footedness no longer qualifies as a DEX denying situation. So, why would it give sneak attack?

I agree with you here. Uncanny dodge prevents sneak attack because it prevents the loss of Dex to AC when flat-footed or being attacked by an invisible foe. Improved uncanny dodge prevents sneak attack because it prevents flanking, unless the flanker is 4 or more levels higher than you.

[ocato]

That's exactly right. Glad to see we're on the same page.

And avoid the eyes please, I need those for seeing things. :smalleek:

[Krelon]

The whole quote that you provided is actually "This defense denies a rogue the ability to sneak attack the barbarian by flanking him...", not that he is immune to Sneak Attack. You use Fortification armor for immunity.

What happens if I use wraithstrike or something like that which allows me to bypass armor (either because it's an incorporeal touch or because I strike a gap in the armor) ?

The armor bonus to AC doesn't count, so I would rule out fortification as well.
Other opinions on that?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

What happens if I use wraithstrike or something like that which allows me to bypass armor (either because it's an incorporeal touch or because I strike a gap in the armor) ?

The armor bonus to AC doesn't count, so I would rule out fortification as well.
Other opinions on that?

RAW: Wraithstrike or similar does allow you to negate fortification.

It even makes sense since


...produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively.

and force effects protects against incorporeal touch attacks.

[Seffbasilisk]

Would then a Brilliant Energy weapon bypass fortification by that reasoning?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Would then a Brilliant Energy weapon bypass fortification by that reasoning?

The Brilliant Energy description does not even consider how it relates to magic other than in strict mechanical terms by listing which bonuses are ignored.

It does not explain why light ignores a purely magical armor bonus, so we have to make up our own reasons (if we even care).

The RAW still does not change though, Fortification is not ignored by Brilliant Energy weapons

[The Glyphstone]

I can't see any reason why it would. The property doesn't "negate armor"...


A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor.

Brilliant energy weapons, above, ignore armor and shield bonuses to AC. It says they "ignore nonliving matter", but the +5 Heavy Fortification property applied to a suit of full plate isn't matter of any kind, though the armor itself may be. Fortification is never actually described in HOW it renders you immune to criticals...I remember an older thread on this, and that was the same crux point, whether "ignoring nonliving matter" meant you also ignored the armor's magical properties. As I see it, Fortification does not automatically mean an innate property of the metal that the armor's built of - it could be an invisible force field that deflects blows away from your vital areas, or maybe a divine blessing that shields you from such grevious wounds or deceitful ambushes. It actually says in the SRD "produces a magical force", useless as that description might be....

By that same reasoning, I can't see why Wraithstrike would ignore Fortification any more than it would ignore the DR/Magic of Invulnerability armor (assuming you cast Wraithstrike on a nonmagical dagger or somesuch), or a +2 Flaming Sword with Wraithstrike cast would negate an armor's Greater Fire Resistance. Wraithstrike just allows you to make an (incorporeal?) touch attack in place of a normal attack.

[ocato]

Well, that raises an interesting point. Is magic alive?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Well, that raises an interesting point. Is magic alive?

It is not nearly as interesting as whether magic is matter.

[AtomicKitKat]

This does bring up the question. Does a "Deft Strike"(Complete Adventurer, ignore Shield/Armor bonuses to AC) bypass Fortification?:smalltongue:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

This does bring up the question.

No, it really doesn't. :smalltongue:


Does a "Deft Strike"(Complete Adventurer, ignore Shield/Armor bonuses to AC) bypass Fortification?:smalltongue:

Fortification is NOT armor bonus or natural armor bonus nor enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor.

[Krelon]

It is really a sad thing, for 9000 gold you can prevent 75% of all sneak attacks with moderate fortification.

A bitter pill for a 20th level rogue, at this level people can afford heavy fortification. Throw away all that shiny d6 and end up doing 1d6+5 damage per attack. Thank D&D-gods an armor maxes out at a +10 total bonus, so not everyone will have that.

back to the topic: sneak attack

is it too weak?
does it need a fix?
Wouldn't it be better if the sneak damage progression was slower (+1 / 3 levels) but worked more often?

for example: creatures immune to crtit hits can be sneaked, you cannot be flanked by lower level rogues but same level and above works, new sneak feats that overcome fortification and etherealness....

[Techonce]

It is really a sad thing, for 9000 gold you can prevent 75% of all sneak attacks with moderate fortification.

A bitter pill for a 20th level rogue, at this level people can afford heavy fortification. Throw away all that shiny d6 and end up doing 1d6+5 damage per attack. Thank D&D-gods an armor maxes out at a +10 total bonus, so not everyone will have that.




More like 15,000 Your armor has to have at least a +1 bonus before you can add the medium fortification.

[ocato]

Sneak attack is already a little bit of an 'eggs in one basket' situation. I think that the savvy rogue will be aware that he is going to suck sometimes. Against undead and constructs, for example. Gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em. Sometimes you just gotta flank for the fighter or serve as interference for the casters and hope your DM isn't a vindictive jerk who gives all all nonsneakable enemies.

[Person_Man]

I think its worth reposting this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2973940#post2973940). Immunity to crits isn't hard to get, if you care about it. So a DM I never care if a PC has found a way to get an obscene level of damage via Sneak Attack, and a way to qualify for it every round, because I mix up the types of enemies that they have to fight, including the common crit immune enemies.

[tainsouvra]

Having found the page 86 Complete Arcane reference, the RAW is clear. The premise of your argument is incorrect if it relies on Complete Arcane overriding core. The rules for both Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray found in the Player's Handbook (the primary source for both) automatically overrule any conflicting rule given in a secondary source.

I agree with the interpretation of the rules in which Scorching Ray is a single attack for all rays, but Complete Arcane cannot be used as proof of that interpretation as a hard rule since information in it which conflicts with Players Handbook information is automatically considered errata.

[Fax Celestis]

The premise of your argument is incorrect if it relies on Complete Arcane overriding core. The rules for both Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray found in the Player's Handbook (the primary source for both) automatically overrule any conflicting rule given in a secondary source.

I agree with the interpretation of the rules in which Scorching Ray is a single attack for all rays, but Complete Arcane cannot be used as proof of that interpretation as a hard rule since information in it which conflicts with Players Handbook information is automatically considered errata.

Doesn't CArc state in the text that it overrides the PHB/DMG for how to deal with Weaponnlike Spells?

[Krelon]

The premise of your argument is incorrect if it relies on Complete Arcane overriding core. The rules for both Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray found in the Player's Handbook (the primary source for both) automatically overrule any conflicting rule given in a secondary source.

I agree with the interpretation of the rules in which Scorching Ray is a single attack for all rays, but Complete Arcane cannot be used as proof of that interpretation as a hard rule since information in it which conflicts with Players Handbook information is automatically considered errata.

hmm....

Complete Arcane appeared after the core books. Chapter four states it has clarifications that explicitly override the PHB. For example the new classification of swift and immediate spells. To me it looks like an effort to clarify and change (update) some of the rules found in the core books.

EDIT ninja's again

[Jasdoif]

Doesn't CArc state in the text that it overrides the PHB/DMG for how to deal with Weaponnlike Spells?Alternatively, I don't recall the PHB or DMG defining whether a single spell with multiple attack rolls is considered multiple attacks or a single attack. There's no core definition being overridden, because there's no core definition.

[tainsouvra]

Doesn't CArc state in the text that it overrides the PHB/DMG for how to deal with Weaponnlike Spells? I haven't not read through it, just snippets here and there, so that is a possiblity. If Complete Arcane explicitly states that it overrides the primary source with regard to attack spells, then it would make the entire previous discussion about the wording of Sneak Attack or various spells irrelevant in any campaign which uses Complete Arcane due to the same errata rule. While that doesn't make it applicable to every situation, it at least removes any ambiguity in campaigns which include that book.


Alternatively, I don't recall the PHB or DMG defining whether a single spell with multiple attack rolls is considered multiple attacks or a single attack. There's no core definition being overridden, because there's no core definition. Exactly. If you review the posts which led up to the one to which you are responding, you'll note that my opinion was that it was up to DM's interpretation if your source is the PHB rather than being spelled out either way.

[Jasdoif]

Exactly. If you review the posts which led up to the one to which you are responding, you'll note that my opinion was that it was up to DM's interpretation if your source is the PHB rather than being spelled out either way.If the DM has chosen to make the decision, I hope said DM is aware of telekinesis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telekinesis.htm)' violent thrust option. One object per caster level (up to 15), requiring an attack roll for each object. That's a lot of sneak attack chances, if it's ruled that one attack roll = one attack for the purposes of sneak attack bonus damage.

[tainsouvra]

Indeed, it's a much better option to focus on an attack action rather than an attack roll. My point, however, was that it is not explicitly clear in the PHB, and that supplemental material is limited in its ability to modify a primary source.

[Citizen Joe]

You guys ever see those pictures where the guy has big shoulder pads and a heavy cloak covering his whole body... and then has one of those wide brimmed hats with a veil. Wouldn't that effectively conceal his vitals, thus preventing a sneak attack.

I'm not talking about those little cloaks, I mean those extravagant ones that seem very bulky. And yes, it would get in your way in a fight, but they are usually dramatically cast off when the fight starts.

[tainsouvra]

Wouldn't that effectively conceal his vitals, thus preventing a sneak attack. Probably not. You can't just conceal the target location, you have to conceal yourself as a whole so that he can't get a clear idea of where to strike.

Per the rules, no concealment of the person is taking place, so no protection from Sneak Attack is gained. Simple enough.

From a logical perspective, look at it this way...I know where to strike, in relation to other parts of the body, to hit someone's kidney--I don't need to see the exact spot on their back to know where it is. I strongly suspect a D&D Rogue, who is far more skilled at that sort of thing than I am, would find the task trivial.

[Person_Man]

Indeed, it's a much better option to focus on an attack action rather than an attack roll. My point, however, was that it is not explicitly clear in the PHB, and that supplemental material is limited in its ability to modify a primary source.

They've been really clear in Complete Arcane and in the "All About Sneak Attack" articles about how this works. It's a lot like real world common law practice - if there's a precedent, everyone tries to respect it, and that precedent becomes the basis for how everything functions. But precedent is not immutable. The governing body (WotC) can write new regulations that change the interpretation of existing laws (Sneak Attack), or they can change it entirely (Polymorph).

If your group wants to ignore that, fine. My group ignores some rules as well. But just be aware that its a house rule. There's no need to make a tortured argument to attempt to prove something different.

[tainsouvra]

If your group wants to ignore that, fine. My group ignores some rules as well. But just be aware that its a house rule. There's no need to make a tortured argument to attempt to prove something different. Allowing an optional supplemental book is no more house-ruling than not allowing it, Person_Man. My argument wasn't really my own, it was actually just restating the officially-published WotC rules on primary vs secondary sources. It's something you could reference yourself, if you like.

[Krelon]

Let's say you finally found an opponent who is not immune to crits. What are the best chances to actually be able to sneak attack?

I take first round initiative win and flanking for granted, but what are other valid options (what is your char doing)? Any fancy move, magic item, feat or spell?