Ray of Enfeeblement, point blank shot and sneak attack?

[AwfulLawful]

My latest character is a wizard/rogue, and I've had som arguments with my DM regarding the uses of Ray of enfeeblement when combined with point blank shot or sneak attack.
I hope you can help me with the following questions.

1) Is it possible to sneak attack with RoE? If it is, does the sneak attack deal hit point damage or strength damage? (The rules can be read in either way)

2) If I have the point blank shot feat, does my RoE then drain an additional strength point from my opponent?

- AwfulLawful

[The Glyphstone]

1) It is possible. And Complete Arcane specifically says for cases like this, it deals hit point damage. In the case of RoE, it's negative energy damage (for scorching ray, it'd be fire damage, etc.)

2) No, because Strength damage is different than HP damage. However, if you sneak attacked with said ray, PBS would come into play and deal +1 negative energy damage.

[Yuki Akuma]

It isn't possible. Ray of Enfeeblement does not deal ability damage. It imposes a penalty, which is different.

It's not doing any kind of damage, so you can't sneak attack with it.

Wording is important. Read the spell and note the level. Now think; a spell that deals ability damage would work multiple times. But a penalty won't stack with itself.

A level one spell that deals 1d6+1 Strength damage would be horribly, horribly broken.

[Thomas]

Yuki Akuma is correct. No damage involved here.

Y'know, a level three spell dealing 3d6 Dexterity damage would be horribly broken, too.

I'm looking at you, shivering touch.

[Ikkitosen]

Nope, no sneak attack. RoE is good enough already.

[Bears With Lasers]

Oh, empowered chained Shivering Touch made a ranged touch by Arcane Reach.

How encounter-ending thou art.

[Thomas]

Oh, empowered chained Shivering Touch made a ranged touch by Arcane Reach.

How encounter-ending thou art.

How many targets does that hit, anyway?

Because that's the number of dragons you can take out with it, pretty much... (Provided you cast assay resistance first, anyway.)

[Bears With Lasers]

It hits up to your CL in targets, but they've got to be within 30' of the first target (from which the Chained effect leaps).

[Ikkitosen]

I can't imagine many DMs that would allow that spell. So...bad...

[Thomas]

It hits up to your CL in targets, but they've got to be within 30' of the first target (from which the Chained effect leaps).

Hard to fit too many dragons in a 60' diameter sphere, but we can try!

[Bears With Lasers]

Nah, Dragon Tetris is the Druid's thing...

[AwfulLawful]

It isn't possible. Ray of Enfeeblement does not deal ability damage. It imposes a penalty, which is different.

It's not doing any kind of damage, so you can't sneak attack with it.

Wording is important. Read the spell and note the level. Now think; a spell that deals ability damage would work multiple times. But a penalty won't stack with itself.

A level one spell that deals 1d6+1 Strength damage would be horribly, horribly broken.

I'm a bit confused now. When I look up the spell description in my PHB it clearly states that it's a Str penalty, but in the spell list on page 192 it says that the ray deals 1D6 +1 per two levels Str damage. Which one is correct?

[PinkysBrain]

The spell description (text over table).

[Yuki Akuma]

Tables are always superfluous. Even with things like class abilities; the description trumps whatever appears on the table.

[AtomicKitKat]

Otherwise you'd have things like the Bloodhound(or was it the other bounty-hunting class?) being able to cast 33 3rd level spells. :P

[Thomas]

I think the Justiciar of Weald and Woe had a two-figure number of spells at some level? I forget.

[Aximili]

Has anyone noticed the Seeker of the Song's table? There's like 2 or 3 abilities there that are simply absent in the class description.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

1) It is possible. And Complete Arcane specifically says for cases like this, it deals hit point damage. In the case of RoE, it's negative energy damage (for scorching ray, it'd be fire damage, etc.)

2) No, because Strength damage is different than HP damage. However, if you sneak attacked with said ray, PBS would come into play and deal +1 negative energy damage.

As has been stated numerous times in various FAQs... this is the correct way to do it.

For example, you have a Rog3/Sorc1 shooting a RoE at someone who is flat footed within 30' of the PC.

It would do the 1d6+1 str penalty as per normal, then +2d6 negative energy damage. It would not do additional stat damage, because it is not damage, but a penalty. Also, Damage stacks, Penalties don't. So multiple RoE's will not stack for cumulative effect, only the greatest will be in effect.

[Thrawn183]

Where is this shivering touch from and what level spell is it?

[Douglas]

No, it has to actually be doing damage of some sort for sneak attack to apply at all. The damage can be ability damage, in which case the sneak attack damage is of a different type than the spell's normal damage (sneak attack is always hit point damage of some sort), but it has to be damage. Causing a penalty does not qualify. See Complete Arcane page 85 for the full rules text.

[Thomas]

Where is this shivering touch from and what level spell is it?

Third, like I said. Frostburn. Brokennest spell ever. Even the regular 3rd-level version lets you one-shot dragons slightly over 50% of the time, if you can pass their SR.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

No, it has to actually be doing damage of some sort for sneak attack to apply at all. The damage can be ability damage, in which case the sneak attack damage is of a different type than the spell's normal damage (sneak attack is always hit point damage of some sort), but it has to be damage. Causing a penalty does not qualify. See Complete Arcane page 85 for the full rules text.

Incorrect. Read it again. RoE is specifically cited as an example, and it is specifically listed as additional negative energy damage.

[Douglas]

The following is the only part of the Complete Arcane text about weaponlike spells, sneak attack, etc. that mentions Ray of Enfeeblement:

Spells that require attack rolls but do not deal actual damage cannot score critical hits. For example, ray of enfeeblement requires a ranged touch attack roll, but since the target of the spell takes a penalty to Strength (rather than Strength damage), the spell cannot score a critical hit.

RoE is not mentioned in the sneak attack section, and there is no mention of any exception to the general rule that anything that can't crit also can't sneak attack, so RoE is not a weaponlike spell and therefore cannot be used to sneak attack.

Enervation is the example spell that deals negative energy sneak attack damage, with energy drain (aka negative levels) qualifying as "damage" for this purpose.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The following is the only part of the Complete Arcane text about weaponlike spells, sneak attack, etc. that mentions Ray of Enfeeblement:


RoE is not mentioned in the sneak attack section, and there is no mention of any exception to the general rule that anything that can't crit also can't sneak attack, so RoE is not a weaponlike spell and therefore cannot be used to sneak attack.

Enervation is the example spell that deals negative energy sneak attack damage, with energy drain (aka negative levels) qualifying as "damage" for this purpose.

From the Official D&D 3.5 FAQ, page 16

The bonus damage from sneak attack, skirmish, or sudden strike applies to any attack that requires an attack roll, even touch attacks

No mention of requiring it to do do damage. FAQ > Splatbook IMO

[Indon]

Man, just use Ray of Frost.

Rogue/Scout with a Wand of Ray of Frost can be scary, I tell you what.

[Inigo_Carmine]

From the Official D&D 3.5 FAQ, page 16

No mention of requiring it to do do damage. FAQ > Splatbook IMO

It doesn't need to be in the splatbook Shneeky. It's already in the core rules.

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.

Sneak attack is "extra" damage. The attack itself already has to be damaging. That's why you can't sneak attack (or crit, which uses similar wording of "extra" damage) with a cure spell.

[Caelestion]

Let me guess, Shneekey. You'd apply +1d6 negative energy damage to a disintegrate when fired by a Rog 1/Wiz 11? That just sounds silly (and I'm not talking about if the victim fails their save).

[PinkysBrain]

The FAQ is irrelevant, it's a secondary source ... the primary source is in Complete Arcane.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Let me guess, Shneekey. You'd apply +1d6 negative energy damage to a disintegrate when fired by a Rog 1/Wiz 11? That just sounds silly (and I'm not talking about if the victim fails their save).

Of course not. It would do +1d6 damage of the appropriate type. Since Disintigrate already does damage, it simply does more damage, on a success or failure. So on a failed fort save it would do 22d6+1d6, and on a successfull save, it would do 5d6+1d6.

It was specifically listed in ToB and in UA that ranged attack spells which did not specifically do damage (like RoE) did negative energy damage. If it says something else in the latest splatbook, forgive me for not wanting to continue shelling out more money for the latest in game-breaking abilities. I run SRD + FAQ Core. According to these rules, you can sneak attack with RoE and do additional negative energy damage. If you wish to use splatbooks, that's your choice.

[Douglas]

Actually, sneak attack with Disintigrate is perfectly legitimate. Disintigrate does damage and requires an attack roll, therefore it is weaponlike and sneak attack applies. In this case, however, it would not be sneak attack damage. Disintigrate deals hit point damage, not ability damage or energy drain, so the additional sneak attack is the same type - unspecified.

As for the FAQ, it is specifically clarifications of existing rules, not new rules, and its answers are only as complete as necessary to answer the specific question at hand. If any part of the FAQ conflicts with a WotC 3.5 edition rules book, the book takes precedence. If an answer in the FAQ were intended to override a book, it would be included in the official errata for that book.

That particular question was about alchemist's fire and acid splash, both of which deal damage, and the person answering that question apparently either didn't think the distinction was worth pointing out or forgot that the distinction exists.

Edit: Where does it say that in ToB? The table of contents isn't giving me any clues. As for Unearthed Arcana, that book is almost entirely a collection of optional variants and has almost no bearing on the core rules. I'd like a page reference for that too, as UA's table of contents is also not proving very helpful.

With regards to the "latest" splatbook, Complete Arcane came out long before ToB, and is generally considered much closer to core, I think.