"Ranged Attack" while Sniping Query


Rules Questions


Hello Pathfinder people,

Regarding "Sniping" under the stealth skill, I see the following:

Sniping wrote:
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

Does this have to be a "ranged attack action", i.e. make a single ranged attack with a thrown weapon or a bow, or can a spell or feature that involves a ranged attack apply? For example, a spell like Ennervation which requires a ranged attack roll.

If you can make a ranged attack in this way, what about the situation of a spell or ability that causes multiple ranged attacks rolls for one action? I.e., Scorching Ray.

Thanks!


With further research, my buddy unearthed this FAQ which appears to treat spells like Scorching Ray as a single ranged attack regardless of the fact that multiple ranged attack rolls are involved.

So bearing that in mind, I believe I would be able to snipe using a spell like Scorching Ray? Opinions welcome.


Yes, Ranged Touch Attack Spells count as ranged attacks with respect to maintaining your Stealthy position.

Might I suggest you add the Illusion of Calm Spell to your bag of tricks? You use the power of the illusion to appear to be still while you shoot your crossbow or cast your scorching rays, and that means you will NOT break your stealth.

Although, it might be better to just take some levels in Ninja and use your Vanishing Trick as a Swift Action. Turn invisible. Max out your Deadly Aim. Shoot your opponent with your Flintlock Pistol against their Flatfooted, Touch AC. Heck, make it a Merciful Flintlock Pistol and take the Feat Sap Adept! Take 3 levels in Drunken Master, so you will never run out of Ki. Drunken Ninja with a gun! The thing that would make it perfect is if you were a Goblin.


Thank you for weighing in, but I don't believe you're correct with Illusion of Calm. It stops you from provoking AoOs, but that's all it seems to do by RAW.

As a follow-up, what about a supernatural ability that involves ranged attack(s), such as Weird Words? I'm also unclear as to whether Weird Words is treated as a "simultaneous attack" like Scorching Ray, or if it's actually a number of separate attacks (for the purposes of sneak attack this is important).


Illusion of Calm doesn't mean that he doesn't break stealth. He still has to make a stealth check with the -20 penalty. Illusion of calm basically just protects you from AoO. While it does make it look like your standing still, the doesn't make you non-detectable.


I never said it makes you undetectable. Don't put words into my mouth, Claxon.

If Illusion of Calm makes you appear as if you are standing still even when you are not. Shouldn't it make you appear as if you did not make any movements to break your stealth? Clearly, once an arrow or something was fired, the targets are entitled to a Perception Check. I'm only saying that it should relieve you of the -20 to your Stealth Check. And it creates an illusionary double of yourself that you can move away from, perhaps before you started firing: are you certain that your targets will never see the false you and think it is the real you?

Anyway, it is certainly worthwhile to ask your DM. A PFS Wizard/Arcane Trickster learning a level 1 spell that he doesn't end up using as much as he hoped hasn't lost very much. It's no big deal even if the DM won't allow it, but there is a great gain to be had. Just ask the DM ahead of time. That is my suggestion. It is a good suggestion.

I made other suggestions. I think they are good suggestions, too.


It looks to me like Weird Words should work the same way Scorching Ray does with Stealth.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I never said it makes you undetectable. Don't put words into my mouth, Claxon.

Well based on my response and the OP's response it appears that we both interpreted it exactly that way.

Quote:
If Illusion of Calm makes you appear as if you are standing still even when you are not. Shouldn't it make you appear as if you did not make any movements to break your stealth? Clearly, once an arrow or something was fired, the targets are entitled to a Perception Check. I'm only saying that it should relieve you of the -20 to your Stealth Check. And it creates an illusionary double of yourself that you can move away from, perhaps before you started firing: are you certain that your targets will never see the false you and think it is the real you?

And no, it doesn't do what your suggesting here because the rules don't say it does. The spell will not benefit him in any way, except to prevent him from provoking attacks of opportunity. And once he moves out of the square the double is in everyone can see him regularly and his double. While they might not know the one standing still is an illusion, they can certainly see the other one attacking/casting if he doesn't use stealth well enough to hide from them.


Claxon wrote:
Well based on my response and the OP's response it appears that we both interpreted it exactly that way.

The OP didn't say that I said that Illusion of Calm makes you undetectable! Don't put words in the OP's mouth either. Maybe he does think that; maybe he doesn't. But I think you should let him speak for himself, because now you are putting words into both of our mouths!

Illusion of Calm makes it appear you are still when you are not. It creates a double of yourself that stays where it is, and you can move away from. The spell says that. Look at the spell; you'll see that it says that. I know it says you can make ranged attacks without provoking attacks of opportunity, but it also makes it appear you are standing still even if you are not.

And that means it is worthwhile for a wizard's player to ask his referee about this spell the utility I proposed. It didn't escape my notice that your last post ignored this, my thesis.

The PFS term for this is, "Expect table variation," which for a martial character looking for feat/ability synergies to commit a small number of slots to, is devastating, because retraining is expensive. But for a wizard who is selecting from a vast pool of spells and can change his mind about every day, not so much.

Consider adding this to your bag of tricks. It is worth asking your DM.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Well based on my response and the OP's response it appears that we both interpreted it exactly that way.
The OP didn't say that I said that Illusion of Calm makes you undetectable! Don't put words in the OP's mouth either. Maybe he does think that; maybe he doesn't. But I think you should let him speak for himself, because now you are putting words into both of our mouths!

Whatever Scott, it's not even the point.

Quote:

Illusion of Calm makes it appear you are still when you are not. It creates a double of yourself that stays where it is, and you can move away from. The spell says that. Look at the spell; you'll see that it says that. I know it says you can make ranged attacks without provoking attacks of opportunity, but it also makes it appear you are standing still even if you are not.

And that means it is worthwhile for a wizard's player to ask his referee about this spell the utility I proposed. It didn't escape my notice that your last post ignored this, my thesis.

The PFS term for this is, "Expect table variation," which for a martial character looking for feat/ability synergies to commit a small number of slots to, is devastating, because retraining is expensive. But for a wizard who is selecting from a vast pool of spells and can change his mind about every day, not so much.

Consider adding this to your bag of tricks. It is worth asking your DM.

I ignored your thesis because most GMs are not going to allow what you are suggesting, which is to eliminate the -20 penalty to stealth checks and what you seem to be suggesting to have the spell funciton like a cheaper form of invisibility. Now I may be wrong in that understanding but thats what it sounds like. But I'll go ahead and that line so you don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

You can ask a GM, but no reasonable interpretation of the spell allows what you suggest. Even the OP seems to agree on that point based on his earlier post. It much better to rely on things that don't require GM adjudication to funciton.


Claxon wrote:
I ignored your thesis because most GMs are not going to allow what you are suggesting,

Would you please cite your source for this claim? Has there been a published survey? A psychological study of GMs?

Claxon wrote:
You can ask a GM, but no reasonable interpretation of the spell allows what you suggest.

Well, that is clearly wrong: I have made a reasonable interpretation of the spell. It's fine for you to have problems with it, but to say it is unreasonable is going too far.


Fluff text for a spell cannot be extrapolated into rules.


While it may be inconvenient, I don't think you can ignore the fluff text either. They are all rules.


Hey, um. Please stop arguing over a random spell guys, or at least make a new rules thread for it. I'm interested in the "Sniping" rules as they pertain to spells and supernatural abilities. Scott has been so kind as to give his opinion; does anyone support or deny this opinion (ignoring Illusion of Calm)?

Thank you.


Ignoring the earlier derailment, I apologize for my role in it...

In any event, I can't see any reason why you couldn't use sniping rules when casting a spell to try to avoid detection.

It may be very hard though, because the speech required for many spells is a DC 0 to hear. So, unless you're far enough away from the enemy the perception check to hear you speaking casting the spell (which you cannot do stealthily) is likely to give you away.

If you can find a ranged attack spell that you can hold the charge on (or cast it using silent spell) such that you can cast the spell without notice then you can make the ranged attack and take the -20 penalty to stealth to attempt to remain hidden after the attack. A ranged attack is a ranged attack. Whether it be a spell or a bow.

You have to remember to mentally separate the actions of casting the spell and making the ranged attack and how they both interact with stealth.

I can tell you, that unless the spell doesn't have verbal components or you cast using silent spell it is unlikely that you will remain unnoticed.


Good point, I didn't think of that. So "Produce Flame" or an Oracle with the Deaf curse would work fine, but casting an "Enervation" at someone would alert them separately from the ranged attack.

I am still interested in how this interacts with spells and abilities where you take a single action to use the ability but it results in multiple attack rolls. For example, "Weird Words" is a Su: ability meaning it technically has no verbal or somatic components; but it involves multiple attack rolls.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Claxon wrote:
I ignored your thesis because most GMs are not going to allow what you are suggesting,
Would you please cite your source for this claim? Has there been a published survey? A psychological study of GMs?

No need for snark. The point is your interpretation isn't something that is without question. So expect table variance. In PFS if you are using something with table variance you are begging for frustration. In home games, play how your GM sees it.

I see it that the Illusion of Calm doesn't help you snipe.


Derailing the thread was the last thing I wanted, but I don’t know what I could have done to avoid it. I sharing my understanding and offering suggestions on how to build characters that do the things it seems like you wanted. Then I defending myself from personal insults and damaging rhetoric that was less than ethical in the ways I’ve been explaining. If Claxon simply disagreed with the points I made and used the rules to support his position, then that might have been the end of it. But I could not let what he said stand.

Thank you for making him stop.

@ James: the OP has asked for the discussion about the merits of Illusion of Calm to end. I am in favor of that. Review my posts on this thread, and you will find I already said most of what you said. You and I have a slight disagreement on the impact of table variation on character builds, but I my counter argument to what you said is also something I have already posted. I think there is no need for further discourse. Anyway, the OP asked us to stop.

Back @ OP: I think that the rules covering an attack roll spell while using stealth are the same as for firing a crossbow. You can stay hidden if you make a Stealth check -20 opposed to their Perception Check. But even if I'm right, you are very unlikely to stay hidden unless you do something magical or something to stay hidden.

If you can't find some magical way to stay hidden that you like, then you might find some magical way to get hidden again. I repeat my earlier suggestion of Ninja Vanishing Trick. Turn invisible as a Swift Action (Hey Vanish is a level 1 Invisibility spell!), and get your Sneak Attack Damage every round. A ring of Ki Mastery will give you extra Ki points to vanish more with. Ninja Vanishing Trick should tide you over until you can learn Greater Invisibility.

3 levels of Monk, Drunken Master will give you many more Ki Points to Vanish with. But if your goal is to be an Arcane Trickster as I suspect, we’re now talking about 3 levels in Ninja, 3 levels in Monk, and 3 levels in Wizard before you see even 1 level in Arcane Trickster. So, unless you are a Tiefling, that seems a problem.


Being able to initiate Stealth after the sniping is all about making a quiet, near motionless attack, such that one is allowed to then roll for Stealth before being noticed (because it is hard to tell where the attack even came from). Casting a spell with somatic and verbal components roughly equivocates to waving one's arms and saying "I'm over here, shooting you!" There is also the spell's visual effect. It is not too difficult to see where a burning ray came from. Most shooting spells are easily seen to have come from a particular point. An arrow or bolt is a silent, barely seen blur of motion, with no tell-tale point of origin. A spell without a visual component (or a visual component that doesn't have some sort of loud or glowing/burning effect, like an acid arrow) could be made equivalent to that using Still Spell and Silent Spell. For those spells with easily noticed sensory effects, either a new metamagic feat, Stealthy Spell (which either completely hides the sensory effects of a spell, or gives a +20 Stealth bonus against the effect being sensed), needs to be made, or a spell which obscures the sensory effects of other spells needs to be made. With all of that in effect, then you would have an equivalent attack that would allow a character to re-initiate Stealth after casting the spell. Basically, I am of the opinion that the situations need to be very similar to get a similar benefit. So, acid arrow cast using Still Spell and Quiet Spell would allow for the Stealth roll at -20, but scorching ray cast using Still Spell and Silent Spell would not.


This sounds like a reasonable home game ruling, Cebrion. In a home game one could pull in some D&D 3.5 to avoid this, such as Invisible Spell.

I am however interested in a RAW answer for these queries, as I've been kicking around making an Arcane Trickster for Pathfinder Society for some time as Scott guessed.

Currently the consensus seems to be that it is definitely possible to snipe with a spell effect that involves a ranged attack roll, but concealing the verbal components in some way would be needed to avoid separately breaking Stealth.

It may be possible to snipe using a ranged attack spell that involves multiple attack rolls, based on the FAQ I linked above.

It should be possible to snipe using a supernatural ability that involves a ranged attack roll, and in fact easier since Su: abilities generally involve no verbal components. Still unclear as to whether or not it is possible to snipe with Su: abilities that involve multiple attack rolls such as Weird Words.

Scott, I'm aware of tricks such as the Ninja's Vanish ability but on a spellcasting character I try to avoid losing caster levels as much as possible; sniping would be a class-agnostic solution that avoids caster level loss.


Exguardi wrote:
Scott, I'm aware of tricks such as the Ninja's Vanish ability but on a spellcasting character I try to avoid losing caster levels as much as possible; sniping would be a class-agnostic solution that avoids caster level loss.

But to become an Arcane Trickster, you need to build up a Sneak attack of 2d6. You might take 3 levels in Ninja anyway just to become an AT. You get a Ninja Trick. It could be Vanish. You'd get it 1/day, more depending on your Charisma. If you went Ninja/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster, you'd have an excuse for a very high Charisma and lots of Ninja Vanishing.

If you got a Ring of Ki Mastery, that's like 2 more Ki Points, 2 more Vanishes you could store.

The question here is whether there is a Ninja Trick or Rogue Talent that you want more than Vanish. If there is, you might take either as a Feat sometime later.

If you take Improved Initiative, and maybe the Reactionary Trait, you could be pretty sure you'll get the Initiative and 1 round of Sneak Attack.

Arcane Tricksters get an Impromptu Sneak Attack like 1/day. And they DO get Silent Spell as a Class Ability, btw.

So you can lock in a lot of rounds of Sneak Attack using various methods until you get Greater Invisibility. Greater Invisibility solves your Stealth sniping problem. The other methods only mitigate it.


It is now possible to take only two levels of a martial class and still gain the necessary +2d6 Sneak Attack, making it more valuable to go Rogue 1 (with a powerful archetype like Thug) / Snakebite Striker Brawler 1 / Wizard X.

But I digress. Despite the availability of magic like Greater Invisibility at higher levels I am still interested in sniping, as there are creatures that can see through Greater Invisibility but there is no method of seeing through stealth other than opposed perception checks (assuming appropriate precautions have been taken against scent, tremor sense, etc.).


Ah, I wasn't even thinking of the Advanced Classes.


Well, there is the Negate Aroma spell: no more scent. You can cast Silence. But how do you get around Tremorsense? Fly, Airwalk, or Levitate, I guess. Or you can attack from a range greater than 30'. Both Temorsense and Scent only work within 30'.


Close Range spells start at 25' and grow with levels. Scent and Tremorsense don't work outside 30', so the strategy of Sniping, Vanishing, and Sniping again should work as long as you keep your distance.

You could create concealment some other way, like with a Smokestick, I guess. Then you can use that conealment to Stealth away again.

Grand Lodge

Weird Words is broken, better not to even try to figure out how it is supposed to work right now, until the actual clarification/errata for it comes to light. And that may be delayed, since the Dev guy involved is the one who left Paizo...

However, Weird Words' limitations pretty much relegate it to the same method of sneak application as Scorching Ray or Magic Missile, where the sneak is applied to only one of the attacks it makes.

Note that Weird Words, since it is a sonic attack, would make it even more difficult to snipe, IMO.

One thing to consider is a single level splash of Oracle, I think one of the curses also includes making all spells Silent for free, without changing the spell's level.


Point of order, you cannot sneak attack with magic missile. You don't make an attack roll with Magic Missile so it cannot hit a precise spot to deal extra damage. It just always hits the target.

Well, except for a 10th level Arcane Trickster. He can use his capstone to make spells that don't have attack rolls to deal sneak attack damage.

Grand Lodge

Claxon wrote:

Point of order, you cannot sneak attack with magic missile. You don't make an attack roll with Magic Missile so it cannot hit a precise spot to deal extra damage. It just always hits the target.

Well, except for a 10th level Arcane Trickster. He can use his capstone to make spells that don't have attack rolls to deal sneak attack damage.

I mentioned it in my post because Arcane Trickster was part of the build mentioned during this sequence of posts.


kinevon, ironically you could just be an Oracle Arcane Trickster straight-up. It does not require that you advance an arcane spellcasting class, so you merely need to gain Mage Hand as an SLA as well as any 2nd-level arcane spell.

I had considered making a Druid Arcane Trickster to sneak attack with Produce Flame.


If RAW is the only concern, there should be no concern with noise or visuals at all. The only concern is if a spell is considered a shooting attack or not.

If you are after a degree of sensibility as well, produce flame is not quite as perfect for sniping as acid arrow is, but at least it isn't ray of screeching disco ball strobe light death. That one you probably don't want to allow a Stealth check for, even if it is a shooting attack and therefor, under RAW, would be allowable. ;) Depends on how believable you want things to be. The Stealth check isn't just for hiding from the target, but also from anyone who may have been looking in the general direction of the sniper when the attack was made. Basically, was the attack enough of a "tell" to reveal the sniper, or not, to anyone in the area? The target may be getting shot in the back, but there could be others who saw where the shot came from because its form was an easy to see ball of flame, fiery ray, green ray, etc. So, those wanting to know the source merely have to ask, "Where did that come from?" The stealth check may have been perfectly reasonable to allow against those who were not facing the direction of even a spell shooting attack with an obvious visual cue, but for those that were it should not apply. They would simply say, "A ball of flame came from a shadowy form on the second story ledge right there."

To get the stealth chance at all, either the shooter needs to be using a spell with little or no audio/visual cues, such as a silent acid arrow, or or nobody can have been in position to observe them, such that the visual aspect of the spell will then not be relevant (i.e. a silent anyspell will work just fine). If that is not the case, then the visual aspect of any shooting spell used for sniping needs to be very minimal for there to even be a chance of making a further Stealth check when the shooter is within view of anyone.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "Ranged Attack" while Sniping Query All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.