Rules Conflict: Sneak attacking w/ rays

[drebb]

Okay... this has been killing me for a while, and I just had to get some secondary opinions about it.

Complete Arcane:

Multiple Hits
Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster gets a bonus on damage with such spells (including sneak attack damage), the extra damage applies only to the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.

Pretty straight forward. Goes on to list Scorching Ray specifically as an example... HOWEVER.

Rules Compendium:

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Many-shot feat (standard action) or a quickened Scorching Ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.

Keeping in mind that Rules Compendium was published AFTER Complete Arcane, I find the wording of this rule to be very interesting. It says any attack other than a full-round action, specifically noting that Scorching Ray takes a shorter action than that.

Now here is my dilemma... a sorcerer applying a metamagic feat to one of his spells turns it into a full-round action. By the wording of the most recent rule, wouldn't that make each ray in a sorcerer's Maximized Scorching Ray applicable for precision damage?

This may not be RAI, but it's almost definitely RAW.

What do you all think?

[olentu]

Unless I have misread the provided text I see nothing that would keep both rules from applying and so one should apply both rules.

Edit: Though to be clear I do not mean that both rules necessarily apply their restrictions to all situations covered by the other rule as clearly evidenced by the fact that manyshot is not a spell. But rather that in any situation one checks both rules to see if they restrict the situation and then applies the appropriate restrictions as necessary.

[Gabe the Bard]

It states on the wizards website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) that all volley type attacks made with spells apply sneak attack only to the first attack in the volley. It think whether it is a standard or full-round action doesn't matter here.

[HunterOfJello]

The two quotes you've listed are exceptions and clarifications to the rules.

If you've read these exceptions and gained the impression that casting Scorching Ray as a full-round action puts the spell into a state of exception to the rule in the Rules Compendium, then you are making an error in your logic.

~

The CA clarification indicates how precision damage works in regard to all spells.

The Rules Compendium presents an exception to precision damage, in that it does not apply after the first attack in an action that is not a full-round action.

Casting an Empowered Scorching Ray as a Full-Round Action as a Sorcerer would use the applicable rules from Complete Arcane. Casting Scorching Ray as a Standard Action as a Sorcerer would use the applicable rules from both Complete Arcane and the Rules Compendium.

[Darth Stabber]

Can I apply sneak attack to ability damage? Shivering touch + arcane trickster = win?

[Douglas]

Can I apply sneak attack to ability damage? Shivering touch + arcane trickster = win?
Ability damage can qualify to trigger sneak attack, but the bonus damage is negative energy hit point damage rather than more ability damage. This rule is in Complete Arcane's section on Weaponlike Spells.

[Pechvarry]

That Rules Compendium line sounds kinda awful. Yeesh. Not only does the sorcerer metamagic thing fall through the cracks of that description, it means things like Rapid Blitz (PH2) or Snap Kick (ToB) couldn't produce precision damage as well. That's silly.

[Veyr]

Worse, neither could Wolf Fang Strike or any of the Mongoose boosts.

I would houserule in something about "volley" attacks (Scorching Ray, Manyshot)... or maybe just ditch that rule altogether. I'm reasonably convinced this should be OK for an archer; less sure how balanced this gets with spells.

[Cog]

A way to read that is that Snap Kick and the Mongoose line each provide a group of attack(s), rather than adding to the existing group. So, standard action strike/ Snap Kick / Raging Mongoose is three sets of attacks, for three instances of sneak attack.

[The Shadowmind]

The rules compendium goes against the Greater Manyshot feat, which alloys precision damage to each arrow(each has an attack roll).

I think the best way to handle it is, you get to sneak attack once per attack roll. If a single spell/attack only get 1 attack roll per all targets, pick the one target to apply the sneak attack to. If there is a roll per target, check if sneak attack applies separately on each target and apply sneak attack to each one.

[Boci]

The rules compendium goes against the Greater Manyshot feat, which alloys precision damage to each arrow(each has an attack roll).

Specific trumps general?

[Darrin]

Specific trumps general?

Ayup, particularly when the Greater Manyshot feat specifically says, "Your precision-based damage applies to each arrow fired".

It completely befuddles me why "volley fire" is even in the rules. There are, what, maybe 2-3 examples in the *entire* catalog of 3.x that could be considered volleys: mostly manyshot and scorching ray. Do we really need a more complicated set of precision damage rules just to cover those few examples?

[ericgrau]

^ Ya they should simply spell it out for each instance. Even if for each one they spent the sentence to say that similar attacks work the same way, it still wouldn't affect the book's page count.

You get 1x for scorching ray, due to it being a specific example I think. You might be able to get 2 using quicken spell, or even that might not be allowd I'm not sure.

Even so sneak attack dice + scorching ray dice add up quite nicely (3x SA would do ludicrous damage). And you can get other damage types even as cantrips and still do decent sneak attack damage, so you have backups against the occasional flame retardant baddy. It's also still a touch attack that gets around DR.

[ffone]

It states on the wizards website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) that all volley type attacks made with spells apply sneak attack only to the first attack in the volley. It think whether it is a standard or full-round action doesn't matter here.

YEah, I asked this exact question in the Q&A by RAW thread a while back and this was the answer I got, from Curmudgeon I think - the volley rules nix the idea (as clever as it may be otherwise).


A way to read that is that Snap Kick and the Mongoose line each provide a group of attack(s), rather than adding to the existing group. So, standard action strike/ Snap Kick / Raging Mongoose is three sets of attacks, for three instances of sneak attack.

Um, what? This doesn't sound like reasoning from RAW, but rather than a houserule (introducing the concept of 'group' and then using it to houserule things).

[Cog]

Um, what? This doesn't sound like reasoning from RAW, but rather than a houserule (introducing the concept of 'group' and then using it to houserule things).
Er, no. "Group" was precisely the term used in the quote from Rules Compendium given earlier in this thread, and was tied to the action used to activate it. In my example, the first attack was associated with a standard action, the second with a nonaction, and the third with a swift action.

[Cirrhosis]

a group of attack rolls made as a single action only gets sneak attack once, and only on the first attack roll regardless of the success of that roll, unless that action is a full-round action.

according to the rules compendium (page 125), applying metamagic to a spontaneously cast spell converts the spell into a full-round action. as silly as it seems, strict RAW says that sneak attack would apply to a metamagicked sorcerer spell on every attack roll, but only once to the unadulterated version of said spell.

Edit: fixed sloppy wording.

[Cog]

a group of attack rolls made as a single action only gets sneak attack once, and only on the first attack roll regardless of the success of that roll, unless that action is a full-round action.
The RC provides a limit on attacks made with shorter actions, but does not say that all full-round attacks inherently qualify for precision damage on every hit. Nothing there contradicts the one-per-spell limit imposed by Complete Arcane.

[JohnDaBarr]

So applying sneak attack on damage dealing ray X that was split goes only once?!?!

[Cog]

That is correct.

[JohnDaBarr]

and that doesn't change even if I cast that as a full round action if I'm not mising something

[olentu]

and that doesn't change even if I cast that as a full round action if I'm not mising something

I would agree that you are correct that for spells the action that the casting of the spell takes does not make any difference since the complete arcane rule appears to cover all spells that strike more than once in the same round regardless of casting time. Barring some sort of exception of course.

[Biguds]

I´m a little off the topic, but... sneak attack only aply once per round, right ? :smalltongue:

[Veyr]

I´m a little off the topic, but... sneak attack only aply once per round, right ? :smalltongue:
No, it usually applies to every attack that qualifies.

[Greenish]

I´m a little off the topic, but... sneak attack only aply once per round, right ? :smalltongue:I don't know how that interpretation keeps popping up.

[Boci]

I don't know how that interpretation keeps popping up.

Probably either a result of the mistaken belief that a single digit number of extra d6 to damage is an immesnly powerful thing, or an idea stemming from the fantasy trait of a rogue only needing one suprise attack to drop an opponent.

[drebb]

Well, thanks for chiming in, everyone.

All that being said... yeah... if I were a GM I would NOT allow an Arcane Trickster 6d6 sneak attack damage on each of SIX RAYS from a Twinned Scorching Ray.

But... fun to think about. ^_^

[Glimbur]

I don't know how that interpretation keeps popping up.

I think it is true in 4E, so that could be another source of confusion. Not sure if it's valid in Essentials.

[Veyr]

Well, thanks for chiming in, everyone.

All that being said... yeah... if I were a GM I would NOT allow an Arcane Trickster 6d6 sneak attack damage on each of SIX RAYS from a Twinned Scorching Ray.

But... fun to think about. ^_^
A Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Arcane Trickster 6 (presumably the build you're thinking of) is ECL 12th, and casts as an 11th level Wizard. A Twinned Scorching Ray requires a feat and he can use only 2 or 3 of those a day, in all likelihood. Assuming you can set up Sneak Attack here (non-trivial), and ignoring the volley rules, and assuming that you make all of the touch attacks (which you probably should), you're looking at 30d6 damage; that averages 105 Fire damage and is SR: Yes.

Now, looking at the CR 11 creatures in the SRD... three will die in one of those average attacks: a Ten-Headed Cryohydra (vulnerable to fire), a Devourer (45% chance of failing against its SR, however; if you roll each ray separately, even one ray missing means it is still alive), the Harpy Archer, and a Dread Wraith (but 50% chance to miss due to Incorporealness; again, one ray missing keeps it alive).

Meanwhile, five are outright immune — Barbed Devil has immunity to fire, Elder Fire Elementals, Juvenile Gold Dragons, and Ten-Headed Pyrohydra are of the Fire subtype and thus are immune, and Stone Golems are simply immune to magic (or, at least, SR: Yes spells, which Scorching Ray is).

So out of 24 CR 11 monsters, three will be taken down in one volley, five won't be affected at all by the spell, and the other sixteen will die after two volleys. Two volleys consists of both of a Generalist Wizard's 6th level spells for the day, which means he has used more firepower in one encounter than he can afford to use (assuming four encounters per day). Several could be taken down with lesser spells, but quite a few are actually going to require both volleys.


Frankly, this isn't striking me as overpowered in the grand scheme of things. Of course, a Twinned Scorching Ray probably isn't optimal, and I know Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Arcane Trickster 6 isn't optimal, but still.

[HunterOfJello]

I don't know how that interpretation keeps popping up.

I have no idea either. I had a guy argue with me that if a rogue takes a full-round action using two-weapon fighting or a Full-attack action, then only the first attack gets sneak attack damage. That's a completely game busting idea for a Rogue character.

Obviously I didn't play a rogue in the one game he DMed.

[Keld Denar]

and I know Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Arcane Trickster 6 isn't optimal

Its also not really legal. AT requires 2d6 SA dice. The build as presented only has one. You either need that Assassin dip, that USS dip, or a Swordsage dip.

[ffone]

Er, no. "Group" was precisely the term used in the quote from Rules Compendium given earlier in this thread, and was tied to the action used to activate it. In my example, the first attack was associated with a standard action, the second with a nonaction, and the third with a swift action.

But saying that the Snap Kick is its own group is arbitrary.

[ffone]

Er, no. "Group" was precisely the term used in the quote from Rules Compendium given earlier in this thread, and was tied to the action used to activate it. In my example, the first attack was associated with a standard action, the second with a nonaction, and the third with a swift action.

I mean that grouping them that way is arbitrary. Saying that things are divided by actions, and including 'nonactions' as actions (wuh? doesn't non-action mean not an action?) is tautological. "Tied to the action used to activate it" is tautological, since you could say that about absolutely anything (choosing to actually use your 2nd or 3rd scorching ray, which you don't have to do, is a nonaction).

Come to think of it, you made a good argument why Snap Kick wouldn't get SA when used as part of a standard attack (b/c as a nonaction, it can't possibly be a different action.)

(Although I'm not necessarily saying this is RAI, and if this thread had never come up I probably would've never thought not to allow SA on snap kick.)

I mean, heck, I guess you could try to legalese it by taking random 'free actions' in between the attacks (like dropping stuff you're holding, drawing weapons with least augment crystals) just to try to justify that the attacks are separate 'actions' (although this is belied by the fact that we know a full attack is one action, and yet you're allowed to do certain free actions in the middle of it).

[JohnDaBarr]

is there any other class that grants you SA and spellcasting except Spellthief

[ffone]

is there any other class that grants you SA and spellcasting except Spellthief

If you include prestige classes, there is arcane trickster, (I think) unseen seer, black flame zealot (cleric/rogue type), and slayer of domiel (BoED holy-rogue-with-tertiary-spells).

[Tyndmyr]

is there any other class that grants you SA and spellcasting except Spellthief

Assassin does. Also Spellwarp Sniper.

[Veyr]

Its also not really legal. AT requires 2d6 SA dice. The build as presented only has one. You either need that Assassin dip, that USS dip, or a Swordsage dip.
D'oh! Yeah, right, so even worse, Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 6. Which is honestly just terrible. Wait, that's still only 5d6 SA damage. So Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 8? You'll have a few more 6th level slots to throw around, but wow, level 16 and you're worried about ~105 Fire damage?

[JohnDaBarr]

D'oh! Yeah, right, so even worse, Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 6. Which is honestly just terrible. Wait, that's still only 5d6 SA damage. So Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 8? You'll have a few more 6th level slots to throw around, but wow, level 16 and you're worried about ~105 Fire damage?

noo, for god sake no my dear friend!!!!
you go 1 lvl rogue (or Spellthief),5 lvl Wizard, 4-5 lvl Spellwarp Sniper, for rest use Unseen Seer and/or Incantatrix (if you like more SA and skill points go USS if you like bonus feats and some OP stuff go Incantatrix, or you can combine XD)

tip; you prob don't need more than 4 lvl of the Sniper because you don't get that much good stuff and you don't even have good lvl 5 spells to warp to rays anyway (Orb of X is all you need with Arcane Thesis, Split ray, Maximize, Energy Substitution and stuff like that on it)

P.S. yeah yeah I know Wizard should not go on dmg but hey if you have 3-4 spells reserved for high (no save no nothing) dmg spell you have allot of slots for everything else XD

[Cog]

I mean that grouping them that way is arbitrary. Saying that things are divided by actions, and including 'nonactions' as actions (wuh? doesn't non-action mean not an action?) is tautological.
Nonactions are included in the discussion of actions. The five foot step is an example of one. I'm not at fault for the poor wording of it. If something is triggered by performing a five foot step, was it not triggered just because the step is considered not an action?

"Tied to the action used to activate it" is tautological, since you could say that about absolutely anything (choosing to actually use your 2nd or 3rd scorching ray, which you don't have to do, is a nonaction).
This doesn't follow for two reasons. One, Scorching Ray is activated as a single action, and the number of rays you choose to fire is a decision made at the time of casting; you don't get to fire one, see what happens, and then fire another. Even of this didn't follow from the general rules, the spell itself is very clear about that. Second, Complete Arcane's rules separately state that it wouldn't qualify.

I mean, heck, I guess you could try to legalese it by taking random 'free actions' in between the attacks (like dropping stuff you're holding, drawing weapons with least augment crystals) just to try to justify that the attacks are separate 'actions' (although this is belied by the fact that we know a full attack is one action, and yet you're allowed to do certain free actions in the middle of it).
You just explained precisely why that's a different example from the one I gave. A simple full attack, no matter the actions performed during it, is still a single group of attacks. It is also not a volley, so I'm not sure how it was relevant in the first place.

[Veyr]

noo, for god sake no my dear friend!!!!
I know that there are far better ways to do this, but I was responding to this post:

All that being said... yeah... if I were a GM I would NOT allow an Arcane Trickster 6d6 sneak attack damage on each of SIX RAYS from a Twinned Scorching Ray.Emphasis mine.

[Popertop]

Worse, neither could Wolf Fang Strike or any of the Mongoose boosts.

I would houserule in something about "volley" attacks (Scorching Ray, Manyshot)... or maybe just ditch that rule altogether. I'm reasonably convinced this should be OK for an archer; less sure how balanced this gets with spells.

I'm pretty sure the thing that makes the arcane trickster builds good isn't the "trickster" part, it's the "arcane" part :P


I don't know how that interpretation keeps popping up.

It was how the rule worked in the older editions, when SA dice seemed "overpowered". Then again, I think more of the enemies were humanoid back then, so they were more vulnerable to sneak attack.


Well, thanks for chiming in, everyone.

All that being said... yeah... if I were a GM I would NOT allow an Arcane Trickster 6d6 sneak attack damage on each of SIX RAYS from a Twinned Scorching Ray.

But... fun to think about. ^_^

Eh, I'm sure there have been worse things allowed.
An ubercharger does more damage anyways.


snip

Frankly, this isn't striking me as overpowered in the grand scheme of things. Of course, a Twinned Scorching Ray probably isn't optimal, and I know Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Arcane Trickster 6 isn't optimal, but still.

what he said.

this goes back to the arguments about the rogue being hamstrung with SA.
either it's amazing or it's terrible, no inbetween.

I think if they work that hard to tag a few extra dice onto ray attacks, go ahead and let them. It kind of takes a lot of work to get an arcane trickster build working properly anyways.

It's not like those are the spells causing problems, and I'm pretty sure the arcane trickster isn't the best build out there, it really wouldn't hurt it to have this schtick.

[true_shinken]

I think it is true in 4E, so that could be another source of confusion. Not sure if it's valid in Essentials.

In Essentials, it's once a turn.



It was how the rule worked in the older editions, when SA dice seemed "overpowered". Then again, I think more of the enemies were humanoid back then, so they were more vulnerable to sneak attack.

What? AFAIK, Sneak Attack is a third edition thing. Before, we has backstab - a multiplier to damage, not extra dice.

[faceroll]

Could you go Wizard 10/Arcane Trickster10, picking up SA dice with Assassin's Stance, then swapping martial study feats out at 3rd level of AT?

Assuming you could meet skill pre-reqs.

[Veyr]

Could you go Wizard 10/Arcane Trickster10, picking up SA dice with Assassin's Stance, then swapping martial study feats out at 3rd level of AT?

Assuming you could meet skill pre-reqs.
Other than swapping out Assassin's Stance (which you can't do without retraining or Psychic Reformation or something, and I can't see why you would want to anyway), yes, you can.

[Popertop]

In Essentials, it's once a turn.


What? AFAIK, Sneak Attack is a third edition thing. Before, we has backstab - a multiplier to damage, not extra dice.

lol I'm an idiot.

maybe I was thinking of design philosophy,
or maybe in 3.0 it's once a turn.

[Keld Denar]

Nope, 3.0 it was once per qualifying attack as well.

[Golden-Esque]

Okay... this has been killing me for a while, and I just had to get some secondary opinions about it.

Complete Arcane:

Multiple Hits
Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster gets a bonus on damage with such spells (including sneak attack damage), the extra damage applies only to the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.

Pretty straight forward. Goes on to list Scorching Ray specifically as an example... HOWEVER.

Rules Compendium:

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Many-shot feat (standard action) or a quickened Scorching Ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.

Keeping in mind that Rules Compendium was published AFTER Complete Arcane, I find the wording of this rule to be very interesting. It says any attack other than a full-round action, specifically noting that Scorching Ray takes a shorter action than that.

Now here is my dilemma... a sorcerer applying a metamagic feat to one of his spells turns it into a full-round action. By the wording of the most recent rule, wouldn't that make each ray in a sorcerer's Maximized Scorching Ray applicable for precision damage?

This may not be RAI, but it's almost definitely RAW.

What do you all think?

I think you are taking this rule out of context of the rest of the rulebook. Like most rules in the Rule Compendium, this particular rule is intended to be read with the rest of the rules, all in effect at the same time. What you're essentially doing is highlighting this one particular ruling to draw attention away from the rest of the book.

Case in point, the rules for Sneak Attack (as written under the Rogue class) specifically state that when you make multiple attacks as part of a full-round action, the Sneak Attack damage applies only once. This rule is adding on to that rule, saying that whenever you make multiple attacks as part of a single action, you only apply precision damage to the first attack made. So, for example, if you were to cast a Quickened Scorching ray and then a regular Scorching Ray and you caught your opponent flat-footed both times, you would deal sneak attack damage twice (once for the quickened group, once for the standard group) and not once per ray.

[Golden-Esque]

Could you go Wizard 10/Arcane Trickster10, picking up SA dice with Assassin's Stance, then swapping martial study feats out at 3rd level of AT?

Assuming you could meet skill pre-reqs.

No, you could not. It would be like asking if you could meet the Sneak Attack prerequisites for a class by casting a spell on yourself that granted you a Sneak Attack progression. You need to have trained sneak attack as a class feature; not a martial maneuver, in order to meet the prerequisites for Arcane Trickster.

[Veyr]

Case in point, the rules for Sneak Attack (as written under the Rogue class) specifically state that when you make multiple attacks as part of a full-round action, the Sneak Attack damage applies only once.
This is incorrect; you get Sneak Attack on all attacks in a full-attack.

[Keld Denar]

Case in point, the rules for Sneak Attack (as written under the Rogue class) specifically state that when you make multiple attacks as part of a full-round action, the Sneak Attack damage applies only once.
Incorrect. SA applies to each attack that qualifies.

Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
The text you mention is missing. Do you have another source for this rule?

No, you could not. It would be like asking if you could meet the Sneak Attack prerequisites for a class by casting a spell on yourself that granted you a Sneak Attack progression. You need to have trained sneak attack as a class feature; not a martial maneuver, in order to meet the prerequisites for Arcane Trickster.

Also incorrect. Nothing states that the SA has to come from a class ability. If you had SA from a race, item, or other features (such as a martial stance), it would count. Spells, well, that is dependant on the DM WRT training time and whatnot. It would be a rather unwise tactic though, as you'd only have your AT class features while you have the spell cast.

[faceroll]

Other than swapping out Assassin's Stance (which you can't do without retraining or Psychic Reformation or something, and I can't see why you would want to anyway), yes, you can.

Why can't you swap out Assassin's Stance? There aren't any rules that prohibit a prestige class for qualifying for itself, are there?


No, you could not. It would be like asking if you could meet the Sneak Attack prerequisites for a class by casting a spell on yourself that granted you a Sneak Attack progression. You need to have trained sneak attack as a class feature; not a martial maneuver, in order to meet the prerequisites for Arcane Trickster.

That's nowhere in the rules, though.

[JaronK]

Case in point, the rules for Sneak Attack (as written under the Rogue class) specifically state that when you make multiple attacks as part of a full-round action, the Sneak Attack damage applies only once.

False. Nothing in the Sneak Attack rules says anything even vaguely similar to what you claim here.

JaronK

[Veyr]

Why can't you swap out Assassin's Stance? There aren't any rules that prohibit a prestige class for qualifying for itself, are there?
I mean that ordinarily, you don't have the option to undo a feat like that. Yes, you can retrain or Psychic Reformation or DCS it, but one requires DM approval, another requires a reasonably high-level Telepath, and the last is pretty hefty cheese.

[Popertop]

Nope, 3.0 it was once per qualifying attack as well.

then where does the backwards notion of sneak attack only once per turn come from?

[Allanimal]

then where does the backwards notion of sneak attack only once per turn come from?

Maybe because one of the sure-fire ways to get a sneak attack at lowish levels is invisibility. The attacker is only invisible during the 1st attack of a full attack, and thus sneak attack only applies to that attack (assuming no other factors apply). Of course, that is due to invisibility rules, not sneak attack rules...perhaps people remember only the 1st attack gets it, but not why.