relatively minor items that are much bigger in the hands of certain characters

[Rvdvelden]

activating the wand (using the spell trigger activation method not a command word) causes the the spell to happen. what happens after the wand is activated is the same as when the spell is cast normally.

Then I'm glad activating a magic item is a standard action and not usable as an attack by itself, so at higher levels this "loophole" becomes less attractive, as you have to forgo multiple attacks to gain the benefit.

 

[squee]

Then I'm glad activating a magic item is a standard action and not usable as an attack by itself, so at higher levels this "loophole" becomes less attractive, as you have to forgo multiple attacks to gain the benefit.

yeah that's the disadvantage of the idea

Perhaps a certain interpretation of the RAW could lead to the conclusion that these could be used together…

How many other DMs here would actually allow this?

The RAW doesn’t explicitly state that it CAN be done, but since it also doesn’t explicitly state that it CANNOT be done, some are assuming they should be able too. This is a situation where conceptual logic should be used to determine a ruling where none is specifically written…

I'm not sure if this quite counts as explicit but the fact the spellwarp sniper uses the same precision based damage on its ranged touch attacks and that it is stated that this damage stacks with sneak attack is a fairly strong indication.

to the OP I've always liked slippers of spider climb for their ability to avoid so many obsticels with just th assistance of a rope and grappling hook.

 

[DreadArchon]

Perhaps a certain interpretation of the RAW could lead to the conclusion that these could be used together…

How many other DMs here would actually allow this?

Isn't it explicitly stated in Complete Arcane or Complete Adventurer? (I'm quite sure it's in the FAQ somewhere, but "FAQ is not RAW"...)

At any rate, I haven't houseruled that you can't Sneak Attack with weaponlike spells, so I guess you could say "I" allow it. Either way, there's nothing "loophole" about it.

 

[BASHMAN]

Yeah, my Half-Orc Monk15 began taking levels in Swordsage. (2 swordsage levels, 1 shadowsun ninja by the end of the campaign). Sudden Leap was one of his favorite maneuvers. With his 80' speed, he could make a 40' horizontal jump on a 10 or better (he had that feat where you don't increase the jump DC for a standing start). It was fun stuff, but instead of using it to retreat, I used it to close with my enemies and unleash my full attack action with flurry.

Sudden Leap was also great for surprise rounds, where you only get a partial action.

Something I noticed in your post-- were these jumps made with a standing start? If so, did you have something that mitigated this, otherwise the Sudden Leap would have not been as cool.

 

[pawsplay]

It was first clarified back in Tome and Blood (way back when in 3.0e), and I'd guess that most DM's follow on from there.

The idea that touch attacks are easier because you don't care where you touch them, and thus shouldn't qualify for sneak attacks were you do care, is a fine idea. I might even consider using that in my next campaign should it come to it - although I think it is adding a restriction which the rules themselves don't have.

Cheers

You can already crit with those attacks. I don't think the idea stands up.

 

[gnfnrf]

Perhaps a certain interpretation of the RAW could lead to the conclusion that these could be used together…

How many other DMs here would actually allow this?

The RAW doesn’t explicitly state that it CAN be done, but since it also doesn’t explicitly state that it CANNOT be done, some are assuming they should be able too. This is a situation where conceptual logic should be used to determine a ruling where none is specifically written…
These are two opposing concepts.
-A touch attack (usually) requires a lower attack roll because it doesn’t matter where you strike your target.
-A sneak attack does extra damage because the character is targeting a specific (vital) part of the target.

If using a spell/attack that normally requires only a touch-attack, I would allow an attack roll vs. the targets normal (or flat-footed) AC if the character wants to apply sneak attack damage. Otherwise, he/she can make the touch-attack roll and do normal damage (per the spell, etc).

Complete Arcane, p 86, specifically discusses this, and allows all weaponlike spells to be used to deliver sneak attacks. A weaponlike spell (from p 85) is any spell that requires an attack roll and does damage.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

It was first clarified back in Tome and Blood (way back when in 3.0e), and I'd guess that most DM's follow on from there.

The idea that touch attacks are easier because you don't care where you touch them, and thus shouldn't qualify for sneak attacks were you do care, is a fine idea. I might even consider using that in my next campaign should it come to it - although I think it is adding a restriction which the rules themselves don't have.

Cheers

Yeah, I agree. There is a contradiction, but with magical rays I'm alright with it, since it's still a pinpointable beam that just ignores armor. For grenade-like weapons, OTOH, there's no chance I'd allow that as a DM. A flask of acid breaks open splattering everywhere; you just can't add precision damage to it.

(For a fun argument, though, would the splash damage qualify for SA under the rules as interpretted here?)

 

[mvincent]

If my interpretation of the rules is wrong, please correct me on that, but it seems odd (to say the least) to compare activating a wand with making an attack with a weapon, like sneak-attack is intended to, in my humble opinion.

From the Rules of the Game (if desired):
"Spells as Sneak Attacks
Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage can be used in a sneak attack. In this case "damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. You can sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell, but not with a magic missile spell.

Ranged spells are effective as sneak attacks only at ranges of 30 feet or less (just like any other ranged sneak attack).

A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell inflicts extra damage according to the attacker's sneak attack ability, and the extra damage dealt is the same type as the spell deals. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell inflicts 2d4 points of acid damage, plus an extra 5d6 points of acid damage from the sneak attack (note that continuing damage from this spell is not part of the sneak attack). Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with an enervation spell deals 1d4 negative levels plus an extra 5d6 points of negative energy damage.

If the sneak attack with a weaponlike spell results in a critical hit, the damage from the spell is doubled but the extra sneak attack damage is not doubled (as with any sneak attack).

With spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls, such as the energy orb spells or the Split Ray feat from Tome and Blood, you must treat the effect like a volley -- only the first attack can be a sneak attack."

 

[mvincent]

A flask of acid breaks open splattering everywhere; you just can't add precision damage to it.

That appears to be incorrect. You can critical with them. You could certainly throw acid into someone's eyes, face, vital spot, exposed area, etc. (especially if you were a rogue). Similarly, you can critical and/or sneak attack with spells like Acid Splash, Acid Arrow, etc.

would the splash damage qualify for SA under the rules

No. Splash damage doesn't involve an attack roll on the splashed target.

 

[DreadArchon]

Complete Arcane, p 86, specifically discusses this, and allows all weaponlike spells to be used to deliver sneak attacks. A weaponlike spell (from p 85) is any spell that requires an attack roll and does damage.

Thanks, knew I had seen it somewhere.

That appears to be incorrect. You can critical with them. You could certainly throw acid into someone's eyes, face, vital spot, exposed area, etc. (especially if you were a rogue).

X-D

A short play:
High-level Rogue: "Woot! Initiative!"
High-level Fighter: "Did... Did you just cut that guy's throat with the broken glass from an exploding flask?"
High-level Rogue: "I got the acid in his nose as he was inhaling, too. Don't forget that part."
High-level Fighter: "...Wow. I took the wrong career path."