Complete Arcane - Whirling Blade

[Caliban]

Since you're effectively mentally directing the weapon for each attack, I don't see how it would be more difficult to aim the second attack as opposed to the first.

Then why can't you get multiple sneak attacks with a scorching ray or Manyshot?

 

[Taloras]

Then why can't you get multiple sneak attacks with a scorching ray or Manyshot?

This spell is nothing like scorching ray or manyshot. This spell is not a ray. It is not firing more than one arrow. Its one blade flying to strike everyone along the line.

 

[Caliban]

This spell is nothing like scorching ray or manyshot. This spell is not a ray. It is not firing more than one arrow. Its one blade flying to strike everyone along the line.

Please read my previous post on the subject, I don't feel like repeating myself. The points you mention are not why they don't do multiple sneak attacks.

 

[BadMojo]

Then why can't you get multiple sneak attacks with a scorching ray or Manyshot?

I know Skip has officially ruled that spells that require multiple attack rolls are considered volley attacks and only get the sneak attack roll on the first strike, but from a purely logical perspective it doesn't make sense. Chalk it up to a game design decision, I guess.

I don't see it as a game breaker, even though it can be exploited as you mentioned with greater invis. etc. I tend to agree with Elder Basilisk as far as the usefulness of the spell goes. Most of the time it seems like it would be a waste of resources.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a

 

[andargor]

As a side note, I don't have any personal feelings about DMs playing this spell one way or another. But I do enjoy the academic endeavor to determine what is a house rule and what is RAW.

I disagree with you on the DR question. The spell allows neither SR nor ST, so the damage is just non-magical slashing damage like any other weapon attack.

Andargor - would you apply DR to the damage of a weapon under the effects of a Dancing Blade spell? (CArc - effectively gives a weapon the Dancing quality temporarily.)

What about an axe hurled by means of a Telekinesis spell?

I'm going to put my "strict reading" hat on.

Special Spell Effects
...
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

This is a fairly broad statement, indicating that any use of a spell to harm or hamper another is an "attack", save for summoning.

Damage Reduction
...
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

This is also a very broad statement saying that any attacks by spells ignore damage reduction. Notice the mention that "even nonmagical fire" is included. Hence, Conjuration (Creation) spells that allow no save and no SR qualify for this clause, even if the result or effect is nonmagical.

First, Hyp's examples:

Dancing Blade has a Target entry of "One Sword". It is fairly clear that although this is an attack, the spell is cast on the sword. Ergo, damage reduction would apply.

Telekinesis is similar: Target object(s) are indicated that can be hurled. Much the same situation as above. However, if you fling a creature against a wall, it is disputable if DR would apply, since you are "harming or hampering" it directly.

Some other spells for you:

Black Tentacles: it specifies an Area, doesn't allow saves or SR, but it does ignore DR.

Mage's Faithful Hound: It's an Effect (Phantom Watchdog), so all indications are that DR would not apply.

Wall of Thorns: No save, no SR. Effect, wall of thorny brush. "Harming and hampering" pretty clear here, no DR.

However whirling blade is a bit of an inconsistency: you are hurling a weapon (as the telekinesis example), but it's actually an Area spell. It says "Effect", but a 60-ft. Line is an Area, confusing. Technically, I would say that DR doesn't apply, but I could see why a DM would allow it considering how poorly the spell is written.

My humble opinion, and all that.

Andargor

 

[Tzarevitch]

This could be a basis for DM's disallowing or limiting sneak attacks with whirling blade:



It's weak, but I believe that picking out a vital spot past a certain distance would be difficult, especially since the targets are in line. Certainly, sneak attack on the first target in the line, but after that I don't think so, IMHO.

Also, since it's a spell, I don't think Damage Reduction would apply...

Andargor

I am not sure where all the argument is coming from. By the rules, the caster would get sneak attack against all targets assuming the caster can satisfy ALL the other terms of melee sneak attack rules against ALL applicable targets. The text says basically that attacks are all resolved as melee attacks per all the normal melee attack rules except that they can only be done out to 60' in a straight line and with the specific other conditions and exceptions that the spell states. That means sneak attack applies to all targets that the caster could generate melee sneak attacks against.

Note that the spell does not grant the caster any ability to flank at range or otherwise deny the target his dex. Consequently, the caster would need additional help to inflict sneak attack damage unless he won initiative and flat-footed his foes. Deciding that sneak attack only applies to the first target is a house rule. The DM is perfectly free to rule that but it is a house rule.

Similarly, deciding that sneak attack applies only to the first 30' is a house rule. Again the DM is perfectly free to rule that but it is a house rule because the description says that the attacks are treated as melee attacks (with the listed exceptions) not ranged sneak attacks.

As for DR. It applies per the weapon. As I recall the spell is cast on the weapon which then flies out and inflicts the damage. The damage is resolved as a normal melee attack with the exceptions that the spell specifically states. You couldn't SR the weapon normally and the spell doesn't grant you the ability to do it now (by text or by implication).

Personally, I think what is actually in dispute is whether or not the spell should or should not grant sneak attack damage out to its full range and to how many foes (a matter on which I have no particular opinion) not whether it does, and the discussion should be framed in that context.

Tzarevitch

 

[Markn]

I am not sure where all the argument is coming from. By the rules, the caster would get sneak attack against all targets assuming the caster can satisfy ALL the other terms of melee sneak attack rules against ALL applicable targets. The text says basically that attacks are all resolved as melee attacks per all the normal melee attack rules except that they can only be done out to 60' in a straight line and with the specific other conditions and exceptions that the spell states. That means sneak attack applies to all targets that the caster could generate melee sneak attacks against.

Similarly, deciding that sneak attack applies only to the first 30' is a house rule. Again the DM is perfectly free to rule that but it is a house rule because the description says that the attacks are treated as melee attacks (with the listed exceptions) not ranged sneak attacks.

Personally, I think what is actually in dispute is whether or not the spell should or should not grant sneak attack damage out to its full range and to how many foes (a matter on which I have no particular opinion) not whether it does, and the discussion should be framed in that context.

Tzarevitch

One thing I might add is that sneak attacks requires an attack with some precision. We all know that in darkness, there are no sneak attacks because one can't see the opponent well enough to sneak attack. The same could be said for whirling blade beyond the first 'victim'. After the first attack you no longer can see the opponent well enough to make further sneak attacks. Although this is not a direct correlation of the rules it can be extrapolated from existing rules of cover. If something is providing cover then you can only see that opponent partially. If you can only seen him partially it makes it that much more difficult to sneak attack that person. Stands to reason to me. Some will argue that cover does not affect this melee attack but remember it is cover from the characters line of sight to the person he is attacking that is negating the sneak attack. This is how I have house ruled it but the rules seem to support it to some degree. YMMV.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents since my last campaign dealt with this spell a lot!

 

[likuidice]

Also remember that damage reduction doesnt apply to touch attacks, so the wraithstrike combo also overcomes DR.

 

[Tzarevitch]

One thing I might add is that sneak attacks requires an attack with some precision. We all know that in darkness, there are no sneak attacks because one can't see the opponent well enough to sneak attack. The same could be said for whirling blade beyond the first 'victim'. After the first attack you no longer can see the opponent well enough to make further sneak attacks. Although this is not a direct correlation of the rules it can be extrapolated from existing rules of cover. If something is providing cover then you can only see that opponent partially. If you can only seen him partially it makes it that much more difficult to sneak attack that person. Stands to reason to me. Some will argue that cover does not affect this melee attack but remember it is cover from the characters line of sight to the person he is attacking that is negating the sneak attack. This is how I have house ruled it but the rules seem to support it to some degree. YMMV.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents since my last campaign dealt with this spell a lot!

That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation under the "soft cover" rules. The rules do cover melee attacks against targets that are "not adjacent to you", and they state that they are treated as missile attacks with regard to cover. Note however that interpretation means that all targets after the first also receive the +4 cover bonus to their armor class.

Tzarevitch

 

[Hypersmurf]

Mage's Faithful Hound: It's an Effect (Phantom Watchdog), so all indications are that DR would not apply.

"The dog is considered ready to bite intruders, so it delivers its first bite on the intruder’s turn. Its bite is the equivalent of a magic weapon for the purpose of damage reduction."

Doesn't that suggest that while it will bypass DR X/Magic, it won't bypass DR X/Evil, X/Slashing, X/Silver, or any other DR except X/Piercing?

-Hyp.