Sneak Attack + Touch Spells... Sneak Harm ?

[Gez]

Well, what happens if you're a Rogue Cleric, that you flank your target, and you cast Harm on it ? Given that usually you add sneak attack damage on attack spells that requires attack rolls (wow, three times the word "attack" in a single phrase! I'm feeling offensive), even when your spell don't deal direct damage (sneak attacks on energy drain add hit point damage, for example), we can ask this question.

I see only two reasonnable ways of handling this:

• No sneak attack on Harm.
• The sneak damage are calculated before the hit points are reduced to 1d4.

Any Caliban to answer this ?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Well, I believe that the spell has to actually do damage, and technically harm doesn't do damage, it just reduces your HP.

So I would rule no sneak attacks with harm.

--Simple Spikey

 

[Artoomis]

I agree with the Spikey one:

No sneak attacks with harm - just as there is no critical possible with harm.

 

[graydoom]

Cannot be done. The way I see it is that Harm itself does no damage, just reduces your HP to a random amount.

Now, if you delivered the Harm with an unarmed attack, that'd be different....

 

[dcollins]

All this talk about "harm doesn't do damage, it just reduces hit points" is completely unsupportable and unnecessary.

It's well established that in a touch attack + touch spell situation, the attack damage is applied first, and then the spell goes off. From the Official D&D FAQ, p. 31:

Can a monk or other character use an unarmed strike to
deliver a spell with touch range? If so, how do you resolve
the attack?

Yes, you can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell. Since casting a spell is a standard action, you usually have to wait until your next turn to make the unarmed attack. Resolve the unarmed attack exactly the same way you resolve any other unarmed strike. The attacker has to beat the defender’s Armor Class with all adjustments, including armor and shield, added in. (The attacker is trying to land a damaging blow, not just touch the opponent.) If the attacker doesn’t have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, the attack draws an attack of opportunity. (Striking for damage exposes the attacker to more risk than merely touching the opponent to deliver a spell.) If the attack is a hit, the attacker deals unarmed damage and discharges the spell. If the attack is a miss, the attacker is still holding the charge.

 

[Gez]

What you've quoted is for a slightly different situation, when the caster wants to do unarmed damage plus affect someone with his spell. By default harm don't requires you to wait for the next round nor to beat the opponent's full AC, as it merely requires a melee touch attack which is part of its casting.

The thing is, if you're a spellcaster with sneak attack, you make sneak damage on touch attack spells even if you don't use the "I also want to pumel him" option.

 

[Ywain]

I think that there are three related questions at play here:

1) Can you deal sneak attack damage with a touch attack? The answer is "yes", but only if the corresponding spell deals damage, and you meet the conditions for sneak attack. As a rule of thumb, if you can score a critical hit with the spell then you can do sneak attack damage. Note that spells such as harm simply reduce hit points to a set amount and cannot score critical hits.

2) Can you deal sneak attack damage with an unarmed strike at the same time that you deliver a touch attack. Yes, see DCollins' quotation.

3) What is the order of operations for dealing unarmed strike damage and touch spell effects? If the unarmed strike damage is counted first, then Harm would render the damage redundant (in most circumstances) as the opponent would still only be reduced to 1d4 HP. If the spell takes effect first, then the opponent would be reduced to 1d4 HP then the unarmed attack damage would be subtracted. The sage seems to impy that they happen at the same time, but this is impossible in the case of Harm.

Discuss.



BTW the circumstance where the unarmed strike damage wouldn't be redundant, even if it is delivered before the Harm effect, is if you are doing subdual damage. 10 points of subdual damage then the opponent is reduced to 4 HP = unconscious opponent. Not as good as dead, but pretty close.

 

[rankarrog]

What about: You do the unarmed/Sneak/Whatever damage and THEN apply the Harm Spell, which brings the victims HP to 1d4

 

[Darkness]

I'm just glad that clerics don't have access to, say, haste and magic missile...

 

[graydoom]

I'm just glad that clerics don't have access to, say, haste and magic missile...

Heh. Potions of Haste do the job just as well. And I do think that almost everyone has rule0ed Harm in one way or another by now.