Sneak Attacks on Rays

[kreynolds]

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.)

That rule only applies to special circumstances, such as poison being delivered by a stinger attack. If the stinger can't beat your DR, you don't take damage. If you don't take damage, the poison isn't delivered. Wounding, I can understand blocking, even though I don't rule it that way, based on it's description.

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

Nope. However, like I mentioned above, if you have poison on your dagger but the baddie's DR absorbs all the damage from your attack, the poison doesn't get delivered. The nice part about sneak attack damage though, is that all of the damage is part of the same attack, so it really helps you deliver that poison tremendously.

 

[Pielorinho]

First, Eccles, I'll share my cardinal rule for reading these forums:

Ignore the tweakers.

Anyone who responds in an aggressive, ad hominem manner is really not worth your time.

Second, count me in with the others who say this tactic isn't overpowered. I had a PC use it IMC on occasion, and it didn't mess things up at all. Honestly, it's not particularly easy to get ranged sneak attacks at low levels; at high levels, you can use flasks of acid or alchemist's fire to do ranged touch sneak attacks, and you can get iterative attacks with them (with the right feats).

The one point you made that gives me pause is that it's bizarre to get a sneak attack when you hit someone's shield. However, I think it's a little weird that a ray of frost that hits the corner of my large wooden shield would do as much damage to me as one that hit my torso. I guess we have to chalk it up to magic.

If you don't just chalk it up to magic -- if you house rule the sneak attack part -- you may want to house rule other ranged touch attacks so that they take shields into account. How, after all, do I take full damage from a Melf's Acid Arrow that strikes my shield?

Good luck with your game!
Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

There's one other point I want to make.

It sounds like your trepidation stems in part from what the character will look like with 10 levels of Arcane Trickster. When a combination of core rules + splat book looks particularly overpowering, I'd suggest ditching (or modifying) the splat book material, not the core rules material. There are plenty of PrCs that can be used to gruesome effect by a munchkin player -- from what I've heard, arcane trickster is at the head of the munchkin class.

(As is Tribal Defender, incidentally -- for fun, I created a 7th-level character using this class that could inflict somewhere around 250 points of damage a round).

Daniel

 

[Will]

If anything, I think Petrosian's math is wrong and it's _better_... but not by much.

He's right. It's better to use a ranged touch magic weapon (wand) than a regular attack against highly armored foes. Granted, melee sneak attacks are a lot easier to set up, but as someone who's struggled to set up ranged sneak attacks... it can be done.

However... as I see it, you're talking about a difference of a few points, one way or another. Maybe 3-5 points of damage.

This is interesting (and something I'm going to look into for my character!), but... er. I don't see it as such a big deal. It's smart tactics... if you're up against a heavily armored foe, and you can hit vital spots, find something that ignores armor.

Rapid shot and Two Weapon Fighting don't work great against heavily armored foe, in general. It's a bit weird... with +14 first attack bonus, you are worse off using TWF above AC 17, but then you hit a point where the flat '20 hits' makes up for things slightly.

 

[drowdude]

Yeah, Arcane Trickster is broken

No. It isnt. Have you played one? Have you seen one run through the course of a campaign?

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

If anything, I think Petrosian's math is wrong and it's _better_... but not by much.

It is certainly possible that my math is wrong but in order for me to buy that i need to be shown why.

Also remember, my math was there to REFUTE the multiple statements that comparing one wand per round to full attacks using TWf or RS showed the wand CLEARLY inferior.

If my math is in error, please let me know.

Here is the show my work stage...

************
rogue-10 with +7 BAB +5 dex bobus (for missile or finesse) and +2 weapon = +14 to hit roll
Apply -2 for TWF or RS and -5 more to the iterative attack which means three rolls at +12/+12/+7

Against AC 27 this equates to 30%/30%/5% chances of damage.
Damage 23 means expected damage is 6.9+6.9+1.15 = 14.95.
****************

**************8
Rogue with same stats and a wand.
one ranged touch attack +12 (dex plus bab) vs ac 14 means he hits 95% of the time with damage being 17.5 from sneak and +2 from the ray itself for 19.5.

95% of 19.5 = 18.525.

If we allow for a 15% UMD failure on top of that (need a 20, skill = 13 and +3 for cha = 16 so we fail on 1-3 only) this drops to 15.746...
*******************

So where is my math wrong?

He's right. It's better to use a ranged touch magic weapon (wand) than a regular attack against highly armored foes. Granted, melee sneak attacks are a lot easier to set up, but as someone who's struggled to set up ranged sneak attacks... it can be done.

However... as I see it, you're talking about a difference of a few points, one way or another. Maybe 3-5 points of damage.

Yes, and that means my point, which was that the two different arguments which talked about how much more damage the full attack with rapid fire or twf would do than the wand were just plain wrong, is supported by the math.

Tho again, please correct my math.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

To clarify,

A Monk can deliever a touch attack spell with his melee attack, but he has to make a choice.

Attack at full strength, hoping to get past the armor of his foe, but getting his damage, which could be as high as a D20 +STR, and the spell. This is even deadlier if he crits, which he is more likely to have Improved Crit on his hands as opposed to spells.

OR,

Make a touch attack, which will likely hit, but do only spell damage.

I do seem to recall something about letting the touch attack throu if it would hit, but the regular attack failed. I could see a point to this, but I would say you get one or the other.

Also, a sneak attack with Ray of Frost would do D3 frost damage, AND xD6 FROST damage, so elemental protection spell would have to defeat all the damage to defeat the attack. A "simple endure elements" would only take off the first 5 points, not counterit completely. This could be a very interesting and effective way of depletting someones higher level protection spells.

 

[Caliban]

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...

Wrong. If you opponent is not otherwise denied their Dex bonus, the instant you stop being invisible your attacks stop being eligible for sneak attack damage.

The invisibility spell is pretty clear. You become visible when you attack. Once you have made your first attack, you have attacked, and are no longer visible. If the Sage says otherwise, he is simply wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

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

Simpley false. You remain invisible until you attack. Once your first attack hits, you stop being invisible.

Quite often you will have suprised your opponent because you are attacking while invisible (in which case you can only make a single attack during the suprise round) and then you can beat them on initiative, which will allow a full round of sneak attacks.

If combat has already started, you still only get one sneak attack when striking while invisible (unless you remain invisible for the whole round, such as with Improved Invisibility).

 

[AGGEMAM]

Caliban, how did you come to the conclusion that you could regain your 'dex bonus (if any)' on somebody elses turn ?

 

[Caliban]

Caliban, how did you come to the conclusion that you could regain your 'dex bonus (if any)' on somebody elses turn ?

How did you come to the conclustion that you can't?

In any case, they haven't lost their Dex bonus to everyone. They only lose it to you because they can't see you. Once they can see you, they can react to you normally.