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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

This guy also agrees.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

Our rogue in Kingmaker was able to take 10 in UMD

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

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

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.