Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jontherev" data-source="post: 3689934" data-attributes="member: 1451">Yes, you are.&nbsp; You're still trying to knock your opponent out as fast as possible, but the damage is non-lethal...you're just not trying to KILL your opponent.That's certainly your call to make, especially if you are DM, but I disagree.&nbsp; And you are fine as long as you are attacking in melee in any case.&nbsp; I think the word opponent can easily be used to consture any creature that you are striking.&nbsp; If you stabbed me in the middle of a combat, I sure as heck might consider you my opponent (how do I know you aren't charmed or something?).&nbsp; Again, this is not spelled out in the rules, and that's what a DM is for.&nbsp; Besides, I think it's way too convenient to say that you meant to use sneak attack on the bad guy, just because you lucked out on the random roll, and not when the roll goes against you and you strike your buddy instead.&nbsp; In this case, as a DM, I might house rule that if you want to use non-lethal damage (and take the -4 penalty to hit), then you can opt to not use your sneak attack damage, even though your opponent and ally would normally be dealt it automatically.&nbsp; To me, that represents that despite the loss of dex bonus on the grappling creatures, you are being very careful to avoid striking vital areas.Does anyone know whether or sneak attack can actually be &quot;turned on or off&quot;?&nbsp; Although in the sneak attack description, it has this: &quot;If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.&quot;The following passage seems to have more strong language that tells me it is the creature struck that determines whether or not sneak attack damage applies:&quot;The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.&quot;I know this is going a bit off topic, so sorry about that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jontherev, post: 3689934, member: 1451"] Yes, you are. You're still trying to knock your opponent out as fast as possible, but the damage is non-lethal...you're just not trying to KILL your opponent. That's certainly your call to make, especially if you are DM, but I disagree. And you are fine as long as you are attacking in melee in any case. I think the word opponent can easily be used to consture any creature that you are striking. If you stabbed me in the middle of a combat, I sure as heck might consider you my opponent (how do I know you aren't charmed or something?). Again, this is not spelled out in the rules, and that's what a DM is for. Besides, I think it's way too convenient to say that you meant to use sneak attack on the bad guy, just because you lucked out on the random roll, and not when the roll goes against you and you strike your buddy instead. In this case, as a DM, I might house rule that if you want to use non-lethal damage (and take the -4 penalty to hit), then you can opt to not use your sneak attack damage, even though your opponent and ally would normally be dealt it automatically. To me, that represents that despite the loss of dex bonus on the grappling creatures, you are being very careful to avoid striking vital areas. Does anyone know whether or sneak attack can actually be "turned on or off"? Although in the sneak attack description, it has this: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she [U]can[/U] strike a vital spot for extra damage." The following passage seems to have more strong language that tells me it is the creature struck that determines whether or not sneak attack damage applies: "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target." I know this is going a bit off topic, so sorry about that. [/QUOTE]

Verification