Precision damage such as SA and penalties

[Sal]

I was designing a dwarf rogue fighter using twin dwarven waraxes. I got
into a discussion with my friend who might be starting a new campaign.
We looked up precision damage and it stated

An attacker can deal precision damage with any weapon
he can wield, but he must wield that weapon in the
optimal way. If an attacker takes the –4 penalty to deal
nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon, for example, no
precision damage is possible.​

So any penalty to attack would negate the SA damage? such as 2WF
or power attack?

I haven't ever read anything stateing this. I disagree with that ruling, but
it could definatly be interpreted that way. Anybody ever bring this up
before?

Thanks from Sal

 

[Jackinthegreen]

From looking at SA I'd say TWF would work just fine since the wording implies optimal use means only holding yourself back from doing lethal damage.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

First of all, where did you read this? The Fail Rules Compendium?

The rule is that a Rogue needs a weapon that can actually deal nonlethal damage normally to do nonlethal sneak attack damage, and vice-versa (a lethal weapon to do lethal SA damage). Normally, you can just take a -4 to hit to get the other type, but with SA you cannot. That's the rule, nothing more.

It has nothing to do with penalties preventing SA.

On a side note, I'd STRONGLY advise you to not dual weild dwarven waraxes, or any other one-handed weapons, with a Rogue. The extra -2 to hit on each weapon is really not worth the d10 base damage.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

First of all, where did you read this? The Fail Rules Compendium?

The rule is that a Rogue needs a weapon that can actually deal nonlethal damage normally to do nonlethal sneak attack damage, and vice-versa (a lethal weapon to do lethal SA damage). Normally, you can just take a -4 to hit to get the other type, but with SA you cannot. That's the rule, nothing more.

It has nothing to do with penalties preventing SA.

On a side note, I'd STRONGLY advise you to not dual weild dwarven waraxes, or any other one-handed weapons, with a Rogue. The extra -2 to hit on each weapon is really not worth the d10 base damage.

Oversized Two Weapon Fighting says hi.

And it's in the PHB under the Rogue's Sneak Attack.

 

[Sal]

First of all, where did you read this? The Fail Rules Compendium?

The rule is that a Rogue needs a weapon that can actually deal nonlethal damage normally to do nonlethal sneak attack damage, and vice-versa (a lethal weapon to do lethal SA damage). Normally, you can just take a -4 to hit to get the other type, but with SA you cannot. That's the rule, nothing more.

It has nothing to do with penalties preventing SA.

On a side note, I'd STRONGLY advise you to not dual weild dwarven waraxes, or any other one-handed weapons, with a Rogue. The extra -2 to hit on each weapon is really not worth the d10 base damage.

I don't think there would be an additional -2 penalty for using 2DWaraxe
with oversized two weapon fighting as the dwarf would get DWaraxe as
a 1 handed martial weapon as a 1st level fighter. Is this right? Should i
avoid 2WF altogether. The optimized rogue builds suggest 2WF.

Thanks for the help.

Sincerely from Sal

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Oversized Two Weapon Fighting says hi.

And it's in the PHB under the Rogue's Sneak Attack.

1. Yes, there is Oversized TWF, if that book's allowed, which I didn't know. You're paying a precious feat for +2 damage in the off hand over a short sword. Or +2 in both if you're actually going for Weapon Focus-based feats and need the same weapon in each hand. Of course there's also the Dwarven Urgosh if so... I think there are better things to do with your feats, but as long as you take this, twin waraxes isn't crazy.

2. No, it's not. The Rogue entry says:
"With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty."

That is not at all what the OP's quote said. The OP's quote is extremely vague and opens the door to all sorts of stupid and punitive DM restrictions.

 

[Sal]

1. Yes, there is Oversized TWF, if that book's allowed, which I didn't know. You're paying a precious feat for +2 damage in the off hand over a short sword. Or +2 in both if you're actually going for Weapon Focus-based feats and need the same weapon in each hand. Of course there's also the Dwarven Urgosh if so... I think there are better things to do with your feats, but as long as you take this, twin waraxes isn't crazy.

2. No, it's not. The Rogue entry says:
"With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty."

That is not at all what the OP's quote said. The OP's quote is extremely vague and opens the door to all sorts of stupid and punitive DM restrictions.

The main thing is the quote from the rules compendium says for example,
which opens the door for interpretation. The bottom line is I want the
common view from players on this. I think what i am trying to do is legal,
but i need support from others to convince my potential DM on this.

Actually, he thinks you can PA with SA, but possibly not 2WF.

What should the ruling be?

Sal

 

[Jackinthegreen]

It's in the Rules Compendium, page 42.

As far as this build is concerned though, if SA and other non-weapon damage is the primary damage source then OTWF is somewhat wasted since other feats will benefit the build more. YMMV of course, Sal.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The rule is, you can power attack and sneak attack just fine. Ditto for TWF. But as I said, that godawful quote leaves things open for "interpretation." It's stupid re-wordings and rules changes, almost always for the worse, that is why I passionately ignore the Rules Compendium's existence and encourage everyone else to do the same. Terrible book. It's pretty sad when I've never actually read it and only know about it from page/section quotes on this forum that I can look at a sentence of incredibly poor rules language and immediately guess the exact book it was spewed from.

Anyway...if your DM thinks this means you can't take any attack penalties and still sneak attack, you're best off just saving your rogue concept for a future game. I know it sucks to not play something you really want to in that moment, but some games feature rules that just make your character concept unplayable, or at such a severe disadvantage that it'll significantly detract from your enjoyment.

 

[Dandu]

Sneak attacking while Power Attacking means you swing really hard at the enemy's balls.