Pyrokineticist + sneak attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Pyrokineticist + sneak attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
pmurray@bigpond.com
04-29-08, 08:49 PM I am very unhappy about one of my players doing sneak attack damage with a ranged touch attack at 15'.

The player is a rogue who has taken one level of pyrokineticist in order to gain a "fire lash":

A pyrokineticist gains the ability to fashion a 15-foot-long whip of fire from unstable ectoplasm as a move-equivalent action. The lash deals 1d8 points of fire damage to a target within 15 feet on a successful ranged touch attack. A pyro can take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (if she otherwise meets the prerequisites) in conjunction with the fire lash, as well as any feats that apply to the use of a standard whip.

Now, does this weapon threaten for purposes of flanking? It's ranged, but so is a normal whip, which is a melee weapon. The "ranged" aspect seems (to me) to indicate merely that it is always a "weapon finesse" weapon.

Can you sneak attack with the fire lash? It does not do melee damage - only energy damage, but I don't know any rule that says "sneak attack damage only counts if you are doing melee damage". After all, you can critical hit with a ray spell.

Can you sneak attack with a touch attack? Again, I know of no rule that specifically excludes the possibility.

Any of these rules - fire lash doesn't flank, can't SA with energy damage, can't SA with a touch attack - would balance things out a little. As it is, however, it's just nuts - a rogue doing 1d8+5d6 at 15' range, at will.

Can you help?
tos_shai_hulud
04-29-08, 09:32 PM Why are the BBEGs standing in between the rogue's fire lash and another creature?!? The rogue has a long reach, but must still be in a straight line with another character for the flank to be there. If two BBEGs are standing next to each other, they can fight back to back with their only flank being on their sides. You add in two more BBEGs and they become immune to flanking so long as they fight as a unit (they remain within close proximity to each other). There are tons of other ways to break flanking. Lines of enemies make for good tactics. Enemies with Mobility make for very confounding opponents to flank. Held actions waiting for a flank to occur are also a good tactic. With the plethora of ways to avoid flanking, this should not be an issue.

As far as the rules, yes, the rogue would deal sneak attack damage, even though it is an energy attack.
StevenO
04-29-08, 11:16 PM A whip may have reach but it specifically states you don't threaten with one which is a condition of flanking, this would indicate you may not flank with the lash either.

It is possible to use Sneak Attack with energy based and other attack forms. In this case where the base damage is all fire damage that is what all the SA damage will be as well. If I attacked with a weapon that does 1d6 fire damage all the SA damage would be fire as well while attacking you with a weapon that deals 1 (piercing) + 2d8 fire would mean all that SA goes to the base (piercing) damage.

A touch attack is still an attack and thus eligable for SA damage. If you look at the Warlock's Eldritch Blast it is perfectly legal to add SA damage to it if the proper conditions are met.
tos_shai_hulud
04-30-08, 12:40 AM A whip may have reach but it specifically states you don't threaten with one which is a condition of flanking, this would indicate you may not flank with the lash either.

It is possible to use Sneak Attack with energy based and other attack forms. In this case where the base damage is all fire damage that is what all the SA damage will be as well. If I attacked with a weapon that does 1d6 fire damage all the SA damage would be fire as well while attacking you with a weapon that deals 1 (piercing) + 2d8 fire would mean all that SA goes to the base (piercing) damage.

A touch attack is still an attack and thus eligable for SA damage. If you look at the Warlock's Eldritch Blast it is perfectly legal to add SA damage to it if the proper conditions are met.

I was under the impression that a whip did not threaten because it dealt nonlethal damage. Since a fire lash deals lethal damage, it likely does threaten (although I cannot be certain as it is treated as a melee weapon with ranged weapon properties).

But anyway, the attacker is not required to be threatening the defender for flanking to exist. What is necessary is that the attacker must be making a melee attack (a whip attack is a melee attack), and there must be another opponent friendly to the attacker on the opposing side of the defender who threatens the defender (this is where threat is important, as two whip wielders would not provide flanking for each other). In this instance, only the whip-wielder gains the benefit of the flank. As for the fire lash, it is up to the DM if he decides that it threatens since it deals lethal damage instead of nonlethal.

Here is the relevant passage from the SRD:

Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.
pmurray@bigpond.com
05-01-08, 07:34 PM Well, I asked customer service about this, and raised this exact point (the rules don't mention that the attacker needs to threaten). Customer service simply replied:

"One cannot threaten as per the whip entry and therefore does not get a +2 for flanking. Neither does any other "flanking" since again the person with the whip does not threaten."

The customer service incident id is 080429-000346 .
Tedronai
05-02-08, 01:11 AM Summary:
Said character can sneak attack with the fire lash, but does not threaten creatures by virtue of the lash (though other weapons the character has available might threaten adjacent creatures - off-hand weapon, spiked armour, etc).
Since the lash does not threaten, it does not provide a flanking benefit (again, other weapons may do this for him), and barring other sources of flanking (said other weapons or a PHB2 alternate Ranger), will not sneak attack from that trigger.
The only way the character will be reliably getting sneak attacks with the lash is against creatures that have been denied their dex bonuses to AC (flat-footed, balancing, climbing, grappled, etc).
Doomsought
05-07-08, 08:26 PM Sneak attack works as long as you are in 30 feet, or you can't discern their anatomy to hit the soft spot, so he is okay.
that is the rule 30 feet, just clarify that with him so he knows for later.
pmurray@bigpond.com
05-08-08, 05:53 AM Just an update: the player has decided that the pyrok was too much rules lawyering - that the character had become all abou the fire lash, rather than being an effective rogue. So we have just redone the character and ditched the fire lash.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pmurray@bigpond.com 04-29-08, 08:49 PM	I am very unhappy about one of my players doing sneak attack damage with a ranged touch attack at 15'. The player is a rogue who has taken one level of pyrokineticist in order to gain a "fire lash": A pyrokineticist gains the ability to fashion a 15-foot-long whip of fire from unstable ectoplasm as a move-equivalent action. The lash deals 1d8 points of fire damage to a target within 15 feet on a successful ranged touch attack. A pyro can take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (if she otherwise meets the prerequisites) in conjunction with the fire lash, as well as any feats that apply to the use of a standard whip. Now, does this weapon threaten for purposes of flanking? It's ranged, but so is a normal whip, which is a melee weapon. The "ranged" aspect seems (to me) to indicate merely that it is always a "weapon finesse" weapon. Can you sneak attack with the fire lash? It does not do melee damage - only energy damage, but I don't know any rule that says "sneak attack damage only counts if you are doing melee damage". After all, you can critical hit with a ray spell. Can you sneak attack with a touch attack? Again, I know of no rule that specifically excludes the possibility. Any of these rules - fire lash doesn't flank, can't SA with energy damage, can't SA with a touch attack - would balance things out a little. As it is, however, it's just nuts - a rogue doing 1d8+5d6 at 15' range, at will. Can you help?
tos_shai_hulud 04-29-08, 09:32 PM	Why are the BBEGs standing in between the rogue's fire lash and another creature?!? The rogue has a long reach, but must still be in a straight line with another character for the flank to be there. If two BBEGs are standing next to each other, they can fight back to back with their only flank being on their sides. You add in two more BBEGs and they become immune to flanking so long as they fight as a unit (they remain within close proximity to each other). There are tons of other ways to break flanking. Lines of enemies make for good tactics. Enemies with Mobility make for very confounding opponents to flank. Held actions waiting for a flank to occur are also a good tactic. With the plethora of ways to avoid flanking, this should not be an issue. As far as the rules, yes, the rogue would deal sneak attack damage, even though it is an energy attack.
StevenO 04-29-08, 11:16 PM	A whip may have reach but it specifically states you don't threaten with one which is a condition of flanking, this would indicate you may not flank with the lash either. It is possible to use Sneak Attack with energy based and other attack forms. In this case where the base damage is all fire damage that is what all the SA damage will be as well. If I attacked with a weapon that does 1d6 fire damage all the SA damage would be fire as well while attacking you with a weapon that deals 1 (piercing) + 2d8 fire would mean all that SA goes to the base (piercing) damage. A touch attack is still an attack and thus eligable for SA damage. If you look at the Warlock's Eldritch Blast it is perfectly legal to add SA damage to it if the proper conditions are met.
tos_shai_hulud 04-30-08, 12:40 AM	A whip may have reach but it specifically states you don't threaten with one which is a condition of flanking, this would indicate you may not flank with the lash either. It is possible to use Sneak Attack with energy based and other attack forms. In this case where the base damage is all fire damage that is what all the SA damage will be as well. If I attacked with a weapon that does 1d6 fire damage all the SA damage would be fire as well while attacking you with a weapon that deals 1 (piercing) + 2d8 fire would mean all that SA goes to the base (piercing) damage. A touch attack is still an attack and thus eligable for SA damage. If you look at the Warlock's Eldritch Blast it is perfectly legal to add SA damage to it if the proper conditions are met. I was under the impression that a whip did not threaten because it dealt nonlethal damage. Since a fire lash deals lethal damage, it likely does threaten (although I cannot be certain as it is treated as a melee weapon with ranged weapon properties). But anyway, the attacker is not required to be threatening the defender for flanking to exist. What is necessary is that the attacker must be making a melee attack (a whip attack is a melee attack), and there must be another opponent friendly to the attacker on the opposing side of the defender who threatens the defender (this is where threat is important, as two whip wielders would not provide flanking for each other). In this instance, only the whip-wielder gains the benefit of the flank. As for the fire lash, it is up to the DM if he decides that it threatens since it deals lethal damage instead of nonlethal. Here is the relevant passage from the SRD: Flanking When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked. Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.
pmurray@bigpond.com 05-01-08, 07:34 PM	Well, I asked customer service about this, and raised this exact point (the rules don't mention that the attacker needs to threaten). Customer service simply replied: "One cannot threaten as per the whip entry and therefore does not get a +2 for flanking. Neither does any other "flanking" since again the person with the whip does not threaten." The customer service incident id is 080429-000346 .
Tedronai 05-02-08, 01:11 AM	Summary: Said character can sneak attack with the fire lash, but does not threaten creatures by virtue of the lash (though other weapons the character has available might threaten adjacent creatures - off-hand weapon, spiked armour, etc). Since the lash does not threaten, it does not provide a flanking benefit (again, other weapons may do this for him), and barring other sources of flanking (said other weapons or a PHB2 alternate Ranger), will not sneak attack from that trigger. The only way the character will be reliably getting sneak attacks with the lash is against creatures that have been denied their dex bonuses to AC (flat-footed, balancing, climbing, grappled, etc).
Doomsought 05-07-08, 08:26 PM	Sneak attack works as long as you are in 30 feet, or you can't discern their anatomy to hit the soft spot, so he is okay. that is the rule 30 feet, just clarify that with him so he knows for later.
pmurray@bigpond.com 05-08-08, 05:53 AM	Just an update: the player has decided that the pyrok was too much rules lawyering - that the character had become all abou the fire lash, rather than being an effective rogue. So we have just redone the character and ditched the fire lash.