Claxon |
The FAQ still applies to the fiery shuriken spell. While a grey area, it seems they explicitly don't want any spell to deal sneak attack damage more than once per round unless it functions like weapon.
As fiery shuriken allows you to throw many more shurikens in a single round than one could use as weapons it's probably intended only to deal the damage once per round. It may also be reasonable to allow a number of shurikens based on the number of normal attacks you have in a round to deal sneak attack damage. Overall though, it is unclear.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Can you point me to this FAQ? I can't seem to find it.
Link.
I'm going to speculate (and it is indeed speculation, take it as you will) that what the FAQ wanted to curb was firing all three rays at one target and getting triple Sneak Attack. That could be pretty sick.
However, getting a single instance of Sneak Attack on each of multiple targets doesn't seem like as big of a deal. If this isn't for organized play, I would suggest asking your GM about it; they might apply the FAQ as a "per-target" limitation instead.
Davor |
Yeah, I have serious issue with that FAQ. As written, a spellcasting rogue was one of the best ways to consistently pump out decent damage. Making 3 sneaky touch-attacks in a round was a pretty darn good standard action, even if it didn't match the full attacks of optimized melee. It meant that grabbing the spell-like ability traits was actually kind of a good idea. Heck, it meant that Arcane Trickster was actually a REALLY cool, effective, and versatile prestige class that provided bonuses that amplified both its base classes.
I'd never use this FAQ anyways, so :P
Gilarius |
The FAQ still applies to the fiery shuriken spell. While a grey area, it seems they explicitly don't want any spell to deal sneak attack damage more than once per round unless it functions like weapon.
As fiery shuriken allows you to throw many more shurikens in a single round than one could use as weapons it's probably intended only to deal the damage once per round.
They might have intended it to apply exactly as you state, but it does give a player a bit of wriggle room to argue that fiery shuriken aren't precisely simultaneous and therefore they should get full sneak attack on all of them.
The way I see it, rogues don't really need to be nerfed here.
And if you compare the above situation with a rogue who wins a surprise round plus initiative and casts 1. A quickened snowball, 2. A normal snowball, and then another normal snowball, getting 3 Full sneak attacks completely legitimately, is it any more or less logical to allow scorching ray etc to get sneak attacks?
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Claxon |
Claxon wrote:The FAQ still applies to the fiery shuriken spell. While a grey area, it seems they explicitly don't want any spell to deal sneak attack damage more than once per round unless it functions like weapon.
As fiery shuriken allows you to throw many more shurikens in a single round than one could use as weapons it's probably intended only to deal the damage once per round.
They might have intended it to apply exactly as you state, but it does give a player a bit of wriggle room to argue that fiery shuriken aren't precisely simultaneous and therefore they should get full sneak attack on all of them.
The way I see it, rogues don't really need to be nerfed here.
And if you compare the above situation with a rogue who wins a surprise round plus initiative and casts 1. A quickened snowball, 2. A normal snowball, and then another normal snowball, getting 3 Full sneak attacks completely legitimately, is it any more or less logical to allow scorching ray etc to get sneak attacks?
Personally I disagree with the FAQ, in that it is an overly strong nerf. I personally limit it to once per target, per round, per spell.
For instance if you cast a scorching ray and a quickened scorching ray in the same round, with a high enough caster level that you had three rays then you could target 3 separate targets (each twice) and deal sneak attack damage twice to each one. But you could only target each indivdiual once per spell and get sneak attack.
In the case of something like fiery shuriken I would allow you to target as many people as you could hit, but again only one hit would per person would deliver sneak attack damage. So, lets say there were three enemies and you had 8 fiery shurikens. You could fire 3 (each at a different target) and get sneak attack on all three. Then do the same the next round, and finally fire the last two on the following round. But you could not fire more than one at the same target and get sneak attack on the additional fiery shurikens fired at the target.
The main reason for doing this is because allowing a character to fire all shurikens at one target and get sneak attack on them decimates the enemy. The problem with sneak attack is that it is either overwhelming good, or terrible. There isn't a real middle ground.
Gilarius |
Gilarius wrote:Or a rogue can use fiery shuriken instead, which doesn't have that FAQ entry...
It applies to any situation where there is a volley.
Really?
A hasted rogue throwing real shurikens?The situation I presented in the post above yours?
If so, why doesn't the FAQ say so? It explicitly applies to spells like scorching ray and similar 'simultaneous' effects, not any other things.
Should it apply? Perhaps. But is the game better that way or not?
Davor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, this kind of thing is the ONLY way that sneak attack becomes strong. I've never liked the whole volley/sneak attack rule because all it does is nerf something that didn't really need nerfing. In order to gain the benefit you have to spend a HUGE amount of money on a wand of scorching ray CL11, or you have to multiclass into Arcane Trickster. There are a few other combo's that could pull off something like this, but they're very few, and have such low BAB that they make the Wizard look like a capable combatant, to the point that touch spells are basically the ONLY way you're going to hit ANYTHING. Just look at the average damage of a full barrage of Scorching Ray alongside Sneak Attack damage at 12th level (the earliest you could get it via Arcane Trickster):
12d6 scorching ray +15d6 sneak attack. Seems like a lot, right? But...
Ignoring the work that goes into the setup of this combo (You basically need Greater Invisibility against foes with no way to detect you that can be sneak attacked and aren't resistant to or immune to fire damage), you average 94.5 damage, IF all of the rays hit, and you have a limited number of times per day that you can use this setup. Compared to what a martial can do on average all day, it's not THAT impressive.
Gilarius |
Davor: I agree. Claxon: that is a reasonable house rule, I'd be happy with that.
However, since this is the rules forum, I will restate what I think is the actual rule: the core rulebook is unclear, but the FAQ entry strongly implies that spell attacks of any kind with multiple attacks only get one set of sneak damage.
I favour ignoring the FAQ.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Gilarius |
Seems the big issue is Multiple sneak attacks using touch attacks, right? If that is the concern how does one nerf a gunslinging Rogue? Granted there is a control via feat acquisition (but I know plenty of sneaky monkeys that can make it very scary, and I'll bet most of you do too)
I'm not sure if it is the 'touch attack' mechanic that is the issue, but the 'multiple attacks resolved as if they are only one attack' aspect.
The one that would be interesting to hear an official answer to, is what happens when a gunslinging rogue fires a double-barrelled gun. Do both bullets gain sneak attack or not? If so, why/If not, why not?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a rogue using a full-attack action can (if sneak attack conditions are met) have sneak damage on all those attacks, regardless of how many there are.
Logic suggests that the same should be true for multiple attacks made through a standard action, but the FAQ explicitly states that scorching ray does not. Without that FAQ, each GM is left for themselves to decide if such spells should gain sneak damage on all 'attacks'.
Apart from double-barrelled guns and certain spells, are there any other ways for a rogue (or similar) to get multiple 'attacks' from a standard action? And, if so, what rulings exist about sneak damage applying?
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Logic suggests that the same should be true for multiple attacks made through a standard action, but the FAQ explicitly states that scorching ray does not.
The FAQ blocks multiple on a standard action but allow multiple on Full-Attack Action from Flameblade.
So logic would suggest that it doesn't work on volley.
Gilarius |
Gilarius wrote:Logic suggests that the same should be true for multiple attacks made through a standard action, but the FAQ explicitly states that scorching ray does not.The FAQ blocks multiple on a standard action but allow multiple on Full-Attack Action from Flameblade.
So logic would suggest that it doesn't work on volley.
No, you are extrapolating from the actual FAQ statement and presenting your opinion as immutable fact. I suspect that we both actually agree on what the FAQ intends (see my post from earlier), but it doesn't help to be dogmatic about things when the official statement does not cover what you are claiming: nowhere does the FAQ entry say anything about 'multiples on standard actions' - I am asking if there are any other actual examples from which we can safely extrapolate that rule.
Secondly, your use of the word 'volley' does not seem to match my understanding of the word. Please define what you mean.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
No, you are extrapolating from the actual FAQ statement and presenting your opinion as immutable fact.
Secondly, your use of the word 'volley' does not seem to match my understanding of the word. Please define what you mean.
Fair enough. I am telling you my understanding and belief of the FAQ.
Volley: "a number of bullets, arrows, or other projectiles discharged at one time."
Flameblade says "You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar", so with it and a Full-Attack you gain multiple attacks that are not taken at one time. They are split up by BAB, and other attacks are added by abilities like TWF. These separate attacks are not taken at one time. Manyshot is taken at one time.
Gilarius |
Gilarius wrote:No, you are extrapolating from the actual FAQ statement and presenting your opinion as immutable fact.
Secondly, your use of the word 'volley' does not seem to match my understanding of the word. Please define what you mean.
Fair enough. I am telling you my understanding and belief of the FAQ.
Volley: "a number of bullets, arrows, or other projectiles discharged at one time."
Flameblade says "You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar", so with it and a Full-Attack you gain multiple attacks that are not taken at one time. They are split up by BAB, and other attacks are added by abilities like TWF. These separate attacks are not taken at one time. Manyshot is taken at one time.
Thank you. To me, a volley could also mean firing a rapid succession of such projectiles, hence my confusion because I would include a full attack of multiple arrows etc as a volley.
Scorching Ray specifically fires its rays simultaneously; Fiery Shuriken does not. The FAQ specifically calls out 'simultaneous', with scorching ray as the example, so it doesn't help in making a general rule. Double-barrelled guns are not mentioned either way,
As I said above, I believe the FAQ is intended to apply to both spells, but there is enough wiggle room for a player to argue otherwise; I personally prefer to ignore this particular FAQ and let sneaky types shine when the circumstances suit them - bear in mind that all of these attacks (so far) are ranged attacks and therefore much harder to pull off than multiple melee strikes that qualify, due to the flanking rules.
The FAQ only addresses spell attacks that are simultaneous; can we extrapolate either way, with actual rules, to address physical attacks that are simultaneous, and so agree (or not) with your statement that 'multiple attacks from a standard action' do not get more than one set of sneak damage?
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
so agree (or not) with your statement that 'multiple attacks from a standard action' do not get more than one set of sneak damage?
The general wisdom is Fiery Shuriken is covered under the FAQ, and to explain why I'm very certain of this I'll tell you about my build from last year's GenCon PVP competition.
I built a Fiery Shuriken wand using Svirfneblin with ways to make everyone flat foot and hit them with Fiery Shuriken of high level for many targets.
There were 24 players in the competition. It took me 2 months of many hours a week to hone the character. Every other player was also a heavy optimizer and had spent many hours on their characters I'm sure.
The wisdom of the 24 people was that this FAQ I had not read at the time covered my build and I got at most 1 sneak attack damage per round. The only people that really mattered were the two GM's running the event. One was a rules adjudication GM (his only task is to understand and decide what each rule means.) This event is heavy on the RAW, so if you can find something that isn't prohibited then you can do it.
In a previous year I was one of the last two, and lost to someone using a familiar to dump out a bag of holding containing 48 colossal size caltrops and telekinesis them into me for 175+ damage taking me from full health to unconscious in one standard action.
So to be clear, this group tends to go with the most beneficial, most powerful, most rule bending interpretation they can find. And they ruled that Fiery Shuriken was covered by it and blocked from multiple sneaks.
So your mileage may vary.
Gilarius |
James, I appreciate that already; I've said 3 times that I think that the FAQ entry is intended to cover fiery shuriken. Whilst I dislike that interpretation (and I'd argue the toss with a GM if it were relevant, albeit not in PFS, because of that word 'simultaneous' and because logic suggests that multiple simultaneous attacks should be easier to target more precisely than a succession of attacks where the victim is aware of the attacks and is 'moving, weaving, etc in place while fighting' - back in 1st edition, only the first attack could gain the backstab modifier; subsequent ones didn't), I do understand how it seems to be intended to apply.
The bit I am still looking for, is whether the same rule should apply as a general rule for all standard actions that generate multiple attack rolls, not just spell attacks.
So far I have double-barrelled gun attacks, but no other examples where a standard action can achieve multiple attack rolls. Are there any more?
The other situation I know of where a rule about this would be helpful, concerns feats like Focussed Shot*. As written, Focussed Shot cannot be used with guns, but there is no justification for not allowing it to do so in a home game. But should it apply to both double-barrelled gun attacks? And again, what is the justification (either way)?
*Are there any other feats like that?
Claxon |
I may be incorrect, but for instance if you use Manyshot on a full attack and are attacking someone with deflect arrows, they deflect both arrows. To me this sets somewhat of a precedent, though is only tangentially related.
Edit: Clarification, if you attack and your first attack roll is a hit you would normally hit with two arrows. Deflect arrows would prevent either arrows from the first attack roll from hitting.