Sneak Attack vs. DR

[MarkB]

See if you can follow this, glass:
A) SA damage is bonus damage inflicted on an enemy as a result of a precise strike by the rogue targeting and damaging a vital organ.
B) If the vital organ is not damaged by his precise strike, then the rogue inflicts no SA bonus damage
C) If a vital organ is damaged by his precise strike, then the rogue inflicts SA bonus damage.

D) DR protects all parts of the body equally, including vital organs.
E) If the damage of an attack does not exceed (inflict more damage than the DR protects) or bypass (by using silver, magic, holy, etc qualities) the DR, then the attack inflicts no damage to the body (including vital organs) of the creature with DR.
F) If the damage of an attack exceeds or bypasses the DR, then the attack inflicts damage on the body (including vital organs) of the creature with DR.

Both statements A and D are true. B and C can be logically reasoned from A, the same with E and F from D. So, if E, then B and if F, then C.

Can you provide rules text to back up D? I don't think it's true at all in the sense you're applying it. Damage Reduction allows creatures to shrug off a certain amount of damage, but sneak attacks - by virtue of how and where they strike - deal more damage, and are therefore harder to shrug off. There is no "initial damage" required to allow the weapon to push on through and then do secondary sneak attack damage - a sneak attack just does more damage than a normal attack, and it's all applied together in one go.

If you need an analogy to visualize this difference, here goes:

The rogue (str 12, using normal longsword, SA +2d6) attacks a werewolf (DR 10/silver). The rogue scores a normal hit. He rolls 4hp damage for the sword, +1hp damage for his strength, doing 5hp damage. This is less than the DR, so no damage is inflicted.

The next round, the rogue threatens a critical hit. It is confirmed. The rogue rolls 7hp for the sword, +1 for his strength, and then X2 for the critical hit, for a total of 16hp damage (7+1=8, 8X2=16). The damage from the rogue's sword beats the DR by 6, so the werewolf takes 6hp from the critical hit.

The next round, the rogue is able to SA and hits. He rolls 2hp damage for the sword, +1hp for his strength, for a total of 3hp damage. Again, this is not enough to beat the werewolf's DR, so the werewolf is not injured by the attack and because it took no damage (no damage to vital organs or any other body parts), the SA bonus damage is not included.

In the following round, the rogue uses Power Attack for -2 to attack, +2 damage, is able to SA again, but also confirms a critical hit. The rogue rolls 6hp damage from the sword, +2 for PA, +1 for strength, for a subtotal of 9hp which is X2 for the critical hit. His attack with his sword inflicts 18hp damage (6+2+1=9, 9X2=18). This beats the DR by 8 inflicting 8hp damage on the werewolf from the swordd and because it was a SA, which damaged the werewolf (in a vital organ), the rogue adds +12hp of SA bonus damage, for a total of 20hp damage to the werewolf.

Well, that example managed to exclude any form of analogy, or indeed anything other than a restatement of your position. Specifically, I'm not seeing anything in there which justifies treating extra damage from critical hits differently than extra damage from sneak attacks.

 

[Jarrod]

To me it's pretty easy.

Do you want people to play a rogue or not?

There are two ways to 'penetrate' DR. Either with the correct weapon, or with a lot of damage. So the combat types have ways of getting lots of damage: power attack, and sneak attack. Power attack is useable all the time, but lowers your chance of hitting; sneak attack is useable some of the time, and lowers your life expectancy

If PA damage adds, then SA damage adds. It's all the same kind of damage.

Now here's a fun one... if I sneak attack with, say, an Enervation, do you get a 1d4+4d6 negative levels?

 

[werk]

And because the reasoning behind SA bonus damage is damaging a vital organ, body part, etc., if that organ is not damaged by the initial attack, no SA bonus damage. It's no different than if the creature had no vital organ.

I think you are too hung up on sneak attack's description that it hits a vital spot. A vital spot is not defined anywhere in the rules, and could be interpreted several different ways. Since there are no called shots, it all gets lumped into DAMAGE for that single ATTACK. I don't think you can separate the two into base and bonus, such as you suggest.

 

[Rkhet]

Now here's a fun one... if I sneak attack with, say, an Enervation, do you get a 1d4+4d6 negative levels?

No. Ability damage/drain and level drain deals negative energy damage on successful SAs.

Not sure where I read that, but it's probably official.

 

[MarkB]

No. Ability damage/drain and level drain deals negative energy damage on successful SAs.

Not sure where I read that, but it's probably official.

As I understand it, only aimed spells which deal damage can deal sneak attack damage. Level drain isn't damage, so sneak attack damage shouldn't apply.

 

[glass]

You're arguing semantics and ignoring the point I was making. Forgive me for having only my PHB 3.0 handy when I made that analogy and believing that people would have enough insight to understand the point I was attempting to get across.

Semantics has nothing to do with it. I understood the point you were trying to make, and adressed it later in my post, but I was trying to be helpfull: this could have been something you (or a third partuy reading the thread) had missed.

Grammar, sentence structure, logic, reasoning, extrapolation. Take your pick.

The grammar and structure of which sentances? Logic and reasoning on what basis? Extrapolation from what?

True. And because the reasoning behind SA bonus damage is damaging a vital organ, body part, etc., if that organ is not damaged by the initial attack, no SA bonus damage. It's no different than if the creature had no vital organ.

But you are introducing an artificial separation where there is none. There is no 'initial attack', there is just the attack, which does damage.

See if you can follow this, glass:
A) SA damage is bonus damage inflicted on an enemy as a result of a precise strike by the rogue targeting and damaging a vital organ.
B) If the vital organ is not damaged by his precise strike, then the rogue inflicts no SA bonus damage
C) If a vital organ is damaged by his precise strike, then the rogue inflicts SA bonus damage.

D) DR protects all parts of the body equally, including vital organs.
E) If the damage of an attack does not exceed (inflict more damage than the DR protects) or bypass (by using silver, magic, holy, etc qualities) the DR, then the attack inflicts no damage to the body (including vital organs) of the creature with DR.
F) If the damage of an attack exceeds or bypasses the DR, then the attack inflicts damage on the body (including vital organs) of the creature with DR.

Both statements A and D are true. B and C can be logically reasoned from A, the same with E and F from D. So, if E, then B and if F, then C.

I follow you just fine, but you are begging the question. B and F say basically the same thing, so your argument assumes its own conculsion.

Since B is entirely unsupported by actuall rule, your whole argument collapses.



glass.

 

[Nail]

The next round, the rogue is able to SA and hits. He rolls 2hp damage for the sword, +1hp for his strength, for a total of 3hp damage. Again, this is not enough to beat the werewolf's DR, so the werewolf is not injured by the attack and because it took no damage (no damage to vital organs or any other body parts), the SA bonus damage is not included.

Show a rules quote that proves SA damage is not applied if the "rest of the attack" doesn't do enough damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As I understand it, only aimed spells which deal damage can deal sneak attack damage. Level drain isn't damage, so sneak attack damage shouldn't apply.

According to Complete Arcane, you can sneak attack with weaponlike spells.

Weaponlike spells are spells that:

a/ require an attack roll, and
b/ 'deal damage', where 'damage' is defined as hit point damage, ability damage, or negative levels.

The damage dealt is of the same type as the spell damage; if the spell deals ability damage or negative levels, the sneak attack instead adds Xd6 of negative energy damage.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

True. And because the reasoning behind SA bonus damage is damaging a vital organ, body part, etc., if that organ is not damaged by the initial attack, no SA bonus damage. It's no different than if the creature had no vital organ.

What do you mean by "initial attack"? An initial attack means that there is a "follow up attack" afterwards, which Sneak Attack is not. There is no "initial attack", it is all one attack.

I'd say Sneak Attack applies BECAUSE you are targetting that vital area. A werewolf has DR across it's whole body, right? So that DR is going to protect his chest as well it is going to protect more vital areas (heart, throat, brain). And sneak attack is assuming you are hitting those vital areas. DR doesn't some how make it harder to hit those vital areas, but to penetrate them. So if you hit the vital area, SA will apply (because you hit it). What you have to determine now is, was the SA enough damage to actually penetrate that vital spot. Which is when DR kicks in and is applied to all the damage as a whole.

Just to reiterate, SA assumes you HIT a vital spot, not that you necessarily do damage to it.

 

[RigaMortus2]

For what it's worth, the 3E Main FAQ addressed this question, and agrees with the consensus:

A rogue in my party has no magic weapons but did a
sneak attack against a monster with damage reduction
20/+2. How should this attack be resolved? Do I roll the
damage for the hit, add the bonus damage from the sneak
attack, then compare the total to the DR? Or is there no
sneak attack damage unless the basic attack beats the DR?

According to what I could find in the DUNGEON MASTER's
Guide, special effects from ranged or melee attacks don’t
apply unless they’re magical, such as fire damage from the
flaming weapon, or the attack that delivered the special
effect beats the DR. So, is sneak attack a special effect?

A sneak attack provides bonus damage, not a special effect.
In a sneak attack, roll the bonus damage and apply that against
the DR. For example, a rogue who hits a foe that has DR 20/+2
with a nonmagic short sword for 6 points of damage doesn’t get
through the DR. If the same rogue sneak attacks for 25 points
of damage, 5 points get through DR.

If the same rogue struck the same foe with a poisoned short
sword for 6 points of damage, the foe would not be damaged,
and the poison would not take effect because the DR stops all
the damage. The same rogue sneak attacking the same foe with
a poisoned short sword for 25 points of damage would deal 5
points to the foe and the foe would then have to save against
the poison.

-Hyp.

Is this contradictory to the other quotes though, such as:

Sometimes damage reduction is instant healing. Sometimes damage reduction represents the creature’s tough hide or body,. In either case, characters can see that conventional attacks don’t work.

The first sentence seems to suggest that with DR, the damage is dealt, but that it instantly heals. After all, how can you instantly heal something if damage isn't done? So I think we need to determine if DR is the "instantly heals" kind or the "tough hide" kind with each particular creature.

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

Again, here it says the ability to instantly heal damage. Which means you must take the damage in order to heal it.

POISON
When a character takes damage from an attack with a poisoned weapon, touches an item smeared with contact poison, consumes poisoned food or drink, or is otherwise poisoned, he must make a Fortitude saving throw. If he fails, he takes the poison’s initial damage (usually ability damage). Even if he succeeds, he typically faces more damage 1 minute later, which he can also avoid with a successful Fortitude saving throw.

This states that a character has a chance of being poisoned if they take damage from an attack with a poisoned weapon. So clearly some types of DR (the kind that "instantly heal" the damage you do) will not negate poison.