Would a Rogue with greater invisibility get sneak attack on both shots of a 'double tap' with a double-barreled pistol?
Would a Rogue with greater invisibility get sneak attack on both shots of a 'double tap' with a double-barreled pistol?
Greater invisibility? Yes. Barring other possible issues at hand...(i.e. see invisibility, uncanny dodge, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real answer to the real question is no.
The answer to the OP's question is, certainly, unless something prevents precision damage with the second barrel, it's no different than taking a full attack while greater invisible, and you get sneak attack on all those as well.
Actually, the real question is "will this work with regular invisibility since firing both barrels is theoretically simultaneous?"
Hmm...point.
I might actually change my stance from above to avoid something like this. I could see it being treated the same as firing simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, which has been FAQ'd to only apply sneak attack to one of the rays per casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either they're simultaneous, and you can't get sneak attack for that, or they're sequential, and invisibility is gone after the first (for non-greater) - either way, no sneak attack. No double-dipping.
Either they're simultaneous, and you can't get sneak attack for that, or they're sequential, and invisibility is gone after the first (for non-greater) - either way, no sneak attack. No double-dipping.
Probably a good rule of thumb. Good summary Majuba.
Thanks guys. So no rule for or against it otherwise? Excellent, shooting people in their vulnerable areas is fun.
Attacking with a double-barreled firearm is one attack with two attack rolls. Sneak attack atates that "[t]he rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime . . .". It seems clear to me that this would mean only applying sneak attack once per double-tap regardless of which type of invisibility you have.
|
Attacking with a double-barreled firearm is one attack with two attack rolls. ***
That's not actually what the post you linked to says. He says it's one action, two attack rolls. In his second point he even says "You can use both shots of a double barrel pistol with dead shot. Both attacks..."
So there are two separate attacks made, they just trigger off a single action. A Rogue benefiting from greater invisibility should get sneak attack off of both attacks, but would only get sneak attack on one if used with standard invisibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep - this is why I hate firearms in Pathfinder. Every character has their thing - and for gunslingers it's guns. That (barely) works - but mix them with all the other character options, and it just gets silly. Double-touch-attack-sneak-attack-improved-critical-poisoned-alchemical-cart ridge-nuke for the win.
Attacking with a double-barreled firearm is one attack with two attack rolls. ***That's not actually what the post you linked to says. He says it's one action, two attack rolls. In his second point he even says "You can use both shots of a double barrel pistol with dead shot. Both attacks..."
So there are two separate attacks made, they just trigger off a single action. A Rogue benefiting from greater invisibility should get sneak attack off of both attacks, but would only get sneak attack on one if used with standard invisibility.
Point 1 specifically points out "it is one of those attacks, but two attack rolls".
Point 3 specifically points out "four attacks, 8 attack rolls".|
|
He's talking about the actions necessary to trigger the two attacks. He makes it very clear when he refers to "action" in point one, and crystal clear when he flat out states that there are two attacks in point 2.
You can also just read the ability itself: "This pistol has two parallel barrels; each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action. If both barrels are shot at once, they must both target the same creature or object, and the pistol becomes wildly inaccurate, imparting a –4 penalty on each shot." If there were not two separate attacks there would be no need to note that they must both target the same creature. He even agrees that there are 14 attacks involved in the proposed sequence for point 3 - "*** to get the off-handed weapon attacks (two at +12 and two at +7, just counting base attack and penalties for two-weapon fighting and the double barrel pistol)." He clearly counts off 4 attacks there, not two.
He's talking about the actions necessary to trigger the two attacks. He makes it very clear when he refers to "action" in point one, and crystal clear when he flat out states that there are two attacks in point 2.
You can also just read the ability itself: "This pistol has two parallel barrels; each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action. If both barrels are shot at once, they must both target the same creature or object, and the pistol becomes wildly inaccurate, imparting a –4 penalty on each shot." If there were not two separate attacks there would be no need to note that they must both target the same creature. He even agrees that there are 14 attacks involved in the proposed sequence for point 3.
2 supports you. Both 1 and 3 do not. He never agrees that there are 14 attacks, only that there are 14 shots.
Since 2 contradicts 1 and 3, I'm going with the more frequent usage and discounting 2 as carelessness. Feel free to interpret it the other way, but "crystal clear" is hyperbole.
The ability itself never calls them separate attacks, only separate shots. There are already single attacks that target multiple creatures, so the clarification text does not bolster the idea that there are multiple attacks.
Neither 1 or 3 contradicts 2, as I pointed out. In one, he refers to the action type necessary to trigger the two separate attacks, and in three he explicitly calls out the additional shots as separate attacks.
The phrase "four attacks, 8 attack rolls" contradicts your position.
The phrase "it is one of those attacks, but two attack rolls" contradicts your position.He did not call out the additional shots as separate attacks in point 3; in fact, the only time he refers to "attacks" in that point, he explicitly refers to "four attacks, 8 attack rolls", which supports the "one attack, two attack rolls" interpretation.
Edit: Actually, he contradicts himself later when referring to the number off-hand attacks. With that many self-contradictions, I cannot infer anything from that post after all--which leaves the question unanswerable.
A spell is not the same thing. I can't infer much from that.
A rogue gains sneak attack on each attack roll. If 'double tap' has 1 attack roll, apply sneak attack once, if it has more than 1 attack roll, apply sneak attack to each roll.
This is the typical rule of thumb for Volley style attacks that let you hit with multiple projectiles.
A spell is not the same thing. I can't infer much from that.How is it not the same thing? Its a single action with two attack rolls.
It's a spell. The gun is a gun. Maybe they ought to work similarly, but that doesn't mean they do.
Does he provoke once or twice firing a double barrel?
It's a spell. The gun is a gun. Maybe they ought to work similarly, but that doesn't mean they do.A spell is not the same thing. I can't infer much from that.How is it not the same thing? Its a single action with two attack rolls.
It is still the closest mechanic. Spells follow the same mechanics as everything else except where they say they don't.
Attacking with both barrels is a 'Single attack' ,it says so clearly under the double musket entry...it is just worded slightly different under the pistol entry,but it's the same thing.
So sneak attack should only apply once,to either bullet that hits,not both.Not even under the effects of greater invisibility.
It is still the closest mechanic. Spells follow the same mechanics as everything else except where they say they don't.It's a spell. The gun is a gun. Maybe they ought to work similarly, but that doesn't mean they do.A spell is not the same thing. I can't infer much from that.How is it not the same thing? Its a single action with two attack rolls.
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).
The ruling on scorching ray only addressed spells. The design team has been clear that one should not necessarily extrapolate such FAQs into rule spaces not covered by said FAQ. You may very well be right, but I don't know for certain--I only know how I run it, based on what little design response we've received on the subject.
|
You still have to use precedence though.
What exactly is happening?
A single action (casting a spell)
Effect
Two or more rays, each with its own attack roll.
Outcome
Sneak Attack applies to one of the rays, chosen at the time of casting.
With a gun.
What is happening?
A single action (firing both barrels of your gun)
Effect
Two bullets go down range, each with its own attack roll.
Outcome
Sneak Attack applies to one of the bullets, chosen at the time of firing.
I'm not sure how that's applying the information we have where it doesn't belong.
Essentially the same exact thing is happening. Just one is a spell, the other a gun.
Essentially the same exact thing is happening.But gun attacks are not touch attacks and gun attacks are not spells. Really that interpretation is arbitrary at best.
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion of multiple attacks from one action.
|
|
Essentially the same exact thing is happening.But gun attacks are not touch attacks and gun attacks are not spells. Really that interpretation is arbitrary at best.
I do not think that word ('arbitrary') means what you think it means...
He is stating an argument based upon previous information given by the devs about spells (specifically scorching ray). There is a discernable relationship there. If anything, your answer sounds somewhat 'arbitrary'..
.
.
Let me throw this out this question: Is there any situation defined in the rules (including FAQ) that allows a sneak attack on more than one simultaneous attack/spell/whatever?
The only one I recall is the FAQ on scorching ray and Paizo has said no to that one.
|
Utterly irrelevant to the discussion of multiple attacks from one action.
What discussion is that? Because as far as i know a full attack is one action that lets you apply aneak attack multiple times
He is stating an argument based upon previous information given by the devs about spells (specifically scorching ray). There is a discernable relationship there. If anything, your answer sounds somewhat 'arbitrary'.
He is saying casting a spell and making an attack have to work the same way "Because i think they look similar". I suppouse thats a completely neutral statement.
Is there any situation defined in the rules (including FAQ) that allows a sneak attack on more than one simultaneous attack/spell/whatever?
Sneak attack is a damage increase. All damage increases (such as flaming, str bonuses,etc) are applied whenever you attack, this is common knowledge and how always it has been. Magic however has been specifically stated to work is a different way in an errata, this is an exception to how damage increases normally work.
If you want a rule that says "flaming can be applied to every attack in a fullattack" you might as well start finding the "dead" condition on the prd.
|
|
Sneak attack is a damage increase. All damage increases (such as flaming, str bonuses,etc) are applied whenever you attack, this is common knowledge and how always it has been. Magic however has been specifically stated to work is a different way in an errata, this is an exception to how damage increases normally work.
Well, my question was specifically related to sneak attack as it is applied to multiple simultaneous sources. I asked because if there are other examples in the rules, then it may give some direction in this conversation.
If you want a rule that says "flaming can be applied to every attack in a fullattack" you might as well start finding the "dead" condition on the prd.
And...well...flaming is defined under Magic Weapons:
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.Also, you sound a little miffed just because I called you out on your little 'arbitrary' slight. Don't be. Learn and move on.
|
|
He is saying casting a spell and making an attack have to work the same way "Because i think they look similar". I suppouse thats a completely neutral statement.
That isn't really what I'm saying.
Casting the spell scorching ray allows you to make an attack roll with every ray you create with the spell.
Casting a spell is a single action.
Firing a double-barreled gun allows you to make an attack roll for each barrel.
Firing both barrels is a single action.
Single standard action turns into two attack rolls with both situations.
All of which are single attacks,some require more than one attack roll and may affect more than one target.
Sneak attack damage may only be applied once per 'Attack' ,not once per 'Attack roll'.
It may seem like an overly fine distinction,but the difference in interpretation is enormous.
|
Taking a full attack is a single full-round action in which you make many attack rolls. You are allowed a sneak attack on each of those rolls.
Casting scorching ray is a single standard action that allows you to make many attack rolls. You are only allowed one sneak attack roll.
Fire a double barreled gun is, in some ways, like both of these. They have conflicting rulings. I see three options.
1. Double barreled guns, like other attacks made with weapons, grant sneak attacks with all attack rolls made with them under the conditions of sneak attack.
2. Double barreled guns, like other attacks that ask you to roll multiple attacks from one action, only get one sneak attack.
3. Double barreled guns grant sneak attacks with all bullets fired during a full round action, like full attacks do, and only one sneak attack when firing two bullets with a standard action, like scorching ray and other such attacks.
|
|
All of which are single attacks,some require more than one attack roll and may affect more than one target.
Sneak attack damage may only be applied once per 'Attack' ,not once per 'Attack roll'.
It may seem like an overly fine distinction,but the difference in interpretation is enormous.
Yup,and this is basically what I'm saying.
|
|
Taking a full attack is a single full-round action in which you make many attack rolls. You are allowed a sneak attack on each of those rolls.
Casting scorching ray is a single standard action that allows you to make many attack rolls. You are only allowed one sneak attack roll.
Fire a double barreled gun is, in some ways, like both of these. They have conflicting rulings. I see three options.
1. Double barreled guns, like other attacks made with weapons, grant sneak attacks with all attack rolls made with them under the conditions of sneak attack.
2. Double barreled guns, like other attacks that ask you to roll multiple attacks from one action, only get one sneak attack.
3. Double barreled guns grant sneak attacks with all bullets fired during a full round action, like full attacks do, and only one sneak attack when firing two bullets with a standard action, like scorching ray and other such attacks.
No, a full attack full round action allows you to take all of your attack actions.
If it is many "attacks" with one action then SA likely applies only once. That is how it is with scorching ray and manyshot
|
|
What does the fact its a touch attack or a spell/not a spell have to do with anything?
Because its not a spell the scorching ray errata cant be applied. At most is just a reference of intent
No, a full attack full round action allows you to take all of your attack actions.
This definition is wrong
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.
Nowhere in the text the attack action is mentioned. A full attack is not a combination of actions, its different kind of action (full round) which makes you able to make multiple attacks versus the attack action(Standard action) which lets you make one attack.
If it is many "attacks" with one action then SA likely applies only once. That is how it is with scorching ray and manyshot
You realize you are saying full attacks apply sneak attack only once?
Also both manyshot and scorching ray have been specifically stated to only work with sneak attack only once. If this is "how normally rules work" then there would be no need to make any kind of clarification.
Notes: For the ones who many think its one attack roll, like the way it works for manyshot, it is not [ ]this has already been clarified by the author.
1. If I "double tap" both barrels at the same target is it two attacks?[...]1. It is one action, two attack rolls. I fire as a standard action, it is two attack rolls. If I fire as part of a full-attack action, it is one of those attacks, but two attack rolls.[...]
You realize you are saying full attacks apply sneak attack only once?
If it is many "attacks" with one action then SA likely applies only once. That is how it is with scorching ray and manyshot.
I did not say when you use Manyshot every attack for that full round can not use sneak attack. I am saying that the "free" attack made as part of one attack roll would not count for sneak attack.
After seeing your link and each bullet getting its own attack roll, assuming I am not misreading the author, then I would give SA to both, but I would have also given Scorching Ray sneak attack to every ray. As for the the PDT team will do, they might also make the double barreled gun also only allow SA once. I am thinking that is what they will do once a ruling comes down.
|
|
I did not say when you use Manyshot every attack for that full round can not use sneak attack. I am saying that the "free" attack made as part of one attack roll would not count for sneak attack.
I tought you meant that, but they way you pharsed made it misleading
After seeing your link and each bullet getting its own attack roll, assuming I am not misreading the author, then I would give SA to both, but I would have also given Scorching Ray sneak attack to every ray. As for the the PDT team will do, they might also make the double barreled gun also only allow SA once. I am thinking that is what they will do once a ruling comes down.
I would have also given scorching ray multiple sneak attacks if it were my choice, really the aplications of magic and sneak attack are really niche and basically reserved for arcane tricksters. Anyway i dont know, thats the way the pdt rolls, there may be implications im not aware of.
Yep - this is why I hate firearms in Pathfinder. Every character has their thing - and for gunslingers it's guns. That (barely) works - but mix them with all the other character options, and it just gets silly. Double-touch-attack-sneak-attack-improved-critical-poisoned-alchemical-cart ridge-nuke for the win.
Don't forget to be a synthesist with six arms :D
|
|
Don't forget to be a synthesist with six arms :DYep - this is why I hate firearms in Pathfinder. Every character has their thing - and for gunslingers it's guns. That (barely) works - but mix them with all the other character options, and it just gets silly. Double-touch-attack-sneak-attack-improved-critical-poisoned-alchemical-cart ridge-nuke for the win.
I dont think you even need firearms to break the game with a synthethisist
I found 19 attacks at doing this
Attacks from:
Ninja 1
Savage barbarian 1
Rapid shot 1
Six arm synthesist 6
Double barrel pistols 9 :D
Improved/greater twf plus you can go lore warden fighter 3, dune drifter calv 3, and monk 2 to get a bonus feat every level for 7 levels straight
Just remember clustered shots