Sneak Attack + Inflict Wounds?

[Moon-Lancer]

Yes, it does.

A rogue who rolls a 3 on his shortsword damage and 13 on his sneak attack dice would deal a total of 11 points of damage to that monster: 16 - 5.

-Hyp.

ah, my mistake. I thought that sneak attack was apart of this sentience. I should have dubble checked.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Frank may have a point then. It still seems wrong though. oh well.

 

[Darklone]

People, people. This issue is easily solved by banning produce flame.

Hey, it's one of my favorite bard spells!

... fochlucan lyrist bard...

 

[hong]

... fochlucan lyrist bard...

No swearing around here, thank you.

 

[Darklone]

No swearing around here, thank you.

I wrote the rouge right.

 

[DreadArchon]

ah, my mistake. I thought that sneak attack was apart of this sentience. I should have dubble checked.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Frank may have a point then. It still seems wrong though. oh well.

So you think that having a sword shoved through your arm counts as damage but having a sword shoved through your spine doesn't? I don't get your complaint here. Sneak Attack is the damage. Why would losing 5 points of pointy bit damage negate the other thirty?

Edit: Ooh, I think I get it. You're saying that an unsilvered sword shouldn't be able to penetrate a devil's hide, much less strike its vitals, or something like that--right? I can almost see that, except that many entries describe Damage Reduction as "instant regeneration," so you should still be able to do more damage than they can instantly regenerate by hitting the right spot.

 

[James McMurray]

If a Hill Giant can sunder my lightsaber without hitting my fingers, a Brilliant Energy weapon shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[moritheil]

Why not? Sneak is part of the damage of the attack and thus would be reduced by a successful save.

It's the same type of damage, but where do you get that it's part of the same damage that gets reduced by a successful save? Is there rules text on this?

How do you sunder a Brilliant Energy sword, anyway? It's made out of Brilliant Energy that doesn't interact with other swords.

Be a monk?

People, people. This issue is easily solved by banning produce flame.

I wasn't aware that you did self-parody too!

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Disarm your opponents don't sudner! That destroys your loot.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Edit: Ooh, I think I get it. You're saying that an unsilvered sword shouldn't be able to penetrate a devil's hide, much less strike its vitals, or something like that--right? I can almost see that, except that many entries describe Damage Reduction as "instant regeneration," so you should still be able to do more damage than they can instantly regenerate by hitting the right spot.

Well thats what I was thinking conceptually, and I thought it was in the rules, but it wasen't.

I think it still stands though that their are no rules to say that sneak attack is apart of the damage that gets a save for half. I keep thinking that if a fist was used to deliver the inflict wounds, that the fists damage wouldn't get a save for half damage, so why should the sneak attack?

I know its a weak argument and is most likely fallacious, but i keep coming back to that, as hard as I try not to.