RotG: Sneak Attack IV

[Chroma]

Sick idea
Just some slight problems: First, a tanglefoot bag isn't a spell. Second, Skip explicitely mentions what qualifies a spell for potential sneak attacks.

Tanglefoot bags reduce the dexterity, but it isn't technically ability damage. No use for sneak attacks here. Even a hit to the head on a critical and thus suffocation damage seems out of line, as the characters is definitely aiming at his feet...

Yes, it's sick. *laugh* But this isn't about tanglefoot bags (or alchemist's fire) being spells, but of their being weapons. (And some might aim them for the groin... sorry Eric's Grandma!)

Reading the sneak attack description, as well as the review of the basic conditions required for it in the articles, the use of alchemist's fire or a tanglefoot bag meets the listed requirements if used against a flat-footed foe (say that ten times fast!). It's an attack with a weapon being used optimally, there is no indication that the weapon has to do "damage"; it's implied, but not spelled out anywhere. And these items are weapons, "splash weapons" specifically. If damage is required for a sneak attack to take effect, that still allows for alchemist's fire to cause sneak attack damage on a direct hit.

Any refutations?

BTW, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here or anything, just that my players *hate* rules debates, but, to me, they can be fun! *laugh*

 

[mhd]

So you roll your spell damage, then roll your sneak attack damage, and then the DM reminds you that undead are immune to sneak attacks and critical hits, so he ignores all your sneak damage...

Well, that's what this is about. If you sneak with enervation, your sneak attack causes negative energy damage. If you inflict wounds, you probably cause additional negative energy damage, too.

Now, with cure wounds, it can be implied that you cause additional positive energy damage. To which undead are susceptible. Will/half, of course.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, with cure wounds, it can be implied that you cause additional positive energy damage. To which undead are susceptible. Will/half, of course.

He's susceptible to positive energy... but he's immune to sneak attacks.

A skeleton takes lethal damage from a mace. That doesn't mean you can sneak attack him with it.

A skeleton takes lethal damage from Cure Light Wounds. That doesn't mean you can sneak attack him with it.

If you have a feat that allows you to sneak attack undead, then yes, you could sneak attack with Cure Light Wounds. Or a mace.

But in the absence of any such special ability, undead are immune to sneak attacks. Whether they're with a mace or with a Cure spell.

-Hyp.

 

[Hardhead]

Well, that's what this is about. If you sneak with enervation, your sneak attack causes negative energy damage. If you inflict wounds, you probably cause additional negative energy damage, too.

Now, with cure wounds, it can be implied that you cause additional positive energy damage. To which undead are susceptible. Will/half, of course.

Undead are also susceptible to physical damage, fire damage, and most other types of damage. But you don't get SA damage with them, either.

EDIT: Hyp beat me to it. Damn, he's fast!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp beat me to it. Damn, he's fast!

Funny thing is, the timestamps say it was nearly forty minutes between his post and my reply.

So I'm not really that fast...

... just faster than you!

-Hyp.

 

[mhd]

Right, kinda confused that one. No vitals to target. Suffusing the inner core of their undeadhood with positive energy would be to meta-physical -- in addition to the question why rogues should be of an advantage here. Hello PrC...

So one can assume that a evil cleric/rogue sneak-inflicting wounds is just targeting the vital spots with negative energy. It's not more negative energy, it's just more negative energy damage.

Hmm... what about sneaking critters with damage reduction using a torch? Would that be an additional Xd6 fire damage? Hard to picture. But if fire spells work that way...

 

[Scharlata]

Hmmm..... I wondered those days if I got it right....

I read that you can't sneak when you have a miss chance (even as meagerly as 20%) from concealment.

And then I read that you must have concealment to hide yourself.

So when are you able to sneak from a hiding position (and I don't point at the "hide in plain sight" option)?

If I'm standing on a square that has shadowy illumination to strike at a target that stands in normal light, what do I have to do? Do I have a chance to sneak my opponent? Is it the other way around? Must I stand in bright light to sneak a hidden foe?

Kind regards

 

[mhd]

You got that wrong, if you're hidden that way, you don't have a 20% miss chance, your opponents do.

 

[Trainz]

If you have a feat that allows you to sneak attack undead, then yes, you could sneak attack with Cure Light Wounds. Or a mace.

I can't WAIT for WotC to publish a mechanic that would allow rogues to sneak attack things immune to crits. It would make playing a rogue much more interesting.

I would like that mechanic to be costly though. I'm not talking about a single feat that allows you to sneak everything at no cost. I know I could house-rule something, but my group are suckers for "core" stuff.

Wishful thinking ? :\

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I'm standing on a square that has shadowy illumination to strike at a target that stands in normal light, what do I have to do?

With a melee attack against an adjacent opponent, it's very clear - you have concealment, he does not.

With a ranged attack (or reach attack), there are some interpretation issues.

CONCEALMENT
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.

VISION AND LIGHT
In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character.

So is an empty-but-shadowy square a "square that provides concealment"?

If so, then shooting through a shadowy square at a target who's in a brightly-lit square grants the target concealment (since a line from your square passes through a square or border that provides concealment).

If not, then the target doesn't have concealment, and sneak attacking him is fine.

-Hyp.