Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 2090004" data-attributes="member: 20740">It means that if the spell causes ability damage (ray of enfeeblement does not, but if it did) a sneak attack would not cause an additional +1d6 points of Strength damage, but instead would cause an additional +1d6 points of damage from negative energy (as if hit by a cause light wounds or something).Look at it another way.&nbsp; You have a 0-level spell, &quot;ray of red&quot;.&nbsp; Ranged touch attack, turns the target red for 1 round/level of caster.&nbsp; No save.&nbsp; If the rogue sneak attacks with it or if you get a critical, the target does not get any more red.&nbsp; The target doesn't take an additional +5d6 red.&nbsp; It just works just as normal.With ray of enfeeblement, it's the same thing.&nbsp; The spell never causes damage.&nbsp; Nowhere does it indicate or imply that the spell causes damage of any kind whatsoever.&nbsp; So there's no more reason to apply sneak attack/critical damage to ray of enfeeblement than there is to apply it to ray of red.[edit] To Mistwell:&nbsp; I'd like to think describing the argument from the other direction (a spell that in fact would never be conceived to cause sneak attack damage) is a worthy addition to the thread.&nbsp; I could be wrong....And I never read the whole thread before posting; I'd never be able to keep track of the posts I was responding to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="reanjr, post: 2090004, member: 20740"] It means that if the spell causes ability damage (ray of enfeeblement does not, but if it did) a sneak attack would not cause an additional +1d6 points of Strength damage, but instead would cause an additional +1d6 points of damage from negative energy (as if hit by a cause light wounds or something). Look at it another way. You have a 0-level spell, "ray of red". Ranged touch attack, turns the target red for 1 round/level of caster. No save. If the rogue sneak attacks with it or if you get a critical, the target does not get any more red. The target doesn't take an additional +5d6 red. It just works just as normal. With ray of enfeeblement, it's the same thing. The spell never causes damage. Nowhere does it indicate or imply that the spell causes damage of any kind whatsoever. So there's no more reason to apply sneak attack/critical damage to ray of enfeeblement than there is to apply it to ray of red. [edit] To Mistwell: I'd like to think describing the argument from the other direction (a spell that in fact would never be conceived to cause sneak attack damage) is a worthy addition to the thread. I could be wrong. ... And I never read the whole thread before posting; I'd never be able to keep track of the posts I was responding to. [/QUOTE]

Verification