Telling Blow: Does a crit allow a spellthief to steal a spell?

[ksbsnowowl]

Steal Spell (Su): A spellthief can siphon spell energy away from his target and use it himself.  A spellthief who hits an opponent with a successful sneak attack can choose to forego dealing 1d6 points of sneak attack damage and instead steal a spell, from his target.

When you score a critical hit against a target, you deal your skirmish or sneak attack damage in addition to the damage from your critical hit. Your critical multiplier applies only to your normal damage, not your skirmish or sneak attack damage. This benefit affects both melee and ranged attacks.

I'm guessing that telling blow isn't technically a sneak attack, and thus I could not steal a spell via it, correct?

[phaedrusxy]

I think you could, actually. If you add SA damage, then it's pretty much by definition a "successful sneak attack", isn't it?

[ksbsnowowl]

It was recently pointed out to me that a Telling Blow would not activate a Rogue's Crippling Strike, as it isn't really a sneak attack.  It just allows you to apply your sneak attack damage.

[Unbeliever]

Meh.  Is there any reason to take away a cool combo that was totally intended to offer a different avenue of using Sneak Attack?  Is there any reason to take away some of the cooler aspects of Sneak Attack, meaning that it can deliver effects other than damage? 

I think the answer to both is "no," so I'd totally let it ride.  There are so many more effective ways of generating sneak attacks than putting a lot of resources into Telling Blow and critting -- the ToB White Raven feat or flanking to name just 2 -- I see no reason to nerf this one.

[ksbsnowowl]

I'm actually not looking to nerf it, I was just pointing out why my thinking went that direction to begin with.

I do allow keen and improved critical to stack in my game, so a spell-thieving rapier-wielder might be in my PC's futures.

(Due to several of my gestalt PC's being near-straight-classed Barbarians or Rogues, sneak attack is normally worthless to me...)

[Unbeliever]

I guess I was trying to indicate that I wouldn't pin much on the particular language used in the feat.  I am a bit skeptical that the writers/designers would have parsed the distinction between "sneak attack damage" and "triggering a sneak attack." 

And, in interpreting these things, given the overall weakness of sneak attack, rogues, etc., I adopt a version of the rule of lenity.