I've got a particular munchkin player who likes to mess with me as GM, doing things like creating horse walls (summon communal mount) and other ridiculous munchkin shenanigans. It bugs me but he gets mad since "the rules allow it."
Anyway, I made the mistake of letting him obtain a metamagic rod, maximize (lesser), and he's using it to great effect. Who knew how deadly a scorching ray, combined with maximize and sneak attack, could be?
All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized.
My player insists the sneak attack is a variable, numeric effect of the spell. Because of that, he gets 4d6 scorching ray damage when maximized + 3d6 sneak attack damage and he does an automatic 42 damage at the beginning of each combat on the most powerful flat-footed foe. I've been allowing it because I don't want to argue.
What I'm asking is this: is the sneak attack damage actually a variable of the spell or is it counted separately? I contend that you wouldn't count the sneak attack damage because you don't double it in the case of a critical. On the other hand, the rules for magic-based sneak attacks state that magic sneak attacks do the same type of damage as the spell, so that makes me lean towards maximize also maximizing the sneak attack roll.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack is not an effect of the spell. It is an effect of his rogue class feature. Slap him for me.
Only those things specifically written in the spell are an effect of the spell. As he could gain the same sneak affack benefit with a crossbow, sneak attack is obviously not part of the spell itself. The spell just happens to be the weapon that he is sneak attacking with.
Edit: and if he argues with you about this, toss his cheating butt to the curb.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's no respectable munchkin player if he does not even double check the very rules he is trying to exploit!
Well that's interesting. I can't find an official ruling on it, and there does seem to be precedent for it both to apply or not apply. Obviously I don't want the sneak attack damage maximized, but there's also this and this.
And yes, I can claim GM Fiat, but I feel draconian and evil when I do that. Then again, this particular player... oy.
There's no errata or FAQ ruling on it that I could find. You'd think there would be a concrete ruling somewhere that states metamagic feats either do or do not apply to sneak attack damage that is part of a spell.
Sneak attack is not an effect of the spell. It is an effect of his rogue class feature. Slap him for me.
Only those things specifically written in the spell are an effect of the spell. As he could gain the same sneak attack benefit with a crossbow, sneak attack is obviously not part of the spell itself. The spell just happens to be the weapon that he is sneak attacking with.
Edit: and if he argues with you about this, toss his cheating butt to the curb.
This logic is sound enough for me (and should be for him, too -- he majored in philsophy). Thank you!
Sneak attack damage is not a variable of the spell. Ergo, maximize does nothing.
The fact that sneak attack can be applied under the appropriate condtions, to anything that counts as a weapon.
Also, let me state this just so it is understood in case he or you is unaware:
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).
He only gets one pool of sneak attack damage form the scorching ray. That is to say no matter how many rays he gets, only 1, deals sneak attack damage.
Sneak attack damage is not a variable of the spell. Ergo, maximize does nothing.
The fact that sneak attack can be applied under the appropriate condtions, to anything that counts as a weapon.
Also, let me state this just so it is understood in case he or you is unaware:
He only gets one pool of sneak attack damage form the scorching ray. That is to say no matter how many rays he gets, only 1, deals sneak attack damage.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).
Yeah, I did see that rule, actually. And it's a good thing he doesn't yet have multiple rays (thank goodness for his rogue levels), or I'm sure he'd try to pull that on me.
Basically, unless it is listed under the spell description, it gets no benefit from maximize.
|
Basically, unless it is listed under the spell description, it gets no benefit from maximize.
I agree he shouldn't get any benefit from the maximize regarding sneak attack, but there is another argument related to TYPING the sneak attack damage. If memory serves correctly its either the same type as the spell or negative energy(GM discretion).
I'm willing to bet he's typing it the same and then claiming its part of the spell... and it's not.
EDIT: It's precision based damage of the spell type so not modified by crits, or maximize effects.
My player insists the sneak attack is a variable, numeric effect of the spell. Because of that, he gets 4d6 scorching ray damage when maximized + 3d6 sneak attack damage and he does an automatic 42 damage at the beginning of each combat on the most powerful flat-footed foe. I've been allowing it because I don't want to argue.
Just rule it like Empower Spell.