Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

wraithstrike wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I think he is implying that sneak attack might require attack rolls.

However:

sneak attack wrote:

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.

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.

The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.

Nothing in sneak attack mentions an attack roll. :)

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

I was always under the impression that you could only get sneak damage with something that gives an attack roll, with the specific exception of the Arcane Trickster, who can apply it to any spell that deals damage.

Mr. Reynolds, is that not the case??

Surprise Spell wrote:
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the
...

Oh no I totally agree that it works that way for the Arcane Trickster thanks to the Surprise Spell ability (which is the capstone, because it's POWERFUL), but a regular old Rogue/Wizard should not be able to deal sneak damage with his magic missile or fireball spells, correct?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Edgar Ripley wrote:
It looks like the guy that makes the game says that they all get sneak attack. This doesn't make a lot of sense from a flavor perspective, or with regard to how other rules logic applies, but mechanically it's probably the best decision so I don't have an issue with it.
The part of the FAQ about magic missile only applying the sneak attack damage to one missile suggests that only one of the scorching rays should get the sneak attack damage ("This damage is only applied once per spell").

Magic missile only get sneak attack through Surprise Spell feature. The surprise spell feature is clear, you can use Surprise spell only once per spell, period.

Scorching ray does not require Surprise spell. A regular rogue with Use Magic Device can use a 11th level wand to cast 3 rays of scorching ray. Surprise spell is limited to once per spell, but our rogue doesn't even have that feature. He has sneak attack, which is not, by raw, limited to once per round. It's limited per attack roll. For example, you can sneak twice with rapid shot, and only once with manyshot. Scorching ray rolls three times to attack, although the description says it's a volley. That's the debate, and that's what needs to be FAQ'ed. I think we all agree that Surprise Attack can only do SA dice damage once with Magic Missile, but that doesn't help our example of the Rogue with UMD and a scorching ray wand.


cartmanbeck wrote:


Oh no I totally agree that it works that way for the Arcane Trickster thanks to the Surprise Spell ability (which is the capstone, because it's POWERFUL), but a regular old Rogue/Wizard should not be able to deal sneak damage with his magic missile or fireball spells, correct?

Correct. Fireball does not normally get sneak attack. I guess I should have given you an RAI answer before instead of going RAW.. :)

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sneak attack normally works with weapon-like spells, including rays. It doesn't normally work with magic missile because that is not a weapon-like spell or ray.


That's how I interpret it. Damage spells requiring attack rolls can include sneak attack damage. A 10th level AT can apply it to any direct damage spell, if the conditions are met (the targets are flat footed).

That doesn't address the scorching ray question.

Most tricksters can cast 3 rays around 12th level or so. So, a sneak attacking rogue 3/wizard 3/ AT 6 could do either 17d6 (the 3.5 "volley"), or 27d6 (the more generous interpretation), assuming they all hit.

An archer rogue 12 can add 6d6 sneak attack to all attacks in a full attack, like a melee rogue.

The hard part is making that happen.


I also interpret all instances the same way.

Weapon-like spells allow sneak attack all the time (Sneaking with Acid Splash, anyone? XD), assuming the conditions for sneak attack are met.

Spells that do not allow have attack rolls do not allow sneak attack without ten levels of Arcane Trickster.

Weapon-like spells that have multiple attack rolls (like scorching ray), allow multiple sneak attacks, assuming the conditions for sneak attack is met for each attack roll. Sneak attack never gets above 10d6, and scorching ray never allows more than 3 rays (I believe), so the most you could ever do is 42D6. at an average of 3.5 per D6, you get 147. Not game breaking compared to a level 19 fighter. Actually, this make rouges viable combatants with a casting of greater invisibility.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Just because you make an attack roll with a spell doesn't mean it's a weapon-like spell.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Just because you make an attack roll with a spell doesn't mean it's a weapon-like spell.

I may be confused now. What can sneak attack then, Sean?


The weapon that creates a flaming sword might would could as a weapon-like spell. I just can't remember the name right now.


Spell that creates...? Flame Blade, probably the definition of weapon-like spell (and Spiritual Weapon)


Oh, that makes sense. But attacks from that would obviously qualify. I just figured it was any spell that required and attack roll. Does that make sense to everyone?


I would have allowed any spell requiring an attack roll to work also, but I would not have allowed every attack from scorching Ray to work..

We may need an FAQ to determine what counts as a weapon-like spell.


And for how many sneak attacks one gets with spells like Scorching Ray. I think it should be every attack roll, but that's me. It how I read it, RAW.

It's unfortunate that no other situation like this comes up in the game. I can't think of anything. Manyshot includes the caveat, so it's not a good reference. Rapid Shot and iterative attacks are clearly sequential, so it also does not apply.

I can't think of anything quite like this particular situation.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

if a spell allows multiple attacks over a duration, even 1 round (not instantaneous) then it's an exception (Flame Blade, Spiritual Weapon).
otherwise Sneak Attack is once per spell (if it has an attack roll to begin with).
or you could say Sneak Attack applies per ACTION (scorching ray casting is 1 action),
although that runs into issues with full attack/iteratives and AoOs... so just stick with the above.
probably that could be codified better in the FAQ, given the number of partially accurate Dev posts.


Quandary wrote:

if a spell allows multiple attacks over a duration, even 1 round (not instantaneous) then it's an exception (Flame Blade, Spiritual Weapon).

otherwise Sneak Attack is once per spell (if it has an attack roll to begin with).
or you could say Sneak Attack applies per ACTION (scorching ray casting is 1 action),
although that runs into issues with full attack/iteratives and AoOs... so just stick with the above.
probably that could be codified better in the FAQ, given the number of partially accurate Dev posts.

Is that your RAW or RAI interpretation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the spell takes an attack roll, my hard and fast arguement is as such:

If we were talking about a shortbow instead, and the shortbow would qualify for sneak attack in the same situation, then the spell gets it. If not, then it doesn't.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

If the spell takes an attack roll, my hard and fast arguement is as such:

If we were talking about a shortbow instead, and the shortbow would qualify for sneak attack in the same situation, then the spell gets it. If not, then it doesn't.

That's a pretty solid basis. I don't think it adequately covers this instance, but it's wonderful almost all the rest of the time.


It does cover this instance.

If the scorching rays all fire at different targets, and all fire at once, and all the targets are flat footed/denied dex, then the sneak applies to all of them.

If the rays fire at the same target, and the target is flat footed, and all the rays fire at once, then they also all qualify for sneak attack.

It is the same as the shortbow for the first example, if all the enemies were denied dex, and the archer had 3 attacks, he could hit all 3 targets with sneak attack damage (this is assuming he wins init the first round, and has a full attack available).

If there is a single target, and he is flat footed or denied dex for the full round (provided it is not from something like invisibility or stealth which explicitly limits it to the first attack), then he could fire 3 arrows all dealing sneak attack damage, the same way a TWF rogue could make 3 shortsword attacks in the same round and deal sneak attack damage on all of them.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

It does cover this instance.

If the scorching rays all fire at different targets, and all fire at once, and all the targets are flat footed/denied dex, then the sneak applies to all of them.

If the rays fire at the same target, and the target is flat footed, and all the rays fire at once, then they also all qualify for sneak attack.

It is the same as the shortbow for the first example, if all the enemies were denied dex, and the archer had 3 attacks, he could hit all 3 targets with sneak attack damage (this is assuming he wins init the first round, and has a full attack available).

If there is a single target, and he is flat footed or denied dex for the full round (provided it is not from something like invisibility or stealth which explicitly limits it to the first attack), then he could fire 3 arrows all dealing sneak attack damage, the same way a TWF rogue could make 3 shortsword attacks in the same round and deal sneak attack damage on all of them.

While I agree all your examples are correct, there is an important nugget of information in scorching ray that makes it different. Namely, that scorching ray occurs simultaneously - that is to say, all the rays fire at the exact same time.

This has led to the crux of the argument - some people are claiming that because the attacks are simultaneous, precision-based damage (like sneak attack) can only occur once. Manyshot has been presented as an example, but it includes a clause that sneak attack only occurs once. Attacks like you say occur over time (like this attack happens, then the second, the the last), not simultaneously, so it's also pretty clear.

A 3.5 Rule in a splat book has also been referenced, but in my estimation has no basis in this discussion.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


I didn't write that FAQ, and I don't know if I'm the one who cleared the FAQ-flag on this thread, and I know it's talking about the arcane trickster class, but perhaps it was marked as such because of the "only once per spell" ruling in that FAQ entry.

So the best thing would be make a new thread and ask again?

Hope no one erroneously unFlags it twice?


Alright, to weigh in my opinion: Since we don't have a specific "Sneak attack works this way with scorching ray" ruling, let's use some logic. To address a few periphery questions...

I believe weapon-like spells are spells that use an attack roll i.e. rays and touch spells. I could use some confirmation on this from more rules lawyer'y people, but that's always been my RAI. It shoots something, or hits something, like a weapon.

The balance issue: Scorching Ray with full sneak attack is probably not actually that broken.

Why spells without attack rolls (Magic missile, fireball, etc) normally don't sneak attack (RAI, could use RAW clarification): No attack roll means no chance to aim, no chance to aim means no precision.

My assessment of he rules:

Now the issue at hand, does it actually work according to the rules? The argument for yes seems to be that there are multiple attack rolls, which should mean multiple sneak attacks. The argument against seems to be primarily based around the 3.5 Volley rule, which we've already covered is not present in Pathfinder. The only real hard ruling that supports this idea is the "Surprise Spell" ruling's rules text that mentions Magic Missile. Technically, this is a clarification specifically for spells that you normally cannot sneak attack with and does not apply to normal sneak attack rules. However, if you extend the logic behind it to normal sneak attacks, why would fireball be able to hit multiple targets with sneak attack but Magic Missile would not? It seems to be applying the same logic as 3.5's Volley rule, even though that rule does not exist. So if the logic is there, it might be meant to apply to normal sneak attack spells as well.

Conclusion: There's nothing in the RAW that says you can't, and that JJ guy seems to think you can which is close enough to an official ruling for me. RAI... I don't think you were intended to be able to do that.

I would address how much sense it makes Flavor Wise, but that's really subjective. It's more fun for me to imagine your AT being able to pinpoint weak spots on three different enemies and blast them all.


Or we can go with what the RULES DEVELOPER wrote in this exact thread:

SKR wrote:
The part of the FAQ about magic missile only applying the sneak attack damage to one missile suggests that only one of the scorching rays should get the sneak attack damage ("This damage is only applied once per spell").

Seems closer to an official ruling than what JJ (not rules guy) wrote somewhere.

(JJ who asks people not to ask him rules questions for a reason)
Sean later clarified the general guideline (or perhaps not so clarified it) with issues of weapon-like spells/rays/etc, but this is his post directly speaking to scorching ray.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sneak attack normally works with weapon-like spells, including rays. It doesn't normally work with magic missile because that is not a weapon-like spell or ray.

He also said this. Since he was also talking about a particular ability of Arcane Trickster, I don't find either post particularly useful.

So, I go back to the book. After reading Sneak Attack, I have no reason to believe Scorching Ray should not get as many sneak attacks as it has rays.

Are the conditions met when he fires the spell? Is there some reason he could not aim all of the rays (he is making the attack roll for each)? I mean a mechanical reason?

If there is nothing like that being presented, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to all the attacks.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I'll point out that Manyshot, which fires two arrows at once, says this:

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

So there is another precedent (having nothing to do with the arcane trickster) for simultaneous attacks only applying sneak attack damage to one of the shots.


But Manyshot is a single attack roll for double damage.

This is also the case for vital strike, where a single attack roll gives multiple weapon damage rolls, and also has the limiting factor for sneak attack and precision based damage.

Each separate attack from the scorching ray requires its own attack roll to do damage, which is my basis for arguing multiple instances of sneak attack.

In fact, calling it out as only applying once for manyshot and vital strike, would imply that without this limitation, one would assume that precision based damage would also be multiplied.

You're the developer, so you can make the call for the official game, but in this particular corner case, as each attack requires a separate roll to hit at all, the extra damage is earned each time, just like a melee TWF rogue. 3.0 had a limit to once/round sneak attacks, which was removed in PF provided all attacks qualified. This is a similar call, if each attack would qualify individually, I don't see why all of them at once would not, specifically because of the "simutaneous" qualifer to the attack sequence.


or if the 1st one misses, does the 2nd qualify for sneak attack?
(same thing if something negates one magic missile but not another)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'll point out that Manyshot, which fires two arrows at once, says this:

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

So there is another precedent (having nothing to do with the arcane trickster) for simultaneous attacks only applying sneak attack damage to one of the shots.

Unfortunately, that's a bad example Sean. Manyshot does have multiple arrows in one shot (simultaneous), but it also uses one attack roll for both arrows.

Scorching Ray, on the other hand, may be 2 to 5 rays simultaneously, but they require attack rolls for each ray. This is more like consecutive ranged attacks from a bow, which would get sneak attack on each hit (provided they all meet the criteria).


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'll point out that Manyshot, which fires two arrows at once, says this:

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

So there is another precedent (having nothing to do with the arcane trickster) for simultaneous attacks only applying sneak attack damage to one of the shots.

Or we could call it a precedent for such attacks needing to explicitly state how Sneak Attack damage is applied.

Also, to be fair, these are different sorts of attacks. One has an attack that essentially just does double arrow damage, whereas scorching ray is just 3 attacks that are part of one spell. I think they're of a different kind. Sure, there's a similarity there, but scorching ray has equal similarity with iterative attacks (e.g. multiple attack rolls).

So far, it seems the RAW is that sneak attack is applied to each attack. Scorching has nothing that says otherwise. RAI? Probably are no RAI, because no one thought about it much when making PF or it would have been part of the sneak attack rules. So, the real question is whether it is balanced or not. Frankly, it seems pretty balanced to me. It's highly expensive for Rogues to do this, and it helps the Arcane Trickster quite a bit.

As for hypothetical spells that have 15 ranged touch attacks, that's handled but not allowing such spells. There's good reason to avoid them too. They are cumbersome and time-consuming. They are better modeled with a spell that has one attack or no attack as far as ease of play goes. So I don't think such hypothetical spells should be a problem.


or related example, Archer Archetype Fighter:
Volley (Ex): At 17th level, as a full-round action, an archer can make a single bow attack at his highest base attack bonus against any number of creatures in a 15-foot- radius burst, making separate attack and damage rolls for each creature. This ability replaces weapon training 4.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Edgar Ripley wrote:
It looks like the guy that makes the game says that they all get sneak attack. This doesn't make a lot of sense from a flavor perspective, or with regard to how other rules logic applies, but mechanically it's probably the best decision so I don't have an issue with it.
The part of the FAQ about magic missile only applying the sneak attack damage to one missile suggests that only one of the scorching rays should get the sneak attack damage ("This damage is only applied once per spell").
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'll point out that Manyshot, which fires two arrows at once, says this:

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

So there is another precedent (having nothing to do with the arcane trickster) for simultaneous attacks only applying sneak attack damage to one of the shots.

I've got no problem with it being one sneak attack per spell.... but that doesn't follow from either of these two cases. It just needs its own faq entry. "When doing damage with a spell requiring an attack roll, precision damage and sneak attack only apply once per spell."

Quote 1: That is a rule from a specific ability of a class. So no one is going to apply it to a general rule any more than someone would apply the rules for Summon Monster I (sp) of the Summoner class to any summon monster spell cast.

Quote 2: It's only one attack on the two arrows. Whereas, scorching ray is a separate attack for each ray.

Unless Pathfinder v2.0 is being released anytime soon and this isn't an issue? :-)

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

6 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qqm

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).


great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Surprising. Thank you for your time and effort PDT.

I wonder if I will houserule it?


well there's another hit to the rogue and the arcane trickster lol.

Good thing I'm not a fan of playing stealthy types.


So that sets the basic precedent that simultaneous attacks only get sneak attack once.

Not really a big hit, but it hurts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is nice to get an official ruling even thought it about ruin one of the best rogue assassination spells in the game.


TheRedArmy wrote:

Wow. Surprising. Thank you for your time and effort PDT.

I wonder if I will houserule it?

Hmm...

The most broken thing anyone could come up with was a Rogue 11 using a Wand that cost 16500gp to buy or 8250gp to make. That would do three 10d6 rays for 50 rounds. Or 330gp per round. That might last for an entire experience level.

Now that's 105 damage per round, assuming no fire resistance. Even FR 10 would reduce it to 75 damage per round. There are certainly builds that can do more damage than that at 10th level and aren't so prone easily stopped by a resistance. Now it would basically require a net +3 bonus to UMD from charisma or feats (or +5 if you aren't willing to risk missing any to get the +2 from prior activation). So not much investment needed, though you'd still need a way to guarantee SA's each round, which isn't exactly trivial at range.

That said, given how you're using up a limited resource that costs as about as much as a +3 weapon, I'm not sure this is really that big of a deal.

Given that FAQ response seems to be from today, I'm not sure much thought was put into the answer.

I think it would make more sense to make slight modifications, such as declaring that a "simultaneous" attack with multiple rolls is treated as iterative attacks for SA purposes. Then I'd say Underhanded and similar abilities should say they only max the dice on ONE qualifying SA.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Drachasor wrote:
Given that FAQ response seems to be from today, I'm not sure much thought was put into the answer.

We really, really, really appreciate this sort of comment.


So to clarify, please correct me if I am wrong though.

Shooting a fireball would give you one roll of sneak attack damage and would apply that damage to each foe hit by the fireball.

If I shoot a scorching ray at one opponent that consists of three beams I roll to see if I hit him with each beam, but only apply the sneak attack damage once.

If I shoot a scorching ray that consists of three beams at three opponents I roll to see if I hit each one, but then choose which one gets the one roll of sneak attack damage?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Who does Paizo hate more: me or the arcane trickster!?

You decide!


Thanks for the FAQ!

Silver Crusade

Onto the next rule-bending debate now that this one's over (again, given the 3rd edition debates arguing the exact same thing with the exact same designer response). Ultimately, as it says somewhere in all my books since the first gaming book came out, the rules can always be modified to fit your personal game.

Anyways, as it has always been, thanks to the Paizo crew for listening to its fans and responding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Given that FAQ response seems to be from today, I'm not sure much thought was put into the answer.
We really, really, really appreciate this sort of comment.

Ill balance it out, thank you very much for the swift FAQ response.

I love what the Pathfinder Design Team is doing.


Drachasor wrote:
The most broken thing anyone could come up with was a Rogue 11 using a Wand that cost 16500gp to buy or 8250gp to make. That would do three 10d6 rays for 50 rounds. Or 330gp per round. That might last for an entire experience level.

How about a scroll of holy ice at 15th caster level? Sure, it costs 3,375 gp, but with 15 attacks at 7d6+1 (+2 if harmed by holy water), you could easily one-shot just about anything. That's approximately 472 damage, and you can divide it up to obliterate a cluster of enemies if need be or just wipe a BBEG off the map. Even DR 15 just drops the damage to 247, which is likely still fatal.

For bonus points, put it in a staff and have the party cleric recharge it. That's 30,000 gp, but it lets you liquify one powerful being per day for all eternity and requires a trivial UMD check to activate.

This is why the ruling is what it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Given that FAQ response seems to be from today, I'm not sure much thought was put into the answer.
We really, really, really appreciate this sort of comment.

My sincere apologies. I meant "I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind that ruling."

It doesn't seem to be a balance issue, imho, so it seems odd to me to make a rule against something that looks to be allowed by RAW (and untouched by any visible RAI) when it doesn't seem to cause any problem. And if it does cause a problem, then lighter measures would work and not hurt a character path (Arcane Trickster) that doesn't need it.


Karelzarath wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
The most broken thing anyone could come up with was a Rogue 11 using a Wand that cost 16500gp to buy or 8250gp to make. That would do three 10d6 rays for 50 rounds. Or 330gp per round. That might last for an entire experience level.

How about a scroll of holy ice at 15th caster level? Sure, it costs 3,375 gp, but with 15 attacks at 7d6+1 (+2 if harmed by holy water), you could easily one-shot just about anything. That's approximately 472 damage, and you can divide it up to obliterate a cluster of enemies if need be or just wipe a BBEG off the map. Even DR 15 just drops the damage to 247, which is likely still fatal.

For bonus points, put it in a staff and have the party cleric recharge it. That's 30,000 gp, but it lets you liquify one powerful being per day for all eternity and requires a trivial UMD check to activate.

This is why the ruling is what it is.

A spell that has 15 attacks in it is really quite ridiculous. That's a lot of handling time for little reason. Like I said in my post, there's ways to handle that without nerfing things that aren't a problem.


Drachasor wrote:
The most broken thing anyone could come up with was a Rogue 11 using a Wand that cost 16500gp to buy or 8250gp to make.

Who's anyone?

May I suggest that they start playing with either fiery shurikens in that wand/staff or move over to telekinesis?

When your rogue15 sneak attacks from 1000feet away in high wind... beyond the Lethal Weapon flashback you will have some issues with him sniping things.

(to others): Rather than berate the design team for adjudicating rules, why not implore them to revamp the arcane trickster a bit? If the base classes were the old 3.5 classes, the pathfinder arcane trickster does reasonably well.. but like any parallel design, it is going to suffer when compared against the improved wizard and rogue base classes. I'd suggest having some arcane trickster 'tricks'/'talents' or the like especially for the class.

-James


Karelzarath wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
The most broken thing anyone could come up with was a Rogue 11 using a Wand that cost 16500gp to buy or 8250gp to make. That would do three 10d6 rays for 50 rounds. Or 330gp per round. That might last for an entire experience level.

How about a scroll of holy ice at 15th caster level? Sure, it costs 3,375 gp, but with 15 attacks at 7d6+1 (+2 if harmed by holy water), you could easily one-shot just about anything. That's approximately 472 damage, and you can divide it up to obliterate a cluster of enemies if need be or just wipe a BBEG off the map. Even DR 15 just drops the damage to 247, which is likely still fatal.

For bonus points, put it in a staff and have the party cleric recharge it. That's 30,000 gp, but it lets you liquify one powerful being per day for all eternity and requires a trivial UMD check to activate.

This is why the ruling is what it is.

Those are attacks not touch attacks. Oh and its wisdom modifier for the attack stat. So your stacked casting stat for an arcane trickster, regardless of whether its int or cha, mean nothing. You'll be attacking at best with a 3/4 BAB with +3 or so.

So +10 versus AC at 10th level. Average AC sits around 25 so you're going to outright miss with 70% of those attacks if I gave a rogue/ wizard a 16 Wisdom

Edit: Btw what are you talking about 7d6+2= 26.5 Average. 15 of those equals 397.5. Then you multiply by .3 for hit chance which shoves you down to 119.25 before DR.


James - the range limit on SA is 30 ft. That's why it's still ok, at least part of why, in my eyes.

101 to 150 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.