Sneak Attacks on Rays

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I know what you are saying here, and even agree with it to a degree... but it actually uses Ray of Enfeeblement as an example of a ranged touch spell that can't crit in Tome & Blood; & no crit equates to no SA.

Where at? I have never even heard of that quote, and I just did a quick flip throu.

 

[kreynolds]

Where at? I have never even heard of that quote, and I just did a quick flip throu.

It's under the Critical Hits section...

Some spells require an attack roll but do not deal actual damage, so they cannot inflict critical hits. For example, ray of enfeeblement requires a ranged touch attack roll. The spell, however, produces an enhancement penalty to Strength, not any type of damage, so it cannot inflict a critical hit.

...then, under the Sneak Attack section...

A successful sneak attack with a weapon-like spell deals extra damage according to your sneak attack ability, of the same type as the spell deals.

...so it can't deal sneak attack damage either, since it doesn't actually deal any damage.

 

[drowdude]

Where at? I have never even heard of that quote, and I just did a quick flip throu.

Page 79, in the section on critical hits.

Edit: Yeah... what K said

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just an example of the difference between an enhancement penalty, and attribute damage - an enhancement penalty goes away in an anti magic field.

An enhancement penalty goes away after a set period of time, regardless of whether the character rests during that time.

Also refer to lesser restoration - it specifically notes that it can dispel any magic which is reducing one of the characters ability scores, OR heal points of ability damage.

As for ray of enfeeblement being too powerful? It falls under the same double-defence caveat that phantasmal killer does. It's a touch attack + fort save spell, hence it deserves a level break.

Now to the question:
1) Like someone has already indicated, sneak attack doesn't involve any accuracy over and above that required for hitting the target normally.
2) Like many people have already indicated, sneak attack+touch spells is not overpowered. At the same point as this thief mage is doing 1d3+9d6 with a touch attack, a full mage is doing 24d6 with no rolls required, along with a vast array of other spells at his fingertips
3) Brilliant energy weapons also allow touch-attack sneak attacks - will you cripple them too?

So, in conclusion, this tactic and the rules for evaluating it are neither overpowered nor nonsensical nor difficult to work with. I'd suggest you consider that before introducing significantly more complex rules which do little to improve enjoyment of the game.

And if this is the best they can do, your players are no munchkins.

 

[Kylearan]

Well met!

Isn't it so that enhancement penalties don't stack? So, if I hit someone with a ray of enfeeblement he just gets the worst of both rolls instead of adding the strength loss? Compared to a few hits with enervation ...

Or do I confuse the bonus/penalty stacking rules here?

Kylearan

 

[smetzger]

Along the way, the party picked up a wand of Melf's Acid Arrow. I went through the (I thought) amazing realization... hey! I can sneak attack with it!

Well, yeah. Once a round. I have Rapid Shot, so I can get _3_ sneak attacks with that. And do 1d8 damage, even if I couldn't set up a sneak condition.

You can't use rapid shot with a Wand.

 

[Will]

You can't use rapid shot with a Wand.

Sorry, late night post. What I meant was that I could get one attack with the wand, _or_ rapid shot and get 3 bow attacks.

Which was why the wand thing was mostly pointless.

 

[Darklone]

Eccles:

Some mistakes in this thread:

• Mage/Force armour does not help against touch attacks. It only helps against incorporeal creatures (who usually use touch attacks).
• That dark alley part... in darkness you cannot use sneak attacks neither since your opponent has concealment
• The question about rays of enfeeblement and sneak attacks is adressed in the DnDFAQ. The example about ability penalty is the explanation why you can't reduce someone to Strength 0.

Eccles: some points

• Trust the rules. That multiclassed character is not overpowered. It may have advantages, but it's balanced.
• Please don't take some guys here too seriously. They are only having fun. Sometimes weird fun, but that's it.
• Stick with the rules as you did till now and if you want to change something or think it's overpowered or want advice how to challenge players who went munchkin.... Simply ask if you are not sure, we are glad to help.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

I think you have missed some important limitations on using things like Ray of Frost with sneak attacks.
[/B]

Missed? no. ignored deliberately? yes.

One is that you can only do this when the opponent is flat footed, otherwise denied his Dexterity bonus, or helpless. Flanking is not an option, since flanking only kicks in when you are making a melee attack. (Look up the description of flanking in the PHB if you need to). This sort of situation is likely to occur very rarely.
[/B]

Well, i know the rogues in my game and in the game i have run with used ranged sneak attacks fairly often. Whether it was from the initial round flatfooted or from hiding or from invisible, it is far from "rarely."

Second, you cannot get multiple attacks with a Ray of Frost. You get one per round. For a high level rogue with a shortbow and perhaps rapid shot, that is a huge amount of increased damage potential in ranged situations when compared to his rogue/mage counterpart with his wussy Ray of Frost.
[/B]

In case you missed it, you don't get all those nifty extra attacks unless you have a full attack action. in those partial actions, from the surprise round where most of the flatfooted occurs, you only get one shot.

In case you missed it, rogue BABs are not the highest in the world, making their -5 cum iterative attacks a lot more likely to be misses than not, especially against very armored folk (which are PRECISELY the ones you want to use th touch attack against.)

For a high level rogue at all, let alone a high level rogue who has gone the two weapon route, using the Ray of Frost trick is clearly an option with less damage potential.
[/B]

10th level rogue with 20 dex, expertise and the various twf feats... attacks at basically +7 for bab +5 for expertise and say +2 for weapons (assumes two +2 shortswords worth ~16700 gold) for a net +14. Figuring in multiple attacks and twf he gets +12/+12/+7. His damage on a sneak hit is 6d6+2 or 23 points.
(numbers run almost identical with rapid shot.)

Against an AC 27 enemy (+2 full plate for +10 +1 large shield for +3, +4 from haste potion worth ~8000 gold, less than half the rogues swords alone) he has 14.95 expected damage per round.

Against the same enemy with a wand of ray of frost (costs 375 gold open market.) working against the touch AC of 14 (+4 for haste) he has an expected damage of 18.525. The rogue still has a move available too. Even if i add in the 15% or so UMD failure chance, the numbers are still better... 15.74

Your statement "clearly an option with less damage potential" is laughably meaningless. The "potential" for the multiple shots with low chance of hitting is really only there when he rolls REALLY well. At expected numbers, the ray of frost is superior AGAINST HIGHLY ARMORED foes.

Now we get to the secret whammy... HE CAN DO BOTH. For a measly 375 gold, mr roguely with his two shortswords and twf or his bow can also have a wand of ray of frost.

See the ray of frost is for HIGH ARMOR guys, those guys make the rogue feel his lower BAB and make every -2 for another shot a serious detriment.

its not "either/or" since there is nothing stopping him.

Sure, the touch attack issue makes it more likely you will hit with your one attack than with any one of a standard rogue's multiple attacks, but they are probably more likely to get a hit in in general, and more able to deal out lots of damage if they get lucky.
[/B]

Again, look at the numbers. Against a highly armored foe, the numbers do not bear this theory out. The rogues bab combined with the "highly armored foe" makes the -5 iteratives and overall -2s for rapid fire/twf much more painful. His chances to hit are simply not that good.

The differences in chances to-hit against those people you want to use the ray of frost against are significant enough to make it work out.

It balances out when you actually work through the analysis.
[/B]

An interesting observation. i did the math and provided numbers. It does not seem to support your unnumbered claim.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

I still don't see the big deal with letting rays do sneak attack damage. Here's a few reasons why, some of which might've been covered already:

1. Undead.
2.Plant creatures.
3.Other rogues/assassins/barbarians.
4.Blur.
5.Displacement.
6.Can't reach a vital area.

See, maybe its just me, but i thought the complaint and balance question was in comparison to regular sneak attacks. From that perspective, the cases when no sneak attack is possible is rather irrelevent.

7.Spell Resistance (yeah, that caster level of 1 is gonna be a huge help against a 15th level monk).

Absolutely... and thats why in those cases you will prefer your bow. Since there is NO RULE saying "cannot have bow if you have wands" this is not a problem.

8.ANY level of darkness (unless you have darkvision or lowlight vision, or trueseeing, etc.).
9.LIGHT foilage (oops, no sneak attacks in most wooded areas).
10.LIGHT fog (Obscuring Mist, natural fog, etc....totally up to the DM's whim).
11.Foe must be denied dex bonus.
12.Armor of Fortification.

Again, when comparing the two sneaks, the "no sneak possible" is a non-issue.

13.I *believe* (don't have ELH, so memory could be foggy) there's some epic feat that gives total immunity to sneak attacks (barring use of True Strike, as it gives the pc concealment).
14.Foe must be crittable.

See above.

15.You can do SO MUCH more damage by doing a full attack, and even then you do it more often while flanking in melee...and rogues have low hitpoints typically (and mc'ing as a wizard/sorceror makes this even worse, Toad familiar notwithstanding).

"Can do soo much more" and "should expect to do soo much more" are night abd day. if all i ever rolled were 15-20 on my d20s, man what i could do. Against highly armored figures, the rogues hit chances vs that armor will be low. In those cases, the wand is a godsend.

16.See Invisibility.

No sneak, not relevent.

17.Dispel Magic.

Let me get this straight... in a battkle where decent sized sneaks are being used, getting an enemy spellcaster to burn a spell against my and of ray of frost is a BAD thing? I can see it now, the party complaining because the wizard dispelled thr ray of frost instead of throwing the empowered fireball. This is hardship?

18.The fact that fighters, wizards, sorcerors, and clerics can do much more damage on a more regular basis.

when comparing *different* classes, one item taken in vacuum is utterly meaningless.

19.Quicker Than the Eye is a neat trick, but doesn't do more damage than a rogue 2-weapon fighter flanking (with invisibility/ring of blinking AND Expert Tactician).

How many feats are we talking? two for twf, a third for expert tactician, and a 20k-30k item. (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..)

IMO, it boils down to this...

375 gold for the ability to do in a standa action more damage than you should expect from your full atttack actions when fighting heavily armored foes is a VERY VERY VERY good deal. The only expense required beyond the 375 gold every few lvels is maxing your UMD... which is a serious gain in its own right.

This seems like a really really good deal. Pocket change, for mid level guys, for a stronger option against the bricks.

As a rogue, if i had an option of either a 50 +1 arrows or a ray of frost wand (with the understanding that you cannot get them by other means or sell them), i would take the latter. This tells me their relative value to me is not 2000 gold for the arrows vs 375 gold for the wand.

As such, i can understand very easily why a Gm might have some serious balance concerns about this ruling.

If you cannot, we have very different games.