Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

TGMaxMaxer, all of your examples are sequential attacks. Scorching ray generate 3 attacks at the same time.

A better example is a scatter weapon:

Scatter Weapon Quality: A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a scatter attack. If any of the attack rolls threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that attack roll alone. A firearm that makes a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius.

It is very similar to scorching ray: multiple to hit, multiple targets, all attacks at the same time, not in sequence.
It don't add precision damage at all.

A scorching ray is a bit more precise and it should get the sneak attack, but you are still limited to aiming precisely only one of the attacks, not all of them.

The only reason the scatter quality does not by RAW grant sneak attack against each target is because the above bolded text was included in its rules. This means that if the text was not in existence it would be able to sneak attack each target attacked. Further more due to the fact you are making multiple attack rolls, it could be argued that you provoke multiple AoO's for firing a scatter attack, however the text is ambiguous and states that the scatter weapon is attacking all creatures within a cone and making multiple attack rolls meaning it may be one attack with multiple rolls, or many attacks.

Further there is no RAW for simultaneous VS iterative attacks granting/not granting Sneak Attack. If I am incorrect please direct me to either a rulebook page, and FAQ, or a PRD link for Pathfinder, not 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly.

The bolded line is there specifically because if it weren't, you -WOULD-get sneak damage on all of the targets, and also generate an AoO from all of them as well.

This is basically an AoE where you roll attacks for individual targets, not a spell that has several distinct missles that can fire at the same or different targets.

Here's one to avoid magic altogether.

If a rogue 1/gunslinger x fires a double pistol, which takes a -4 to attack the same target 2x with separate attack rolls as a standard action in the surprise round,(or an otherwise flatfooted opponent or one denied dex within 30ft.), do you say he only gets to add sneak attack damage once?

I started to ask manyshot, but that also states the single precision damage bit in the feat.

Cheliax

Diego Rossi wrote:


A better example is a scatter weapon:

Scatter Weapon Quality: A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a [/QOUTE]

That's a big leap with several different rules that I don't believe apply to Scorching Ray. Better to treat SR as an iterative attack which isn't sequential and is aimed.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Exactly.

We admit that in 3.5e it was expressly the case that scorching ray would only get sneak attack once and not multiple times.

Is this correct?

-James


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That was due to the volley fire rule, yep. I think that was introduced in a later book? I'd have to double check.


Cheapy wrote:
That was due to the volley fire rule, yep. I think that was introduced in a later book? I'd have to double check.

It was first a FAQ, and the nature of WOTC being what it was.. rather than add to their core rules they added it into a splat book.. complete arcane.

So it was clearly a rule in 3.5e (motivated by a Tomb and Blood spell which could give 15 separate attacks as a volley).

Now, other than them not reprinting the rule, what has changed?

Nothing in this.

So, how honest are we being should we say there's no reason to believe that this is the rule?

Btw.. why didn't they reprint it? Because Complete Arcane is not OGL, and I figure there was some fun legal reasons for them not to do so.

Why do people want it to be different? Because the arcane trickster PrC is big on flavor but sucks in play. Rather than trying to contort the rules.. fix the PrC!

-James


Yes, in 3.x there was a line specifically for sneak attack that specified that you could only apply it once per round per target.

That was the only reason you wouldn't get sneak on 2-3 rays of scorching ray on the same target. You did, however, get sneak attack on 3 -different- targets in the same round, if you could hit them all in one round.

There was also the 5 feat combo for rogues that included quick draw, flick of the wrist, combat reflexes, expert tactician, and quicker than the eye, (plus a 19 dex) where when you quickdrew a weapon and attacked an enemy in the first round, they were flat-footed, and 1/round when you made an attack on a flat-footed enemy you got to immediately attack them again with all the same bonuses/conditions giving you two in the first round of combat if you started with no weapons in hand.

@ James

So, because they didn't reprint a rules addendum from a splatbook, you don't think it should work, when they did -explicitly- change sneak attack to work from once/round/enemy to anytime they are denied dex or flanked with no limit concerning physical weapon (melee or ranged) attacks?

Why would an ability whose basic structure has changed default to the old rules for one facet, when the baseline ability has been so drastically altered mechanically?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Yes, in 3.x there was a line specifically for sneak attack that specified that you could only apply it once per round per target.

No, no there wasn't... any attack that met the conditions qualified as a sneak attack in 3.5 (with the exceptions of manyshot and spells that fired multiple attack roll requiring attacks in a single round mentioned above).


TGMaxMaxer wrote:


Why would an ability whose basic structure has changed default to the old rules for one facet, when the baseline ability has been so drastically altered mechanically?

You are mistaken in many respects in your post.

1. Sneak attack only applied once with a scorching ray in 3.5e regardless of number of targets.

2. There was NEVER any rule on sneak an enemy once per round. I don't know WHERE you got this from, but it's not D&D 3rd edition.

3. Before the splatbook it was an old FAQ ruling iirc, the splatbook writing was more to fully incorporate it into the rules set rather than anything of a surprise/new rule.

So given that sneak attack HASN'T changed with the move to pathfinder, we should expect that the 3.5 rules should continue over.

-James

Sczarni

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If a 3.5 rule hasn't been reprinted in a Pathfinder book, then it's not a Pathfinder rule. Only the published Pathfinder rules are Pathfinder rules.

No 3.5 rules carry over unless Paizo reprints them.


Trinite wrote:

If a 3.5 rule hasn't been reprinted in a Pathfinder book, then it's not a Pathfinder rule. Only the published Pathfinder rules are Pathfinder rules.

No 3.5 rules carry over unless Paizo reprints them.

Can they reprint it tho?

Would it be legal for them to do so?

We can agree that it WAS a 3.5 rule, and that PF didn't change sneak attack rules.

The default is that the volley rule should be accepted, and very easy reasons to understand.. having a rogue sneak attack 15 times with a TK spell is an abuse.

Voluntarily burying one's head in the sand about it is a mistake. It's lying and worse, lying to yourself,

James


RAW or 3.5, whatever. I'm personally house-ruling it to say one per attack roll with direct damage. The point of rules is to balance power, and until someone can come up with some combo that makes the Arcane Trickster have god-like powers, I'll keep those houserules this way. Arcane Trickster is fairly weak, these houserules make him comparable, with fun flavor. Then again, he would be a skill monkey/arcane user/damage blaster. He would kind of make a normal rogue or wizard a bit more useless, unless they were some sort of specialist. But not enough to change my mind about my house rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Change the example to a bow. If the requirements were met, would you get SA damage on each bow strike? even if you aim them all at the same target? If so, then the same would have to apply to scorching ray, as each ray is a separate attack.


james maissen wrote:
Trinite wrote:

If a 3.5 rule hasn't been reprinted in a Pathfinder book, then it's not a Pathfinder rule. Only the published Pathfinder rules are Pathfinder rules.

No 3.5 rules carry over unless Paizo reprints them.

Can they reprint it tho?

Would it be legal for them to do so?

We can agree that it WAS a 3.5 rule, and that PF didn't change sneak attack rules.

The default is that the volley rule should be accepted, and very easy reasons to understand.. having a rogue sneak attack 15 times with a TK spell is an abuse.

Voluntarily burying one's head in the sand about it is a mistake. It's lying and worse, lying to yourself,

James

The default for an entirely different rule set is one thing. The default for another rule set is something entirely different.

What you are claiming is that because something worked one way in a past edition it should still work that way in a different edition.

Care for me to force you back to THac0 and Save Vs Death?

Any way about it your whole argument now is based on the fallacy of tradition (we should do it this way because it's how it was done in the past).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the absence of a volley rule, I have to agree that you get SA on all three rays.

This guy also agrees.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:

In the absence of a volley rule, I have to agree that you get SA on all three rays.

This guy also agrees.

If you read further down, you'll see James Maissen saying something in response to that, and then James Jacobs responding to the responce.


Cheapy wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

In the absence of a volley rule, I have to agree that you get SA on all three rays.

This guy also agrees.

If you read further down, you'll see James Maissen saying something in response to that, and then James Jacobs responding to the responce.

In the thread I linked?

Could you please link those posts? I've read several pages further and can't seem to find them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
If you read further down, you'll see James Maissen saying something in response to that, and then James Jacobs responding to the responce.
In the thread I linked?

No, in another one.

Quantum Steve wrote:
Could you please link those posts?

Quotes below have some snipping done. Follow links for full posts +context.

I'd rule scorching ray would do additional sneak attack damage per ray, honestly. But ONLY if the target is flat footed.

Treat multiple scorching rays on a single target the same way you'd treat a full attack action on a single target, in other words.

If you're popping out of stealth, you'd only get the sneak attack damage on the first ray of multiple rays on a single target, since he's only flat footed against your first attack; after that, even a split second later, he sees you and can react and isn't flat footed.

Dragonslie wrote:
why would only the "first ray count" when popping out of stealth?? On surprise spells I would say yes. But why only the first when he would clearly be "flat footed" vs ALL rays.

Because the rays created by this spell don't all fire at the same time. At least, I don't see them as firing all at the same time. They fire in rapid succession, one after the other.

If your GM instead says they all fire at once... then sure... they would all gain the sneak attack in that situation. I've just always envisioned them as going one after the other because they increase in number as you get higher level, just like how your iterative attacks increase as you get higher level.

(shrug)

Both interpretations are legit. Only the GM gets to pick which one is legit at any one time.

james maissen wrote:

Aren't we talking about Scorching ray here?

Scorching ray wrote:
The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

Well then!

The rays DO fire simultaneously, which is not something I knew they did (turns out, I don't have the core rules memorized!).

In light of this development, I probably would let all of those rays do sneak attack damage.

Still... the GM gets to make the final call.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Whoops. There are a lot of posts out there.


Well, since that has apparently been settled, Gillman Eldritch Raider (Rogue Archtype), anyone?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/uncommonRaces/gillmen. html


so, what's the interaction between Scorching Ray and fire resistance?

is it resisted once because it's one casting of a spell, or is it once per ray?


fire resistance is once per ray


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
If you read further down, you'll see James Maissen saying something in response to that, and then James Jacobs responding to the responce.
In the thread I linked?

No, in another one.

What's interesting is that the thread he links to is more recent than the one you linked to, and in it James Jacobs assumes that the rays hit simultaneously, and thus count as a single attack (and thus only get sneak attack once).


Zolthux wrote:

so, what's the interaction between Scorching Ray and fire resistance?

is it resisted once because it's one casting of a spell, or is it once per ray?

per ray for fire resistance but per spell for spell resistance.

-James


spectrevk wrote:
What's interesting is that the thread he links to is more recent than the one you linked to, and in it James Jacobs assumes that the rays hit simultaneously, and thus count as a single attack (and thus only get sneak attack once).

Actually, in the newer post (in the Ask JJ thread) he once again forgot that the rays do hit simultaneously.

He assumes they fire sequentially, and each one gets sneak attack. He then says if they did all hit at once, it's one sneak attack.

However, the key to understanding all that is the thread I linked was specifically talking about casting Scorching Ray while invisible.

If you're under the effects of invisibility and you cast Scorching Ray, what happens now depends on how the rays are fired.

Simultaneously: All rays benefit from invisibility. Bonuses to hit, and sneak attack damage.

Iteratively: Only the first ray benefits from invisibility, with a bonus to hit and sneak attack damage, after that first ray you're visible and thus don't get those benefits.

The Ask JJ thread posts didn't mention invisibility, it was just in regards to a foe that is denied dex. In that case:

Simultaneously: One attack for all rays, only one sneak attack.

Iteratively: Each ray is an attack, and gets sneak attack.

So it's kind of contradictory, but that's because each thread was talking about a different situation. It's all taken out of context which is why it sounds kind of bad.

I think it went something like this: James learned that the rays fire simultaneously, and decides he would probably allow them all to get SA when fired from invisibility. Eight months go by and it comes up again, and remembering that the last time he said the rays all got SA, he says they all get SA. He just says why incorrectly because he didn't stop to look through all the rules and was just answering how he would do it on the fly.

Still... the GM gets to make the final call.


A highly regarded expert wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:

I have to join in the chorus saying that the one PrC that regularly worries about it should, just for the sake of fairness, get sneak attacks on all rays in a spell.

If you roll to hit for direct damage, you can do sneak damage with it. Otherwise, the class feature is barely worth having.

I don't know about your games, but in mine, rogues have Use Magic Device, and normally buy CL 11 wands of Scorching Ray. Just because 30d6 sneak attack is a wonderful way to start a combat at level 10 :)

LOL! They sure do!

That's not only expensive (330 a pop), but it's not likely to work too well at high levels against spell and fire resistant enemies. Does your rogue have lots of ranks in all the Knowledge skills so he can figure out if it's worth the trouble? Is he going to make that DC 20 to activate it every time?

A trickster would cast the same spell at a higher caster level, possibly intensified or otherwise augmented, and it would only cost them whatever they spent to learn the spell in the first place. Is your 10th level rogue going to spend 16,500 of his 62,000 on that? Really? Over 1/3 of his treasure?

In my games, that would leave him vulnerable in other areas, and he'd probably die.

UMD is definitely doable, but if it's less than spectacular, you blew 330 gold to do little or nothing. That's the problem with all these theoretical rogues who spend their money on nothing but wands and scrolls.

didn't read this time ago.

DC 20 is stupidly easy to make at lvl 10. Our rogue in Kingmaker was able to take 10 in UMD (as well as stealth and acrobatics I think), and had like +20 or so in the UMD skill, so yes, he made the roll. Rutinarely. Even with a -10.

And only a handful of creatures are fire INMUNE. Almost as much as creatures that are fire VULNERABLE. So not really a problem. It's free to scorch 99% of human NPC, and a lot of monsters in the compendium. Even those with mild fire resist (10) are decent targets. You can sneak them through the Resist anyways (10d6 vs 10 FR is like +20 damage per hit, with 3 rays that's 60 damage from a distance if your DM use 3 sneaks per spell). Probably better average damage that trying to throw daggers against regular (not touch) AC vs a target that could have DR as easily as he could have Fire Resist. And If you feel FR is too frequent (it's not), you can buy the Wand from an Elemental Sorcerer, they get Scorching ray but from their own element. So you can buy a shocking ray, or acid ray, or whatever, just need to find a Sorcerer with the feat. The Wand cost 16000 only if you buy one with 50 charges. 25 charges cost half that, and probably will suffice for a lot of levels. 30d6 with a touch attack is worth it, for sure.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Our rogue in Kingmaker was able to take 10 in UMD

What ability allows him to do this? That would be super handy.


Grick wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Our rogue in Kingmaker was able to take 10 in UMD

What ability allows him to do this? That would be super handy.

Rogue Talent Skill Mastery


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Grick wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Our rogue in Kingmaker was able to take 10 in UMD
What ability allows him to do this? That would be super handy.
Rogue Talent Skill Mastery

I don't think that works.

Use Magic Device - "Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill."

Skill Mastery: "When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

It's not stress and distractions that prevent you from taking 10 on UMD checks, it's that the skill itself forbids it.

I guess one could read it as "she may always take 10. This is true even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

Anyway, since this is off-topic, discussion on this should probably move to a specific thread. this one or this one.


UMD's rule is the general, the rogue spending a talent is the specific. At least, unless someone can point out different?


skill mastery only allows a rogue to take 10 "even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so."

The reason you are prevented from taking 10 on use magic device is not "stress and distractions" it is because the skill very specifically says you cannot take 10 on it.

ergo Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 on UMD.


"15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata."

When and where was this answered in the errata??


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthias_DM wrote:

"15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata."

When and where was this answered in the errata??

"Answered in the Errata" or FAQ or whatever doesn't always mean that. It could of very well just been marked that way to clear it off their list of FAQ requests.


This one may need a new thread.


I don't have a problem with scorching ray granting multiple sneak attacks, but I think it's inconsistent that they would all strike "simultaneously" and grant sneak attack even when you had simply stealthed or used invisibility.

Slathering a full attack of sneak attacks on whomever you like feels like it's above the scope of a 2nd-level spell. Especially when they're already targeting flat-footed touch AC.


Troubleshooter wrote:

I don't have a problem with scorching ray granting multiple sneak attacks, but I think it's inconsistent that they would all strike "simultaneously" and grant sneak attack even when you had simply stealthed or used invisibility.

Slathering a full attack of sneak attacks on whomever you like feels like it's above the scope of a 2nd-level spell. Especially when they're already targeting flat-footed touch AC.

It opens up more floodgates than that.. other spells could then deliver 8 or 15 sneak attacks in a round simultaneously.

A simple rule on volley attacks that doesn't infringe on WotC's legal toes would be very good to have.

Then a not so simple fix for the arcane trickster so that they don't 'need' scorching ray sneak attacks to be 'viable'.

-James


I already have my complaints with Arcane Trickster. Their Surprise Spells ability only triggers when their opponent is flat-footed rather than denied Dexterity bonus to AC, meaning on or before the first round of combat with few exceptions (Shatter Defenses, etc).

May I ask what spells these are, that can deliver that many sneak attacks each round? I remember some great spells from 3.5 like cloud of knives, but I haven't noticed many Pathfinder system spells with multiple attack rolls besides scorching ray and some kind of Force effect from the megadungeons supplement.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I think maybe the "answered in FAQ" answer is relating to this FAQ entry, which says:

The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.

I didn't write that FAQ, and I don't know if I'm the one who cleared the FAQ-flag on this thread, and I know it's talking about the arcane trickster class, but perhaps it was marked as such because of the "only once per spell" ruling in that FAQ entry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's plausible. I wonder if the Magic chapter has anything about bonus damage to spells only applying once per spell. I don't recall seeing anything to that effect, but it could be there...

edit: nope, didn't see anything.


Makes sense to me Sean.

So it would seem only one scorching ray gets sneak attack damage.


That FAQ deals with Surprise spell, which is something completely separate from the discussion. That is that. This is this.

I do not understand how you can read it any other way than getting SA on every attack roll with Scorching Ray. 3.5 rules are irrelevant here. If someone can point out a PF ruling that says otherwise, I will happily agree with you. Until then, there is no reason to suspect one wouldn't, and I have not seen a compelling argument to the contrary.


Thanks for taking an interest in this once again Sean.

Do you think you might take a moment and consider adding another FAQ which deals with this a little more clearly?

troubleshooter wrote:


Slathering a full attack of sneak attacks on whomever you like feels like it's above the scope of a 2nd-level spell. Especially when they're already targeting flat-footed touch AC.

By this point, you have given up much of your higher level spells in order to improve the lower ones.

james maissen wrote:
It opens up more floodgates than that.. other spells could then deliver 8 or 15 sneak attacks in a round simultaneously.

What are you worried about?:

--Wiz 3/Rog 3/Trickster 6 is when you get 5th level spells.
--9 Attacks, dealing 1d4 (+5d6) sneak at about a +15 (+6 classes + 7 intellgence +2 random buff) to hit.
--Average Armor Class of monsters is 27.
--Damage = 9(20)(.45) = 81 damage at level 12.

If the target has DR, this damage goes down rapidly.
If the target is immune to sneak attacks, this damage will be pathetic
If the target isn't flat footed, this damage will be pathetic

1 Empowered Fireball at this for an draconic sorcerer will do (10d6+10)*1.5 = 68 damage. However, that damage can rise immensely above the Arcane Tricksters if there are multiple enemies. Let's say, 3 enemies.

With 3 enemies, the trickster does... still.... 81 damage.
Now the sorcerer is dealing anywhere from 102 - 204 damage.

Both level 5 spells cast by 12 level characters (even though the sorcerer could do bigger and better things). The Arcane Trickster damage requires alot of preparation and situational factors and does only slightly better damage and only on single targets.

So, Single target, flat-footed enemy that can be sneak attacked with no DR within 30 feet... sure in that case telekinesis is better,for the time being.

Don't be fooled by it, telekinesis will keep getting worse and worse as monster's ACs, DR, and Immunities go up. The only way this spell keeps up with other spells is with immense amounts of gold.


It looks like the guy that makes the game says that they all get sneak attack. This doesn't make a lot of sense from a flavor perspective, or with regard to how other rules logic applies, but mechanically it's probably the best decision so I don't have an issue with it.


Matthias_DM wrote:
What are you worried about?

Pure abuse of the system?

As far as Arcane Tricksters go, I think that the class needs work and it shouldn't have to rely upon fringe rulings like this to be 'viable'.

As far as TK goes, you can make that spell work very, very well as it stands already without getting to add 28damage per hit to it. The situation you present needs a good deal of work. Try to do the best you can with it for a minute or two and you'll see it begin to improve.

But honestly, it simply goes against the system. The mere fact that Paizo owns Pathfinder and that WotC printed volley rules in a copyrighted book is the only thing that stopped it showing up in Pathfinder by default.

Pathfinder did do a nice job improving the arcane trickster, but it is still well behind the curve as they did even more to all of the base classes. The same is true for the mystic theurge and other core PrCs. If you were using the 3.5 versions of the base classes, you could argue for parity there.. but not in comparison to the PF versions.

Honestly, it would be nice to see more 'trickster' in the arcane trickster and less need for 'sneak attack' factory.

-James

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Edgar Ripley wrote:
It looks like the guy that makes the game says that they all get sneak attack. This doesn't make a lot of sense from a flavor perspective, or with regard to how other rules logic applies, but mechanically it's probably the best decision so I don't have an issue with it.

The part of the FAQ about magic missile only applying the sneak attack damage to one missile suggests that only one of the scorching rays should get the sneak attack damage ("This damage is only applied once per spell").

Andoran

Does it matter that magic missile has no attack rolls?

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I don't understand your question.


I think he is implying that sneak attack might require attack rolls.

However:

sneak attack wrote:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Nothing in sneak attack mentions an attack roll. :)

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

wraithstrike wrote:

I think he is implying that sneak attack might require attack rolls.

However:

sneak attack wrote:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Nothing in sneak attack mentions an attack roll. :)

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

I was always under the impression that you could only get sneak damage with something that gives an attack roll, with the specific exception of the Arcane Trickster, who can apply it to any spell that deals damage.

Mr. Reynolds, is that not the case??


cartmanbeck wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I think he is implying that sneak attack might require attack rolls.

However:

sneak attack wrote:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Nothing in sneak attack mentions an attack roll. :)

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

I was always under the impression that you could only get sneak damage with something that gives an attack roll, with the specific exception of the Arcane Trickster, who can apply it to any spell that deals damage.

Mr. Reynolds, is that not the case??

Surprise Spell wrote:
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

Other than that the RAI most likely intends for an attack roll.

51 to 100 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.