You get a Sneak Attack whenever your targets are denied a Dexterity bonus. That's about as specific as the books get. Still, it's only logical that if there is no additional logic or text to limit or contradict it, then if you target a scorching ray against three opponents who cannot claim their Dexterity bonus to AC against you, then you deal Sneak Attack against each of them.
3.5 had sections dealing with 'weapon-like spells'. These rules limited the Sneak Attacks you could gain on each casting -- one per spell. I seem to recall it being referred to as the Volley rule.
Still, Pathfinder has no such rule.
Characters deal Sneak Attack on every attack that qualifies for it, no matter how many times per round. Sure, you can only benefit from Sneak Attack once on merit of attacking an opponent out of stealth, but you can get multiple Sneak Attacks per round by flanking an opponent, by attacking an opponent while affected by greater invisibility, or when attacking an opponent who is effectively blinded. The CRB has no limits on these Sneak Attacks per round, and the CRB has no limits on how many Sneak Attacks you can deal with a Scorching Ray.
I do sympathize, of course. Flat-footed Touch Sneak Attacks are incredible and it's a truly mighty feat to pull them off with a Standard action, in which a normal Rogue would generally only be able to perform one successful ambush. I think perhaps scorching ray should have been written differently -- it may have been more consistent and balanced for the rays to be fired sequentially, granting multiple AoOs against the user and voiding a low-level invisibility after the first hit -- but I'm just interpreting the rules as they stand.
Anyway, even if he rules differently, he's just delaying his misery. Once you get access to fireball you'll be able to Sneak Attack one, twenty, sixty-four creatures at a time. I suppose the only thing his ruling will outright prevent is you stacking three Sneak Attacks onto the same creature.
Edit: are denied their Dex bonus ... Heheh. You can't SA people with Uncanny Dodge just because they would be denied their Dex bonus. Silly me.
Anyone know the specific ruling about this problem?
Invisibility ceases after the first attack. So if you're, for example, two-weapon fighting, and you strike with a rapier and a dagger, only the first of those attacks will benefit from invisibility and get sneak attack (unless the target is denied dex or flanked or whatever).
Scorching ray is a bit different, so you'll have to get a GM ruling on if all the rays are one attack (despite being multiple attack rolls) or if they're basically sequential.
Note: This is specifically about normal rogue(/ninja) sneak attack, this has nothing to do with the arcane trickster surprise spells ability!
There's a great deal of discussion in this thread: Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray including some quotes by James Jacobs, but be sure to keep reading since it gets kind of confusing. (He's said it works both ways, but I think the latest conclusion he came to, when he remembers that the spell says they all fire simultaneously, is that all the rays would get sneak attack due to invisibility.)
But in the end, the GM gets to make the final call.
I vaguely remember reading SKR (I think? Too lazy to search it out) clarifying that only one scorching ray got sneak attack damage.
I also remember thinking, "If that's RAW, I think I'll houserule it."
I could be wrong though. Maybe try doing the messageboard search I'm too lazy to do... Or not, if that's not the answer you want :)
I'm saying I see it as the GM's decision ... but unless he makes some official declaration to the contrary, I would expect to see multiple Sneak Attacks potentially key off of a scorching ray because all its rays are specifically fired simultaneously. While I would normally expect a creature who is being ambushed by a rogue who is stealthed or invisible to become aware after the first attack, I see no logical way for a creature to be aware of an unseen attacker in-between two simultaneous hits.
I would expect a GM call on this one, though, because being able to target a creature with damage that high and that unavoidable is really quite ripped.
Yes, I think the rules team are stuck with a "this makes sense but it's probably overpowered".
I'd allow it, if only because I'd have no good reason to disallow it :)
Kayerloth, he's referring to Surprise Spells, which is the 10th level Arcane Trickster ability.
It also only works on flat-footed enemies and not enemies denied their dex bonus to AC.
Wow, what a find! That one really slipped by me. I hardly see anything in the game that specifically mentions flat-footed targets anymore.
Looking through it again, it has almost been wiped out of the book in favor of 'losing your Dex bonus' etc -- some effects allow you to retain your Dex bonus to AC when flat-footed, like prescience and the Robe of Eyes; grease mentions that creatures that do not move are not considered flat-footed (which is kind of weird, because they're not flat-footed even if they do move over the grease); and Shatter Defenses 'renders foes flat-footed to your attacks' (also weird).
Well, I guess it certainly adds some synergy to Arcane Tricksters who take the intimidation feats.
Although I have to think this might be rewritten someday (you can only surprise your foes with spells once, if they haven't acted, and it doesn't matter if you surprise them later in the combat?), I guess them's the rules for now.
I really have to re-evaluate my view of the prestige class, though. I already thought it was pretty front-heavy since scorching ray allows you to do so much without even taking the prestige class, but the limitation here really takes the bang out of going several levels into it.
|
If you take the Magus route of arcane trickster prescient attack can grant flat footed conditions in the following round. Then you can gain SA through multiple attacks. Whereas vanish is a single attack. There is also greater invis. And greater feint if you are so inclined.
Prescient Attack (Su): The magus can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as an immediate action after hitting a target with a weapon attack, allowing him to anticipate his opponent's defenses. The target is denied its Dexterity bonus against the magus's attacks until the end of the magus's next turn. The magus must be at least 6th level before selecting this arcana.
(Rant)
That's kind of the sticking point, though. The Magus ability, and many others, don't cause a target to become Flat-Footed; Flat-footed is a condition a target has before it has acted in combat, that causes it to lose its Dex bonus to AC, and prevents it from using Immediate actions.
3.0 had started using them synonymously, but perhaps the development of Sneak Attack and the introduction of Swift actions changed things. They started phasing out uses of 'flat-footed' near the end of 3.5 or at the beginning of Pathfinder, I forget which. Currently, when I see Flat-footed I think 'loses its Dex bonus' and when I'm describing a creature that loses its Dex bonus I often accidentally call it 'Flat-footed'. The words stick together for me even now.
So on the one hand, it's weird that grease states that you aren't Flat-footed when not moving on it ... because you aren't Flat-footed when you are moving on it. It's weird that Shattering Defenses causes an opponent to become Flat-footed to your attacks because it's weird to cause a creature to act as if it has a condition relative to you rather than objectively (when was the last time you attacked a creature and it was treated as if it were sickened, or nauseated, or blinded, or stunned, or dazed, or deafened to you but it didn't actually gain the condition? And, if you use Shatter Defenses on a creature, is it unable to respond to your attacks with Immediate actions but able to use them against other creatures?).
And on the other hand, Surprise Spells only works against Flat-footed opponents when I'd expect it to work against opponents that have lost their Dex bonus to AC versus the caster. Not only does it seem like a kind of archaic game mechanic in light of how modern Pathfinder does things, but since you can only do that once per combat and you can already Sneak Attack opponents with spells without ever stepping into the prestige class at all that makes it a really underwhelming choice.
I suppose my evaluation could be wrong. Perhaps they're deliberate choices (I am, after all, only an amateur rules-monkey). Perhaps adding Sneak Attack to spells that deal damage is more considerable than I realize, but the fact is that area spells already deal lots of damage to lots of people, and adding Sneak Attack once to each creature in a fireball isn't that bad unless you start wrangling very high CL spells with very high numbers of Sneak Attack dice, and even then I predict more game balance issues originating from dropping novas on single BBEGs by firing nearly unavoidable triples of Sneak Attacked spellcastings like scorching ray.
it's weird that grease states that you aren't Flat-footed when not moving on it ... because you aren't Flat-footed when you are moving on it.
I think the intent behind grease is that when you're moving on it, you're considered to be using the Acrobatics skill to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. Which makes you considered flat-footed while doing so. It's weird, and basically requires readied actions to take advantage of it.
Yea, they've been using Denied Dex instead of Flat-footed a lot, which is nice because it lets some more powerful abilities be tacked on to enemies with the flat-footed condition. Unfortunately, there are still a few sections where they used FF when they really should've done Denied Dex (I'm looking at you, Scout), but they've been pretty good about it for the most part.
Regarding the Multiple Attacks from a Spell and SA.
My current GM and I are in agreement, that no matter the Source of the multiple Attacks, unless the "Dex denied" condition is continuously present, only the first Attack gets SA.
We also "balanced" Spells that use this to apply SA so that in Case multiple SAs are possible, the Target Touch AC increases by 1 cumulativly due to "aiming" ^^.
That is to prevent/hamper some wiseguy Ninja/Sorc CL15 with Forgotten Trick and a lesser Quicken Spell Rod from pulling of
24 Sneak Attacks,doing 24x(1d8 + SA-Dice Damage) + doing 24DEX/or STr dmg (pressure points), SA-Dice Bleed, prevent AOO, all that in 1 Full Round.
*yes pls stop drooling*
Spell used was "Fiery Shuriken"
SA Condition: either Initiative-WIn or greater invis
---
Forgive me if this has been brought up before. I'm playing an arcane trickster(ninja+sorcerer combination) and my main attack is the vanishing trick combined with scorching rays. Now my question is wether there is a rule in the books that clearly tells how many SA do a player get. As I understand the multiple rays blasted at the target arrive at the same time. I roll ranged touch attack for each so I told my DM that it is only logical that I get the sneak attack bonus for all rays but he said I'm entitled a SA bonus for only the first ray. Anyone know the specific ruling about this problem?
yes, the logic seems right but the FAq says wrong:
This particular question has since been answered in a FAQ
what we can do?
The ruling besides the FAQ says, the first Hit disables the SA condition, thereof only the first Ray gets SA.
If you look for ways to keep the denied Dex. Bonus on the target, to apply Sa on all Rays look for greater invis, or attacking from within a fog using those fancy fog lenses.
A 20g smokestick could be your friend.
The ruling besides the FAQ says, the first Hit disables the SA condition, thereof only the first Ray gets SA.
If you look for ways to keep the denied Dex. Bonus on the target, to apply Sa on all Rays look for greater invis, or attacking from within a fog using those fancy fog lenses.
A 20g smokestick could be your friend.
I don't understand what you mean by "the ruling besides the FAQ."
The FAQ doesn't say anything about the first ray removing the ability to gain sneak attacks; it's saying that, regardless of how many of the rays qualify for SA, only one gets to add SA damage.
Take a Magus 4/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 7
He is under the effects of a Greater Invisibility spell.
He is adjacent to one orc, and there are three more orcs 10 feet away.
He plans to use Spell Combat to cast Scorching Ray at the non-adjacent orcs and use his rapier to attack the adjacent orc twice (since his BaB is high enough).
He sends each ray at a different orc, but only one ray gets to add SA damage. Even if he'd fired all 3 rays at one orc, SA would have only applied to 1 ray. He still gets to add his SA to both rapier attack since he's still invisible (and therefore denies the orc its DEX to AC).
Your interpretation of the FAQ seems valid.
Thereof i fail to see the logic of the FAQ.
If the generel Rule of SA is "if SA condition is in effect, the attack can use SA"
Then why cripple it all of a sudden with spells?
Would he shoot Arrows he'd get SA on all Hits.
SA classes' main source of dmg is SA be it applied by physical or magical effects.
I am sorry it does not make sense to me.
Scorching ray is a standard action against touch AC with your full attack bonus.
Shooting two arrows or more (to get more than one SA) is a full round action against AC with a different attack bonus x (x, x-5, x-10 with some exceptions like haste attacks).
Looks fair to me.
I can only speculate as to why the design team ruled this way, but like Eridan said, the ability to target touch AC over normal AC is nothing to sneeze at.
As far as fluff goes, I supposes since the rays are fired simultaneously, you just don't have time to aim each one with the necessary precision to get your SA damage.
Not much of an answer, but it's all I've got at the moment.
The whole point is to balance it against spell targeting touch AC.
Often, melee combatants will only hit with 1 or 2 attacks because their iterative atatcks after that will have too large a penalty to connect. It's part of why theoritically sneak damage sounds great, but in practice rarely works because despite the rogue getting 4 attacks a round he only has a +16 to hit against an AC of 26, for his first two attacks. He only has a 50% chance of hitting. His iteraitve and the extra granted by ITWF are at a -5. They have a 25% chance of hitting.
Touch AC is something that usually gets lower and lower as the game progresses as creatures get increasingly larger and larger and more AC comes from natural armor than anything else. For instance, the CR 25 Tarrasque has a Touch AC of 5. A level 1 commoner with a dex of 10 (no penalty) has a touch AC of 10.
This is an intentional limit for the purposes of balance.
all true, in consideration of game progression, yet the monsters from mid to high game have quite a view ways denying the setup for SA.
any Uncanny Dodge will do, see invis, true vision, life sight, silence/Antimagic you name it.
So again this is one that looks OP on Paper but since its quite circumstantial they still fall back compared to a physical damage dealer.
They have their circumstantial limited ressource bursts and thats it.
That is why my current GM and I somewhat balanced the Touch-AC issue (see first post)
Though I see that as just another adjustment to a rule that should have layed this issue out in its baseline.
I will tell you we house ruled that spells that can target multiple creatures and qualify for sneak attack against those targets that we allow sneak attack damage to be applied once per creature per spell. Otherwise it allows for too much damage to be stacked onto a single target with little way to mitigate it (rarely do enemies have a particularly high touch AC, even humanoids).
However, it is very much a house rule and goes directly against the rules as clarified (by the FAQ).
The rule of thumb here is that anytime you fire multiple projectiles or deliver multiple attacks simultaneously you only get precision damage once
Look at the manyshot feat. All other bonuses apply twice except for precision damage.
Something like ball lightning OTOH can become a bit crazy with that arcane trickster capstone. One target hasn't acted yet? Here's 50d6 damage.
pls explain your math on 50d6 dmg with ball lightning from an Arcane Trickster ...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ball Lightning = base damage 3d6 per sphere; medium range
Spheres = 2 + 1/(4 caster levels above 7); max 5 spheres
Rogue 3/Caster 7/Arcane Trickster 10 = Caster level 17
Magical Knack trait = +2 caster level, can't go above character level; effective caster level 19 (which gets the 5th ball lightning sphere)
Surprise Round: Cast Ball Lightning, placing the balls on the enemy initially. Target is denied Dex to AC by flat-footed condition, and so suffers sneak attack damage on all attacks. Base damage is 3d6, + 2d6 SA from Rogue, + 5d6 SA from Arcane Trickster.
5 x (3+2+5)d6 = 5x10d6 = 50d6.
|
|
I do actually agree with the ruling provided by the PDT on the Scorching Ray issue, but it does have the problem of there isn't anything in the Core Rulebook to directly support it.
Citing Manyshot as an example doesn't work because it can very easily be interpreted as only applying to Manyshot. Precision damage is never defined with regard to spells, and the only mention of applying it once is in Manyshot. Such could easily be attributed to applying it once per attack roll.
Technically, using Fiery Shuriken, you can get sneak attack on all attacks even if you fire them all simultaneously because the word simultaneous isn't part of the spell. I personally would prefer that the Scorching Ray FAQ was adjusted to factor in spells like Fiery Shuriken, which winds up being the significantly more powerful spell for Arcane Tricksters. At level 16, that's 8d8+56d6 damage against a single target if they all hit touch AC (Avg 232 damage). As a note, significantly better than the Ball Lightning combo. At level 20, assuming 4 more Rogue levels, it turns into 8d8+72d6 if all hit (Avg 288 damage).
Thought so ...
now where exactly is that ranged Touch Attack involved, that this thread is all about?
You just stated an example for "Suprise SPells" the lv10 AT Feature,
and as far as I interpret this Feature you applied it wrong also (just once per Spell is allowed)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/arcane-trick ster#TOC-Surprise-Spells
|
|
If you're referring to my second example, Surprise Spell is unnecessary. If you're talking about the former example, then you're right, it only applies once. What I posted was probably the logic behind it, though. Lord Malkov's rule of thumb is also inaccurate by the rules at present. Only if the word "simultaneously" is used in the spell do you apply SA damage once, except when using Surprise Spells. If the spell doesn't say simultaneously, every attack in a round can carry SA dice if they otherwise qualify.
Thus, Fiery Shuriken wins on damage output. It functions even without having Surprise Spells, and I might be able to tweak it to get more sneak attack damage. Tired, so can't think of where I know I can dip for extra sneak attack dice to replace blank levels.
Well the Errata says Once per Spell no matter what
We house ruled an increasing Touch AC during the Cast ...
until yesterday...
The Burst from Fiery Shuriken which gave u potentially 8 SA Attacks was just too much.
Once per Spell on the other Hand seemed like a huge nerf.
I created the AT I am playing around that very concept so yes tears were shed.
After a big discussion within the group we agreed to let it scale of of BaB Attacks.
So, a Caster who has 2 BaB Attacks may apply 2 Rays of one Spell with SA, simple as that.
Easy to apply and still scaling somewhat.
(the continuous condition for SA must still be met, else just one SA on the first SPell)
@jlighter: best "Fiery Shuriken" Combo would be Cl15 and a "Rod of lesser quicken magic" in Hand :-)
|
|
That would mean fiery shurikens, telekinesis(violent thrust) and every other spell that gives multiple attacks may only apply sneak attack damage once.
What contradicts this reading?
Ray spells mention explicitly that they are fired simultaneously. scorching ray is choosen as an example. thus you can conclude only spells that literally spell out "simultaneously" are affected.
You missed something that is the explicit contradiction given in the FAQ. Emphasis mine.
Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?
No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).
They explicitly call out that multiple attacks per round that are not simultaneous get SA on all attacks that qualify. That kind of knocks down your entire argument, unfortunately.
I tend to agree with the intent of your reading. The way the FAQ is worded locks it to only affecting corner cases with spells that use the word "simultaneously." Unfortunately, unless they change the wording, that's what it says, and they do call out that spells that grant multiple attacks per round get SA if they all qualify. What throws it off is the fact that they used a spell getting multiple attacks from iteratives as the example.
Not really. The question of whether or not these attacks occur simultaneously is answered by action required to make the attack.
Is it instantaneous? Well then everything is happening in a single instant. The Caveat they presented for Flame Blade is pretty simple, this spell summons a weapon that you can use to make attacks iteratively (not simultaneous). This would also be true for Energy Touch.
Even for fiery shuriken, this FAQ applies. You can fire any number of shurikens, but you must choose ALL targets before you make attack rolls, and the attacks are simultaneous sneak attack will only be applied once. If they weren't you would make each attack, one-by-one and be able to change targets or choose to stop attacking at any time, just like an iterative attack.
OTOH, if you fire a single shuriken as a swift action, then as a move, then as a standard, you can apply sneak attack once to each of these attacks, because they are not simultaneous.
If the attacks occur as part of a single action, then they are simultaneous. The only exception to this rule is a Full-Attack action, which is a special action in-and-of itself.
Even something like a Two-Weapon Warrior's Doublestrike ability would fall into the category of simultaneous attacks, only getting SA dmg once.
Man, I am so glad I just retired my Arcane Trickster in society. That ruling makes AT's sooo weak now. The only time I'd come close to keeping up on damage would be when I'd get 5 SA's on fiery shurikens! I really hope they reevaluate that because they totally invalidated a really cool and fun class. That was my favorite character ever and now he'd be utterly unplayable. Actually his last few games I was using him illegally, but no one at the tables knew and I didn't see this until now, makes me very sad and I hope they reevaluate this:(
And its not like SA characters don't have enough working against them already. My retirement game every encounter except one everything had some reason for being immune to SA.
|
|
Not really. The question of whether or not these attacks occur simultaneously is answered by action required to make the attack.
Is it instantaneous? Well then everything is happening in a single instant. The Caveat they presented for Flame Blade is pretty simple, this spell summons a weapon that you can use to make attacks iteratively (not simultaneous). This would also be true for Energy Touch.
Even for fiery shuriken, this FAQ applies. You can fire any number of shurikens, but you must choose ALL targets before you make attack rolls, and the attacks are simultaneous sneak attack will only be applied once. If they weren't you would make each attack, one-by-one and be able to change targets or choose to stop attacking at any time, just like an iterative attack.
OTOH, if you fire a single shuriken as a swift action, then as a move, then as a standard, you can apply sneak attack once to each of these attacks, because they are not simultaneous.
If the attacks occur as part of a single action, then they are simultaneous. The only exception to this rule is a Full-Attack action, which is a special action in-and-of itself.
Even something like a Two-Weapon Warrior's Doublestrike ability would fall into the category of simultaneous attacks, only getting SA dmg once.
The issue with this is two-fold. A) Simultaneous is not defined in the FAQ, thus leaving it open to interpretation. B) The example of a "simultaneous" spell used explicitly uses the word Simultaneously, thus suggesting that such wording is necessary for the FAQ to apply. I can only find maybe 4 other spells with similar wording.
The most common interpretation that I'm seeing is that Fiery Shuriken can do what Scorching Ray cannot because it isn't "simultaneous." I do actually agree with your interpretation, but there is plenty of legit argument against it to make it confusing.
Well, we have to dissect the FAQ just like any other... what does simultaneous mean?
And I think that if you are making a set of attacks like this:
Choose Target
Make Attack
Deal Damage
Choose Next Target
Make Attack
Deal Damage
and so on... then it isn't simultaneous. If it was, then you wouldn't be able to 'react' to the result of the previous attack before deciding what to do with the next.
For most multi-target spells and abilities, targets are all chosen at once, and can't be done in the manner previously described. So, it is reasonable to say that they are all occuring at the same time. Otherwise the caster would be able to 'react' to the result of one of these attacks before moving on to the next.
Now, this is also not a rule per RAW. This is a FAQ. And it was written with balance in mind. It references a quality (simultaneous) that isn't really written out in the rules per se. But this is my interpretation of how that FAQ was meant to be applied, and I think the logic holds up under scrutiny.
On another note... Arcane Tricksters aren't THAT effected. Surprise Spell can still be used with area spells etc. And impromptu sneak attack could only ever work on a single attack anyway. Maybe this hurts the absurdity of dealing 33d6 with a 2nd level spell, but that should just look like fairness. You will still deal 19d6 with a 2nd level spell, and its not like that is bad
Surprise Spell is your capstone! The entire progression up it(IF you even hit it) will hurt...a lot. This comes from a player with a level 17 AT and a level 14 AT. The only time I felt like I was keeping up was when I'd get 5 fiery shuriken w/ SA's. At a level where most character were routinely doing 100+ damage, I was firmly in the 70's. My high damage on my 14 was 154, while other players were routinely breaking 250. They actually got rid of all the balance. This wasn't for balance it was just to ruin the rogue more than it already is. Its not like there not plenty of time where you SR (with less penetration than a wizard) resistance/immunities (really eat it up), or, the number of things straight immune to SA.
I can't even explain how incredibly sad this makes me, as they ruined one of their greatest concepts.
Under the new faq its clearly spelled out. Even under greater invis you'd only get SA once.
If I was you I would beg, plead and bribe your GM to follow the assumption made in the AT guides by Abraham Spalding and A Highly Regarded Expert. They both make the assumption (this is pre FAQ) that multiple touch attacks can get multiple SA's if
A) You are under an effect like greater invisibility, there fore each one has the target flat footed.
B) You target multiple opponents with each ray, therefor each on is considered flat footed against you.
If he doesn't listen, plead with him to let you bring in a new character. You are now worse off than a straight rogue.
So, if you can only get SA once, if you miss with your first ray, do you get it on the second if it hits?
I have been summoned!
*Turns Un-Thread!*