|
Provide proof with numbers. I would say the build is far more than "marginally combat-effective" and "combat-ineffective". It's the difference "combat-effective" and "why do I even bother DMing combat-effective".
Seriously, the amount of damage that a sneak attack can do isn't all that much anyway. I would urge the Design Team to reconsider this decision.
Let us use a 11th-level character (Rog3/wiz3/arcane trickster 5) with the Magical Knack trait and some other method of getting a +1 to CL for scorching ray (we've already invested two traits, or a trait and a feat to pull this off) as an example (the earliest an arcane trickster would reasonably be able to pull off a CL11 Scorching Ray).
In order to pull off a sneak attack, something like Greater Invisibility (we're investing a 4th level spell slot now) would be required.
Assuming all rays hit, the difference between sneak attack on all three rays and a single sneak attack is a whole 8d6 damage, or 28 damage on average (and with this many d6s, the bell curve is very biased in favour of "around average).
A CR11 creature has 144.7 HP on average, so the additional sneak attack is doing about 20% of the monster's health - this would largely get lost in the noise, given the amount of damage other characters are able to inflict at this level.
This is not taking into account that a significant proportion (10-20%) of enemies of this CR have resistance or immunity to fire, blindsight, see invisible, or immunity to sneak attack, any of which makes this attack largely useless.
It is also not taking into account misses, which happen (and would lower the "best case average" of 28 damage).
It's unreasonable to state that an Arcane Trickster doing another 8d6 damage at this level on a scorching ray (as an effectively 8th-level wizard, he has 3+int bonus + school 2nd-level slots per day - and only three or four 4th-level slots per day), after using a round to set up the sneak attack, would get anywhere near "Why do I even bother DMing combat-effective".
How is the average damage 28?
4d6 ray and 5d6 sneak attack. Average damage is 31 per ray. Two rays per use.
That is average of 62 points of damage with a Dex-based character normally built to beat enemies on initiative.
That is 43% of the hit points of a CR11 creature.
You can pull off the attack using Invisibility or catching them flat-footed. Another advantage of the ray attack is it is one spell. The one spell casts the rays simultaneously. Wouldn't both rays get the benefit of invisibility?
Then if they are flat-footed, they nearly dead before the fight even starts. Why can't you stealth up on a creature as a Trickster and surprise them? The Arcane Trickster I built was sniper extraordinaire. He would sneak up and kill things before they had a chance to do a thing. It only gets worse as you get another ray.
Arcane Trickster Sniper is a nasty dude even without the multiple Scorching Rays. I was getting 18 point hits using Acid Splash just to do something without using a spell slot.
|
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the rules being consistent (i.e., "one SA per targeted spell") than the rules protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character (i.e., "now my rogue using scorching ray can't get sneak attack on every single shot!").
You've been falling behind on consistency with some of the other recent rulings.
Nearly all of which are substantial nerds to anybody a caster/melee hybrid.
The thing that I find funny about this is that before this, scorching ray would have been an example of why sneak attack would apply to all rays of something, because of the lack of language saying otherwise.
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the rules being consistent (i.e., "one SA per targeted spell") than the rules protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character (i.e., "now my rogue using scorching ray can't get sneak attack on every single shot!").
If that the way you feel then be the same with Full attacks as well... I mean If am 2 weapon rouge with 7 attack per round I add SA to each Attack. Be the same regaurdless of how you attack be it by spell or by weapon.
Also If I can only SA once per targeted spell then should I only Crittal once per spell, add point blank damage, Bard song, prayer, ect as well?
Just because you make an attack roll with a spell doesn't mean it's a weapon-like spell.
A????ok you lost me but I will ask clear smoke OR hazy a littel... Name one spell that you make a attack roll with that is not a weapon like spell.
This should clear a few things up for you.
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A????ok you lost me but I will ask clear smoke OR hazy a littel... Name one spell that you make a attack roll with that is not a weapon like spell.
clenched fist (and related spells)
produce flamerope trick
any spell that requires you to make a melee touch attack against an opponent
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just let it go. It was a bad ruling, but it's their call.
Actually, no. It wasn't a bad ruling, it was a ruling you don't agree with.
It's the way it is with every heated debate: lots of passionate back and forth, the PDT issues a ruling, the losers cry about it...a lot.
A simple "I don't agree with this ruling, but thank you for your time and effort" would suffice.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A????ok you lost me but I will ask clear smoke OR hazy a littel... Name one spell that you make a attack roll with that is not a weapon like spell.
clenched fist (and related spells)
produce flame
rope trick
any spell that requires you to make a melee touch attack against an opponent
clenched fist has attack roll and damage sounds weapon like to me...
produce flame has attack roll and damage sound weapon like to me...rope trick has no attack at all?????? Realy lost me on that one...
Can you Score with Critical with those spell?
I search my core book and found no "weapon like spell" term.
I search SRD nothing that fit either.
Weapon-like Spell is not the same as 'spell you make an attack roll with'. The FAQ I linked above makes this distinction.
Weapon-like Spell is not the same as 'spell you make an attack roll with'. The FAQ I linked above makes this distinction.
ok so by rule it should get sneak attack
Produce flame and flame blade are basicly the same spell...
Both can be melee touch attacks that do fire damage one is 1d6+5 max the other is 1d8+10 max. One is weapon like the other is not????
What if I scourhing ray 3 diffent tagets could I get sneak attack on all three?
Don't really like the FAQ, but oh well. I don't play in PFS, so it really doesn't affect me. I'll just houserule it in my home game (which is basically what I was doing anyway, sneak attack applies anytime you meet the requirements for sneak attack, and you make an attack roll that does damage). Didn't care what you were using it on, melee, magic, ranged, whatever.
Produce flame and flame blade are basicly the same spell...
One creates a beam of fire that the spell says you wield as if it were a scimitar, the other creates ... a flame ... that isn't described as being used like any other kind of weapon in the game.
Not the same spell.
Not the same thing.
One is a weapon-like spell, the other is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Produce flame and flame blade are basicly the same spell...One creates a beam of fire that the spell says you wield as if it were a scimitar, the other creates ... a flame ... that isn't described as being used like any other kind of weapon in the game.
Not the same spell.
Not the same thing.
One is a weapon-like spell, the other is not.
It is, however, a game mechanic that's now dependent on fluff to adjudicate, rather than something concrete. If weapon like spells had [Weapon] as a subtype, then there'd be no argument at tables over which spells are weapon-like and which aren't.
So, if scorching ray were instead fluffed as 'a magic bow appears and fires at target or targets you designate', it would qualify for SA, because the fluff says it's a bow making attacks. or, if the spell fluff said 'You say 'pew' and each time, the target you are pointing at receives a ray attack, and you may say 'pew' up to one time per 3 levels', that would also be a non-simultaneous spell. Both would be, mechanically, exactly the same as Scorching Ray, but both would instead get sneak attack on each successful attack that qualifies for it.
Again, not b@#*$& about the FAQ, as I said, doesn't bother me, but it would be easier to deal with if the spells had something mechanical to identify weapon like, rather than fluff that is easy to argue over.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, wait a second. Mr. SKR... I would like to politely suggest that you might be mistaken about produce flame.
"Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon." (PRD entry for Produce Flame, emphasis mine.)
Seems to me that this would make produce flame weapon-like. Specifically, it is treated as a thrown weapon.
I think my point above is made. Does it get sneak attack when it's thrown but not used otherwise, or does it get sneak in all ways even though it's only 'as a weapon' when thrown? *le sigh* I like my rule better. Simpler, cleaner, no arguments about the spell fluff.
It's not about Spell Fluff, it's about functionality and specificity. I will say this, though, I do not believe there is a spell that you make an attack roll with that is NOT weaponlike. Clenched Fist was an example but I don't think it counts because it is like spiritual weapon, the hand is a separate entity making the attack roll.
Yeah, actually it is about fluff.
SCORCHING RAY
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one or more rays
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. 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.
SCORCHING BOWSHOT
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one or more rays
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You conjure a flaming bow that blasts your enemies with a searing beam of fire. Your bow may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each shot requires you to point to a target and make a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. 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.
PEWPEW OF FIRE
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one or more rays
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
You may point your finger at enemies and say 'pew' and generate a ray of searing fire that blasts your enemies. You may say 'pew' once, plus one additional 'pew' for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three 'pew's at 11th level). Each 'pew' requires you to point to a target and make a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The 'pew' rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all 'pew' rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other.
All three of these spells are mechanically the same. The only difference is the 'simultaneous' specification in Scorching Ray. They all require the same touch attack, give the same damage and number of rays. It's all in the fluff of the spell whether one get's SA on each ray or not.
EDIT : Fixed quoting, and spell name.
* : Made up spell
Um... no. They fire simultaneously. That is a specifically mechanical effect. It is the reason a single invisibility spell lets them all hit an opponent as though they are flat-footed, but it's also the reason they only get sneak attack on one of those rays. It has zero to do with fluff and everything to do with mechanics.
You can't fire another ray until 7th level.
At 7th level, you can cast a 4th level spell.
So, by the time it comes to pass, you are casting greater invisibility and not breaking your invisibility when you attack, which means you'd get sneak attack on both rays.
So.. yeah, not seeing it still.
EDIT : And note, this requires multiclassing, so you're caster level is down 2-3 levels. So you're likely 10th level before this is happening... not a game balance thing, and for other spells, it's all based on fluff, the weapon-like is based on it being described as a weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is, however, a game mechanic that's now dependent on fluff to adjudicate, rather than something concrete. If weapon like spells had [Weapon] as a subtype, then there'd be no argument at tables over which spells are weapon-like and which aren't.
So, if scorching ray were instead fluffed as 'a magic bow appears and fires at target or targets you designate', it would qualify for SA, because the fluff says it's a bow making attacks.
Scorching ray already qualifies because its stat block says "Effect: ray," in the same way spiritual weapon says "Effect: magic weapon of force," mage's sword says "Effect: one sword," and flame blade says "Effect: sword-like beam."
Ray.
Magic weapon.
Sword.
Sword-like beam.
Not fluff, mechanics.
Again, not b@#*$& about the FAQ, as I said, doesn't bother me, but it would be easier to deal with if the spells had something mechanical to identify weapon like, rather than fluff that is easy to argue over.
If only.
BTW the spell description of a spell isn't fluff, there's rules content there... unless you think (for scorching ray, for example) the damage, how many rays you get, maximum spread of the targets, and that they're simultaneous is "fluff."
Ok, wait a second. Mr. SKR... I would like to politely suggest that you might be mistaken about produce flame.
Good catch.
It is, however, a game mechanic that's now dependent on fluff to adjudicate, rather than something concrete. If weapon like spells had [Weapon] as a subtype, then there'd be no argument at tables over which spells are weapon-like and which aren't.
Lol!
|
|
It's not about Spell Fluff, it's about functionality and specificity. I will say this, though, I do not believe there is a spell that you make an attack roll with that is NOT weaponlike. Clenched Fist was an example but I don't think it counts because it is like spiritual weapon, the hand is a separate entity making the attack roll.
Shocking grasp is "weapon like" for you?
Chill touch?Acid splash?
There are specific combat feats that you can use with those spells, but they don't resemble a weapon in any way.
|
|
You are write, weapon-like is based on it either being a ray (Specifically clarified as weapon-like in the FAQ)
Weapon Specialization: Can you take Weapon Specialization (ray) or Improved Critical (ray) as feats? How about Weapon Specialization (bomb) or Improved Critical (bomb)?
All four of those are valid choices.
Note that Weapon Specialization (ray) only adds to hit point damage caused by a ray attack that would normally deal hit point damage; it doesn't increase ability score damage or drain (such as the Dexterity drain from polar ray), penalties to ability scores (such as from ray of enfeeblement) or drain, negative levels (such as from enervation), or other damage or penalties from rays.
—Sean K Reynolds, 10/23/10
Nothing there saying that it is a weapon like spell. it say that you can take weapon specialization in rays.
So, citation needed.Um... no. They fire simultaneously. That is a specifically mechanical effect. It is the reason a single invisibility spell lets them all hit an opponent as though they are flat-footed, but it's also the reason they only get sneak attack on one of those rays. It has zero to do with fluff and everything to do with mechanics.
Another "little" thing where the fact that they fire simultaneously is important:
Ranged Touch Attack Spells and AOOs: When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events.
(Note that at spell that fires multiple simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, only provokes one AOO for making the ranged attack instead of one AOO for each ranged attack. It still provokes for casting the spell.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is "Touch" a different weapon for weapon focus purposes as "ranged touch" and would that be different than "Ray"?
I don't think we've ever said a character can choose "touch" or "ranged touch" as a valid choice for feats such as Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. We have said you can choose "bomb" and "ray."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the original context of this was how the rules are treating weapons different, then there's a bit of a point here. Scorching Ray is weapon-like, yet is treated different from a bow or something where you might have multiple attacks with multiple attack rolls.
Well...
Scorching ray fires simultaneous shots, and you make multiple attack rolls, and the rules say you only get sneak attack with one shot.
Bow shots with iterative attacks are not simultaneous, and you make multiple attack rolls, and the rules say you can get sneak attack with each shot.
Bow shots with feats like Manyshot are two simultaneous shots, you make one attack roll, and the feat says you only apply sneak attack once.
Different circumstances, different things. That's why the rules treat them differently.
That line of reasoning suggests that non-spell abilities which effect multiple simultaneous attack rolls should also be subject to that paradigm, although the FAQ itself only applies to spells currently.
I am thinking about the Manticore Spikes ability, or Giant Porcupine Quills, they don't literally spell out 'simultaneous' but it seems strongly implied. I had thought the Archer Fighter ability "Volley" was simultaneous, but on second glance I don't really think that's suggested by the ability. Regardless of specific abilities, IF THERE IS a mundane/non-spell simultaneous multi-attack roll ability, should it be subject to the same paradigm?
BTW, just to verify/clarify the FAQ: you need to select one of the simultaneous attack rolls to be the one that would apply sneak attack before rolling any of them, so if that attack misses then none of the other attacks would do sneak attack? i.e. you don't get to apply sneak attack to one of the ones that hit, it must be decided before resolving hits/misses and if it is a miss (from AC or miss chance) then you lose out on the sneak attack...?