Clerics & Sneak attacks

[Clumsy Bob]

Yes! another sneak attack question.
Would a cleric/rogue casting a inflict wounds spell, get sneak attack damage on top?
My big question is, if the answer to the above question is yes. Would a cleric casting harm get sneak attack damage on top! lose all but 1d4 hp then lose xd6 in sneak attack?

Thanks in advance

Bob

 

[Geoff Watson]

Yes to the first question, No to the second (Harm doesn't do damage, it reduces the victims hit points).

Geoff.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While I personally agree that Harm isn't eligible for SA damage, there is room for argument.

The wording of Harm and the glossary definitions of damage and of hit points show marked similarity - a reduction in hit points could be argued to be the very definition of damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Could be argued... but a Strength penalty is not the same as temporary strength damage...

See FAQ ray of enfeeblement question with metamagick feats...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ray of Enfeeblement inflicts a penalty. Penalties are clearly defined.

Harm "causes the loss of hit points".

Damage is "a decrease in hit points etc caused by injury, illness, or magical effect".

Current hit points "go down when the character sufers damage".

Harm does not cause a penalty, either temporary or permanent - the escription of its effect is the same as the description of damage.

Like I say, I'm happy that it's not damage... but that it's not cut-and-dried and requires a decision.

-Hyp.

 

[DreamChaser]

Every form of damage in the game except harm (and perhaps a similar spell or two) is a specified amount, usually listed in dice (such as 5d8+1 per level). Harm does not do an amount of damage. It reduces the health of a body (any body, regardless of other abilties) to a fixed point near death. I think that the victim takes damage as an effect of the spell, but that the spell does not do damage for purposes of being able to add on sneak attack damage.

And I would really be leery of giving Sneak Attack to inflict spells anyway. It seems like the targeting of vital areas is irrelevant to negative energy (I will negative energy the approximiate place where your liver is; that will slow you down).

Just me though.
DC

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, Dreamcatcher has a point. Other touch spells tend to deliver some sort of elemental damage so hitting a vulnerable spot makes sense. The way the inflict spells work, it seems to matter less where you touch them rather than simply touching them and filling them with negative energy. Then again, if the negative energy coursing through your body entered through your eye I could see that as hurting more than through your arm. I dunno - never really seen an inflict spell work

IceBear

 

[hammymchamham]

Does harm have a critical if the touch attack roll is a Natural 20? No. So it wouldn't deal sneak attack. But if I use a inflict spell and roll a Natural 20, I have the possibility of doing a critical hit and will do sneak attack (if I have the ability)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does harm have a critical if the touch attack roll is a Natural 20? No.

Well, that would depend on whether or not it's a weaponlike spell... ie, a spell with an attack roll (which it has) that causes damage (which is what's being debated).

-Hyp.

 

[Christian]

I think that's his point, small, blue, and hyper. If harm inflicts damage, it should inflict double damage on a confirmed critical hit. Which would be ...

a) reduce the opponent to 1d2 hit points. ( )
b) reduce the opponents hit points by twice his current hit points, minus 2d4. ( )
c) um, I dunno ...