Willingly Be Sneak Attacked

[mrtauntaun]

Obviously I agree that someone can leave themselves open to a sneak attack intentionally. I don't agree that it would *always* require any self control or restraint however.

Let's say that there is this healing gun. I have been shot by this healing gun before. I know it heals me, and now I need to be healed. But it's going to take my self control to convince myself that the gun now being pointed at me is the healing gun. Thoughts like 'oh god, what if this is the time it doesn't work?' or 'what if it's a different gun' and the like would go through my head.
I still believe a check would need to be made, but with each successfull heal, perhaps the DC could be lowered. However, these types of thoughts could really only be eliminated by careful training and mind discipline, which in game terms would equate to a Feat.
Entirely too much work for something I wouldn't even allow in my own campaign anyway, as stated previously

 

[Xellous]

Well then how about allowring a cleric/rogue to sneak attack with a heal. Anyone can heal from a cure spell so the rage part doesnt play into this scenario. Would you a cure light wounds spell to heal 1d8 + 5d6 positive energy sneak attack damage?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well then how about allowring a cleric/rogue to sneak attack with a heal. Anyone can heal from a cure spell so the rage part doesnt play into this scenario. Would you a cure light wounds spell to heal 1d8 + 5d6 positive energy sneak attack damage?

No, because curing them does not deal damage. It cures damage and sneak attack is specifically worded to deal extra damage. For instance, you couldn't sneak attack on a bull's strength spell.

 

[ARandomGod]

Thoughts like 'oh god, what if this is the time it doesn't work?' or 'what if it's a different gun' and the like would go through my head.

That's where you're different than me, I suppose. I wouldn't have those thoughts...

I still believe a check would need to be made, but with each successfull heal, perhaps the DC could be lowered.

Of course, if I did a week in town would probably do the trick. Get healed over and over until the DC is one.

However, these types of thoughts could really only be eliminated by careful training and mind discipline, which in game terms would equate to a Feat.
Entirely too much work for something I wouldn't even allow in my own campaign anyway, as stated previously

I hardly think it would be anything as momentous as a feat. People learn to like and even grow addicted to such physical stimuli very rapidly.

Of course, I wouldn't allow it at all in my campaign either! But not because I would flinch, nor because I would force someone else to flinch just because I think I would. I wouldn't allow it because it's not right.

 

[ARandomGod]

Well then how about allowring a cleric/rogue to sneak attack with a heal. Anyone can heal from a cure spell so the rage part doesnt play into this scenario. Would you a cure light wounds spell to heal 1d8 + 5d6 positive energy sneak attack damage?

No. Not at all. ALthough I thought of this immediantly too! But as Infiniti2000 said, the two are specifically worded so that won't work. They neglected to specifically dissalow this particular occurance. I would still dissallow it.

 

[Xellous]

No, because curing them does not deal damage. It cures damage and sneak attack is specifically worded to deal extra damage. For instance, you couldn't sneak attack on a bull's strength spell.

Well doesnt a cure spell deal positive energy damage? Positive energy heals living creatures and harms undead creatures or am I missing something?

 

[FireLance]

Consider this: would a cleric/rogue who has cast grave strike from Complete Adventurer (and is thus able to sneak attack undead) gain the extra damage if he hits a flanked undead creature with a cure light wounds?

Now turn the question around: would a cleric/rogue who has cast grave strike from Complete Adventurer (and is thus able to sneak attack undead) gain the extra "healing" if he hits a flanked undead creature with an inflict light wounds?

I think it would be odd to say no in one case and yes in another on the basis that one is damage is one is healing. Conceptually, positive and negative energy are both forms of energy that happen to have opposite effects on undead and living creatures.

I'm inclined to allow both, for philosophical reasons. To me, D&D is a co-operative game, and I tend to be more generous about neat tricks that require the PCs to co-operate.

 

[moritheil]

Consider this: would a cleric/rogue who has cast grave strike from Complete Adventurer (and is thus able to sneak attack undead) gain the extra damage if he hits a flanked undead creature with a cure light wounds?

Now turn the question around: would a cleric/rogue who has cast grave strike from Complete Adventurer (and is thus able to sneak attack undead) gain the extra "healing" if he hits a flanked undead creature with an inflict light wounds?

I think it would be odd to say no in one case and yes in another on the basis that one is damage is one is healing. Conceptually, positive and negative energy are both forms of energy that happen to have opposite effects on undead and living creatures.

I'm inclined to allow both, for philosophical reasons. To me, D&D is a co-operative game, and I tend to be more generous about neat tricks that require the PCs to co-operate.

The problem arises thus: If you can do that in both cases, why can't a cleric/rogue flank his own people and gain sneak attack bonuses to healing in all cases? Forget the specific example of cold-absorbing barbarians . . . load up on cure light wounds and sneak attack the heck out of your own people, to save higher level spell slots. (You can do it in their sleep, maybe, if the flanking sounds funny.)

Doesn't that strike you as rather . . . odd?

I personally never thought that cause x/cure x could be used for sneak attacks, but I can't remember why in terms of specific rules reasoning. Although, if you take a feat that lets you convert them into rays, IIRC rays can be used to sneak attack, so that's fine by the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, because curing them does not deal damage. It cures damage and sneak attack is specifically worded to deal extra damage. For instance, you couldn't sneak attack on a bull's strength spell.

You could deliver the Bull's Strength spell (or the Cure Light Wounds) with an unarmed strike, and get sneak attack damage on the punch!

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well doesnt a cure spell deal positive energy damage? Positive energy heals living creatures and harms undead creatures or am I missing something?

A cure spell doesn't deal positive energy damage to non-undead creatures because it's not worded that way. It's specifically worded to cure damage, not deal it. It's also specifically worded to deal damage to undead creatures so you would apply sneak attack for positive energy damage to undead only. Inflict light wounds is written in the exact reverse text, thus you cannot sneak attack an undead (even with grave strike) with an inflict light wounds spell. You could, however, sneak attack a non-undead creature with inflict light wounds, dealing extra negative energy damage.