It can be from anything that requires a roll to attack, so yes to shocking grasp, no to magic missile.
We have always played that if you cast a spell that has multiple attacks (e.g. Scorching ray) it only applies to the first ray. I assume that is standard rules and not a house rule.
|
We have always played that if you cast a spell that has multiple attacks (e.g. Scorching ray) it only applies to the first ray. I assume that is standard rules and not a house rule.
It actually depends on HOW you are qualifying for sneak attack. If the attacker is hidden, and becomes unhidden after one attack, then you only get one sneak. But, if the attacker has, say, greater invisibility, or if it's the target's ongoing condition that provides the sneak attack, you would be able to do so with more than the first attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an faq clarifying that in the case of multiple, simultaneous attacks (like scorching ray) sneak attack is applied only once.
It can be from anything that requires a roll to attack, so yes to shocking grasp, no to magic missile.
Almost… it can be applied to almost anything that requires an attack roll… the single most notable exception is splash weapons. Unless you have levels in underground chemist you can’t apply sneak attack directly to splash weapons. You can apply it indirectly with alternative delivery methods, such as specialized ammunition for other weapons to treat a splash weapon as normal ammo for that weapon, or the alchemical weapon ability of a grenadier alchemist…
But as for the OPs initial question… yes you can apply sneak attack to spells that require an attack roll.
There is an faq clarifying that in the case of multiple, simultaneous attacks (like scorching ray) sneak attack is applied only once.
An FAQ that is often ignored by many tables… though heavily embraced by tables whose GMs subscribe to the misconception that sneak attack can only ever apply once per attack sequence, thus denying rogues sneak attack on iteratives when flanking…
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, please forgive me for giving correct Rule information in the Rules Questions forum.
I'm sorry, please forgive me for giving correct Rule information in the Rules Questions forum.
Just pointing out that outside of organized play, every group may choose to follow or ignore various FAQs… not saying your response was invalid… just that it might not be relevant depending on their group… for the most part FAQs act as rules clarifications, guidelines, and statements of intent, as to if an FAQ ruling that is outside of the published rules (doesn’t reiterate established rules or clarify, but rather creates a new rule) is made rule is dependent on the table and if they are part of organized play or not.
There is an faq clarifying that in the case of multiple, simultaneous attacks (like scorching ray) sneak attack is applied only once.
Here is the FAQ in question:
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).posted June 2013
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an faq clarifying that in the case of multiple, simultaneous attacks (like scorching ray) sneak attack is applied only once.An FAQ that is often ignored by many tables… though heavily embraced by tables whose GMs subscribe to the misconception that sneak attack can only ever apply once per attack sequence, thus denying rogues sneak attack on iteratives when flanking…
While technically correct, you can ignore ANY rule if you want to. This isn't really relevant to this thread unless you are ! playing with a GM who ignores the rules. I can only assume you're bringing this up from personal experience.
But since this is the Rules forum, Java Man is correct ... and the GMs who deny Rogues iterative SA from flanking are incorrect.
|
There is an faq clarifying that in the case of multiple, simultaneous attacks (like scorching ray) sneak attack is applied only once.An FAQ that is often ignored by many tables… though heavily embraced by tables whose GMs subscribe to the misconception that sneak attack can only ever apply once per attack sequence, thus denying rogues sneak attack on iteratives when flanking…
Chell, don't invent stuff. I don't know what problem you had with a GM doing that, but it not how it works and not what most GM do.
With a single attack that is resolved with multiple attacks rolls (like Scorching Ray with a high enough CL) - you get to add sneak attack damage a single time.
Multiple attacks - you get to add senak attack damage to each separate attack.
yep. that specific Faq was very important.
some rogue found out about a Ring of Telekinesis, and a very nasty 9x(1d6+sneak attack) with one standard action was open if not the faq. having a lot of metal weights each 25 lb ready\clubs (cost 0 gp) ready.
You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.
While technically correct, you can ignore ANY rule if you want to.
Yeah, but some rules are more likely to be houseruled than others. For example if someone asks about details for Sacred Geometry, it should absolutely be mentioned that many GMs won't allow the feat.
I haven't met a GM who restricted sneak attack to once a round. Actually, this houserule has some upsides:
A full-attack with several sneak attack hits looks amazing, so I can understand why some GMs are tempted to nerf it. But they don't see the whole picture: The potentially high damage is easily compensated by the mediocre to low chance to pull it off.
you seem to miss the point. the faq doesn't prevent the rogue from full attack sneak. it prevent from casting a spell (usually as standard action) that by itself has many attacks and having sneak on all of them.
he can very well cast a spell that give him a full attack and get sneak attack on them, if he full attack as a full attack. not if he get 9 or more attacks from the spell and want each to count as sneak.
Ok before this devolves into an argument about who's right about what minor details ...
You can sneak attack from a spell, provided there's an attack roll. It still follows all the rules for sneak attack (you need flanking or a flat-footed enemy).
Regarding flanking, Rogues get Sneak Attack damage on all melee attacks made against a flanked opponent, not just the first attack in the round.
There are times when you'd only get sneak attack on the first attack. For example, if you attack from invisibility the first attack would get Sneak Attack (because the opponent is flat footed to your attacks). Any subsequent attacks wouldn't get Sneak attack unless you're foanking or something.
Anyone who's not letting you sneak attack with spells, or who's restricting you to only the first attack while you're flanking is doing it wrong. This is fine if it's agreed apon in advance, but it's not how the game was designed and it's a house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. You can apply Sneak Attack to some spells... Rays come to mind, as you can take Weapon Focus Ray, and Point Blank Shot applies to Rays.
I am of the camp that blatantly and purposefully ignores 95% of all errata/FAQ's... for one, I don't go looking for them, so I have no idea what has all been changed to what degree... and secondly, all the ones I have seen are nerfing something, usually martial.
I like players to have nice things at my table, and leave it up to myself to find/provide them with balanced encounters.
As for people limiting Rogues... why? As if they ever need held back. Lol. If anything, you should be houseruling ways to make Sneak Attack suck less... not limiting it even further into uselessness. Sneak Attack is already the Rogue's biggest weakness. Although, by limiting Sneak Attack, you may force them to create a decent Rogue. Lol. Any Rogue that doesn't focus on Sneak Attack is immediately better.