Sneak Attack + Touch Spells... Sneak Harm ?

[SpikeyFreak]

I'm just glad that clerics don't have access to, say, haste and magic missile...

I think you need to take a closer look at a certain temporal domain in FRCS.

--Timely Spikey

 

[Cloudgatherer]

A cleric can already cast harm + quickened inflict... bye bye most creatures.

 

[Darkness]

I think you need to take a closer look at a certain temporal domain in FRCS.

--Timely Spikey

...which is only available to clerics of Grumbar and Labelas Enoreth, and still necessitates a good attack spell (preferably one that doesn't need an attack roll or grant a save). But yeah, almost anything can be done in 3e; you just need the right combination of classes, feats, magic items, etc. What I meant was that they don't usually have access to it; I know that it's possible if you try hard enough. Case in point, a cleric needs only a 5th-level wizard buddy to cast haste on him, or else he could buy a potion of haste. And if he's got at least one Rogue level (e.g., for getting sneak attack damage, like is the topic of this thread anyway), he could activate a wand of magic missiles with the Use Magic Device skill...

 

[Gez]

What about: You do the unarmed/Sneak/Whatever damage and THEN apply the Harm Spell, which brings the victims HP to 1d4

That was point 2 of my initial post.

I think that I'll use the rule of thumb given by Ywain: sneak attacks only if crits are possible. Although I believe there's no crits possible on energy drain, yet sneak attacks are allowed on an energy drain spell with attack roll. Oh well.

 

[Ywain]

Yeah it was a rule of thumb. So energy drain and ability damage (not just reduction) are also eligible for sneak attack, if I recall correctly. But the usual case is a damage dealing spell.

You still have to sort out for yourself which comes first the spell or the unarmed strike damage, but that's easily house-ruled. Because they are technically simultaneous, but cannot be so in actuality, in my campaign there is a 50% chance of either coming first.

It would probably be more balanced to just say that unarmed strike damage always comes first, but I like a dramatic, heroic sort of game.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Personally, I do think it's open to some question whether harm does "damage" as such.

It's worth considering, because if it does, at the level where you're casting harm in the first place, it will often do massive damage (that is, 50 hp or more). Which opens the question of whether harm should be routinely eliciting a saving throw to avoid instant death in addition to its other (admittedly near-fatal) effects.

 

[Carpe DM]

Yes, you could do it.

But, you do damage and then discharge the spell.

Which means you do damage first, then discharge the harm. The sneak attack does no good.

best,

Carpe

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Personally, I do think it's open to some question whether harm does "damage" as such.

The spell doesn't do damage by the D&D3E definition of doing damage.

I mean of course it does damage, afterwards you have less HP. But for things that depend on a spell doing damage, harm doesn't meet the req's.

--Unintuitive Spikey

 

[Ywain]

Yes, you could do it.

But, you do damage and then discharge the spell.

Which means you do damage first, then discharge the harm. The sneak attack does no good.

best,

Carpe

Except, as I noted earlier, if you are attacking for subdual damage then the sneak attack will be +Xd6 subdual damage. Any time that your accumulated subdual damage is greater than your current HP you fall unconscious.

So you rack up 15 points of subdual damage on your opponent then drop them down to 4 HP, and they will slump to the ground. You can perform a coup de grace at your leisure.

 

[Moleculo]

What about slay living combined with a sneak attack? They make the save they take atleast 9d6 + 9 damage.


jake