The Old Sneak Attack + Vampiric Touch Question

[Werebat]

Any official ruling on this?

If a sorcerer/rogue uses this on a flanked target susceptible to sneak
attacks, we know the sneak attack damage applied is the same "type" as
the Vampiric Touch. Does this mean the rogue gets bonus temporary hit
points equal to the amount of sneak attack damage done?

- Ron ^*^

[JB]

Post by Werebat
Any official ruling on this?

Not that I know of. My opinion below.

Post by Werebat
If a sorcerer/rogue uses this on a flanked target susceptible to sneak
attacks, we know the sneak attack damage applied is the same "type" as
the Vampiric Touch. Does this mean the rogue gets bonus temporary hit
points equal to the amount of sneak attack damage done?

To the maximum level as defined by the spell, yes. Same would apply to a
non Rogue scoring a critical.

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Werebat
Any official ruling on this?
If a sorcerer/rogue uses this on a flanked target susceptible to sneak
attacks, we know the sneak attack damage applied is the same "type" as
the Vampiric Touch. Does this mean the rogue gets bonus temporary hit
points equal to the amount of sneak attack damage done?

Please. There are numerous examples of how this works already available
from official sources. The sneak attack damage is completely separate from
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the weapon that
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its base damage
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster, and if used as part of
a sneak attack it would *also* inflict sneak attack damage as negative
energy damage.

-Michael

[Werebat]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Werebat
Any official ruling on this?
If a sorcerer/rogue uses this on a flanked target susceptible to sneak
attacks, we know the sneak attack damage applied is the same "type" as
the Vampiric Touch. Does this mean the rogue gets bonus temporary hit
points equal to the amount of sneak attack damage done?

Please. There are numerous examples of how this works already available
from official sources. The sneak attack damage is completely separate from
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the weapon that
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its base damage
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster, and if used as part of
a sneak attack it would *also* inflict sneak attack damage as negative
energy damage.

Can you cite any of these "numerous sources"?

- Ron ^*^

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Please. There are numerous examples of how this works already available
from official sources. The sneak attack damage is completely separate from
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the weapon that
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its base damage
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster, and if used as part of
a sneak attack it would *also* inflict sneak attack damage as negative
energy damage.

Can you cite any of these "numerous sources"?

The bloody rulebooks, for starters, which explain how to do spell sneak
attacks. The Sage Advice/FAQ also touches on the issue.

-Michael

[Werebat]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Please. There are numerous examples of how this works already

available

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
from official sources. The sneak attack damage is completely separate

from

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the weapon

that

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its base

damage

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster, and if used as

part of

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
a sneak attack it would *also* inflict sneak attack damage as negative
energy damage.

Can you cite any of these "numerous sources"?

The bloody rulebooks, for starters, which explain how to do spell sneak
attacks. The Sage Advice/FAQ also touches on the issue.

You're slipping, MSB. The rulebooks don't address this directly, which
is why I asked.

- Ron ^*^

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
The bloody rulebooks, for starters, which explain how to do spell sneak
attacks. The Sage Advice/FAQ also touches on the issue.

You're slipping, MSB. The rulebooks don't address this directly, which
is why I asked.

Bullshit. Sage advice did not *invent* sneak attack damage from spells
out of whole cloth - there are rules for it in the PhB. There are *not*
rules for sneak attack damage boosting secondary effects like healing,
enervation, or enfeeblement.

-Michael

[Werebat]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
The bloody rulebooks, for starters, which explain how to do spell

sneak

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
attacks. The Sage Advice/FAQ also touches on the issue.

You're slipping, MSB. The rulebooks don't address this directly, which
is why I asked.

Bullshit. Sage advice did not *invent* sneak attack damage from spells
out of whole cloth - there are rules for it in the PhB. There are *not*
rules for sneak attack damage boosting secondary effects like healing,
enervation, or enfeeblement.
-Michael

Well by your "logic", a chill touch boosted by sneak attack wouldn't
even do any extra strength damage.

Eating your words yet?

- Ron ^*^

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Bullshit. Sage advice did not *invent* sneak attack damage from spells
out of whole cloth - there are rules for it in the PhB. There are *not*
rules for sneak attack damage boosting secondary effects like healing,
enervation, or enfeeblement.

Well by your "logic", a chill touch boosted by sneak attack wouldn't
even do any extra strength damage.
Eating your words yet?

A chill touch combined with a sneak attack would do 1d6 neg-en damage +
1 pt str damage + Xd6 neg-en damage. What the hell are *you* talking about,
moron?

-Michael

[Werebat]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Bullshit. Sage advice did not *invent* sneak attack damage from

spells

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
out of whole cloth - there are rules for it in the PhB. There are *not*
rules for sneak attack damage boosting secondary effects like healing,
enervation, or enfeeblement.

Well by your "logic", a chill touch boosted by sneak attack wouldn't
even do any extra strength damage.
Eating your words yet?

A chill touch combined with a sneak attack would do 1d6 neg-en damage +
1 pt str damage + Xd6 neg-en damage. What the hell are *you* talking about,
moron?

I'm talking about the inherent flaws in your logic, assbrain. If what
you say is true then the chill touch spell does not work as written in
the rules. RTFM, you insipid fucktard.

- Ron ^*^

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Werebat

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Bullshit. Sage advice did not *invent* sneak attack damage from

spells out of whole cloth - there are rules for it in the PhB. There are

*not*

Post by Werebat

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
rules for sneak attack damage boosting secondary effects like healing,
enervation, or enfeeblement.

Well by your "logic", a chill touch boosted by sneak attack wouldn't
even do any extra strength damage.
Eating your words yet?

A chill touch combined with a sneak attack would do 1d6 neg-en damage +
1 pt str damage + Xd6 neg-en damage. What the hell are *you* talking about,
moron?

I'm talking about the inherent flaws in your logic, assbrain. If what
you say is true then the chill touch spell does not work as written in
the rules. RTFM, you insipid fucktard.

You are welcome to (attempt) to demonstrate how a rule for magical sneak
attacks that inflicts the damage of the same [type] that the spell uses
(which is, in fact, the rule) somehow changes the Chill Touch spell so that
it does not do strength damage. However, you can't, because you're playing
the fool all too effectively.

-Michael

[Werebat]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Werebat

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Bullshit. Sage advice did not *invent* sneak attack damage from

spells out of whole cloth - there are rules for it in the PhB. There are

*not*

Post by Werebat

Post by Werebat

Post by Michael Scott Brown
rules for sneak attack damage boosting secondary effects like healing,
enervation, or enfeeblement.

Well by your "logic", a chill touch boosted by sneak attack wouldn't
even do any extra strength damage.
Eating your words yet?

A chill touch combined with a sneak attack would do 1d6 neg-en

damage +

Post by Werebat

1 pt str damage + Xd6 neg-en damage. What the hell are *you* talking

about,

Post by Werebat

moron?

I'm talking about the inherent flaws in your logic, assbrain. If what
you say is true then the chill touch spell does not work as written in
the rules. RTFM, you insipid fucktard.

You are welcome to (attempt) to demonstrate how a rule for magical sneak
attacks that inflicts the damage of the same [type] that the spell uses
(which is, in fact, the rule) somehow changes the Chill Touch spell so that
it does not do strength damage. However, you can't, because you're playing
the fool all too effectively.

Michael,

As usual, you dodge the issue, but not well. Your initial cite was
false and even a casual perusal of the rules proves that you have no
idea what you are talking about. Obviously the Chill Touch spell does
not do Strength damage at all, the unfortunate recipient "takes 1 point
of Strength damage". The rules do not specify if this is from the
spell, or the sneak attack, or anything else.

RTFM, Michael, and stop making a fool of yourself in public. We all
feel sorry for you when you do that.

Once again, a strict interpretation of the rules exonerates the precise
and damns the braying jackass who is Michael Scott Brown.

- Ron ^*^

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Werebat
I'm talking about the inherent flaws in your logic, assbrain. If what
you say is true then the chill touch spell does not work as written in
the rules. RTFM, you insipid fucktard.

Excellent MSB impression. I give it five stars. [*****]
--
Ed Chauvin IV

DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L, use
X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by kids,
since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using modifier G
@ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Werebat
I'm talking about the inherent flaws in your logic, assbrain. If what
you say is true then the chill touch spell does not work as written in
the rules. RTFM, you insipid fucktard.

Excellent MSB impression. I give it five stars. [*****]

Except for the part where it was wrong.

-Michael

[JB]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by Werebat
Any official ruling on this?
If a sorcerer/rogue uses this on a flanked target susceptible to sneak
attacks, we know the sneak attack damage applied is the same "type" as
the Vampiric Touch. Does this mean the rogue gets bonus temporary hit
points equal to the amount of sneak attack damage done?

Please. There are numerous examples of how this works already available
from official sources.

Examples? I don't remember seeing this addressed in anything but Skip's
rules of the game article and I have the latest FAQ.

Post by Michael Scott Brown
The sneak attack damage is completely separate from
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the weapon that
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its base damage
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster

Would a critical hit result in more HP gain according to you?

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
The sneak attack damage is completely separate from
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the weapon that
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its base damage
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster

Would a critical hit result in more HP gain according to you?

Irrelevant - and you already know the by-the-book answer. Critical hits
with weaponlike spells have more *magical* effect, and so there is more
strength drain, more level suppression, more damage inflicted, etc.
However, sneak attack bonus damage is the same whether there is a critical
hit or not. Further, sneak attack damage is *not* strength drain, level
suppression, etc. - it's just straight damage. It's completely separate
from the spell.

-Michael

[JB]

Post by Werebat

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
The sneak attack damage is completely separate from
the spell - it just takes on the same energetic flavour as the

weapon

Post by Werebat
that

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
delivered it (magic, in this case). Vampiric Touch would do its

base

Post by Werebat
damage

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
and provide the appropriate hit points to the caster

Would a critical hit result in more HP gain according to you?

Irrelevant - and you already know the by-the-book answer.

Actually I don't. This is a rule or a ruling I may have genuinely over
looked.

Post by Werebat
Critical hits
with weaponlike spells have more *magical* effect, and so there is more
strength drain, more level suppression, more damage inflicted, etc.

News to me. I've checked the SRD and the only two relevant bits I can find
are.

"A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon
can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and
deals double damage on a successful critical hit."

and

"If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it
were a weapon."

There is nothing about additional magical effects like Str drain, level
suppression etc. In fact there is nothing to suggest that a critical hit
with a spell is any different from a critical hit with a weapon, you hit a
vulnerable spot and I've always assumed that HP damage and only HP damage
is affected.

Do you have a page number I can check later (only have the SRDs at work)
or a page number in the FAQ booklet?

Post by Werebat
However, sneak attack bonus damage is the same whether there is a critical
hit or not. Further, sneak attack damage is *not* strength drain, level
suppression, etc. - it's just straight damage. It's completely separate
from the spell.

I was working on the assumption that the HP gain was a direct function of
the HP drain. IOW hit a vulnerable area and you "suck" and therefore gain
more lifeforce.

Stylistically I have no problem with this and there is no balance problem
(in this particular case) but I'd like to know if this is, in fact, a
house rule.

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Critical hits
with weaponlike spells have more *magical* effect, and so there is more
strength drain, more level suppression, more damage inflicted, etc.

News to me. I've checked the SRD and the only two relevant bits I can find

are.

Post by JB
"A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon
can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and
deals double damage on a successful critical hit."
"If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it
were a weapon."

Yes. I used my language very poorly, and I apologize - by strength
drain I meant strength _damage_; they're semantically equivalent in my head
but not mechanically in D&D (only one can heal). However, poking around I
see that I'm misremembering how a few of the spells work. Ray of
Enfeeblement only does a strength penalty; not the same as strength damage,
so no crits from that spell. Critical hits with level drainer melee attacks
do additional level drain (at least, they did in 3.0; still?), but that
could be specific to the monster, and level drain might not be considered a
type of 'damage', so Enervation might not get the love after all, either.

Please amend my rant to "damaging" effects. I still think a spell that
does stat damage would do twice as much on a crit - but the number of spells
that do so is much smaller than I assumed. :(

Post by JB
Do you have a page number I can check later (only have the SRDs at work)
or a page number in the FAQ booklet?

The only place I see these discussed at all is in the 3.0FAQ; it is
unclear whether this means the suggestions are retracted.

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
However, sneak attack bonus damage is the same whether there is a critical
hit or not. Further, sneak attack damage is *not* strength drain, level
suppression, etc. - it's just straight damage. It's completely separate
from the spell.

I was working on the assumption that the HP gain was a direct function of
the HP drain. IOW hit a vulnerable area and you "suck" and therefore gain
more lifeforce. > Stylistically I have no problem with this and there is

no balance problem

Post by JB
(in this particular case) but I'd like to know if this is, in fact, a
house rule.

You don't see a problem with 20th level rogues being able to use wands
and scrolls of vampiric touch to heal themselves of 16d6 damage while also
inflicting the same, when the best necromancer alive can only manage 9d6
(IIRC; using empower)?

-Michael

[JB]

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
Critical hits
with weaponlike spells have more *magical* effect, and so there is more
strength drain, more level suppression, more damage inflicted, etc.

News to me. I've checked the SRD and the only two relevant bits I can find

are.

Post by JB
"A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon
can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and
deals double damage on a successful critical hit."
"If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it
were a weapon."

Yes. I used my language very poorly, and I apologize - by strength
drain I meant strength _damage_; they're semantically equivalent in my head
but not mechanically in D&D (only one can heal). However, poking around I
see that I'm misremembering how a few of the spells work. Ray of
Enfeeblement only does a strength penalty; not the same as strength damage,
so no crits from that spell. Critical hits with level drainer melee attacks
do additional level drain (at least, they did in 3.0; still?), but that
could be specific to the monster, and level drain might not be

considered a

Post by Michael Scott Brown
type of 'damage', so Enervation might not get the love after all, either.
Please amend my rant to "damaging" effects.

No worries.

Post by Michael Scott Brown
I still think a spell that
does stat damage would do twice as much on a crit - but the number of spells
that do so is much smaller than I assumed. :(

Maybe. I'll have to dig the 3.0 FAQ out and have a look.

Post by Michael Scott Brown

Post by JB
Do you have a page number I can check later (only have the SRDs at work)
or a page number in the FAQ booklet?

The only place I see these discussed at all is in the 3.0FAQ; it is
unclear whether this means the suggestions are retracted.

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
However, sneak attack bonus damage is the same whether there is a

critical

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
hit or not. Further, sneak attack damage is *not* strength drain, level
suppression, etc. - it's just straight damage. It's completely separate
from the spell.

I was working on the assumption that the HP gain was a direct function of
the HP drain. IOW hit a vulnerable area and you "suck" and therefore gain
more lifeforce. > Stylistically I have no problem with this and there is

no balance problem

Post by JB
(in this particular case) but I'd like to know if this is, in fact, a
house rule.

You don't see a problem with 20th level rogues being able to use wands
and scrolls of vampiric touch to heal themselves of 16d6 damage while also
inflicting the same, when the best necromancer alive can only manage 9d6
(IIRC; using empower)?

I hadn't considered that actually. Good point, but is it really any worse
than the fact they can do 16d6 damage with the wand/scroll where as the
best the necromancer can manage is 9d6?

[Michael Scott Brown]

Post by JB

Post by Michael Scott Brown
You don't see a problem with 20th level rogues being able to use wands
and scrolls of vampiric touch to heal themselves of 16d6 damage while also
inflicting the same, when the best necromancer alive can only manage 9d6
(IIRC; using empower)?

I hadn't considered that actually. Good point, but is it really any worse
than the fact they can do 16d6 damage with the wand/scroll where as the
best the necromancer can manage is 9d6?

From a balance perspective, doubly so, arguably, given the healing that
comes with it!
From a rational perspective, rogues do more damage because they're good
at *attacking* (with surprise, etc.); they get that similar bonus damage no
matter what weapon they use - the bonus damage because it relies on exactly
the same mechanisms in all cases. This rationale does not lead to the the
idea that the rogue should be hyper adroit at weilding magic.

-Michael