Sneak Attack vs. DR

[shilsen]

Ummmm....How'd you get 7 points of damage from SA? Can strength be applied to SA?

3rd lvl rogue, so he does +2d6 sneak attack damage. On which he got a total of 7.

 

[Armistice]

Umm. His Rogue is 3rd level and rolls 2d6 (7) for sneak attack damage.

 

[Hawken]

Say I'm a 3rd level rogue fighting a werewolf (DR 10/silver). I hit it with my shortsword for 4 damage plus 7 damage from sneak attack. Does it take no damage (since my regular attack didn't damage it and thus the SA doesn't apply), 1 damage (the damage is added up and then the DR is subtracted from it), or 7 damage (the SA ignores the DR)?

I'm going to buck the concensus and say, in this situation, the werewolf takes no damage. Sneak attack damage is precision based damage and is added on only if you inflict damage in the first place. It's no different if you miss the target; you don't hit that "spot" so you don't do the extra damage. It's also no different when facing targets with 4 levels more than the rogue levels, they know enough to keep the rogue from hitting that "spot", so no SA damage is inflicted (unless that rule got errataed out when I wasn't looking).

If the weapon itself does not inflict enough damage to bypass damage reduction, then there is no SA damage. SA is targeting vital organs, spots, etc, and if that spot is not even damaged (because of the damage reduction), then no additional effect (SA damage) occurs.

As for the second situation, I have to go with the rest on that one. The spell completely bypasses DR, so it inflicts its standard damage plus SA damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm going to buck the concensus and say, in this situation, the werewolf takes no damage.

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.

 

[Hawken]

Hyp, I'm still going to disagree on that, and go a step further by stating that the Sage was correct with his initial sentence but then the reasoning he uses is incorrect and goes the other way.

In the example given at the beginning of the thread (Werewolf w/DR 10/silver), let's say a fighter and a rogue are attacking it.

Fighter (Str 18, weapon spec, weapon is shortsword): Attacks, hits, does 6hp damage with the sword, +4 from Str and +2 from WS, for a total of 12 hp. Two points over the DR, so only 2hp are actually inflicted from a blow that would have obliterated a goblin or orc.

Rogue (Str 10, SA +2D6, weapon is shortsword): Attacks, hits, does 6hp damage. This is well under the DR, so no damage inflicted. The rogue decides to attempt a SA (ideally, while the above fighter is attacking). His attack hits, but, again, his attack can do only 6hp damage. DR is not limited to certain parts of the anatomy, so any attack used against it has to exceed or bypass the DR regardless of where the attack lands. The attack cannot get through the werewolf's DR, so the SA damage does not get delivered. It would be the same as trying to SA a werewolf through a brick wall. The aim is good, but if the attack can't get through, it's not going to hurt the enemy.

Now, if that same Rogue had Str 14, Power Attack and tried a SA, it could be different. Rogue attacks, uses PA for -3 to hit, +3 damage, still hits. Rogue does 6hp with shortsword, +2 for Str, +3 for PA. That's 11 hp, 1 hp over the werewolf's DR. The attack caused the werewolf damage and since it did, the Rogue's SA allows him to inflict let's say an extra 10hp damage. Because the rogue was able to damage the werewolf in a vital spot, he was able to make use of the SA and inflict more damage than someone else would have.

The attack form itself has to cause damage to deliver the SA damage. The very first line of the Sage's response implicitly states this, while the rest goes off in a different direction. The SA provides bonus damage. Not increases damage, not inflicts extra damage, but provides bonus damage. To have bonus damage, there has to be some damage inflicted to begin with. Or think of it this way: To get a bonus on your paycheck, you have to have a paycheck first. Or like a snake. You don't get poisoned if the snake's bite doesn't damage you. Sneak Attacks were never special effects, the second paragraph is just a red herring to throw off the direction of the issue.

 

[glass]

Oooooooo. Beaten by a hair.

Could be worse; could be a tortoise!


glass.

 

[glass]

Now, if that same Rogue had Str 14, Power Attack and tried a SA, it could be different. Rogue attacks, uses PA for -3 to hit, +3 damage, still hits. Rogue does 6hp with shortsword, +2 for Str, +3 for PA. That's 11 hp, 1 hp over the werewolf's DR. The attack caused the werewolf damage and since it did, the Rogue's SA allows him to inflict let's say an extra 10hp damage. Because the rogue was able to damage the werewolf in a vital spot, he was able to make use of the SA and inflict more damage than someone else would have.

A short sword is a light weapon. The Rogue can PA with it if he likes, but he won't get any extra damage so its not his best move.

The attack form itself has to cause damage to deliver the SA damage. The very first line of the Sage's response implicitly states this, while the rest goes off in a different direction. The SA provides bonus damage. Not increases damage, not inflicts extra damage, but provides bonus damage. To have bonus damage, there has to be some damage inflicted to begin with.

Where are you getting this from? What is the difference between bonus damage and extra damage?

Or like a snake. You don't get poisoned if the snake's bite doesn't damage you. Sneak Attacks were never special effects, the second paragraph is just a red herring to throw off the direction of the issue.

But a snake's poison is a 'special effect', and as such is negated if you don't get through the DR. The SRD says this on the subject:

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.

Special effects delivered along with the DR are (sometimes) negated by DR. It doesn't mention anything else being negated by DR. If a SA is not a 'special effect', and you admit it isn't, then it isn't negated by DR. QED.


glass.

 

[Jhulae]

I'm on the same page as the "roll all dice (including Sneak Attack)" and subtract that from the DR.

If a rogue attacks something with DR 10/magic with a shortsword and rolls 6 damage, the DR isn't overcome. If the same rogue rolls 14 damage (including Sneak Attack) then 4 damage gets through.

To not allow the SA damage is basically saying that you wouldn't allow a Critical Hit, because a critical hit is "bonus damage".

 

[cmanos]

I'll voice my understanding as well.

Roll all the damage dice and apply the DR to the result.

 

[Hawken]

A short sword is a light weapon. The Rogue can PA with it if he likes, but he won't get any extra damage so its not his best move.

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.

Where are you getting this from?

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

But a snake's poison is a 'special effect', and as such is negated if you don't get through the DR.

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.

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.

To not allow the SA damage is basically saying that you wouldn't allow a Critical Hit, because a critical hit is "bonus damage".

No true at all. They are very similar but still different things. A critical hit is basically the weapon doing more than its normal listed damage but it is still the damage from the weapon, not from the location of its point of impact. While SA is damage specifically due to striking a vital organ (or some other specific location; vein, artery, joint, etc).

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.