Sneak Attack and Scorching Ray


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 320 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

WWWW wrote:
Now that people mention it, how many spells are actually called out as being simultaneous.

Blinding Ray, Scorching Ray, Deafening Song Bolt, Contagious Flame.

Note Contagious Flame implies you'd get sneak attacks on later rounds when the bolts shoot out from the targets as if you fired them. Timing on the later bolts is not specified.


How split the sneak attack damage if you hit 3 targets with scorching ray?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Let's see how this work then.

Get it as, being simultaneous, you cant pinpoint thae three attacks. So let's say: you target three guys. When do you decide which one you are sneak attacking? If I want to sneak attack the first monster, but I miss, can I sneak attack another one? Like.... "the guy I was pointing to was that one, but hey, I missed, so let's pretend it was that other one?

What about shooting the three shots to a single monster? Should I declare which one is the sneaking one before I roll?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also want to point that fiery shuriken doesn't say it is simultaneous. Probably will be a new favourite spell for our rogues. At higher levels it'll be better, actually. At 15th level it's 8d8+35d6, for an average of 158, which is below the average archer PC, but somewhat decent, though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Ray.
Magic weapon.
Sword.
Sword-like beam.

Not fluff, mechanics.

But the part that's really limiting Scorching Ray is not the fact it's a Ray, if I read the FAQ correctly, a Ray can be weapon like (it qualifies for weapon focus after all). The limiting part is the 'simultaneous rays' bit.

Prior to this FAQ, that was pure fluff. Mechanically, there was nothing different between a scorching ray and a different spell that had a bow appear and fire beams of cold iteratively. Both spells required you to roll 1 to 3 attacks, both spells had ranged touch attacks. The simultaneous bit pretty much was fluff. Now it's become crunch by the FAQ.


mdt wrote:
Prior to this FAQ, that was pure fluff. Mechanically, there was nothing different between a scorching ray and a different spell that had a bow appear and fire beams of cold iteratively. Both spells required you to roll 1 to 3 attacks, both spells had ranged touch attacks. The simultaneous bit pretty much was fluff. Now it's become crunch by the FAQ.

Very incorrect.

Coming out of hiding/invisibility you deny the target(s) their DEX vs all the rays instead of just one.

If you drop an enemy, you can't change your mind and fire the other rays at another target.

Nor does the enemy fall prone with 0DEX for calculating the 'remaining' attacks.

Iteratively and simultaneously have mattered. They matter with magic missile and there's not even a hitroll involved there.

-James
PS: all the FAQ did was reiterate the 3.5 rule that WotC put in complete arcane. Imho if they had been responsible then that part would have been delineated as OGL and this would have been in the core rules from the start.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Also want to point that fiery shuriken doesn't say it is simultaneous. Probably will be a new favourite spell for our rogues. At higher levels it'll be better, actually. At 15th level it's 8d8+35d6, for an average of 158, which is below the average archer PC, but somewhat decent, though.

At 15th level perhaps you have spell perfection for fiery shuriken.. so you cast an empowered one (2nd level slot) and then a quickened empowered one (4th level slot).

Now, go with sorcerer4/rog3/AT8 for one less sneak die, and you can look at 8d8+48d6 +112 for a spell not empowered.. or 316 base.. meaning the pair of spells could deal 948 damage... with a 2nd and 4th level slot.. meaning there's plenty of room to switch the energy type (though that lowers the damage to a mere 780). And you aren't burning your top level spell slots.

You could also add in Dazing spell to the first spell (making it take a 4th level slot as well) and force 8 will saves or be dazed for 2 rounds.

-James
PS: This is not addressing that the wording of the spell strongly suggests to me that they are fired simultaneously rather than iteratively.


Man, the level of butthurt over arcane tricksters losing some sneak attack damage is strong.


james maissen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Also want to point that fiery shuriken doesn't say it is simultaneous. Probably will be a new favourite spell for our rogues. At higher levels it'll be better, actually. At 15th level it's 8d8+35d6, for an average of 158, which is below the average archer PC, but somewhat decent, though.

At 15th level perhaps you have spell perfection for fiery shuriken.. so you cast an empowered one (2nd level slot) and then a quickened empowered one (4th level slot).

Now, go with sorcerer4/rog3/AT8 for one less sneak die, and you can look at 8d8+48d6 +112 for a spell not empowered.. or 316 base.. meaning the pair of spells could deal 948 damage... with a 2nd and 4th level slot.. meaning there's plenty of room to switch the energy type (though that lowers the damage to a mere 780). And you aren't burning your top level spell slots.

You could also add in Dazing spell to the first spell (making it take a 4th level slot as well) and force 8 will saves or be dazed for 2 rounds.

-James
PS: This is not addressing that the wording of the spell strongly suggests to me that they are fired simultaneously rather than iteratively.

Actually I was thinking about straigt rogues using UMD for scrolls or wands to remain competitive. Arcane tricksters are, actually, casters. Thus they bend the reality to their will and are over the top, by definition. Damage is the least of the balance concerns about casters in a game where Wish is a spell in the player handbook and you can Gate for godly-like stuff :)


Claxon wrote:
Man, the level of butthurt over arcane tricksters losing some sneak attack damage is strong.

Nope, that just started the issue.

We are discussing the limitations of sneak attack that are not spelled out.
See, this is why I liked 3.5: even with Manyshot, you have greater manyshot feat to bypass the volley limitation on Manyshot.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish FAQ rulings actually made the game easier to understand rather than making it look like a big mess. >.>


I havent seen an AT in game in PF yet, and Surprise is already in check RAW. I couldnt care less about it. It's the nerf to plain rogue (and UMD) what I find undeserved. The entire class (arguabily one of the weak ones) lost a trick that helped them to remain conpetitive, becouse some niche characters with a certain prestige class were over the top. Plus the new rule is harder to adjudicate and less clear than "once per attack roll" imho.


Is it a simultaneous attack? You add sneak attack once, regardless of the number of attack rolls made. The attacker gets to choose which attack to add the sneak attack damage to.

I don't think it's all that difficult to adjudicate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:

Is it a simultaneous attack? You add sneak attack once, regardless of the number of attack rolls made. The attacker gets to choose which attack to add the sneak attack damage to.

I don't think it's all that difficult to adjudicate.

Just one more FAQ rule that's not in the actual rules at all that you have to memorize...if you want to follow the FAQ.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
mdt wrote:
It is, however, a game mechanic that's now dependent on fluff to adjudicate, rather than something concrete. If weapon like spells had [Weapon] as a subtype, then there'd be no argument at tables over which spells are weapon-like and which aren't.

Yeah.

mdt wrote:
So, if scorching ray were instead fluffed as 'a magic bow appears and fires at target or targets you designate', it would qualify for SA, because the fluff says it's a bow making attacks.

Scorching ray already qualifies because its stat block says "Effect: ray," in the same way spiritual weapon says "Effect: magic weapon of force," mage's sword says "Effect: one sword," and flame blade says "Effect: sword-like beam."

Ray.
Magic weapon.
Sword.
Sword-like beam.

Not fluff, mechanics.

mdt wrote:
Again, not b@#*$& about the FAQ, as I said, doesn't bother me, but it would be easier to deal with if the spells had something mechanical to identify weapon like, rather than fluff that is easy to argue over.

If only.

BTW the spell description of a spell isn't fluff, there's rules content there... unless you think (for scorching ray, for example) the damage, how many rays you get, maximum spread of the targets, and that they're simultaneous is "fluff."

DetectiveKatana wrote:
Ok, wait a second. Mr. SKR... I would like to politely suggest that you might be mistaken about produce flame.

Good catch.

So I can take Weapon Focus Ray and get +1 to hit with ray but...... it not weapon like spell as far sneak attack......realy??????


fretgod99 wrote:

Is it a simultaneous attack? You add sneak attack once, regardless of the number of attack rolls made. The attacker gets to choose which attack to add the sneak attack damage to.

I don't think it's all that difficult to adjudicate.

i bolded the relevant part. Could you tell me, without opening the (massive amount of) rulebooks if these spells are labeled as "simultaneous"?

Telekinesis.
Fiery shurikens.
Holy ice.
Admonishing ray
Contagious flame


Tom S 820 wrote:


So I can take Weapon Focus Ray and get +1 to hit with ray but...... it not weapon like spell as far sneak attack......realy??????

No, not really. Ray's are weapon-like, rays deal sneak attack. Scorching Ray deals Sneak Attack once because all of the shots are fired simultaneously.

P.S. Mr. Iglesias, I cannot tell you off of the top of my head. HOWEVER, I assure you if I were regularly in the habit of casting them, that's something I'd make a point to know.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW, if you make an attack and meet the right prerequisites (dex-denied target or flanking), then it is a sneak attack. There's nothing about needing a weapon or weapon-like spell.

I don't think even SKR said that spells where you roll an attack don't get sneak attack (generally). He only said "simultaneous" ones don't.

...unless I'm mistaken. Hard to keep track of all these rules that aren't in the books.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Is it a simultaneous attack? You add sneak attack once, regardless of the number of attack rolls made. The attacker gets to choose which attack to add the sneak attack damage to.

I don't think it's all that difficult to adjudicate.

i bolded the relevant part. Could you tell me, without opening the (massive amount of) rulebooks if these spells are labeled as "simultaneous"?

Telekinesis.
Fiery shurikens.
Holy ice.
Admonishing ray
Contagious flame

You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.


DetectiveKatana wrote:
Tom S 820 wrote:


So I can take Weapon Focus Ray and get +1 to hit with ray but...... it not weapon like spell as far sneak attack......realy??????

No, not really. Ray's are weapon-like, rays deal sneak attack. Scorching Ray deals Sneak Attack once because all of the shots are fired simultaneously.

P.S. Mr. Iglesias, I cannot tell you off of the top of my head. HOWEVER, I assure you if I were regularly in the habit of casting them, that's something I'd make a point to know.

I'm reading Fiery Shurikens right now, and I'm still unsure if it is simultaneous or not. Same with contagious flame, both the initial effect and the rebounding.

Also, can I decide who am I sneak attacking after I know if I hit him? What about several rays vs same creature? Do I need to say which one of the rays is the one I'm aiming with sneak? Should I say which one of the 15 telekinetic arrows is the one which is aimed?

THe rule is much less clear and coherent than "one sneak attack per attack roll, always". Now it depends, spell by spell, and even more important, not all spells are described eith this in mind. See Fiery Shurikens description vs Scirching Ray description


Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.

To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.


Jabberwock CR 23
XP 819,200

CE Huge dragon (air, fire)

Init +5; Senses blindsight 120 ft., darkvision 120 ft., low-light vision, scent, true seeing; Perception +38

Aura frightful presence (120 ft., DC 31)

Defense

AC 40, touch 14, flat-footed 34 (+5 Dex, +1 dodge, +26 natural, –2 size)

hp 455 (26d12+286); fast healing 15

Fort +26, Ref +20, Will +24

DR 15/vorpal; Immune fire, paralysis, sleep; Resist acid 30, electricity 30, sonic 30; SR 31

Weaknesses fear of vorpal weapons, vulnerable to cold

Offense

Speed 40 ft., fly 80 ft. (poor)

Melee bite +37 (4d8+19/19–20/×3), 2 claws +37 (3d6+13/19–20 plus grab), tail slap +32 (2d8+19), 2 wings +32 (1d8+6)

Ranged 2 eye rays +29 touch (15d6 fire/19–20 plus burn)

Space 15 ft.; Reach 15 ft.

Special Attacks burble, burn (6d6, DC 34), eye rays, whiffling

Statistics

Str 37, Dex 20, Con 33, Int 12, Wis 29, Cha 26

Base Atk +26; CMB +41 (+45 grapple); CMD 57

Feats Awesome Blow, Bleeding Critical, Critical Focus, Dodge, Flyby Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (bite, claws, eye rays), Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack, Vital Strike

Skills Acrobatics +31 (+35 jump), Escape Artist +31, Fly +26, Intimidate +37, Knowledge (nature) +30, Perception +38, Sense Motive +38

Languages Aklo, Common, Draconic, Gnome, Sylvan

SQ planar acclimation

Ecology

Environment any forests

Organization solitary

Treasure triple

Special Abilities

Burble (Su) A jabberwock can burble once every 1d4 rounds as a standard action. This blast of strange noises and shouted nonsense in the various languages known to the jabberwock (and invariably some languages it doesn't know) affects all creatures within a 60-foot-radius spread—these creatures must make a DC 31 Will save or become confused for 1d4 rounds. Alternatively, the jabberwock can focus its burble attack to create a 60-foot line of sonic energy that deals 20d6 points of sonic damage (DC 31 Reflex save for half). The confusion effect is mind-affecting; both are sonic effects. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Damage Reduction (Ex) A jabberwock's damage reduction can be bypassed only by weapons that possess the vorpal weapon enhancement.

Eye Rays (Su) The jabberwock can project beams of fire from its eyes as a ranged touch attack as a standard action, with a range increment of 60 feet. It projects twobeams, and can target different creatures with these beams if it wishes as long as both targets are within 30 feet of each other. A creature that takes damage from an eye beam suffers burn.

SO WHAT IS A RAY OR BEAM?

Fear of Vorpal Weapons (Ex) A jabberwock knows that a vorpal weapon can kill it swiftly. As soon as it takes damage from a vorpal weapon, a jabberwock becomes shaken for 1 round. If it is hit by a critical threat from a vorpal weapon, whether or not the critical hit is confirmed, the jabberwock is staggered for 1 round.

Planar Acclimation (Ex) A jabberwock is always considered to be on its home plane, regardless of what plane it finds itself upon. It never gains the extraplanar subtype.

Whiffling (Ex) A jabberwock's wings and violent motions create a significant amount of wind whenever it makes a full attack action. These winds surround the monster to a radius of 30 feet, and are treated as severe winds—ranged attacks take a –4 penalty when targeting a jabberwock while it is whiffling, and Medium creatures must make a DC 10 Strength check to approach the creature. Small or smaller creatures in this area that fail a DC 15 Strength check are blown away. See page the wind effects table for further details on the effects of severe winds.
copped form SRD

This monster has Improved Critical eye rays so to to me it weapon like so there for you could Vital Stike it for 30D6 plus Burn for 6D6 more. And you are telling me that I can not sneak attack a scrohing ray??????

So I can take Weapon Focus Ray, Weapon Sqecialzation Ray, Improved Crittal Ray, can crittal with a ray but can not Vital stike or sneak with it casue it not a weapon like spell???????

I quite playing Collectable card games cause every time put out new set they did not work with the old set do to bad game design.

I quite playing Vampire the Masquerade/ then again quite Vampire Requiem due to fact rule do not work well if you use mixed group of vampire, mages, and Wereewolfs do to bad game design.

I quite playing Game Workshop Minture games due poor rules that changed with each and every codex do to bad game design.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.
To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.

That's why it's incumbent upon the person using the spell to understand how it works, beforehand. This ruling does nothing to change that. Spellcasters should always know how their spells function, and they should have the resources available to double-check or answer any questions, should the need arise.


Drachasor wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Is it a simultaneous attack? You add sneak attack once, regardless of the number of attack rolls made. The attacker gets to choose which attack to add the sneak attack damage to.

I don't think it's all that difficult to adjudicate.

Just one more FAQ rule that's not in the actual rules at all that you have to memorize...if you want to follow the FAQ.

I quite playing Collectable card games cause every time put out new set they did not work with the old set do to bad game design.

I quite playing Vampire the Masquerade/ then again quite Vampire Requiem due to fact rule do not work well if you use mixed group of vampire, mages, and Wereewolfs do to bad game design.

I quite playing Game Workshop Minture games due poor rules that changed with each and every codex do to bad game design.


Tom S 820 wrote:
So I can take Weapon Focus Ray, Weapon Sqecialzation Ray, Improved Crittal Ray, can crittal with a ray but can not Vital stike or sneak with it casue it not a weapon like spell???????

Where'd you get that idea? You can sneak attack with a ray. This thread is about sneak attacking with Scorching Ray, which is perfectly allowable. You just don't get to add sneak attack to every ray you fire, only the one.


fretgod99 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.
To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.
That's why it's incumbent upon the person using the spell to understand how it works, beforehand. This ruling does nothing to change that. Spellcasters should always know how their spells function, and they should have the resources available to double-check or answer any questions, should the need arise.

It does. Before this ruling, I can tell you with ease if I roll to attack 2,3 or 15 times with those spells. I can check range, damage, or if it allows Spell Resistance with a glimpse to the stats of the spell. Now I have to read the entire description, and even then, I'm unsure, as the spells don't use a standarized vocabulary. Hence Fiery Shuriken. Also, I'm unsure about stuff like adjudicting sneak dice before I roll to hit or not. It opens a new can of worms, while "once per attack roll" is consistent through the whole system and does not need double checking the exact words in the spell description


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really recommend people just ignore this ruling. If you really want to stop sneak attack dice on all of the Scorching Ray beams, then work on a house rule that really addresses the problem at all levels (e.g. like Holy Ice, striving for consistency with attack roles and SA, and something you can make sure is universal about SA and easy to remember).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fiery Shuriken - To me looks like if you're firing more than one in a round, they're simultaneous. In subsequent rounds, you can fire "any number" of them as a standard action. Since you can ordinarily only make one attack in a standard action, it stands to reason they must be fired simultaneously.

I think a lot of people are overblowing this. A lot.

Liberty's Edge

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.
To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.

That's kind of a dumb assumption because the spell caster should be looking up the spell when it is not his turn.


There are several ways to make more than one attack with a standard action. Like the Two weapon fighter archetype. You can only make one attack in a standard action, unless something says you can do more. Like Fiery Shurikens does. It still doesn't say if those are simultaneous or once after other.

ALso I would like to point that nobody has adressed yet the otger question, which is right now apink elephant in the room. Do I need to say which target I was sneak attacking before I roll? What about all attacks vs the same target? Do I have to declare which bolt is the sneaking ome?


HangarFlying wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.
To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.
That's kind of a dumb assumption because the spell caster should be looking up the spell when it is not his turn.

not everybody has a book per player, and sometimrs you don't know which spell you will use before it's your turn. It's called reacting to what's happening in the battlefield.


Drachasor wrote:
I really recommend people just ignore this ruling. If you really want to stop sneak attack dice on all of the Scorching Ray beams, then work on a house rule that really addresses the problem at all levels (e.g. like Holy Ice, striving for consistency with attack roles and SA, and something you can make sure is universal about SA and easy to remember).

PFS can't ignore it


fretgod99 wrote:

Fiery Shuriken - To me looks like if you're firing more than one in a round, they're simultaneous. In subsequent rounds, you can fire "any number" of them as a standard action. Since you can ordinarily only make one attack in a standard action, it stands to reason they must be fired simultaneously.

I think a lot of people are overblowing this. A lot.

That reasoning doesn't hold. The spell providing special rules on making attacks. Already it broke the "one attack in a standard action" OPTION in the combat section. so there's no reason to think they are somehow simultaneous.

Or let me put it another way. The Combat section says you can spend a standard action to make a single attack. So if you spend a standard action on this particular option, you get one attack.

It does not follow that if something else gives you attacks when you spend a standard action, then they are at the same time.

If it was a full-round action would that somehow make things different? How?

Furthermore. Do you then make the player pick all the targets beforehand? When does he pick the sneak attack target? Before rolling to hit? After rolling to hit? Like the man said, this raises lots of questions.

And honestly, thematically I don't see how this is different than say...pouncing someone with natural attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
I really recommend people just ignore this ruling. If you really want to stop sneak attack dice on all of the Scorching Ray beams, then work on a house rule that really addresses the problem at all levels (e.g. like Holy Ice, striving for consistency with attack roles and SA, and something you can make sure is universal about SA and easy to remember).
PFS can't ignore it

I can't imagine the DMs of that can keep all this FAQ rule changes straight.

I am glad I'm not involved in PFS.

Liberty's Edge

gustavo iglesias wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.
To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.
That's kind of a dumb assumption because the spell caster should be looking up the spell when it is not his turn.
not everybody has a book per player, and sometimrs you don't know which spell you will use before it's your turn. It's called reacting to what's happening in the battlefield.

So the answer is to memorize everything? In all seriousness, the caster should at least have a basic inderstanding of the spells that are prepared/known. It's not that big of a deal.


HangarFlying wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Quote:
You want me to tell you if those attacks are done simultaneously without looking at the rules? Why would I do that? If I'm going to be using a spell, I'm going to have the necessary references readily available.
To avoid halting the game every time someone use a spell.
That's kind of a dumb assumption because the spell caster should be looking up the spell when it is not his turn.
not everybody has a book per player, and sometimrs you don't know which spell you will use before it's your turn. It's called reacting to what's happening in the battlefield.
So the answer is to memorize everything? In all seriousness, the caster should at least have a basic inderstanding of the spells that are prepared/known. It's not that big of a deal.

I do have a basic understanding about how Fiery Shurikens work. Or telekinesis. What I can't remember is if it says the magic word "simultaneous". And that's in the description, not in the heading where I can fast-check it's range, if it allows SR, etc. So I have to read the entire spell, checking if it says "simultaneous". Also, I HAVE to remember that, with spells, you only get one sneak even if you roll to attack three times. Which is an exception to the normal rule. With a bow it's once per attack toll. Rapid shot? I don't care if it is simultaneous or not. I roll to attac twice, so 2 sneaks. Manyshot? I fon't remember, or care, if it is simultaneous or not. I roll to attack once, hence I sneak attack once.

WIth spells, it depends. I sneak once per attack roll, except if the attack rolls are simultaneous, then it's once per volley (which might mean more than once per sprll if the spell does more tha one volley per turn). If the attack rolls aren't simultaneous then it's once per attack, except if it's Surprise attack, which is once per spell.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Let's drop these pointless shenanigans and discuss the Only True Way, which is: using scrolls of telekinesis to hurl Colossal javelins with sneak attack.

If you're doing something else with your sneak attack character, man, I don't know what to tell you, but it won't be pretty.


Gorbacz wrote:

Let's drop these pointless shenanigans and discuss the Only True Way, which is: using scrolls of telekinesis to hurl Colossal javelins with sneak attack.

If you're doing something else with your sneak attack character, man, I don't know what to tell you, but it won't be pretty.

I'm just sad you use your BAB on telekinesis. I mean...what the heck?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tom S 820 wrote:

I quite playing Collectable card games cause every time put out new set they did not work with the old set do to bad game design.

I quite playing Vampire the Masquerade/ then again quite Vampire Requiem due to fact rule do not work well if you use mixed group of vampire, mages, and Wereewolfs do to bad game design.

I quite playing Game Workshop Minture games due poor rules that changed with each and every codex do to bad game design.

I'm not normally this guy, but since you bolded it and were trying to make a statement with it I will, it's due not do.


Gorbacz wrote:

Let's drop these pointless shenanigans and discuss the Only True Way, which is: using scrolls of telekinesis to hurl Colossal javelins with sneak attack.

If you're doing something else with your sneak attack character, man, I don't know what to tell you, but it won't be pretty.

And then just pray the target isn't a ghost, or ooze, or elemental, or has uncanny dodge, or displacement, or blurr, or is just some guy in a dark alley.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Let's drop these pointless shenanigans and discuss the Only True Way, which is: using scrolls of telekinesis to hurl Colossal javelins with sneak attack.

If you're doing something else with your sneak attack character, man, I don't know what to tell you, but it won't be pretty.

And then just pray the target isn't a ghost, or ooze, or elemental, or has uncanny dodge, or displacement, or blurr, or is just some guy in a dark alley.

Or there are no colossal javelins nearby, which is likely the most often case.


Drachasor wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Fiery Shuriken - To me looks like if you're firing more than one in a round, they're simultaneous. In subsequent rounds, you can fire "any number" of them as a standard action. Since you can ordinarily only make one attack in a standard action, it stands to reason they must be fired simultaneously.

I think a lot of people are overblowing this. A lot.

That reasoning doesn't hold. The spell providing special rules on making attacks. Already it broke the "one attack in a standard action" OPTION in the combat section. so there's no reason to think they are somehow simultaneous.

Or let me put it another way. The Combat section says you can spend a standard action to make a single attack. So if you spend a standard action on this particular option, you get one attack.

It does not follow that if something else gives you attacks when you spend a standard action, then they are at the same time.

If it was a full-round action would that somehow make things different? How?

Furthermore. Do you then make the player pick all the targets beforehand? When does he pick the sneak attack target? Before rolling to hit? After rolling to hit? Like the man said, this raises lots of questions.

And honestly, thematically I don't see how this is different than say...pouncing someone with natural attacks.

"You can fire one as a swift action." "You can fire any number as a standard action." Really sounds simultaneous to me. That a specific class ability specifically calls out that it breaks the standard action = one attack general presumption isn't particularly relevant.

And yes, declare your targets and which is getting sneak attack added prior to making your rolls, just like you would in any other situation.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tom S 820 wrote:
I quite playing Collectable card games cause every time put out new set they did not work with the old set do to bad game design.

I quit playing collectible card games because every time they put out a new set I am poor.


Guys, Sneak attack + Scorching ray is super dee duper powerful if it goes on every single ray.

A Trickster's Damage if Ruling went the other way:

Level 15
Draconic Sorcerer 4/Rogue 3/Trickster 8 (Fire)
Improved Crit (Ray)
Quicken Spell
Empowered Spell
Point Blank Shot

Quickened Sorching Ray + Empowered Scorching Ray

12d6 from 3 rays +18d6 sneak attacks +30 Draconic Bloodline +1 within 30 feat+ 36 Sniper Goggles +35 (extra from chance crit)= 207

207+1.5(207)= 519.5 damage on round 1.
For the most part, you will be able to get this off.


So... YES..... tricksters are the best wielders of Scorching Ray (not rogues with UMD) and YES.... it could have been abused out of control).


I agree with multiple posters that this change seems to be inconsistant with RAW and a bandage where there really wasn't a problem.

The 3.5 volley rule made sense due to the high number of spells that could fire LOTS of rays in one round and the fact that you could metamagic split rays and quicken for something like 90+ rays in a round, all with sneak attack.

This is Pathfinder, not D&D though, and any previous rules unless printed in a core book, do not carry over. Paizo hasn't put in a split ray metamagic (thank goodness!) and only has a few spells that involve multiple attack rolls per spell. Holy Ice is the worst of the multiple attack roll spells and it is balanced due to the fact that it targets regular AC, uses wisdom and is cleric/oracle, so requires UMD and gold.

Telekinesis isn't really an issue either. This does gain the benefit of at least using int, but still targets regular AC. DM's who allow characters to carry 100's of collosal javelins is the issue here, not the rules or the spell. Even if said caster had enough strength or a magic bag to carry all of those, it would take at least a standard action to "draw" all of these (I would rule a move action to draw each javelin unless stored in a bag and would require a full round to dump them all out) and then a 2nd standard to cast the spell. If they are using a quickened telekinesis to do this, they have 9th level spell slots and should be doing crazy damage or effects anyway.

Fierly Shuriken is the only spell I see potential issues with as far as getting a very large number of attacks. But even this is less damage than many of the other builds people can come up with.

Also, the whole weapon-like arguement is not mentioned anywhere in the rules and causes a number of issues. This is a new rule and would need to be fully explained, not just glossed over to fix something else.

If it has an attack roll, you can apply sneak attack (assuming you also meet the rules for sneak attack). Sneak attack says "the rogue's attack deals extra damage...". The key word here is attack, not weapon, not spell, just attack.


Matthias_DM wrote:

Guys, Sneak attack + Scorching ray is super dee duper powerful if it goes on every single ray.

** spoiler omitted **
So... YES..... tricksters are the best wielders of Scorching Ray (not rogues with UMD) and YES.... it could have been abused out of control).

This really isn't that bad damage wise. You are making the assumption that all of the rays:

1) Hit (fairly easy since it's touch AC)
2) Pierced SR
3) Creature didn't have fire resist/immunity. SA does the same damage as the source, so the SA is fire as well.
4) They are lvl 15
5) 4+ feats invested to be better with rays
6) The use of multiple spells slots and/or magic items. So limited use.

At 15th and using similar or less resources, many classes will be ahead of the actual damage output you see.

I had a trickster in a group at high level. They did fairly well and used the scorching ray exactly how you mention.... and other classes did more damage and had better AC. Only thing the trickster was the "best" at in the group was hiding.


Drachasor wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Now that people mention it, how many spells are actually called out as being simultaneous.

Blinding Ray, Scorching Ray, Deafening Song Bolt, Contagious Flame.

Note Contagious Flame implies you'd get sneak attacks on later rounds when the bolts shoot out from the targets as if you fired them. Timing on the later bolts is not specified.

Huh, that is a rather short list. Well anyway thanks for doing the legwork.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be utterly fair, you should simply apply it as Sneak Attack applies per target, per spell.

That makes it universal across all spells, and means magic missile, fireball, and Scorching Ray are all treated the exact same way.

So, hit one target with all three rays, +3d6 SA, once per spell. Hit three targets with different rays, +3d6 SA to each of them, once per target. It's not a substitute for ANY kind of AoE, and it isn't going to break anything.

At higher levels, getting +8d6 on each of 3 rays to a single target might be a little excessive.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
It does. Before this ruling,

You still needed to know what the spells your character was casting did.

You dropped the enemy with the first 2 attacks, can you have the rest go to the next enemy?

The attack broke your invis during combat, do you still have them flatfooted?

Etc.

Sorry, looking for reasons to cry over this is just that.. looking for reasons to cry.

In your other post, I assumed that you were going with an arcane trickster or other multiclass.. as you only had 35dice of sneak attack (which doesn't make any sense).

A level 15 rogue casting a level 15 fiery shuriken spell from a wand or other silly little item would deal (under your ruling) 8d8+64d6 damage = 512 damage. Which is significantly higher than the number that you were giving, even though it's lower than the arcane trickster... that you consider at level 15 to be on par with casters of the wish spell.

-James


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

People have posted alot of other spells/abilities that allow multiple attacks with a standard action, but I don't think being a standard action itself is evidence of being 'simultaneous', after all a mobile fighter can eventually make a full-attack as a standard action... that isn't becoming 'simultaneous' just because the action type changes. the action type itself is meaningless as to whether the component events are simultaneous or not.

The case I mentioned, of Manticore Spikes, DOES have supporting text that directly suggests simultaneity ('With a snap of its tail, a manticore can loose a volley of four spikes') even though it doesn't use the exact phrase 'simultaneous'. (It is also a Standard Action, but as I said, that is irrelevant and whether it is simultaneous or not shouldn't change if it were a Full-Round Action, a Move Action, or a Swift Action)

Alot of people seem to be posting with motivation to change Paizo's FAQ ruling here, personally I can't really bother with disputing their design decisions at that level, but I am just curious to further clarify the FAQ... As it stands now it ONLY applies to spells, not supernatural or mundane abilities, my questions is whether the paradigm should be extended to apply to ALL simultaneous multiple attack rolls, irregardless whether they be spells/supernatural/extraordinary/etc...

Clarifying the 'simultaneity' of some of these other things, both ones with specific supporting text but that lack the phrase 'simultaneous' (Manticore Spikes), as well as the ones people are posting here (eye beams, et al) that don't really have anything particular in the text other than being a Standard Action, IS important for things well beyond Sneak Attack - being simultaneous or not affects how you can 'allocate' the attacks before knowing the result, i.e. if they are not simultaneous and the first misses you can re-attack, if they are simultaneous you cannot make that post-attack damage assessment and may be forced to 'waste' attacks on one target if you wanted to be sure that it would be hit.

251 to 300 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.