If a quickened scorching ray were fired by an 11th level caster at an invisible target (all rays at the same target, detect magic reveals general location of target), do you roll the invisibility miss chance on each ray or is each ray considered part of the same attack and thus only need one miss chance roll?
Plague
each ray requires its own attack roll, so each ray has a separate miss chance.
If a quickened scorching ray were fired by an 11th level caster at an invisible target (all rays at the same target, detect magic reveals general location of target), do you roll the invisibility miss chance on each ray or is each ray considered part of the same attack and thus only need one miss chance roll?
Plague
Follow-up to this question.
The target who gets hit with 2 rays has resist fire 20. Does he get to take 20 damage off each ray or 20 damage off the total?
If a quickened scorching ray were fired by an 11th level caster at an invisible target (all rays at the same target, detect magic reveals general location of target), do you roll the invisibility miss chance on each ray or is each ray considered part of the same attack and thus only need one miss chance roll?
Plague
Follow-up to this question.
The target who gets hit with 2 rays has resist fire 20. Does he get to take 20 damage off each ray or 20 damage off the total?
Each ray I'm afraid :(
If a quickened scorching ray were fired by an 11th level caster at an invisible target (all rays at the same target, detect magic reveals general location of target), do you roll the invisibility miss chance on each ray or is each ray considered part of the same attack and thus only need one miss chance roll?
Plague
Follow-up to this question.
The target who gets hit with 2 rays has resist fire 20. Does he get to take 20 damage off each ray or 20 damage off the total?
Each ray is a seperate attack, so i would think the resist applies separetely to each one. If a target has damage reduction, and a fighter has multiple attacks, the DR applies individually to each attack.
|
If a quickened scorching ray were fired by an 11th level caster at an invisible target (all rays at the same target, detect magic reveals general location of target), do you roll the invisibility miss chance on each ray or is each ray considered part of the same attack and thus only need one miss chance roll?
Also notice that it takes 3 full rounds of Detect Magic to see the exact square that the Invisible target is in, and it requires you to maintain Concentration to do so, (Standard Action). As soon as you drop the Concentration to cast Scorching Ray, (even Quickened), they are completely Invisible to you again, and you suffer all the normal affects for Invisibiity, except that yo have a fairly god chance on knowing which square they are in, (but they might have also moved since then, too, such as through a Readied Action).
You would in fact need multiple Miss Chance rolls, and the Fire Resistance applies to each one individually.
Next question.
Imagine:
I wizard is firing a ray spell at a target. But, unkown to either of them, an ivisible character is in the line of fire. Like so.
Wizard --- (Invisible character) --- > Intended target.
Is there a chance that the wizard would hit the invisible character by accident?
If so, how would that be determined?
I would say not. There isn't a chance to hit a creature in the line normally so I would say with the invisible creature not flat footed and having a full 25 square feet to move in he'll be fine.
If a quickened scorching ray were fired by an 11th level caster at an invisible target (all rays at the same target, detect magic reveals general location of target), do you roll the invisibility miss chance on each ray or is each ray considered part of the same attack and thus only need one miss chance roll?
Also notice that it takes 3 full rounds of Detect Magic to see the exact square that the Invisible target is in, and it requires you to maintain Concentration to do so, (Standard Action). As soon as you drop the Concentration to cast Scorching Ray, (even Quickened), they are completely Invisible to you again, and you suffer all the normal affects for Invisibiity, except that yo have a fairly god chance on knowing which square they are in, (but they might have also moved since then, too, such as through a Readied Action).
You would in fact need multiple Miss Chance rolls, and the Fire Resistance applies to each one individually.
Ugh. Spam Glitterdust until you've got the mamajama coated (and hopefully blind) then hit him with a shovel (since Scorching Ray isn't doing much damage regardless)!
The target who gets hit with 2 rays has resist fire 20. Does he get to take 20 damage off each ray or 20 damage off the total?
Each ray is a seperate attack, so i would think the resist applies separetely to each one. If a target has damage reduction, and a fighter has multiple attacks, the DR applies individually to each attack.
I disagree (and I disagreed at the table, the Scorching Ray in question was a spell like ability used by a monster against one of my players). Energy Resistance reduces the damage from each source of damage, yes, but all the Rays from a single Scorching Ray are still a single, simultaneous source of damage. It even notes on the spell description that all rays fire simultaneously.
I don't feel that there's a clear hard and fast rule as written that covers this situation, as there just aren't that many spells that function this way (Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, and the 3.5 version of Meteor Swarm are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head).
In support of my contention that all the rays, despite having separate attack rolls, are a single source of damage, I'd point out that you don't get effects like sneak attack added to each ray, you only get the extra sneak attack damage once. (And this same general rule applies to other similar situations, such as making multiple attack rolls for multiple shuriken in 3.5).
Next question.
Imagine:
I wizard is firing a ray spell at a target. But, unkown to either of them, an ivisible character is in the line of fire. Like so.Wizard --- (Invisible character) --- > Intended target.
Is there a chance that the wizard would hit the invisible character by accident?
If so, how would that be determined?
You could say that the intended target has soft cover. If the ray misses by 4 points then it has hit the soft cover, ie the invisible guy.
But that would open up a whole can of worms with any ranged attack.Or you could say that because there is someone invisible in the way it has absolutly no effect, no one knows about them so why should it come into the equation.
Also notice that it takes 3 full rounds of Detect Magic to see the exact square that the Invisible target is in, and it requires you to maintain Concentration to do so, (Standard Action).
The Detect Magic in question was a constant spell-like ability, and the monster in question (An Efreeti) had at least two rounds prior to the casting of the Scorching Ray in which he could study the players. (He appeared, spoke with them for a round, turned invis and flew above the battlefield in round 2 and cast an illusion, then flew down into position and cast the scorching ray. Admittedly, casting the illusion by the RAW should break concentration, but I didn't feel it was appropriate for an constant ability that the Efreet can use as a swift action).
As soon as you drop the Concentration to cast Scorching Ray, (even Quickened), they are completely Invisible to you again, and you suffer all the normal affects for Invisibiity, except that you have a fairly god chance on knowing which square they are in, (but they might have also moved since then, too, such as through a Readied Action).
There was no readied action, and the Efreet did have to make the normal 50% concealment check on each ray for attacking an invisible opponent who's location you are aware of.
|
|
There was no readied action, and the Efreet did have to make the normal 50% concealment check on each ray for attacking an invisible opponent who's location you are aware of.
What I am saying is that is why they are still invisible. From the Efreet's point of view, as soon as Detect Magic stopped working, (they stopped concentraiting on it), the target might have moved (becasue they can no longer see them for sure).
What I am saying is that is why they are still invisible. From the Efreet's point of view, as soon as Detect Magic stopped working, (they stopped concentrating on it), the target might have moved (because they can no longer see them for sure).
The miss chance for firing at a totally invisible opponent (just firing into the square you believe they are in) is 50%, which is what the Efreeti rolled against. If the target had a readied action and had moved, your argument might have merit, but they were still in the same location, and had no readied action.
I would say not. There isn't a chance to hit a creature in the line normallyI have to disagree.
Unfortunately, the Rules don't really cover this, just like they don't cover hitting the wrong target when shooting arrows into melee, or hitting someone behind the intended target if you miss.
However, since "Line" is a specific type of spell AoE (e.g. lightning bolt) and it definitely has a chance to hit every creature along its path, and because the only real difference between a Ray and a Line is that one stops when it hits the first target and the other continues through, I'd say there's a real chance that the interposer could get nailed.
Given the "Line" comparison, I'd use a normal Ranged Touch Attack roll for the Target, then if an invisible interposer is along the "Line" of the attack they get a normal Reflex Save. If you want to be generous, give them Miss Chance as well, but I really don't think it applies since they aren't the target in the first place.
Not "Rules", but would probably be my Ruling,
FWIW,
Rez
By line I meant the specific sorchering ray spell. On the lightning bolt we are in complete agreement.
|
|
I disagree (and I disagreed at the table, the Scorching Ray in question was a spell like ability used by a monster against one of my players). Energy Resistance reduces the damage from each source of damage, yes, but all the Rays from a single Scorching Ray are still a single, simultaneous source of damage. It even notes on the spell description that all rays fire simultaneously.I don't feel that there's a clear hard and fast rule as written that covers this situation, as there just aren't that many spells that function this way (Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, and the 3.5 version of Meteor Swarm are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head).
In support of my contention that all the rays, despite having separate attack rolls, are a single source of damage, I'd point out that you don't get effects like sneak attack added to each ray, you only get the extra sneak attack damage once. (And this same general rule applies to other similar situations, such as making multiple attack rolls for multiple shuriken in 3.5).
Each ray is a seperate sorce of damage. Just like every arrow is seperate. Imagine firing a bow with 3 magic arrows, 1 is cold, 2 is fire, and 3 is acid. It would not be one sorce of damage that deals piercing, fire, cold, and acid damage, right?
Also, take Magic Missile vrs a Brooch of Shielding, for example. The Brooch blocks Magic Missiles up to 101 total damage from them. If Magic Missiles were one source of damage, and the Brooch only had 1 damage worth left, than all the extra Magic Missiles would still be blocked. However, they are seperate, so everything after the that 1 damage goes right through.
Also concider that with those spells, (Scorching Ray & Magic Missile), you can target more than one creature. So, if the first one has DR/Energy Resistance, would that make the second target take less damage, (in the sense of the resistance carrying over for one source)? No, because they are seperate attacks.
Snake Attack may actually apply multiple times. (I might be wrong here). It isn't that they can't, it is the fact that most of the times that Ranged Sneak Attack does apply, the first hit reveals the Rogue and makes furter Sneak Attack not posible. However, this is not always the case, and it isn't that only the first attack deals sneak attack asa general rule. Could be wrong, though. However, more importantly, going back to the Bow and Arrows example, what if the Bow is enchanted to add fire damage. If it is all one source, than all Full Attacks with the bow, regardless of number of targets, only deal +1d6 damage total, not per hit.
|
|
What I am saying is that is why they are still invisible. From the Efreet's point of view, as soon as Detect Magic stopped working, (they stopped concentrating on it), the target might have moved (because they can no longer see them for sure).The miss chance for firing at a totally invisible opponent (just firing into the square you believe they are in) is 50%, which is what the Efreeti rolled against. If the target had a readied action and had moved, your argument might have merit, but they were still in the same location, and had no readied action.
Your still misunderstanding what I a meaning. I am not disagreeing, just trying to explain why incase something like this happens again, or the circumstances are different.
All I am saying is yes, the Efreet should have had the nomal miss chance due to Invisibility, because they could, in fact, not see the target. You did it correctly.
Maintaining concentration on a spell (like Detect Magic) is a standard action. That does not preclude taking other actions, including casting a quickened spell. Otherwise what would be the point of designating an action for it?
In support of my contention that all the rays, despite having separate attack rolls, are a single source of damage, I'd point out that you don't get effects like sneak attack added to each ray, you only get the extra sneak attack damage once. (And this same general rule applies to other similar situations, such as making multiple attack rolls for multiple shuriken in 3.5).
Fortunately or unfortunately, Fire Resistance applies to each ray. And again, fortunately or unfortunately, sneak attack also applies to each ray as well, so far as I know.
Meteor Swarm now explicitly does apply the resistance only once, and is an exception. Scorching Ray has no such exception - the line about simultaneous attack is primarily to be clear that you do not have to spend a standard action (or use iterative attacks) to make the additional ray attacks. It also is important for fumble house rules.
As a side note, throwing multiple shuriken per attack is a 3.0 rule - 3.5 had only single shuriken.
Maintaining concentration on a spell (like Detect Magic) is a standard action. That does not preclude taking other actions, including casting a quickened spell. Otherwise what would be the point of designating an action for it?
Normally, definitely, I just didn't feel it was appropriate for a constant ability (that only takes a swift action to activate) to require a standard action to maintain. Instead, I had the Efreet using an additional Swift action each round it wished to maintain the Detect Magic. It's not RAW, but I don't feel RAW adequately covers always on abilities like this. When the Efreet wanted to use his swift action for casting a Scorching Ray instead, he did have to drop the Detect Magic.
(And yeah, all he had was the square to aim at, regardless.)
|
|
Maintaining concentration on a spell (like Detect Magic) is a standard action. That does not preclude taking other actions, including casting a quickened spell. Otherwise what would be the point of designating an action for it?
I am not sure about that? Anything that breaks your concentration ends the spell. You need to concentrate to cast a Quickened spell, so that is up to the DM, really. I don't see a rule either way, so I am just assuming it does.
PF pg 184: Concentration
PF pg 185: Concentrating to maintain a spell &
PF pg 188: Casting a Quickened Spell
If you find a solid answer, let me know.
|
|
Normally, definitely, I just didn't feel it was appropriate for a constant ability (that only takes a swift action to activate) to require a standard action to maintain. Instead, I had the Efreet using an additional Swift action each round it wished to maintain the Detect Magic. It's not RAW, but I don't feel RAW adequately covers always on abilities like this. When the Efreet wanted to use his swift action for casting a Scorching Ray instead, he did have to drop the Detect Magic.
Personally, I have no problem with that line of reasoning. I think that should be the way it works.
Personally, I have no problem with that line of reasoning. I think that should be the way it works.
Agreed - good ruling.
From D20PFSRD - Spell Duration:
Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you're maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration.
You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.
Edit: BTW, that last part isn't me, it's a continuation of the PFSRD quote.