Spellthief Question

[TheGogmagog]

Scion may be onto something.

Isn't there somehing with the vorpal sword (which requires a critical hit) and vampires? Without looking it all up, I would guess criticals and sneak attacks work on the same principle.

 

[CronoDekar]

1) The text doesn't say anything about it being able to be used more than once in a single sneak attack, so I would say no. (Though on the same note, I don't think there's anything preventing you from stealing, say, a spell and a spell-like ability in the same sneak attack.)

2) Good question, now that I look over the text again. IMO the DM should randomly choose among Lv3 spells, unless the character was all out of Lv3 spells anyway (in which case it should be among Lv2s). As written, it looks like you do randomly get any spell which they have and you can steal, though I'm not sure if that was the intent.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Perhaps the sneak attack is successful, but the lich is immune to the damage. So, you reduce the damage that they are immune to by a d6 and steal a spell. Much like with a flaming weapon that hits a fire immune guy you can stil calculate the d6 damage, they are simply immune to it.

Hmm... that would fit with the wording of the Hamstring feat, where it specifically notes that Hamstring can't affect creatures immune to sneak attacks.

Wonder about Arterial Strike...

-Hyp.

 

[Len]

'not vulnerable' doesnt mean that you cant still calculate the damage, it just isnt applied

That wording is different than later where it says 'cannot sneak attack' under certain conditions.

Well, you only quoted part of the rules. Don't forget:

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies - undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack.

You just can't sneak-attack a lich. Go steal your spells from someone with a kidney.

 

[Scion]

I believe that line is more about the actual damage. Any attack that meets the conditions can be a sneak attack, but certain creatures arent vulnerable to it. Unfortunately it comes from the language not being very precise. Both ways could fit pretty easily, but I think the way I said earlier makes more sense over a broader range

Especially considering that you could get the spell from an undead if they were willing but not otherwise. A very strange distinction.

 

[Len]

I don't see the distinction. Anyway, I know my DM wouldn't call it a "successful" sneak attack.

Especially considering that you could get the spell from an undead if they were willing but not otherwise. A very strange distinction.

I don't see anything strange about that. It's the difference between giving something and having something stolen from you. Just like a rogue needs to do a sleight of hand check to remove something from someone's pocket without permission, but not if the person just gives it to him.

 

[Scion]

I don't see the distinction.

It is something along the lines of the example I gave earlier. A creature immune to fire can still be hit by fire, it just doesnt matter.

Also, as sneak attack and sneak attack damage can be interchangeable in many situations it is easily possible that they say one when the other would be more appropriate.

If the conditions for sneak attack are met but the creature is immune to their effects most of the time it doesnt matter. In this case however it does, because under those conditions some other special effect can happen. The effect of that particular part they are not immune to.

Much like the giving up willingly.

It isnt mind effecting so far as I can tell. I also see no reason to disallow it to the whole range of creatures for whatever reason.

Like I said, the problem in this case can come from the language being imprecise. It is hard to tell if they meant the entire ability itself cannot be triggered or that they are simply immune to the results. The second seems more likely given the wording in the undead creatures type listing. The first is possible given the wording of the ability, but as I said before it can simply be from an imprecission in the language and trying to save on extra words that arent genereally needed. These sort of problems pop up all too often ;/

 

[Abstraction]

Ah, I see. Spells are stored in the kidneys.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ah, I see. Spells are stored in the kidneys.

Actually, magic is stored in the appendix. That's why modern man is so bad at it; we've let it atrophy.

It's also why cows are such impressive spellcasters.

 

[Armadon63]

what book is the spell thief in? Also wouldnt it be kinda cool to take mage killer feats witht he spell thief. Take his spells and kill him in one shot.