Pyro, Alchemist's Fire, and a Rogue...

[The Cardinal]

Is this correct?

- attacking with a grenade-like weapon, say Alchemist's Fire, is treated like a ranged touch attack.

- a rogue can use Alchemist's Fire to make a Sneak Attack *if* the usual conditions for a SA are met. This SA damage is the same typ of fire damage as from the Alchemist's Fire.

- the Pyro feat from Song & Silence gives +1 damage *per damage dice* to fire damage from attacks that actually set someone or something on fire (Alchemist's Fire is given as an example).


*If* this is correct then a rogue (armed with Alchemist's Fire) with, for example, +5d6 SA, , and the Pyro feat would do 6d6+6 fire damage on a successful SA!
Nice

 

[IceBear]

I believe it is rules correct, but I don't think I would allow a sneak attack with a grenade-like weapon. A sneak attack is an attack that is focused on a vital area. I just don't see being able to focus a grenade that well. Sure, it might hit him in the head as opposed to the legs, I suppose, but it just doesn't seem right to me - with grenade weapons, I mean.

IceBear

 

[StealthyMark]

But we allow touch sneak attacks with spells, for example Ray of Frost. The same rogue could use a wand, or have one level of sorcerer.

There is a very fine line between a ranged touch attack to hit with a spell and a ranged touch attack to hit with a grenadelike weapon. The first one is a standard action, the character can do it once per round. The latter is an attack action, the rogue could do it up to 5 times per round (Quickdraw or HHH, BAB +16, Rapid Shot). Hence, I'd disallow it.

 

[Forrester]

But we allow touch sneak attacks with spells, for example Ray of Frost. The same rogue could use a wand, or have one level of sorcerer.

There is a very fine line between a ranged touch attack to hit with a spell and a ranged touch attack to hit with a grenadelike weapon. The first one is a standard action, the character can do it once per round. The latter is an attack action, the rogue could do it up to 5 times per round (Quickdraw or HHH, BAB +16, Rapid Shot). Hence, I'd disallow it.

Who is "we"? I don't allow it in my campaign -- I refuse to believe that a cantrip whose flavor-picture is a wizard freezing a damned ROSE should be able to be used to freeze someone's eyes or brain for 20 or 30pts of damage on a sneak attack.

But technically, you're supposed to allow both that, and ranged sneak attacks with alchemist's fire.

IMHO, neither makes sense -- and the alchemist's fire bit makes the least sense. I encourage Rule 0'ing both possibilities away -- especially the latter.

 

[IceBear]

But we allow touch sneak attacks with spells, for example Ray of Frost. The same rogue could use a wand, or have one level of sorcerer.

There is a very fine line between a ranged touch attack to hit with a spell and a ranged touch attack to hit with a grenadelike weapon. The first one is a standard action, the character can do it once per round. The latter is an attack action, the rogue could do it up to 5 times per round (Quickdraw or HHH, BAB +16, Rapid Shot). Hence, I'd disallow it.

Yes, but I see spells as being more "focused" than a grenade-like weapon. You'll notice that most spells that can be used for sneak attacks seem to be similar to a laser beam if you will.

Again, I would say by the rules it's allowed, I just have a hard time seeing someone focus a grenade-like weapon as they could a weapon or spell.

And, yes, I know very well that Forrester wouldn't allow either.

IceBear

 

[Lord Ben]

There is a big difference between having the alch fire explode against your armor or on your shield and having it explode against your face. I'd allow the sneak attack...

It costs 20gp per, why not allow it? Is it that overpowered compared to a dagger?

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, that's true. Like I said, it was just my gut reaction, not a rule one.

IceBear

 

[Forrester]

There is a big difference between having the alch fire explode against your armor or on your shield and having it explode against your face. I'd allow the sneak attack...

It costs 20gp per, why not allow it? Is it that overpowered compared to a dagger?

Yes, because it's a touch attack that can ignore armor.

*duh*

 

[IceBear]

So far, my experience with 3E is that attack bonus far outweigh defensive ones so bypassing armor isn't as big a deal as I once thought it was. Anyway, I'm not getting back into this with you Forrester. You don't like it and I don't mind it. If I can throw a dagger at a flatfooted giant and do 1d4+10d6 points of damage then I can do it with a spell too (yes, it might be harder to do than with a spell - since I can't ignore armor - but I still would think that the chances of me missing with the dagger throw is also very slim - and I can throw more than one).

IceBear

 

[Forrester]

Yes, well, with this Pyro feat a 9th level rogue will be doing 12d6+12 points of damage to a flat-footed Frost Giant.

That's an average of 54pts of damage PER flask of alchemist's fire. Work in quick-draw and other stupidity, and one 9th level rogue with Improved Invisibility and a Bag of Holding w/Alchemist's Fires can kill off an entire gang of Frost Giants in three or four rounds.

Yeah. He got him in the eyes, right? That must be it.

I agree. Let's not fight this a second time .