PDA

View Full Version : Sneak attack question



continuumc
2007-09-24, 03:10 PM
I have a question regarding sneak attack and spells. In the Player's Handbook it says that you can score a critical hit with any damaging spell with which you actually have to make an attack roll. (Thus, you can crit with scorching ray, but not with magic missile or fireball) So, my question is, if you have levels as a rogue and all the conditions are right to allow you a ranged sneak attack, can you also add sneak attack damage to such a spell?

I've been assuming so, since a sneak attack is basically a planned strike to a critical area; thus making it a sort of critical hit. I just wanted to get other people's opinions on this.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-24, 03:14 PM
Yes, you can.

Clementx
2007-09-24, 03:16 PM
You can make a sneak attack on any weaponlike spell, if you can deny your target its Dex to AC. Later publications also state you can only get one sneak attack per spell, rather than attack roll.

Personally, this is quite silly. If you can Greater Manyshot 4 targets and get four SAs (which you can), there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to Scorching Ray multiple SAs. Nevermind the fact that taking rogue levels makes you less effective as a caster, and even letting SAs on every attack roll doesn't make them more potent than a pure caster's better spell progression.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-24, 03:22 PM
If you can Greater Manyshot 4 targets and get four SAs (which you can), there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to Scorching Ray multiple SAs.

It gets somewhat cheesy with (1) split rays, (2) spells that increase sneak attacks, and (3) gestalt.

Person_Man
2007-09-24, 03:27 PM
You can make a Sneak Attack on anything that has an attack roll, as long as all the other pre-conditions for Sneak Attack are met (i.e., denied Dex or Flanked, not immune to Precision damage), with one restriction (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a):


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.

You can get out of this restriction when you use arrows if you have Greater Manyshot (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicFeats.html#greater-manyshot). However there is no way that I'm aware of that let's you get out of it with spells.

continuumc
2007-09-24, 04:17 PM
Thanks for the quick reply. :-) I'm glad to see that it does indeed add up, and the added bonus of clarifying the rules on scorching ray helps as well; though i'd already assumed it only added onto one ray.

dr.cello
2007-09-25, 01:22 PM
It gets somewhat cheesy with (1) split rays, (2) spells that increase sneak attacks, and (3) gestalt.

I thought cheese was the point of gestalt. I don't think they balance with gestalt in mind.

Keld Denar
2007-09-25, 01:26 PM
The rules for it are in Complete Arcane. I don't have the page number off the top of my head, but look in the index for "weaponlike spells"

It gives all the skinny one the subject.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-25, 01:29 PM
Yep. I remember a fight wherein a really, really obnoxious invisible wizard kept dropping fireballs and the like on our poor party (while a couple of meat shields distracted us). We were without any sort of See Invisibility.

When he ran out of everything else, he started hitting us with piddling little Ray of Frost spells. For 1d3 damage... plus 12d6 sneak attack.

Ugh.

Person_Man
2007-09-25, 02:23 PM
Yep. I remember a fight wherein a really, really obnoxious invisible wizard kept dropping fireballs and the like on our poor party (while a couple of meat shields distracted us). We were without any sort of See Invisibility.

When he ran out of everything else, he started hitting us with piddling little Ray of Frost spells. For 1d3 damage... plus 12d6 sneak attack.

Ugh.

Unless he has Greater Invisibility, the Wizard should have become visible after his first attack.

Even if he has Greater Invisibility, you can still make a Listen check to figure out where the enemy is, and then target him with area of effect spells. If someone has enough ranks in Listen or Spot and has a lucky roll, you can even pinpoint his exact location - then all you have to worry about it the 50% concealment.

It's difficult, but he certainly shouldn't take more then 3-4 rounds to kill.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-25, 02:29 PM
Unless he has Greater Invisibility, the Wizard should have become visible after his first attack.

Even if he has Greater Invisibility, you can still make a Listen check to figure out where the enemy is, and then target him with area of effect spells. If someone has enough ranks in Listen or Spot and has a lucky roll, you can even pinpoint his exact location - then all you have to worry about it the 50% concealment.

It's difficult, but he certainly shouldn't take more then 3-4 rounds to kill.

He did have Greater Invis, and eventually, that's what happened. (That's why we lived through the campaign.) But at that immediate moment -- well, the first thing he cast was Disintegrate, which one-shotted our own caster between a failed save and sneak-attack, in the surprise round (since he started the fight invisible). Second thing he cast (after winning initiative) was Slow, and we all managed to fail our saves, so our options were limited. We couldn't afford to take an entire round Listening for him, lest we be chopped by his meat-shields. Eventually the party bard managed to take him out... though I can't remember with what.

Zherog
2007-09-25, 02:32 PM
You can make a Sneak Attack on anything that has an attack roll, as long as all the other pre-conditions for Sneak Attack are met (i.e., denied Dex or Flanked, not immune to Precision damage),

One addendum to this statement...

You can make a sneak attack on anything that has an attack roll and deals damage, as long as all the other pre-conditions for sneak attack are met.

For example, ray of enfeeblement requires an attack roll, but you can't deal sneak attack with it.

Seffbasilisk
2007-09-25, 03:03 PM
Ray of stuidity on the other hand...

ocato
2007-09-25, 03:22 PM
This reminds me of my friend who asked our old DM if he could homebrew a feat that stacked warlock and rogue levels for eldritch blast and sneak attack.

"They do it all the time, look at swift ambusher and ascetic rogue."
"None of those feats require more d6s than we currently own."

Person_Man
2007-09-25, 03:40 PM
We couldn't afford to take an entire round Listening for him, lest we be chopped by his meat-shields. Eventually the party bard managed to take him out... though I can't remember with what.

FYI, Listening for something that is Invisible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) is a free action. That might make your combats against Invisible enemies much easier in the future.


One addendum to this statement...

You can make a sneak attack on anything that has an attack roll and deals damage, as long as all the other pre-conditions for sneak attack are met.

For example, ray of enfeeblement requires an attack roll, but you can't deal sneak attack with it.

Correct. I should have remembered that detail. Thanks Zherog.



This reminds me of my friend who asked our old DM if he could homebrew a feat that stacked warlock and rogue levels for eldritch blast and sneak attack.

"They do it all the time, look at swift ambusher and ascetic rogue."
"None of those feats require more d6s than we currently own."

I think what you're looking for is a Scout/Rogue with Swift Ambusher, Improved Skirmish, Assassin's Stance, and Telling Blow. 19d6 damage at 20th level. 28d6 if you roll a crit.

ocato
2007-09-25, 07:05 PM
I think what you're looking for is a Scout/Rogue with Swift Ambusher, Improved Skirmish, Assassin's Stance, and Telling Blow. 19d6 damage at 20th level. 28d6 if you roll a crit.

What book is Assassin's stance in? It's the one that adds some sneak attack I think, but I'd like to know more.

And does Telling Blow make sneak/skirmish double on crit? I've heard arguements on both sides.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-25, 07:12 PM
What book is Assassin's stance in? It's the one that adds some sneak attack I think, but I'd like to know more.

And does Telling Blow make sneak/skirmish double on crit? I've heard arguements on both sides.

Assassin's Stance is a Swordsage stance, and is accessible with the Martial Stance feat.

Telling Blow says that you "add your precision damage on a successful critical hit." If it's a critical sneak attack, then you qualify twice.

ocato
2007-09-25, 07:39 PM
Assassin's Stance is a Swordsage stance, and is accessible with the Martial Stance feat.

Telling Blow says that you "add your precision damage on a successful critical hit." If it's a critical sneak attack, then you qualify twice.

If person man suggests it and fax agrees, that's all I need to hear to believe it.



Prerequesites: One Martial Manuever

So how do you get that as a rogue/scout?

Person_Man
2007-09-25, 08:06 PM
If person man suggests it and fax agrees, that's all I need to hear to believe it.

So how do you get that as a rogue/scout?

You can take a single ToB manuever that you otherwise qualify for if you take the Martial Study feat. You can take a single ToB stance that you otherwise qualify for if you take the Martial Stance feat (which requires a martial maneuver as a pre-req). The Tome of Battle opens up tons of different options to players, even ones who never take a level of a ToB class.

However, Scout 3/Rogue 17 with those feats is actually a very bad idea. It puts all of your eggs into one basket, and its not a particularly great basket. Sure, if you move 20 feet, Sneak Attack your enemy, and get a critical hit (which happens less then 30% of the time, even under the best of circumstances) then you deal an average of 98 points of damage on one hit. That's not very impressive damage at ECL 20. And if your enemy is immune to Precision damage, you're boned.

Zherog
2007-09-25, 08:12 PM
Telling Blow says that you "add your precision damage on a successful critical hit." If it's a critical sneak attack, then you qualify twice.

Just to be clear: you do not get double damage.



When a rogue with the Telling Blow feat (PHB II, pg. 83) deals a critical hit against a flat-footed enemy, does sheadd her sneak attack damage twice?

No. The feat simply adds another criteria that “activates” your sneak attack or skirmish damage; it doesn’t allow either of those values to be added twice.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-25, 08:31 PM
Just to be clear: you do not get double damage.

This is one of those instances where I totally disagree with what the FAQ has to say.

Let's put it in a similar light, where I know htey've answered in favor of my interpretation. The spell wracking touch allows you to touch an opponent (as a touch attack, it is a a valid target for sneak attack damage) and acquire your sneak attack dice. Since this is the spell that is giving you your sneak attack dice, it is actually just extra sneak attack dice. Furthermore, should you sneak attack this touch attack, you can deal the extra dice of damage off of that as well--thereby acquiring your SA dice twice in one attack.

Telling Blow is the same way: the feat is adding SA dice, not creating a new qualifier for your SA dice to function under.

The_Snark
2007-09-25, 08:42 PM
This is one of those instances where I totally disagree with what the FAQ has to say.

Let's put it in a similar light, where I know htey've answered in favor of my interpretation. The spell wracking touch allows you to touch an opponent (as a touch attack, it is a a valid target for sneak attack damage) and acquire your sneak attack dice. Since this is the spell that is giving you your sneak attack dice, it is actually just extra sneak attack dice. Furthermore, should you sneak attack this touch attack, you can deal the extra dice of damage off of that as well--thereby acquiring your SA dice twice in one attack.

Telling Blow is the same way: the feat is adding SA dice, not creating a new qualifier for your SA dice to function under.

I would question that interpretation of Wracking Touch, also; that spell simply automatically qualifies for sneak attack. I see no indication it would let you deal it twice.

enderrocksonall
2007-09-25, 08:49 PM
Is this right?

A ray of stupidity, because it deals ability DAMAGE and not a DRAIN, allows sneak attack dice to ride along with it. However, because there is ABILITY damage instead of regular damage, the sneak attack dice are considered "negative energy damage"?

Is that the correct idea?

If so...does negative energy damage do anything special, or is it simply another form of damage, like acid or cold?

Furthermore, by this reasoning, couldn't you heal undead by sneak attacking them with an ability damaging spell?

I realize that undead are immune to sneak attacks but other than that, wouldn't the negative energy heal the undead?

ocato
2007-09-25, 09:05 PM
Well, I like Two Weapon Pounce. Yeah, you are putting most of your character into precision damage, but that's pretty much all rogues. So at L20 you're doing 7d6 skirmish if you move 20ft and apparently 11d6 sneak with this stance. Per weapon. Two Weapon Pounce is each attack with your full bonus (no minus, no plus), and that's like, 36d6 total. And yeah, that's not gonna be every attack all day, but it's about getting the sneaks/skirmishes you can. A rogue does 10d6 per sneak at L20 by himself, I don't see why a few feats for up to 18d6 is some sort of terrible. Do I wish skirmish scaled better? Of course, but it could be worse. Wands help with sneak/skirmish too, so it'll happen. With doubles on crits, you can do some fierce stuff, and no one says you can't enjoy poisons, skills, and other roguey stuff on the side.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-25, 09:14 PM
Is this right?

A ray of stupidity, because it deals ability DAMAGE and not a DRAIN, allows sneak attack dice to ride along with it. However, because there is ABILITY damage instead of regular damage, the sneak attack dice are considered "negative energy damage"?

Is that the correct idea?

If so...does negative energy damage do anything special, or is it simply another form of damage, like acid or cold?

Furthermore, by this reasoning, couldn't you heal undead by sneak attacking them with an ability damaging spell?

I realize that undead are immune to sneak attacks but other than that, wouldn't the negative energy heal the undead?

I do not believe this is the case for Ray of Stupidity -- ability damage is not lethal damage. In order to deal sneak attack damage, the spell you're using must deal lethal damage.

Stylistically speaking, sneak-attack essentially signifies that you're hitting them in a tender spot or a vital organ, thus hurting them more than normal. If you hit them with a Ray of Stupidity, well, you can't really hit them in a particularly tender spot of their brain, so Sneak Attack doesn't really qualify. With Ray of Frost, on the other hand, you freeze them for cold damage, and that cold damage is applied to their pancreas, which deals more damage.

Negative energy always heals the Undead, I believe (or else it has no effect on them at all). But you can't compound that healing/damage with Sneak Attack. If you bolster a zombie with, say, Energy Drain, you're fueling it with more raw energy to power itself. Giving all of that energy to the zombie's decomposing pancreas won't help it any more than usual.

Jasdoif
2007-09-25, 09:42 PM
This is one of those instances where I totally disagree with what the FAQ has to say.

Let's put it in a similar light, where I know htey've answered in favor of my interpretation. The spell wracking touch allows you to touch an opponent (as a touch attack, it is a a valid target for sneak attack damage) and acquire your sneak attack dice. Since this is the spell that is giving you your sneak attack dice, it is actually just extra sneak attack dice. Furthermore, should you sneak attack this touch attack, you can deal the extra dice of damage off of that as well--thereby acquiring your SA dice twice in one attack.

Telling Blow is the same way: the feat is adding SA dice, not creating a new qualifier for your SA dice to function under.Have I mentioned recently that I hate how a great deal of the feats in PHBII are worded?

On one hand, they say you add your sneak attack (or skirmish damage), which would suggest that you don't get it again if it's already added. But then, it says that you get that in addition to your critical hit damage, which would include your sneak attack damage if your critical hit also qualified for sneak attack. So you'd have to add it again.

Basically, RAW is that you'd add it twice, but that might not be what they were intending.




I do not believe this is the case for Ray of Stupidity -- ability damage is not lethal damage. In order to deal sneak attack damage, the spell you're using must deal lethal damage.Complete Arcane specifically states that spells dealing ability damage (or energy drain) get sneak attack as negative energy, instead of as extra ability damage (or negative levels). Otherwise, a spell has to deal hit point damage (or nonlethal damage) to qualify for sneak attack.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-25, 09:50 PM
Complete Arcane specifically states that spells dealing ability damage (or energy drain) get sneak attack as negative energy, instead of as extra ability damage (or negative levels). Otherwise, a spell has to deal hit point damage (or nonlethal damage) to qualify for sneak attack.

Wow. Color me wrong, then. Still strikes me as a thematically silly rule, but ah well.

Jasdoif
2007-09-25, 09:59 PM
Wow. Color me wrong, then. Still strikes me as a thematically silly rule, but ah well.If you want something silly, consider that ability drain doesn't qualify a spell for sneak attack, even though ability damage does.

Zherog
2007-09-26, 06:53 AM
This is one of those instances where I totally disagree with what the FAQ has to say.

*shrug*

I've always read Telling Blow as doing exactly what the FAQ says it does - granting another way to gain sneak attack, not a way to gain double.

Person_Man
2007-09-26, 08:48 AM
*shrug*

I've always read Telling Blow as doing exactly what the FAQ says it does - granting another way to gain sneak attack, not a way to gain double.

Zherog, having read the FAQ page that you helpfully quoted, I agree that your reading of Telling Blow is correct under RAW. Thanks for posting it.

But in my group, I think we'll continue to allow Telling Blow to add Sneak Attack damage when you confirm a critical hit. If you also qualify for Sneak Attack damage normally (ie, your opponent is denied their Dex bonus or flanked) and you confirm a critical hit, then we'll add it twice.

My reasoning is pretty simple. A low level Rogue won't have a Keen weapon, and a mid to high level Rogue almost always qualifies for Sneak Attack every round (usually via flanking, a Ring of Blinking, or a friend's Greater Invisibility spell). Thus, there's almost no reason to take Telling Blow unless it adds Sneak Attack damage, rather then just letting you qualify for it.

Furthermore, Telling Blow isn't that effective. Using a class that provides full Sneak Attack progression, you gain an average of +1.75 damage per level per attack that qualifies. A Keen weapon with a high threat range confirms a critical less then 30% of the time under the most ideal of situations. So on average, Telling Blow adds less than .525 damage per level per attack under. That's an average of less than +10.5 damage per attack at 20th level. That's a helpful bonus. But it drops dramatically if your enemy has a high AC (and is thus less likely to be hit with and get a crit confirmed against them). And unlike Power Attack et al, it can't be multiplied (by crits, Spirited Charge, Headlong Rush, Battle Jump, etc). And enemies that are immune to crits/Sneak Attack are still unaffected.

So, you're right, I'm wrong. But I'm happy wallowing in my wrongness.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 09:49 AM
*shrug*

I've always read Telling Blow as doing exactly what the FAQ says it does - granting another way to gain sneak attack, not a way to gain double.

I will have to second Jasdoif, the wording is terrible.

It does not say that you can make a Sneak/Skirmish attack (SA) on a critical, it just says that you get to deal the damage. By a strict reading all the feats and abilities that activate on a SA would not work unless there was some other way than the critical to qualify for SA.

On a similar note; What about ranged SA crits? are they still limited to 30 feet?
Considering the FAQ and feat wording that restriction is removed for ranged attacks, but I am uncertain whether that is RAI.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-26, 10:25 AM
Furthermore, Telling Blow isn't that effective. Using a class that provides full Sneak Attack progression, you gain an average of +1.75 damage per level per attack that qualifies. A Keen weapon with a high threat range confirms a critical less then 30% of the time under the most ideal of situations. So on average, Telling Blow adds less than .525 damage per level per attack under. That's an average of less than +10.5 damage per attack at 20th level.

Not that I disagree, but bear in mind that a full tree of feats (requiring five feats in total and a lot of levels in what's typically considered a weak class) adds six damage per attack. I'm referring, of course, to Weapon Specialization, Weapon Mastery, and Greater Weapon Specialization. Granted, this tree also ends up giving you +4 to your attack rolls, and the fighters who take this tree certainly have the extra feats to spare, but still -- five feats to grant six damage per attack. Versus Telling Blow -- one feat to add 10.5 damage per attack (average).

The fact that this damage can't be multiplied by power attack, crits, etc. doesn't mean those feats aren't worth taking. A rogue can get almost as much out of Power Attack as a fighter (the difference coming down to their BAB), if he's going the Strength route. And while sneak-attack and Telling Blow aren't affected by crits, the rogue will be scoring twice as many crits with his rapier as the fighter will with his greatsword -- three times as many crits as the fighter with his greataxe. That's still plenty of base damage to be multiplied, as long as the Rogue is strength-based.

Lemme see.... Let's assume both parties get a magic-enhancing item and a magic weapon. With an 18 starting strength, a human fighter or rogue can get up to 34 strength at 20th level -- 18 + 5 (leveling) + 6 (item) + 5 (wish). This yields a +12 bonus.

The fighter, then, will deal 2d6 + 6 (Specialization tree) + 18 (strength) + 40 (full Power Attack) + 5 (magic weapon) per hit, barring other feats, and crit on a 17-20. Which comes to 2d6 + 49 damage. Unmagicked (and barring other feats), he can do that up to four times, at a bonus of... +21/+16/+11/+6 (+12 strength, +4 Weapon Focus, +5 magic weapon). In total, assuming everything hits, that comes to 8d6 + 196 damage/round.

The Rogue gets the same strength. Since he's using a one-handed weapon (rapier), his damage doesn't multiply; he ends up dealing 1d6 + 12 (strength) + 15 (full power attack) + 10d6 (Sneak Attack) + 10.5 (average, Telling Blow). This comes to (averaging Sneak Attack) 1d6 + 72.5 damage, and crit on a 15-20. He can do that three times per round, at a bonus of... +18/+13/+8 (+12 strength, + 1 Weapon Focus, +5 magic weapon) -- and remember, he's probably dealing this damage against the target's flat-footed AC; at the least, they're flanked. In total, assuming everything hits, that comes to an average of 1d6 + 217.5 damage per full round, beating the fighter by more than 20 damage.

Without the influence of Telling Blow's average bonus, the rapier-wielding Rogue's damage output drops to 1d6 + 186/round average, just ten points below the fighter with a greatsword.

Granted, this is all very cut and dry -- both fighter and rogue are going to have additional feats, PrCs, and/or items that enhance their respective performances drastically. But with this data, I'd say Telling Blow is okay the way it is.

Zherog
2007-09-26, 10:30 AM
I will have to second Jasdoif, the wording is terrible.

Yep, after looking at it again I can absolutely see how the other interpretation comes about.


On a similar note; What about ranged SA crits? are they still limited to 30 feet?
Considering the FAQ and feat wording that restriction is removed for ranged attacks, but I am uncertain whether that is RAI.

Again, it's definitely bad wording. However, knowing WotC's mindset, I would say Rules as Intended would be to not change the 30 foot limit. the reasoning: the core rules impose the 30 foot limit, and Telling Blow doesn't explicitly remove that limit; therefore the limit still applies.

Curmudgeon
2007-09-26, 11:16 AM
Telling Blow says that you "add your precision damage on a successful critical hit." If it's a critical sneak attack, then you qualify twice. And if you're also flanking a flat-footed foe, you qualify three times. No matter how many times you qualify you still only add precision damage once.
On a similar note; What about ranged SA crits? are they still limited to 30 feet?
Considering the FAQ and feat wording that restriction is removed for ranged attacks, but I am uncertain whether that is RAI. I've pretty much abandoned worrying about RAI. (I think the last one was insisting that ranged full attacks provoke AoOs, even though that's not what the RAW say.)

The sneak attack rules are rather poorly organized. They separately specify that you need to be within 30' range to make a sneak attack, rather than specifying this qualifier only against foes denied their DEX bonus to AC. But does that 30' range limit apply if you're gargantuan and use a reach weapon while flanking at 40' against an enemy with soft cover? As written, maybe it does.
When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. Your parsing preference:
use the rules for (determining cover from ranged attacks)
use the rules for (determining cover from) ranged attacks
(Just because this is a weird corner case to the rules and likely not what was intended doesn't prevent the argument from being made.)

Anyway, Telling Blow
doesn't specify any restrictions on sneak attack/skirmish in the "Benefit:" section;
doesn't state which of the normal rules are overriden in a "Normal:" section; and
does make an absolute statement of when the precision damage applies:
When you score a critical hit against a target, you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage

Combine those three choices by the authors of the feat and I have to conclude that Telling Blow overrides the 30' range limit and concealment prohibitions for sneak attack, and 10' movement qualifier for skirmish.

Chronos
2007-09-26, 11:26 AM
I do not believe this is the case for Ray of Stupidity -- ability damage is not lethal damage. In order to deal sneak attack damage, the spell you're using must deal lethal damage.Even without the clarification from Complete Arcane, this isn't right. The core rules do say that it's possible to do subdual (nonlethal) damage with a sneak attack, if you're using an appropriate weapon (bare hands, sap, or whip, in core).

ocato
2007-09-26, 11:28 AM
And if you're also flanking a flat-footed foe, you qualify three times. No matter how many times you qualify you still only add precision damage once. I've pretty much abandoned worrying about RAI. (I think the last one was insisting that ranged full attacks provoke AoOs, even though that's not what the RAW say.)


Combine those three choices by the authors of the feat and I have to conclude that Telling Blow overrides the 30' range limit and concealment prohibitions for sneak attack, and 10' movement qualifier for skirmish.

These are two excellent points.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-26, 11:53 AM
Yep, after looking at it again I can absolutely see how the other interpretation comes about.

Again, it's definitely bad wording. However, knowing WotC's mindset, I would say Rules as Intended would be to not change the 30 foot limit. the reasoning: the core rules impose the 30 foot limit, and Telling Blow doesn't explicitly remove that limit; therefore the limit still applies.

I think so too. :smallsigh:


I've pretty much abandoned worrying about RAI. (I think the last one was insisting that ranged full attacks provoke AoOs, even though that's not what the RAW say.)

I think there are occasions where the RAI seem obvious. :smallfrown:


The sneak attack rules are rather poorly organized. They separately specify that you need to be within 30' range to make a sneak attack, rather than specifying this qualifier only against foes denied their DEX bonus to AC. But does that 30' range limit apply if you're gargantuan and use a reach weapon while flanking at 40' against an enemy with soft cover? As written, maybe it does.
Quote:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Quote:
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
Your parsing preference:

* use the rules for (determining cover from ranged attacks)
* use the rules for (determining cover from) ranged attacks

(Just because this is a weird corner case to the rules and likely not what was intended doesn't prevent the argument from being made.)


I do not think is that bad in this case.

You have to used the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover, but the attack is still a melee attack so the 30' rule does not apply.



Combine those three choices by the authors of the feat and I have to conclude that Telling Blow overrides the 30' range limit and concealment prohibitions for sneak attack, and 10' movement qualifier for skirmish.
(My emphasis)

You almost make it sound like there was a conscious choice to actual ruin the game during the creation of this feat. :smalltongue:

Person_Man
2007-09-26, 11:55 AM
MATH.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think your argument is flawed. I don't compare feat X to feat Y in order to evaluate its effectiveness. I compare feat X to all other feats in existence.

When you compare Telling Blow to the Weapon Specialization feats, then of course Telling Blow is going to look powerful, because Weapon Specialization sucks.

But when you compare Telling Blow to Power Attack, Leap Attack, Craven, Headlong Rush, Battle Jump, Spirited Charge, or anything that adds an extra attack or useful effect, then Telling Blow seems quite mediocre.

So your argument only makes sense to me if you're limited to a few supplements, or if you're choosing feats based on the flavor of the feat.

Curmudgeon
2007-09-26, 12:00 PM
The core rules do say that it's possible to do subdual (nonlethal) damage with a sneak attack, if you're using an appropriate weapon (bare hands, sap, or whip, in core). The DMG also has the merciful weapon special ability, so you can do nonlethal damage with any such magic weapon.

The key to making a sneak attack -- with a spell or otherwise -- is all contained in this one line:
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. To make a sneak attack possible you need
an opponent "unable to defend himself effectively", which means an attack roll versus the opponent's AC (their defense); and
to do some damage in the first place, so that you can add extra damage.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-26, 12:29 PM
And if you're also flanking a flat-footed foe, you qualify three times. No matter how many times you qualify you still only add precision damage once. I've pretty much abandoned worrying about RAI. (I think the last one was insisting that ranged full attacks provoke AoOs, even though that's not what the RAW say.)

Telling Blow does not say "add your SA dice when you land a critical but not flanking"; rather it's "add your SA dice when you land a critical."

You qualify from two separate sources. That is, I land a critical, so my Telling Blow feat says "add your SA dice". If I also happen to be flanking, my Rogue class feature says "add your SA dice." If I meet the requirements for two separate sources--even if they have the same end result--both work.

Jasdoif
2007-09-26, 12:41 PM
Even without the clarification from Complete Arcane, this isn't right. The core rules do say that it's possible to do subdual (nonlethal) damage with a sneak attack, if you're using an appropriate weapon (bare hands, sap, or whip, in core).Yeah. Now, if we were talking about Sudden Strike, which doesn't work with nonlethal damage, this would be correct.

Just to reiterate, a spell must deal one of the following to qualify for sneak attack: Hit point damage Nonlethal damage Ability damage Negative levels




Telling Blow does not say "add your SA dice when you land a critical but not flanking"; rather it's "add your SA dice when you land a critical."

You qualify from two separate sources. That is, I land a critical, so my Telling Blow feat says "add your SA dice". If I also happen to be flanking, my Rogue class feature says "add your SA dice." If I meet the requirements for two separate sources--even if they have the same end result--both work.
More importantly, Telling Blow says nothing about your attack qualifying for sneak attack (or skirmish). It says you add the bonus damage to the damage done by a critical hit. If your critical hit qualified for sneak attack/skirmish, your critical hit's damage will have your bonus damage added to it. So you add your bonus damage to that. Which means it's added twice in this case.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-26, 12:55 PM
More importantly, Telling Blow says nothing about your attack qualifying for sneak attack (or skirmish). It says you add the bonus damage to the damage done by a critical hit. If your critical hit qualified for sneak attack/skirmish, your critical hit's damage will have your bonus damage added to it. So you add your bonus damage to that. Which means it's added twice in this case.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Curmudgeon
2007-09-26, 01:56 PM
You almost make it sound like there was a conscious choice to actual ruin the game during the creation of this feat. :smalltongue: I know you're trying to make a joke, but I don't see the humor here. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence):
Criminal negligence ... is defined as:

careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.
If you make a feat that's unclear about what rules it overrides and you fail to include a "Normal:" section, you're willfully negligent. It's akin to putting up a big DETOUR sign without indicating which way to go. :smallmad:

continuumc
2007-09-26, 07:13 PM
Wow, this certainly has run amok. lol. If I could re-derail y'all for a moment. So, let me make sure I understand this correctly; a targetted spell that does ability damage, also gets sneak attack damage against their health? I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that... And I can kind of see how it makes sense; if you assume that, being an arcane spell caster, you can also alter the nature of sneak attack and make it magical..thus imbueing an ability damaging spell with additional negative energy. ..Still doesn't make the greatest amount of sense in the world, but I can kind of see it.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-09-27, 02:09 AM
Wow, this certainly has run amok. lol. If I could re-derail y'all for a moment. So, let me make sure I understand this correctly; a targetted spell that does ability damage, also gets sneak attack damage against their health? I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that...

I think you are, with the little caveat that it is not accurate to say that the spell being targeted is the qualifier. The spell must be a so-called weapon-like spell, which basically means that you need to make an attack roll with it.

No attack roll, no SA.

Not damage (lethal, non-lethal, ability (but not drain)) or energy drain, no SA.

continuumc
2007-09-27, 02:42 PM
Yes, ofcourse. By targetted I meant that it requires an attack roll against a target, but it was a mistake in choice of terms. :-p But thanks for clearing that up, even though I don't plan on using ability damaging spells very often. They could still be useful occasionally.