Stephen Ede, multiple rays from Scorching Ray is not a single Ranged Touch Attack. You are misreading the FAQ.
It is saying that multiple rays is only one AoO rather than one for each ranged touch attack.
Ok, I see. You are saying that Scorching Ray only causes a single AOO for making a ranged Attack because the attacks are simultaneous. The same reason that you only get Sneak Attack once.
By that logic you still can't get multiple images with hits (missing could still get multiple images). Because the rays all hit simultaneously the target you selected from the images you can see. Unlike getting attacked by someone with FlameBlade that has interative attacks and the attacks aren't simultaneous.
It then comes down to whether you apply
"Whenever you are attacked"
or
"or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll"The rules repeatedly emphasise that spells that do simultaneous attacks are treated differently from spells that do multiple attacks that aren't simulteneous. So Scorching Ray cause one AOO for making a ranged attacked for any number of rays and can only get sneak attack once. Which would suggest that
""or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll" is the more appropriate part of the rule to use in this case.
Each one is an attack roll. Each attack has a chance to remove an image. Without rules to the contrary this is how it works.
They FAQd the AoO issue because there is a specific rule that states there is only one AoO for an event and thus there was debate on whether a single event with multiple attack rolls was a single event or multiple events.
This is still multiple attack rolls and thus still multiple chances to remove images.
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.
In short, you are trying to use a secondary issue (AoO rules) to determine how the attack system works here. This is not correct.
Multiple ranged attacks, one event subject to AoOs.These are the rules, there are multiple attacks and thus multiple chances to remove Mirror Images.
Of course, you and/or your GM can feel free to houserule it.
Once again, unrelated issue = Sneak Attack.
Once again, unrelated issue = AoO.
There are no general 'simultaneous attack' rules.
What we have here is that the rules state that for each attack roll you may hit a mirror image instead.
You are trying to conflate the Sneak Attack and AoO issues with this.
Let me put it another way, the Devs have repeatedly stated that FAQs have ZERO bearing on anything other than the question that the FAQ is specifically answering.
Based on that statement, you cannot use the Sneak Attack FAQ nor the AoO FAQ in this rules argument. They have no bearing on it.
Logically, it is more beneficial for a player to get a near miss instead of a hit
I have a problem with this (admittedly rewritten by me) statement.
Also, out of curiosity because I don't know it, what is the sneak attack faq to which you're referring regarding simultaneous attacks? I also found a thread about SA with scorching ray that didn't seem to have a final response, though I find myself agreeing with those saying "1 sneak attack application per attack roll made."
FAQs only address the question asked and shouldn't be extrapolated to new questions.
This scenario is a good reason why. The sneak attack on multiple simultaneous rays clarified that you can't double/triple/quadruple your SA damage using such a spell. If you need fluff: you're either focusing on one vulnerable spot on one target to SA (thus one SA) and not multiple vulnerable spots on one target or one vulnerable spot on multiple targets.
Your question is more along the lines of using rapid shot against mirror image (multiple attack rolls for one action). While I can see the idea behind one image if multiple rays, it's not how it works. Each attack roll has a chance to hit an image or the real target. Think of the rays as sequential attacks fractions of a second apart. The images are constantly shifting. Again, if you need fluff: The first hits an image, pop, so it's not there a tenth of a second later when ray two arrives, hits real target, and a tenth of a second later another image has jumped in the way. Or any such combination of image/real target hits.
------------ Mirror Image
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images
Bold mine. In PF, you are attacked when I roll d20 to hit you. If I have three rays from scorching ray, I attack you three times. The fact that you are also the target of a spell does not negate my attacking you three times. If I cast magic missile (I know, has it's own ruling, but I can't think of another no attack roll splittable damage spell), you are the target of a spell but have not been "attacked."
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
|
I have no RAW to back it up, but I would let the player choose. All of the rays will fire simultaneously, so I'll let them choose to target the same image with all the rays or target multiple images. Supposing there are 5 images, I would say "Pick a number 1-6 for each of your rays, and it can be the same number." Then I'd roll once for which one was real, and the bad guy would be hit accordingly. We'd still roll all of the attacks afterward, because they could pop images. Hits get dealt with first, followed by near misses, and if all of the images are gone before the last near miss, it's just a miss.
Pathfinder does not deal with simultaneous actions very well. So you have to kinda play around with it.