Sneak Attacks on Rays

[Darklone]

All you said simply showed that a singleclassed rogue with a wand of ray of frost or melfs acid arrow can do more damage than a multiclassed one with less sneak attack damage. Right?

Btw: If you rule that the ray itself has to cause damage to inflict the additional sneak attack damage, then a simple Endure Elements renders you immune to such simple things.

Another question: Why do your rogues hit better with Expertise? Do you mean Weapon Finesse?

 

[kreynolds]

(Note that the ring of invis would only support ONE attack, not a full series of attacks in a round. So we are really talking ring of blinking which is the 30k and dont forget to add in the miss chance..)

This is a common misconception. According to the rules, if you are invisibile, due the Invisibility spell, you get your sneak attack on all attacks for the round...

I have a question about the invisibility spell. The description states that if you attack a target, the spell is cancelled. An invisible attacker always receives a bonus to hit a target, unless they have blindsight or something similar. So my question is this; If you are under the effects of invisibility, and you have three attacks at +16/+11/+6, do you gain the usual bonus to hit with the first attack, all of the attacks, or none of the attacks?

All of them. (Note you have to use the full attack action to make all those attacks, so your opponent must be close by.)

...so you remain invisibile until your action is over, meaning you can sneak attack on every single attack because you are still invisible.

 

[Eccles]

OK. Just a few more words in self defence...

Ironically, it was one of my players which pointed this out to me.

In Sword & Fist (I think page 68, but don't quote me on that), there's a section on monks attacking with fists that have been charged up with touch attack spells.

In those cases, the touch attack only takes effect if the roll is over the target's AC. At which point the touch attack and the basic fist attack both kick in.

Can someone explain why a monk/sorceror has to roll considerably higher than the rogue/sorceror in order to get a (possibly much smaller) damage roll?

And in addition, we're not talking about a level 1 sorceror. level 15 rogue in my scenario. I've got a potential level 5 wizard, level 3 rogue, level 10 Arcane Trickster, who has a +7D6 sneak and is still a level 15 spellcaster...

 

[Darklone]

Yeah, Arcane Trickster is broken

About your example: The difference is easy: the monk does not lose his touch attack charge if he hits not with his normal attack.

 

[kreynolds]

In Sword & Fist (I think page 68, but don't quote me on that), there's a section on monks attacking with fists that have been charged up with touch attack spells.

In those cases, the touch attack only takes effect if the roll is over the target's AC. At which point the touch attack and the basic fist attack both kick in.

Can someone explain why a monk/sorceror has to roll considerably higher than the rogue/sorceror in order to get a (possibly much smaller) damage roll?

So what? This only applies when you are also making an unarmed attack. A rogue/sorcerer isn't also trying to hit you with an attack. They're just trying to pop you with a spell.

I can see how your player got confused though.

 

[Eccles]

So what? This only applies when you are also making an unarmed attack. A rogue/sorcerer isn't also trying to hit you with an attack. They're just trying to pop you with a spell.

I don't really see a difference between a spell that requires a touch attack and any other weapon attack (apart from game mechanics of touch attacks, which I have no issue with) in this situation, though.

Surely the most logical and sensible thing would be for the spell to go off as long as the monk touches his target, and the punch to simply not have enough force behind it?

 

[LokiDR]

Eccles, I am in a game with a 10th level character, Rog3, Wiz5, Arcane Trickster 2. It has never been a problem. He uses touch attacks all the time to do sneak attack. This doesn't mean that this true for your game as well, but it might be something to consider.

As for monks doing touch spells, I think there are two thresholds: one for damage from fist, and a lower roll for touch spell. This means you can deliver the touch spells and not damage with a monk. I'm sure someone can find the page reference, if that is important.

 

[Darklone]

Eccles, the monk does not have to use melee attacks to hit. He could simply deliver the touch spell per touch attack. But if he wants to deliver the damage from his hit too, then it's a normal attack.

Btw: This is a splatbook problem. No corerules. Teaming, I quit. I HATE PRESTIGECLASS CRAP!

 

[kreynolds]

I don't really see a difference between a spell that requires a touch attack and any other weapon attack (apart from game mechanics of touch attacks, which I have no issue with) in this situation, though.

Surely the most logical and sensible thing would be for the spell to go off as long as the monk touches his target, and the punch to simply not have enough force behind it?

It doesn't matter. This is the basis of your argument for altering the ranged touch attack spell-sneak attack rules and it doesn't even apply. Your complaint is with ranged touch attacks, but the passage in S&F isn't even addressing that. So, I fail to see your argument at all.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

All you said simply showed that a singleclassed rogue with a wand of ray of frost or melfs acid arrow can do more damage than a multiclassed one with less sneak attack damage. Right?

Uhh actually no. i never brought multiclassing into it. i was comparing a rogue using a wand of ray of frost at mid-level using UMD to a rogue with TWf or rapid shot against high armored characters.

I wads doing this because more than one post had brought up the myth that TWf/RS and the multiple sneak attacks produced WAY MORE damage than th ray of frost one shot per round option. I felt this grossly ignored the hit chances and so i compared EXPECTED damage to get a reasonable estimate (Again, the argument presumes HIG ARMOR on the targets.)

Multiclassing was never brought into my examples. Were it to be used, it would remove any UMD failure (est about 15%) but at the expense of a 5% less chance to hit due to BAB.

Btw: If you rule that the ray itself has to cause damage to inflict the additional sneak attack damage, then a simple Endure Elements renders you immune to such simple things.

I was speaking of this the other day with someone. I know there is such a rule for attacks thwarted totally by damage reduction. however i must do a little research on it.

I have been playing very clealry that, an example, a +1 sword of wounding which does 10 hp against a target which has DR of +2/10 will do nothing and no wounding effect will happen, due to the rule about special effects from attacks being stopped if the damage is all stopped. (I am pretty sure this was a DR rule.)

I have also been playing pretty clealry that SNEAK attack damage is part of the attack, not a "special add-on, after the attack. So the same sword of wounding used with a rogue getting +5d6 sneak *would* "get thru and do (lets say the sneak rolls 12) 12 damage and wounding.

I don't think the rules currently have sneak attacks stopped if the "base" attack fails to get thru some defense.

I do however intend to research that a little this weekend to be sure.

If it does require the base attack to get thru, then yes you are correct that endure elements goes a long way, but then DR just became reallly huge for rogues too, since most of their damage is sneak added to low damage base attacks.

Another question: Why do your rogues hit better with Expertise? Do you mean Weapon Finesse?

Yeah, i get those names reversed in my mind a lot.

I always figured expertise should be the to-hit thing. Thanks for the catch.