Sneak Attacks on Rays

[Eccles]

I'm starting a new campaign, so naturally my players are busy coming up with new ways to be utter munchkins.

The latest proposal is to have a rogue/mage using rays of frost to get ranged sneak attack damage.

I've allowed this so far, with the following restrictions: -

1. You have to be within 30 feet, as usual.
2. The target must have no Dex bonus against your attack.
3. You have to beat the target's armour value to get the sneak attack damage (you can't get the extra damage for hitting the enemy's vitals if the ray smacks into their full-plate armour).
4. If you merely hit with the touch attack, you get the standard damage for the Ray.

Have I missed anything, or do any of you have any convincing arguments for me to either restrict or de-restrict these sneaky ray attacks?

 

[Nvvyn]

Well, personally I don't think you should nerf the sneak attacks. In order for a mage to be able to get sneak attacks, they have to take levels of rogue, effictively reducing their caster level by 1 for every 1d6 of sneak attack dmg. This keeps in balance with sneak attacking ranged spells. If you made it to where they had to penetrate the armor as well, it will make the character unbalancxed. Then the character will not only have a lesser chance to sneak attack, but will also have lower caster level because he took levels of rogue TO GET the sneak attack in the first place.
Like I've heard many times before.... Why change something that wizards have spent literaly HUNDREDS of hours play-testing in order to keep things balanced. Sneak attack is powerful, but considering the CASTER levels a mage gives up for the ability, it keeps it balanced.

As a DM, I believe the only action you should take towards this, is let the mage have his sneak attack ray fo frost. He will do his 1d3+ xd6 dmg. Then a monster, or whatever the pc's are fighting, will obviously notice this wizard casting powerful arcanic spells towards their friends, and they will undoubtedly target the wizard ASAP. So, basically just make a monster attack the casting PC as soon as they notice he is the "powerful wizard that has really low hp and sucks in melee".

 

[StealthyMark]

Officially, you can do a sneak attack with a ranged attack spell. See Tome and Blood, pg 79. In general, it works just like a sneak attack with a regular ranged weapon.

Though, I did not find a clear reference, whether a touch attack is sufficiently, or a regular attack is necessarily. The only clue is the absence of something like "Instead of a ranged touch attack, you must succeed at a ranged attack..." So, the normal rules should apply - a ranged touch is sufficiently.

 

[Wolf72]

1. You have to be within 30 feet, as usual.
this is true regardless. Edit: doh! you said that already! ... rat bandage!
2. The target must have no Dex bonus against your attack.
this is partially true, or you need to be flanking the target, (an ally needs to be on the opposite side of the target, you may want to enforce 'firing into melee' and precise shot[Edit: can you range-flank? ... I thought you could, or maybe it was a feat from S&S or from a PrC]
3. You have to beat the target's armour value to get the sneak attack damage (you can't get the extra damage for hitting the enemy's vitals if the ray smacks into their full-plate armour).
I don't agree here, the spell says a ranged touch attack ... that includes any bonus dmg
4. If you merely hit with the touch attack, you get the standard damage for the Ray.... nor here

sorry if that looks wierd, I was playing!

sneak attacking with ray is not that good ... if you nerf that, he'll just whip out his hand/light/heavy X-bow and do more dmg with a better crit range.

I had a sorc/rogue use ray of cold all the time, more than anything it annoyed the bad guys ... but against a really high AC opponent it's all I had.

 

[Eccles]

But that makes no sense in a way.

The premise for a sneak attack is that you have to hit a vital area.

The premise for a touch attack of any sort is that you can hit their shield rim, and it'll still take full effect.

No way is a sneak attack going to have effect unless it's managed to miss the armour, is my logic.

And besides, there's no way that any amount of playtesting could account for players. Anybody's players.

 

[kreynolds]

I'm starting a new campaign, so naturally my players are busy coming up with new ways to be utter munchkins.

I'd like to see you defend that statement.

The latest proposal is to have a rogue/mage using rays of frost to get ranged sneak attack damage.

Always a good tactic, though it does weaken the spellcaster in some modules, but not breakingly so.

I've allowed this so far, with the following restrictions: -

This should be interesting.

1. You have to be within 30 feet, as usual.

A no-brainer.

2. The target must have no Dex bonus against your attack.

Naturally.

3. You have to beat the target's armour value to get the sneak attack damage (you can't get the extra damage for hitting the enemy's vitals if the ray smacks into their full-plate armour).

Crap, baseless, worthless.

4. If you merely hit with the touch attack, you get the standard damage for the Ray.

See previous answer.

Have I missed anything, or do any of you have any convincing arguments for me to either restrict or de-restrict these sneaky ray attacks?

Actually, the only thing I can suggest is let someone else run the game. Either that, or take this to the house rules, because your question has no business being here.

Sorry I'm being so crass, but you start off a post with proclaiming all of your players are trying to be munchkins, when there is nothing munchkin about their tactics at all. They took the time away form the caster levels and picked rogue levels to, oh my god, you guessed it, gain rogue benefits! Shocker there, huh!?

Ease up and relax dude. Your players will thank you.

 

[Eccles]

Re: Re: Sneak Attacks on Rays

Crap, baseless, worthless.

Actually, the only thing I can suggest is let someone else run the game. Either that, or take this to the house rules, because your question has no business being here.

Why thank you for your valuable, and useful opinions.

I'm not sure that any of you are understanding the reasoning behind my question here. A touch attack is something that requires no real skill or subtlety to it, whereas the sneak attack is totally the opposite, a blow to the nerves, jugular, kidneys or whatever.

I can't, in my mind, combine the two. I've got no problem with spells delivering sneak attacks per se, but simply don't believe that it was in the intention of the original writers to allow my Arcane Trickster to cripple your paladin by managing to lay one finger on the tip of his helmet.

Once someone's got me over that hurdle, without being abusive or just saying 'you're wrong', then I'll be happy enough. I don't think I'm exactly asking too much, am I?

(By the way, my 'House Rule' is simply the best answer I've seen to date, rather than a blanket acceptance or ban).

 

[Jens]

Ease up and relax dude.

...well, somebody ought to

But that makes no sense in a way.

The premise for a sneak attack is that you have to hit a vital area.

The premise for a touch attack of any sort is that you can hit their shield rim, and it'll still take full effect.

No way is a sneak attack going to have effect unless it's managed to miss the armour, is my logic.

Wouldn't that line of reasoning also mean that some touch attack spells (Ray of Frost, Melf's, etc.) should add armor (and certainly shields!) to the target's AC? In Tome and Blood it's spelled out that sneak attack damage is of the same type as the 'base' attack, and if that does damage, why not add the sneak attack damage?

As I understand it (I could very well be wrong here, but then somebody will probably point it out), the effects of the spells using touch attacks ignore mundane armor but not magical armor bonuses and force effects such as Mage Armor. Given that, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a caster/rogue can use his improved ability to 'hit where it hurts' with a Ray of Frost to freeze a vulnerable spot underneath armor, and thereby inflict extra damage.

 

[Ristamar]

As I understand it (I could very well be wrong here, but then somebody will probably point it out), the effects of the spells using touch attacks ignores mundane armor but not magical armor bonuses and force effects such as Mage Armor.

That's not quite correct. While force effects like Mage Armor do help, other magical armor bonuses do not offer additional protection from touch attacks unless they provide a deflection bonus.

 

[Jens]

That's not quite correct. While force effects like Mage Armor do help, other magical armor bonuses do not offer additional protection from touch attacks unless they provide a deflection bonus.

Heh, see what I said? Somebody would point it out for me. Thanks

(Anyway, the main point was that mundane armor is ignored)