I know I can sneak attack with rays, but what sort of damage does Sneak Attack do with a scorching ray? An enervation?
What about with cure light wounds?
Fire. (with one ray only, as they are all fired at once rather in succession).
Negative energy.
Positive energy (if the cure light wounds spell is dealing damage).
-James
On part one I have a disagreement with James. No where does it say you only get sneak attack with only one ray. There are currently no volley rules, no errata, and not even an unoffical post from someone in a position to make such a statement to suggest that you wouldn't get sneak attack with all three rays (if you have access to all three).
Until such a thing is added, you get full sneak attack with all three rays if the spell qualifies for sneak attack damage (i.e. target is denied their dex bonus to AC).
What happens if a Cleric/Rogue flanks his buddy and tries to heal him with cure light wounds?
He would touch for regular curing. It's not a damage effect, and sneak attack only applies to damage dealing effects.
What happens if a Cleric/Rogue flanks his buddy and tries to heal him with cure light wounds?
You're not attacking him with cure light wounds, so you can't sneak attack him with it either. You can automatically touch a friend, so there's no attack roll, therefore no sneak attack. See Touch Spells in Combat.
Under 3.5, if you were a rogue, and you attacked 3 times in any way, you got sneak attack on every attack that qualified for it (flat footed? All 3, Flanked? All 3). It didn't matter what kind of attack, you got your sneak attack. Check the 3.5 FAQ.
I'm sure someone will storm in, full of nerd rage, and denounce that we are not playing 3.5, we're playing PF. That is absolutely true. However, PF is based on 3.5, and unless a rule is explicitly changed or overriden, it works the same.
Now, there's been no modification of how sneak attack works (other than allowing it to work on more critters). So, it should work the same way in PF, every attack you make that you qualify for with sneak attack gets sneak attack. So, if you are within 30 feet, and the target is flat footed, you get sneak attack on each ray.
Under 3.5, if you were a rogue, and you attacked 3 times in any way, you got sneak attack on every attack that qualified for it (flat footed? All 3, Flanked? All 3). It didn't matter what kind of attack, you got your sneak attack. Check the 3.5 FAQ.
Actually, it did matter. Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack. Complete Arcane also specifically used scorching ray in reference to this rule.
Under 3.5, if you were a rogue, and you attacked 3 times in any way, you got sneak attack on every attack that qualified for it (flat footed? All 3, Flanked? All 3). It didn't matter what kind of attack, you got your sneak attack. Check the 3.5 FAQ.Actually, it did matter. Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack. Complete Arcane also specifically used scorching ray in reference to this rule.
Ah, ok. Been awhile since I had to check on that. Mea culpa for a bad memory. However, it still stands that you still get your sneak attack on each actual attack you make.
This does, of course, leave Magic Missile off, as you don't actually make an attack roll, which is just fine.
Personally, I prefer to keep 3.5 rules that aren't specifically changed or overwritten by Pathfinder, but since the only place the Volley rules are mentioned in the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM is Manyshot, and that's an oblique reference, I don't usually raise a fuss about it if someone else prefers differently.
Remember, the FAQ is not an official ruling. Rules of the Game is only as official as the material it references.
These articles can provide insight into rules as intended, but they are not RAW.
No offense, but that's kind of a moot point.
Most of the FAQs for 3.5 (and when they get them done, for PF) answer questions about ambiguous rules in the system. So saying they are not official material is beside the point. The official material could be interpreted up to a dozen different ways, and the FAQ indicates which way was intended by the developers.
You might just as well say 'Remember, RAW are always overridden by Rule 0 and the GM can do anything they want'. Both statements are true, and both statements do absolutely nothing about clearing up ambiguities in the core rules. The FAQ is what it is, an indication from the publisher as to what the rules were intended to do.
|
i think one of jason's older posts might clarify this a little better. along with a quote pulled directly out of the core book.
page 68. third paragraph of sneak attack section
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
to me this is pretty clear about the how sneak attack works with cure spells. it can only deal damage, lethal or nonlethal. so if you try to use a cure spell for healing, sneak attack would not apply because it is not doing damage. if you use it to harm an undead creature, it would apply because it is dealing lethal damage to the undead. in both cases, the sneak attack takes on the positive energy type, but is still restricted to being sneak attack for the purposes of how it works and deals damage.