Touch attacks with Sneak damage?

[IceBear]

Hmmmm - I don't remember off the top of my head but I believe that's right. If the base attack didn't penetrate to cause damage, then there is no sneak attack damage. If you stab something with damage resistence in the kidney, but it doesn't penetrate the skin to reach the kidney then there's no extra damage.

IceBear

 

[AGGEMAM]

DR isn't exactly the same as the Endure Elements spell is it ?

 

[IceBear]

No, but it's the same principle I believe (I'm mainly tending this way because of the unbalance making sneak attack taking the energy form of the spell leads to).

The ray of frost does 1d3 points of cold damage. It does the sneak attack damage because it got the person in a vulnerable spot. If that creature is a Fire-based creature, then getting that cold in that vulnerable spot makes it hurt even more (I still think it should only be the base spell that gets doubled, but that's not the rule). If the endure elements stopped the ray of frost from getting through in the first place then, again, there is no extra damage due to the sneak attack. It's not that the Ray of Frost turns into a 1d3+10d6 ray of frost BEFORE it hits someone. The 10d6 doesn't come into play until AFTER it hits someone. If the 1d3 is stopped, then so should the sneak attack damage.

I suspect this isn't discussed in any book because it wasn't until this T&B rule that we got this problem. To me, this helps balance it, and it makes sense.

IceBear

 

[Andion Isurand]

How would a 'Spell Storing' weapon work when a rogue makes a sneak attack?

Would the extra damage be added to the weapon's damage? the spell's damage? or both?

What would happen if I had more than one 'spell storing' ability on my weapon? Would the extra sneak damage be added to the damage caused by each of the spells?

 

[jontherev]

From the FAQ for the Book of Common Sense, Verse 1:
Q:If a ray of frost doesn't do any damage (such as when the correct Endure Elements spell is up...5 - d3 = 0), how does it get sneak attack damage?
A:It doesn't. If the base weapon doesn't damage the foe, then that means your weapon did not penetrate to even reach the vitals.



Actually, there's no rule I can think of for this. This is why you have a DM. Like Icebear said (sort of), the ray does not become a d3 + xd6 ray just because you're a wizard with rogue levels. It's still a d3 ray, and in my world, if the ray doesn't even scratch your skin, then you don't come anywhere close to a heart or liver or brain. The ray must actually do damage before the sneak attack damage is applied. If that's a house rule, then so be it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the base attack didn't penetrate to cause damage, then there is no sneak attack damage. If you stab something with damage resistence in the kidney, but it doesn't penetrate the skin to reach the kidney then there's no extra damage.

[frowns]

I'm not at all sure about that. I was under the impression a dagger vs DR 20/+2 could still have an effect in the hands of a skilled rogue, because 1d4 + 6d6 could do more than 20 points of damage...

The Sneak Attack doesn't seem, to me, to fall into the same category as injury-type-poison or -disease, or a monk's stunning attack.

-Hyp.

 

[jontherev]

[frowns]

I'm not at all sure about that. I was under the impression a dagger vs DR 20/+2 could still have an effect in the hands of a skilled rogue, because 1d4 + 6d6 could do more than 20 points of damage...

The Sneak Attack doesn't seem, to me, to fall into the same category as injury-type-poison or -disease, or a monk's stunning attack.

-Hyp.

It does if he has a +2 dagger or GMW. My rogue has never had a problem defeating DR. This shouldn't be a recurring problem for any normal campaign (unless low magic is normal for you).

I just have a hard time rationalizing or explaining how any sneak attack damage gets through from a spell or attack (dagger for example), if the base attack/spell damage doesn't. It just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the next FAQ update will address this situation.

 

[Andion Isurand]

Poisoned weapons that are completely ignored by the damage reduction of the victim, and thus, do not damage the victim at all, do not poison the victim.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It has been ruled by theSage ( if anyone listens or not ), that poisoned weapons that are completely ignored by the damage reduction of the victim, and thus, do not damage the victim at all, do not poison the victim.

It doesn't need a Sage ruling - that's spelled out in the description of DR in the DMG.

I'm saying that poison and Sneak Attack are two different cases.

Let's take the example of a Sneak Attack with a dagger representing a stab to the kidneys. The dagger is nonmagical, the target has DR 20/+2, and the Rogue is 12th level.

Icebear and JTR are contending that the 2 damage the base dagger strike deals is insufficient for the wound to have any effect; the kidneys are never endangered; and the +21 Sneak Attack damage never comes into play.

I, on the other hand, contend that the 23 damage caused by a dagger accurately placed in the kidneys is enough for three points of damage to overcome the DR 20/+2.

It depends on whether you class SA with the examples of special effects like Stunning Blow or poison.

-Hyp.

 

[Lela]

Well, part of the sneak attack idea is that you do something with the weapon that the EG doesn't expect and/or can't block. If that's slipping it under a dragon's scale or sliding the blade through a sucubi's horn, it seems that it would be rather painful.

What about the Duilist's extra d6's? That seems to be the same principal (in the rules sense anyway).