Sneak Attack with a grenade

[Hawken]

Here's the scenario:

A dwarf PC is in a cavern hiding 10' away from a tunnel opening waiting for a Troll to emerge. When the Troll emerges, he is going to throw a bottle of Alchemist's Fire on the Troll and he is expecting to get to add his Sneak Attack in with the fire damage.

I've read and re-read on Sneak Attack and Splash Damage attacks and could find nothing that really supports using SA with a splash attack nor anything that specifically prevents it.

Logically, I would say no to the SA because its one thing to shove a knife in someone's kidneys, but throwing bottled fire on them is going to burn just about as bad regardless of where it hits and there is no precision involved with a splash attack, you can't splash a specific part of the target, it either hits or misses. But logic doesn't always go well with D&D.

What do you guys think?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think generally anything that you require an attack roll to hit with (or touch) cna be used to generate SA. If you look in Complete Arcane, they define "weapon-like" spells as such, letting you add SA dice to the damage. In the case of splash weapons, that would mean getting the SA damage on the primary target if you successfully touch (and meet the normal SA requirements), and you would NOT get SA damage to anyone hurt by the splash damage.

 

[Aluvial]

I've had this come up in my game too. I ruled that yes, you could get the Sneak Attack, essentially hitting the troll in the "best spot" with the fire, say around the head... the extra damage is alright in this case. Again, it wouldn't work with the splash...

Aluvial

 

[Hawken]

I get that it wouldn't grant SA with the splash. But I just don't see how it could grant SA anyway.

SA is precision based damage. The rogue is targeting a precise spot on the target, hitting a specific organ or nerve, something. He might be able to hit the spot on the target he wants where the bottle breaks, but he has absolutely no control over where/how the contents splash and hit the target once the container breaks.

One could argue that the SA represents getting the contents in the target's eyes or ears or mouth. However, you don't need SA to do that. The higher end of the damage die seems to represent that happening.

Game mechanics, sure, I can see allowing it since the rules don't forbid it, but neither do they overtly support it either. I want to give my player a fair shake, so I'm here doing my "research" on this.

What do you other DMs think about this? How would you rule on this?

 

[Jhaelen]

What do you other DMs think about this? How would you rule on this?

I think you're overthinking this. Is it possible to crit with alchemist's fire? If it is, then it's also possible to use it for sneak attacks.

As you already noticed in your first post, rules take precedence over logic/realism in D&D.

 

[Notmousse]

One could argue that the SA represents getting the contents in the target's eyes or ears or mouth. However, you don't need SA to do that. The higher end of the damage die seems to represent that happening.

Fire hurts, and 2d6 is for anything from being winged (1-2 damage), to getting hit full in the chest (8-12). SA is going to represent, in general, something along the lines of a strike to the head where not only the eyes and ears are singed, but also inhaling the scorching liquid to fry lungs and esophagus to a terrible degree.

 

[AddizAbeba]

Originally Posted by Hawken
One could argue that the SA represents getting the contents in the target's eyes or ears or mouth. However, you don't need SA to do that. The higher end of the damage die seems to represent that happening.

One could argue that the SA represents getting the dagger tip in the target's eyes or ears or mouth. However, you don't need SA to do that. The higher end of the damage die seems to represent that happening.

Hmmm.... I guess that that reasoning does not really work... or does it?