Will this "attack combo" work (kinda Smack-downish)

[RigaMortus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this "attack combo" work (kinda Smack-downish)

No. The victim only loses their Dex bonus against you when you attack them. Nothing indicates that they lose their Dex bonus in regards to anyone else. They are only looking away from you, they are not ignoring everyone else.

Nothing indicates that they lose their Dex bonus to only me either. It does state however that if I attack them, they lose their Dex bonus. It never states that they lose their Dex bonus against ONLY me. So therefore I don't see why someone else can't benefit from their loss of Dex if they happen to have Expert Tactician too and are within range.

 

[Caliban]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will this "attack combo" work (kinda Smack-downish)

Nothing indicates that they lose their Dex bonus to only me either. It does state however that if I attack them, they lose their Dex bonus. It never states that they lose their Dex bonus against ONLY me. So therefore I don't see why someone else can't benefit from their loss of Dex if they happen to have Expert Tactician too and are within range.

You will have to make a much stronger case than "they don't say it exactly" to convince me.

It would work much the same as a normal Bluff/Feint, which causes the Dex loss only against that single attack and not against anything else.

As I read it, the feat does indeed indicate that they only lose their Dex bonus against you.

The feat allows you to do something "quicker than the eye" and momentarily distract someone from what you are doing. Since the feat does not state that the target loses their Dex bonus towards everyone else as a result of not paying attention to you, I wouldn't allow that effect.

If you can convince your DM otherwise, more power too you. But it would never work in a game I'm running.

 

[bret]

Just wanted to point out another flaw here.

Ray of Frost has S components.

You want to use a 2-H weapon (Longspear).

If you cast a spell, you need a hand free (or the still spell feat). During the round that you cast the spell, you can not hold your longspear in two hands. Given that you don't have a proper grip, I do not thing you are threatening anything with your longspear.

I would allow you to hold the longspear with one hand, but not threaten anything with it.

 

[Antikinesis]

If you cast a spell, you need a hand free (or the still spell feat). During the round that you cast the spell, you can not hold your longspear in two hands. Given that you don't have a proper grip, I do not thing you are threatening anything with your longspear.

I would allow you to hold the longspear with one hand, but not threaten anything with it.

I don't agree with that one. Mages are proficient with the quarterstaff, which is 2-handed for medium-sized characters, and they're always lifting a hand to cast spells. I don't recall if it's written anywhere official, but I've always seen it played as a free action to lift or replace a hand on a two-handed weapon. (Makes sense for quaffing potions, too.) Played that way, he can have two hands on the weapon in the same round he casts a spell.

Are there any "official" rules about juggling a two-hander this way?

-AK

 

[Antikinesis]

Spell resistance? Cold immunity?

Couple of questions on a related topic...

If you're sneak attacking with a ray of frost against a creature with spell resistance, and you succeed on the ranged touch attack, but fail to beat the spell resistance check, do you still get the sneak attack damage?

If the creature has cold resistance (resist elements, endure elements, immunity, whatever...) that eliminates the cold damage from ray of frost, do you still get the sneak attack damage?

In absence of anything official to the contrary, I'd rule "No", in both cases. I'd think your attack would have to do some actual damage to your opponent before you can add in the sneak attack damage. Opinions/rules interpretations?


-AK

 

[jontherev]

Re: Spell resistance? Cold immunity?

Couple of questions on a related topic...

If you're sneak attacking with a ray of frost against a creature with spell resistance, and you succeed on the ranged touch attack, but fail to beat the spell resistance check, do you still get the sneak attack damage?

If the creature has cold resistance (resist elements, endure elements, immunity, whatever...) that eliminates the cold damage from ray of frost, do you still get the sneak attack damage?

In absence of anything official to the contrary, I'd rule "No", in both cases. I'd think your attack would have to do some actual damage to your opponent before you can add in the sneak attack damage. Opinions/rules interpretations?


-AK

No to 1, maybe to 2. The sneak attack damage is the same type (cold). If the spell doesn't work (SR), the sneak attack damage was never inflicted. In #2, apply resistance to total damage (including sneak attack). If there is any leftover damage, that is taken normally. This is kind of similar to using sneak attack to overcome DR. Immunity, of course, would render the entire attack ineffective.

 

[Darklone]

Re: Spell resistance? Cold immunity?

If you're sneak attacking with a ray of frost against a creature with spell resistance, and you succeed on the ranged touch attack, but fail to beat the spell resistance check, do you still get the sneak attack damage?

DnDFAQ: No. You have to inflict damage... extra damage from sneak attacks, weapon specialisation, point blank shot or favored enemy is of the same kind with which you inflicted the damage at all.

If the creature has cold resistance (resist elements, endure elements, immunity, whatever...) that eliminates the cold damage from ray of frost, do you still get the sneak attack damage?

See above. Example: You make a sneak attack with a ray of frost, you got PBS and +3d6 sneak attack... Let's say you cause 14 points of damage (cold). That's it. Elemental protections may help if they eliminate the whole damage.

In absence of anything official to the contrary, I'd rule "No", in both cases. I'd think your attack would have to do some actual damage to your opponent before you can add in the sneak attack damage. Opinions/rules interpretations?

As I said, "No" and "Maybe".

Edit: Posted at the same time as Jontherev...

 

[Antikinesis]

Re: Re: Spell resistance? Cold immunity?

No to 1, maybe to 2. The sneak attack damage is the same type (cold). If the spell doesn't work (SR), the sneak attack damage was never inflicted. In #2, apply resistance to total damage (including sneak attack). If there is any leftover damage, that is taken normally. This is kind of similar to using sneak attack to overcome DR. Immunity, of course, would render the entire attack ineffective.

Okay... it never occurred to me to model elemental resistance after damage resistance w/ respect to sneak attacks. Thanks... that helps.

[Edit] And thanks for the confirmation, Darklone. [/Edit]

-AK

 

[bret]

I don't agree with that one. Mages are proficient with the quarterstaff, which is 2-handed for medium-sized characters, and they're always lifting a hand to cast spells. I don't recall if it's written anywhere official, but I've always seen it played as a free action to lift or replace a hand on a two-handed weapon. (Makes sense for quaffing potions, too.) Played that way, he can have two hands on the weapon in the same round he casts a spell.

Are there any "official" rules about juggling a two-hander this way?

-AK

Sorcerers are proficient with Longspears. I don't think it is a question of proficiency.

In any case, I split this topic off into another thread to see what others think.