| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So an Arcane Trickster can't aim 3 scorching rays or 5 magic missiles, but he can aim a fireball so that it hits potentially 44(If I counted that right?) targets exactly where it will hurt each one of them the most?
It seems the problem is not Sneak Attack (which is generally weak), the problem is certain spells providing a ridiculous number of attack rolls that can be targeted at the same target.
Simple fix:
Sneak Attack is only applied once per spell per target. So if you cast 3 Scorching Ray rays at one target you get Sneak Attack damage only once (and I would say you get the extra damage as long as any one of those rays hit). But if you fire at 3 different targets you would get Sneak Attack on all three rays, each target only taking the Sneak Attack damage only once.
This would also allow a 16th level Arcane Trickster to get 5 Sneak Attacks with a Magic Missile, but only if he hit 5 different targets. He would still get laughed at by the Arcane Archer, but at least the AA wouldn't be completely incapacitated from the ROFLMAO laughter he suffers from now.
We have a ruling!
I'm not sure I like the ruling 100%. I've run games involving rogue/sorceror PCs, and they used it in an effective but not-overpowered manner (granted, with the adjudication that the first ray breaks stealth / invisibility). In fact, I'm still running a game for one, so this FAQ is a bit sad for that player. But that's okay, we'll work something out. I'm an indie GM, so I can ignore the FAQ, grandfather it in until the next campaign, or allow the player to retrain -- no big deal.
However, now that somebody has confirmed that effects like holy ice exist, I do agree -- that should not be possible. One shouldn't be able to whip out fifteen sneak attacks with a single spell.
Looking back on things, I wonder if everybody could have been satisfied with design philosophies entailing that spells attacks are not considered simultaneous, and that multiple opportunities for sneak attack should be paid for with higher spell levels. But the spells already exist, and I will concede that it would put additional strains on Pathfinder developers who already have enough considerations without designing and adhering to an Allowable Attacks Per Spell Level chart.
I do often begin to agree with FAQ rulings once I consider them carefully, which is what I'm going to do. I certainly see apparent reasons for the decision. And although rulings like these are sometimes unpopular, I really do appreciate that this is making the game more consistent. Thus, I'd like to reiterate my thanks for ruling it, even if it isn't what I expected, and encourage you do continue doing so.
Who knows, maybe some enterprising forum poster will champion Illusions next and we can get some solid rulings the same way we've been getting them for Light/Darkness and Stealth?
I was not aware of that. Could you point me to the item? Spells have a range, too. And you take range penalties if there is an attack roll involved.
...How one exactly adjudicates that is unclear, by RAW.
Spell Range is not at all the same thing as Range INCREMENT, which is where 'range penalties for attack rolls' come into play.
There are no penalties for using a Spell up to it's maximum range AFAIK. (although you need to pass a Perception check to notice the target in the first place)
To be honest, I do find this somewhat strange, but that's how it seems the rules work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So it looks like Rogue3/Fighter(Archer)17 can apply 2d6 Sneak Attack to ALL attacks they make with Volley... (not being a spell)
EDIT: I was going to write that Volley had a 15' range, but it is all targets within a 15' burst,
meaning there is no range limitation (although range increment penalties apply to the attack rolls)
but all targets must be within a 30' diameter spherical area.
So an Arcane Trickster can't aim 3 scorching rays or 5 magic missiles, but he can aim a fireball so that it hits potentially 44(If I counted that right?) targets exactly where it will hurt each one of them the most?
Simple fix:
Sneak Attack is only applied once per spell per target. So if you cast 3 Scorching Ray rays at one target you get Sneak Attack damage only once (and I would say you get the extra damage as long as any one of those rays hit). But if you fire at 3 different targets you would get Sneak Attack on all three rays, each target only taking the Sneak Attack damage only once.
This is sort of what i was going to get at with my questions prior.
I was thinking the same thing, per spell, per target.
Is there any (Su) abilities that grant multiple simultaneous touch/ranged touch attacks?
James - the range limit on SA is 30 ft. That's why it's still ok, at least part of why, in my eyes.
Take a look at Sniper Goggles. Let's just say I made an Arcane Trickster with Sniper Goggles. He could pretty much one shot anything he surprised that could be affected by Sneak Attack.
I completely understand this ruling. It may not be so bad with Scorching Ray. It's pretty bad with the Scorching Ray upgrade that allows for five attacks. It's pretty bad Holy Ice and Telekinesis. It becomes many time worse with Sniper Goggles. Sniper Goggles still make the Archer rogue super, super nasty.
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.
Thanks, Sean.
Appreciate the Ruling.You guys take all the hate so that the DMs don't have to. That's making our jobs easier. :-)
(even though, I'm the player on this one.... *cries for his arcane trickster*)
Crap. Now I have to revise the guide! LOL
I'll point out that Manyshot, which fires two arrows at once, says this:
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 already pointed this as an example. But as others have said, Manyshot roll to attack just once. And it specifically says it only adds precision damage once. Scorching ray does not say that, and, much more importantly... it rolls to attack three times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mmm... I should have read the entire thread. It seems we have an official FAQ about it now, and it punishes rogues. I'm not sure rogues needed it, but that's the official ruling now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think saying this "punishes" anyone is hyperbole.
It punishes everyone else if somebody can declare fifteen simultaneous sneak attacks with a simple invisibility : )
An AT gets 3 rays at 11th character level, at the earliest. He can sneak attack with one of the rays (gods help him if it misses), but that's it.
He does a devastating 4d6 extra damage! Wow! What a badass! That's 56 average damage, rather than 42, if they all hit!
Of course, a CR 11 enemy will barely feel that, laugh at him, then move 30' and smash his fragile little face in.
Given the difficulty, infrequency, and general ineffectiveness of trying to sneak attack with scorching ray, I'm recommending that tricksters ignore trying to get sneak damage in most situations. It's just not worth it.
If you get lucky, great. Don't waste rounds getting into position, or going invisible, etc. It's not worth your time for a whopping possible 4d6 more damage. You're just not all that cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think saying this "punishes" anyone is hyperbole.
Well, it's an interpretation that makes weaker all classes with sneak attack, compared to the other possible ruling. I used "punishes" because I don't like the word "nerf" very much.
It punishes everyone else if somebody can declare fifteen simultaneous sneak attacks with a simple invisibility : )
That's why you tell tricksters that precision damage only applies to direct damage spells. Telekinesis doesn't qualify, AFAIC.
An AT gets 3 rays at 11th character level, at the earliest. He can sneak attack with one of the rays (gods help him if it misses), but that's it.
He does a devastating 4d6 extra damage! Wow! What a badass! That's 56 average damage, rather than 42, if they all hit!
Of course, a CR 11 enemy will barely feel that, laugh at him, then move 30' and smash his fragile little face in.
Given the difficulty, infrequency, and general ineffectiveness of trying to sneak attack with scorching ray, I'm recommending that tricksters ignore trying to get sneak damage in most situations. It's just not worth it.
If you get lucky, great. Don't waste rounds getting into position, or going invisible, etc. It's not worth your time for a whopping possible 4d6 more damage. You're just not all that cool.
Who is talking about Arcane tricksters? I'm talking about straight pure rogues with Use Magic Device and wands of Scorching ray. At 11th character level, that's 12d6 less damage per round.
Math aside, you don't need arcane trickster to get sneak attack on the spell in question.
Edit: This post is in response to Thomas Long 175's last post :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/facepalm
So this ruling kills a PFS character (who is already dead) who would suffer a DPR decrease,
while all the other rogues who aren't using that strategy are unaffected,
and the entire point of using that strategy was to get bigger DPR than other rogues.
so, for the few who wanted to cheese out this spell, they lose their ability to be better than everybody else who didn't do so. boo hoo.
you can still use flame blade for full attack sneak attacks, or any spell allowing multiple NON simultaneous attacks.
so go put your munchkin mind to work cheesing that out.
it's an interpretation that makes weaker all classes with sneak attack, compared to the other possible ruling.
Yes, I'm sure every character with Sneak Attack was using this tactic, and that was the intention when the class was designed. Yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It punishes everyone else if somebody can declare fifteen simultaneous sneak attacks with a simple invisibility : )
Talk about hyperbole!
"I can get fifteen simultaneous sneak attacks with a 2nd level spell! That's just 3rd level!"
Yep! You sure can! All you need is a 15th level spell and enough sneak attack dice to actually matter.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the rules being consistent (i.e., "one SA per targeted spell") than the rules protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character (i.e., "now my rogue using scorching ray can't get sneak attack on every single shot!").
quite. somebody else asked about manticore's, but that seems to be in the same boat at 17th level Archer Fighter Volley: NOT A SPELL, thus not subject to the FAQ restriction.
clearly, those abilities are much more restricted to gain than a random 2nd level spell, while also picking up signifigant sneak attack. (17th level fighter, Beast Shape IV grants Spikes, but that's a 6th level wiz/alchemist spell and Druid Wildshape only goes up to BSIII and they only gain BSIV via a 9th level spell).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the rules being consistent (i.e., "one SA per targeted spell") than the rules protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character (i.e., "now my rogue using scorching ray can't get sneak attack on every single shot!").
I absolutely appreciate consistency, and this rule is consistent, so in that way this is a good ruling. I would just have wished that it would be consistent and not have reduced that power of an already weak build.
I would hardly call the Arcane Trickster a niche build, and sneak attacking with spells is kinda their thing.
However, I would like to hear the reasoning that caused this ruling in line with abilities that grant sneak attack damage to no-attack roll or single attack roll multiple damage dice attacks/spells.
Jason made the ruling about fireball and magic missile, and I don't know his reasoning for it. Personally, I would have said "one target per spell," ruling out applying sneak attack damage to everyone in the area of a fireball, but I suppose the prestige class needs something at level 10 to make it worthwhile.
As to why allow it for fireball and not for all uses of scorching ray, it's because it's one thing to give an ability to level 10 of a prestige class, and much more powerful thing to give that same ability to every single rogue in the game who happens to multiclass or put ranks in UMR.
The telekinesis sneak attack was ridiculous. Rogues wandering around with packs of 15 arrows they quickly undue like unwrapping a pack of bottle rockets and then launching them with their Sniper Goggles for 15d6 base damage and 105d6 or more sneak attack damage.
This ruling simplifies and reduces arguments for DMs. Arcane Tricksters still have Surprise Spells which allows them to do some crazy AoE Sneak attack damage. At least that is still limited to a per target basis rather than a 3 to 15 shots at a single target each getting sneak attack damage. It's far too brutal.
AC is usually higher than SR. Multiple physical attacks goes off iterative attacks which makes it progressively more difficult to hit. Scoring Ray or Telekinesis uses all max attack rolls and the ray spell is touch AC. Which means a player might be able to obliterete a dragon if he can penetrate the SR.
At higher level you can quicken scorching ray. That takes it from three touch attacks with full sneak attack to six touch attcks with full sneak attack. Then if you're using hero points, a player can spend a hero point to do it yet again for nine touch attacks with full sneak attack.
The multiple sneak attacks from standard action cast spells using maximum attack bonus for each hit at range with Sniper Goggles is way, way overpowered. I'm glad we have a clear ruling now. Absent the ruling it was easy to allow Sneak Attack on every hit roll rather than per spell.
Glad it's decided because the combination of Arcane Trickster with Sorcerer (Cross-blooded), with Sniper Goggles was absolutely insane. Now it's just very nasty.
AC is usually higher than SR. Multiple physical attacks goes off iterative attacks which makes it progressively more difficult to hit. Scoring Ray or Telekinesis uses all max attack rolls and the ray spell is touch AC. Which means a player might be able to obliterete a dragon if he can penetrate the SR.
This is an underhanded argument tactic. You are grouping the touch attack ray spell with the high attack number non-touch attack spell, then pointing out that the ray hits touch AC. Failing to point out that Telekinesis is not a ray spell implies that they are the same, even though that is not quite what you said.
At higher level you can quicken scorching ray. That takes it from three touch attacks with full sneak attack to six touch attcks with full sneak attack. Then if you're using hero points, a player can spend a hero point to do it yet again for nine touch attacks with full sneak attack.
The multiple sneak attacks from standard action cast spells using maximum attack bonus for each hit at range with Sniper Goggles is way, way overpowered. I'm glad we have a clear ruling now. Absent the ruling it was easy to allow Sneak Attack on every hit roll rather than per spell.
Glad it's decided because the combination of Arcane Trickster with Sorcerer (Cross-blooded), with Sniper Goggles was absolutely insane. Now it's just very nasty.
Okay, so a 14th level Arcane Trickster (assuming a Rogue 3/Wizard 3/AT 8) will have a caster level of 11 and can get off a Quickened Scorching Ray (either through a rod or a 6th level spell slot) plus a regular Scorching Ray. That's 4d6 SR, +6d6 SA, x6 rays, or 6 touch attacks for 10d6 fire damage each. If all hit for average damage (and the target isn't resistant or immune to fire damage) that is 210 damage.
How much damage can a 14th level archer do to someone in one round? Or a 14th level Gunslinger? And with them the target doesn't have to be flat-footed and they don't have to use a high-level spell slot. And they can do their damage every round.
Note: I don't use hero points and don't know anyone who does (although I am sure there are plenty) so I left it out of this argument. I would assume that using a hero point is a big deal, but maybe not?
Why make a wizard Arcane Trickster? The near ideal build is a halfing Sorcerer. Rogue 3/Cross-Blooded Sorcerer 4/Arcane Trickster 7 with a Lesser Rod of Quicken. Scorching Ray is only a second level spell, very cheap to quicken. You have tons of spell slots as you can use 2nd level slots up to 5th level slots to cast your rays. It gets nastier and nastier as you level.
The damage is as follows with Sniper Goggles and Cross-Blooded Sorcerer (Orc/Dragon or Primal Elemntal).
6 attacks: 10d6+40 for each attack. Average damage per attack is 75 fire damage per hit. Total damage 450 fire damage at lvl 14. This can be done at any distance with Sniper Goggles out to the maximum range of the spell.
Each attack is a touch attack using the casters max BAB and dex.
A lvl 14 rogue archter with Point Blank Shot, Many Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon (Longbow), and Deadly Aim and a 24 Dex and 14 str with a +3 bow and Sniper Goggles with Haste
+10/+5 BAB
Each Arrow: 1d8+5 +7d6 Sneak Attack.
Arrow 1 Manyshot: +22 attack -2 Rapid Shot -3 Deadly Aim = +17 attack (Manyshot)
Dam: 1d8+11 and 1d8+5+6 Deadly Aim=1d8+11+7d6+14 (Sniper Goggles)=68 points
Arrow 2 Rapid Shot: +17 attack and 53 damage.
Arrow 3 Haste: +17 attack and 53 damage
Arrow 4 second attack: +12 and 53 damage.
So the archer could do around 227 damage if all his arrows hit against normal physical AC. Crits could modify this up and down as could a loss of Haste.
So we have 450 average damage with each hit using touch AC and doing fire damage with Quicken Spell either as a base spell or using a Lesser Rod. If a ray build, you can also add in Deadly Aim as well since it works with rays. This is subject to SR and Fire resist.
We have 227 average damage for the archer with haste subject to DR.
I would say the archer is far less effective. This number can get far worse using Telekinesis or contagious flame in conjunction with Scorching Ray.
I'm pretty sure anyone using the Arcane Trickster rogue build is very familiar with the sick damage output of the class that exceeds even what an archer rogue can do. I've used this against my party as I made an elite Arcane Trickster assassin who could have killed a raging Barbarian with a single round of ray Sneak Attacks against a very touch AC.
Nasty, nasty build.
it's an interpretation that makes weaker all classes with sneak attack, compared to the other possible ruling.Yes, I'm sure every character with Sneak Attack was using this tactic, and that was the intention when the class was designed. Yeah.
In my games, most of them once they reach enough level to UMD a scorching ray wand. Why wouldn't they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One trick ponies are always susceptible to meltdown, when the altering of their one trick comes to light.
I think people look at the AT, and the ability to add sneak attack damage to spells is all they see.
The AT is anything but a one-trick pony. It's a spellcasting skillmonkey. Adding a few d6 to a blast spell is fun when you can pull it off, but if that's all you focus on, you're missing what sorcerers and wizards can do with maxed-out acrobatics, stealth, etc.
"MacGuyver with spells" is a good analogy. "Flying, invisible James Bond" works, too, once you have the levels for it.
My Skull and Shackles trickster
He's also our go to guy for ship repairs and knowledge checks. He definitely pulls his own weight in our group.
I don't think this ruling makes that much difference, unless you play a low-skilled sorcerer trickster built all around blasting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the rules being consistent (i.e., "one SA per targeted spell") than the rules protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character (i.e., "now my rogue using scorching ray can't get sneak attack on every single shot!").
ANY ruling that the Pathfinder Design Team makes would be a consistent ruling - that's why they make rulings, right? (One sneak attack per target, one sneak attack per attack roll, one sneak attack per spell...)
As has been pointed out in this thread, everywhere else is "one sneak attack per attack roll". This ruling adds an INCONSISTENCY, ("one sneak attack per attack roll, except for spells with multiple attacks, unless you're using the Surprise Spells ability, in which case you get it on all targets if its an AOE spell"), which can hardly be considered a good thing.
Regarding 'protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character', the numbers have already been crunched in this thread, and it's the difference between "marginally combat-effective" and "combat-ineffective".
Seriously, the amount of damage that a sneak attack can do isn't all that much anyway. I would urge the Design Team to reconsider this decision.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The telekinesis sneak attack was ridiculous. Rogues wandering around with packs of 15 arrows they quickly undue like unwrapping a pack of bottle rockets and then launching them with their Sniper Goggles for 15d6 base damage and 105d6 or more sneak attack damage.
This ruling simplifies and reduces arguments for DMs. Arcane Tricksters still have Surprise Spells which allows them to do some crazy AoE Sneak attack damage. At least that is still limited to a per target basis rather than a 3 to 15 shots at a single target each getting sneak attack damage. It's far too brutal.
Actually, neither Holy Ice nor Telekinesis say anything about being simultaneous attacks, so the ruling doesn't seem to apply to them. Telekinesis rogue is still good to go.
Honestly, I'm more concerned with the rules being consistent (i.e., "one SA per targeted spell") than the rules protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character (i.e., "now my rogue using scorching ray can't get sneak attack on every single shot!").ANY ruling that the Pathfinder Design Team makes would be a consistent ruling - that's why they make rulings, right? (One sneak attack per target, one sneak attack per attack roll, one sneak attack per spell...)
As has been pointed out in this thread, everywhere else is "one sneak attack per attack roll". This ruling adds an INCONSISTENCY, ("one sneak attack per attack roll, except for spells with multiple attacks, unless you're using the Surprise Spells ability, in which case you get it on all targets if its an AOE spell"), which can hardly be considered a good thing.
Regarding 'protecting DPR of a niche build of one type of specialized character', the numbers have already been crunched in this thread, and it's the difference between "marginally combat-effective" and "combat-ineffective".
Seriously, the amount of damage that a sneak attack can do isn't all that much anyway. I would urge the Design Team to reconsider this decision.
Provide proof with numbers. I would say the build is far more than "marginally combat-effective" and "combat-ineffective". It's the difference "combat-effective" and "why do I even bother DMing combat-effective".