Sneak attack and magic.

[Flik9999]

Hey I know that you cant SA certain creatures normally. But these are monsters that cannot normally be hit with weapons. Spells however work against them and since SA applies to ranged touch attacks as the type of the spell. Could I cone of cold a creature immune to SA, but because the SA damage is also cold would it work?

[hymer]

What system are you talking about? Regardless, Cone of Cold has no attack roll, and as such couldn't deliver a sneak attack in any system I know.

[Calinar]

Something like scorching ray, however, would. You would also get to add your SA dice to any and all of the rays that hit, assuming you have a high enough caster level for multiple rays. Also, the SA damage is marked as precision damage and would not suddenly become frost or fire depending on the spell you used.

[Siosilvar]

Sneak Attack applies to spells with attack rolls only, and only once on a spell like Scorching Ray since it's considered a "volley" just like Manyshot is.

If the creature is immune to normal weapons (by being incorporeal or the like), you could sneak attack it with a spell. If it's immune to precision damage (critical hits + sneak attack), then you can't use a spell to get around that restriction.

[Calinar]

No, scorching ray isn't a volley attack, it requires one attack roll for each ray. manyshot uses one attack roll though, so like you said, one sneak attack per use of manyshot.

[Boci]

Also, the SA damage is marked as precision damage and would not suddenly become frost or fire depending on the spell you used.

Not according to complete arcana:


A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage of the same type as the spell normally deals.

Same result, since presumable part of a "successful sneak attack" involves the target being vulnerable to precision damage, but the damage type does change.


No, scorching ray isn't a volley attack, it requires one attack roll for each ray. manyshot uses one attack roll though, so like you said, one sneak attack per use of manyshot.

Again, not according to Complete Arcana. Scorching ray is the one used in the example: only the first deals the SA damage, and if it misses there is no SA damage.

[Calinar]

Hmm... ok, I was just going off of what would be expected from Core, didn't realize complete arcana had something different.

[Boci]

Hmm... ok, I was just going off of what would be expected from Core, didn't realize complete arcana had something different.

Understandable, and really both rules are unneccissary. You can argue there is precident for the first rule (since a non-lethal attack inflicts non-lethal SA), but the second one is most likely going to be an undeeded nerf for a not-too-powerful build.

[Hiro Protagonest]

but the second one is most likely going to be an undeeded nerf for a not-too-powerful build.

I thought it was said in core that SA because of denied dex only counted for the first attack. Spell or weapon.

[Boci]

I thought it was said in core that SA because of denied dex only counted for the first attack. Spell or weapon.

I've heard that rule before, but never gotten a page number for it.

[Flik9999]

Thanks for the reply. Was talking about that 0 lvl spell that does 1d3 cold damage and is a ranged touch attack. Im playing pathfinder.

On another note I am currently a 3rd level Ninja about to pick 4th level can I have these stats S: 10 D:15 I:17 W:8 C:14. Currently have TWF, Finesse and Vanish trick. Would going into magus or wizard make my character really bad at fighting in melee?

Im in a party of 2 rangers, an alchemist and myself. Currently seam to be the partys mage with UMD. Would getting a single level in wizard to allow me to use scrolls ruin my character?

[Boci]

Im in a party of 2 rangers, an alchemist and myself. Currently seam to be the partys mage with UMD. Would getting a single level in wizard to allow me to use scrolls ruin my character?

A single level dip will rarely ruin a character, especially if fractional BAB is being used (add +0.75 BAB per ninja level +0.5 for the wizard level). If you are the party made and at least semi reguarly need use a scroll mid combat, it seems like a wise investment. I would not use spells offensivly though with a catser level of just 1. Memorize utility spells instead.

[Flik9999]

Were not using fractional BAB. With scrolls can say a level 1 mage cast a level 9 spell by reading the scroll. Or would I need to do some sort of check to cast from a scroll a spell I cannot normally use?

Also I plan to be casting mostly with UMD, and I heard that scrolls are not my caster level but the caster level of thier creator?

Edit: So in summary could I profit from a single level dip into mage?

[Flik9999]

The character Im trying to build is effectively a character who doesn't use magic primarily relies on their skills magic is just second nature to them.

I took envoy at creation for comprehend langauges and I use wands at the moment to cast a few spells.

[olejars]

I thought it was said in core that SA because of denied dex only counted for the first attack. Spell or weapon.

I believe it's right in sneak attacks description, unlike skirmish which applies to all attacks.

[Glimbur]

I believe it's right in sneak attacks description, unlike skirmish which applies to all attacks.


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.

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
(emphasis mine)
I don't see it in there. If you're using regular Invisibility to get sneak attack then it only triggers once, but you get it on every attack that qualifies. Except most parts of volley attacks, of course.

[candycorn]

Rules Compendium states that the default rule is: If you make multiple attacks, and you don't take a full-round action to do it, then only one benefits from precision damage.

There are specific exceptions to this. However, they are explicitly noted. Greater Manyshot is an example.

If, however, a Sorceror were to empower a Scorching Ray, the spell would require a full round action. In such a case, it should qualify for precision damage on all shots. This is because the Rules Compendium supercedes the text in Complete Arcane.

[docnessuno]

Were not using fractional BAB. With scrolls can say a level 1 mage cast a level 9 spell by reading the scroll. Or would I need to do some sort of check to cast from a scroll a spell I cannot normally use?

Also I plan to be casting mostly with UMD, and I heard that scrolls are not my caster level but the caster level of thier creator?

Edit: So in summary could I profit from a single level dip into mage?

UMD will alow you to replicate pretty much everything you can do with a Wizard dip.

Dipping:
Dipping in a caster class will alow you:
To use wands of that class spells without needing any check.
To use staffs of that class spells without needing any check.
To use LC 1 scrolls of that class spells without needing any check, provided you have the relevant casting stat at 11+
To use CL 2+ scrolls of that class spells by succeding in a caster level check (DC = scroll’s CL + 1), provided you have the relevant casting stat at 1X where X is the spell level.

Dipping class choice:
For dipping, Cleric is a much better choice than wizard. By chosing the magic domain you can use Scrolls, Wands and Staffs as a 1st level wizard (in addition to being able to use them as a 1st level cleric). Also you still have 1 domain to chose, either for its granted power or to exchange it with a devotion feat, and you get turn undeads to fuel said devotion feats.

About magic items:
Potions: Have their own caster level (usually = spell level * 2 - 1) , can be used by anyone.
Wands: Have their own caster level (usually = spell level * 2 - 1) , can be used by someone who has the spell on their class list. Save DC is set at 10 + spell level + (spell level / 2 rounded down).
Staves: Have their own caster level (depending on the spell), but can use your CL if higher. Can be used by someone who has the spell on their class list. Save DC is 10 + spell level + your relevant casting stat modifier.
Scrolls: Have their own caster level (usually = spell level * 2 - 1) , can be used by someone who has the spell on their class list and would be able to cast it (enough CL and relevant stat). Can be used even if the CL isn't high enough, but requires the aforementioned check and there's a mishap risk.

[Flik9999]

Cant really go into cleric with my 8 wisdom.

So even if i had a single level in wizard I would still need to do a UMD check to use scrolls? By CL +2 does that mean a 1st level wizard can cast 3rd level spells. Or does it mean that he can only go up to 2nd level spells cast as a 3rd level mage?

[Boci]

Cant really go into cleric with my 8 wisdom.

So even if i had a single level in wizard I would still need to do a UMD check to use scrolls?

No, you'll need to succeed on a caster level check, which is lower, but harder to boost (CL + 1 vs. CL + 20).



By CL +2 does that mean a 1st level wizard can cast 3rd level spells. Or does it mean that he can only go up to 2nd level spells cast as a 3rd level mage?

Neither. It means you cast the spells you normally have, but add 2 to your caster level for any variables dependant on that.

[Flik9999]

Guess its worth just waiting and having unreliable scrolls then. Is there any way to boost my CHA or UMD skill for 1000gp. In anything pathfinder?

Edit:With UMD. It says decifer a spell, is that finding out what an indentified scroll is? It says 25+spell level (MAX DC 34?)

To use a scroll its 20+ caster level so max DC 40?

[Techwarrior]

You don't need Wisdom to take levels in Cleric unlike in older editions, which is where the sneak attack only applying on the first attack is coming from incidently, you just have to the Wisdom to cast and prepare spells and use scrolls (maybe wands too, don't recall). Get yourself a Wisdom item, your Will save will love you, along with your magic abilities. You still get to use magic items like a wizard for free. Unless you really need the spells from wizard, you'll get more from Cleric with Magic domain even without spells.

[docnessuno]

Cant really go into cleric with my 8 wisdom.

So even if i had a single level in wizard I would still need to do a UMD check to use scrolls? By CL +2 does that mean a 1st level wizard can cast 3rd level spells. Or does it mean that he can only go up to 2nd level spells cast as a 3rd level mage?

If you are referring go this line:


To use CL 2+ scrolls of that class spells by succeding in a caster level check (DC = scroll’s CL + 1), provided you have the relevant casting stat at 1X where X is the spell level.
It means that with 1 level of wizard (and assuming you will have a caster level of 1), to cast scrolls with a caster level of 2+ (2 or greater) you will need to pass a caster level check (1d20 + your caster level, so 1d20+1) with a DC equal to the scroll's caster level +1 (so DC 10 for a CL 9 scroll).

[Flik9999]

Any items in pathfinder that can boost a skill?

[Crake]

If you are referring go this line:


It means that with 1 level of wizard (and assuming you will have a caster level of 1), to cast scrolls with a caster level of 2+ (2 or greater) you will need to pass a caster level check (1d20 + your caster level, so 1d20+1) with a DC equal to the scroll's caster level +1 (so DC 10 for a CL 9 scroll).

Taking practised spellcaster and arcane mastery would let you cast any scroll of CL 14 or lower without chance of failure

On another tangent, you're a CA ninja right? why don't you have any wisdom? Your bonus AC is based off it, unless you got some ACF or something?

[Answerer]

Cant really go into cleric with my 8 wisdom.
Sure you can; you don't get the spells but you do get everything else, including getting to count all Cleric spells as being on your spell list for the purposes of Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items. Take the Magic Domain, and that'll include all Wizard spells, too.

Cleric 1 has a ton to offer; it's the best dip in the game. It's so good that it's still valuable even if you have <10 Wisdom.

Which is absurd, but it is what it is.

[ericgrau]

Understandable, and really both rules are unneccissary. You can argue there is precident for the first rule (since a non-lethal attack inflicts non-lethal SA), but the second one is most likely going to be an undeeded nerf for a not-too-powerful build.

No I figured this out before I knew about the volley rule. An empowered scorching ray + quickened scorching ray + 6 sneak attacks all with full BAB touch attacks gets out of hand. Sure even semi-infinite damage doesn't mean much in high op but I never play high op.

For the general topic a magic sneak attack needs to meet all the requirements of a regular one including an attack roll, sneak attack trigger, critability, etc. The advantage is that it is a touch attack and has much more base damage than a typical weapon.

[Answerer]

I'd love to know how you're figuring full BAB and scorching ray and quickened scorching ray and Sneak Attack. I'm not aware of any build that can get all of those things.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think by full BAB he meant attacking at full attack bonus. Also I think Duskblades get Scorching rays on their list, so if you dipped a class with full BAB and sneak attack (let's say Sneak Attack Fighter and Rokugan ninja) you could do it.

Duskblade 5/Sneak Attack Fighter 1/Rokugan Ninja 2 has 7 BAB, +2d6 sneak attack and can cast both a normal scorching ray and a quickened one via quick cast.

[ericgrau]

Ya max BAB, as in none of those 6 are secondaries on an attack roll that's already easy on a dex based character. Generally you'd do such a thing on an arcane trickster or spellwarp sniper but there are other ways.

[Boci]

No I figured this out before I knew about the volley rule. An empowered scorching ray + quickened scorching ray + 6 sneak attacks all with full BAB touch attacks gets out of hand. Sure even semi-infinite damage doesn't mean much in high op but I never play high op.

A combo which relies on the enemy being vulnerable to both fire and precision damage is rarely going to be considered high op. This is a fallacy that I am tempted to name the "no-moderation-fallacy. (but maybe it already exists). I said that only allowing a rogue/wizard SA 1/round with their spells was underpowered. You immediately jump to another extreme. Let's look at this hypothetical build shall we:

CL: 11, quicken spell, 6th level spell slots (or a way to reduce metamagic), enough SA to make the combo worthwhile.

So what build would you choose that could practically use the above?


I think by full BAB he meant attacking at full attack bonus. Also I think Duskblades get Scorching rays on their list, so if you dipped a class with full BAB and sneak attack (let's say Sneak Attack Fighter and Rokugan ninja) you could do it.

Duskblade 5/Sneak Attack Fighter 1/Rokugan Ninja 2 has 7 BAB, +2d6 sneak attack and can cast both a normal scorching ray and a quickened one via quick cast.

So 12d6 fire and precision damage 1/day if both attacks hit against a creature denied their dex to AC or flanked for the purpose of a ranged attack. Doesn't strike me as that powerful.

[ericgrau]

You can just use an arcane trickster. Defenses are overrated. Usually they do not apply. Or even when they do they often only partially apply, or you can switch targets or switch offensive tactics. Too much is simply too much regardless.

It's a little over 200 damage but most things around that level have around 200 hp. For the duskblade way it's 80 65 or so damage at a time monsters have around 70 hp. Too much for casual gaming, and really I don't consider a high op standard to mean much.

[Gwendol]

I agree. The duskblade-rogue combo is hard to pull off, and in general it's a way to get more out of ray of frost. It's a pity ray of enfeeblement imposes a penalty rather than ability damage, for that on the other hand, would have been overpowering.

[Boci]

You can just use an arcane trickster. Defenses are overrated. Usually they do not apply or you can switch targets or switch offensive tactics even when they do. Too much is simply too much regardless.

So that's rogue 1 / SA fighter 1 / Wizard 5 / AT 6.

CL: 11, 5d6 sneak attack, 6th level spells.

7.25 BAB + maybe 6 dexterity. +13 vs touch AC, 3 times for 9d6 fire and precision damage each against a target denied dexterity to AC. Not bad for 2nd level spell, you're only 2 points behind a full caster for penetrating SR. But game breaking? Unlikely I feel. I'll maybe run the combo against some sample monster later.


I agree. The duskblade-rogue combo is hard to pull off, and in general it's a way to get more out of ray of frost. It's a pity ray of enfeeblement imposes a penalty rather than ability damage, for that on the other hand, would have been overpowering.

Still wouldn't work. CA specifies that the SA becomes negative energy damage, not state damage.


It's only about 200 damage but most things around that level have around 200 hp.

Only a few times per day (since they need to sacrifice their 6th level slot to repeat the attack) and that's assuming all attacks hit.


For the duskblade way it's 80 damage at a time monsters have around 70 hp.

The one I posted does 42 when it goes nova. What numbers are you using?

[Gwendol]

Yes, I know, but as written RoE does nothing for SA no?

[ericgrau]

I edit fixed a little with damages and CR 6 and CR 12 average hp (4 CR 6 = EL 10). You're one shotting most foes which is fine only for high op.

The duskblade does around 65 I added the wrong SA numbers while you didn't add any SA. It's a dex class making touch attacks. 95% of the attacks hit. Or specifically 6 BAB + ~6 dex mod plus sometimes point blank shot.

[Boci]

I edit fixed a little with damages and CR 6 and CR 12 average hp (4 CR 6 = EL 10). You're one shotting most foes which is fine only for high op.

Denied their dexterity bonus to AC, are vulnerable to fire and precision damage, and who have such a low touch AC that you are hitting with 6 attacks. And you can only do this a couple of times per day. Its a nice combo when everything goes right, but it won't always be that way. Also, 65 is closer to 42, but it still isn't 42.

[ericgrau]

It's not a narrow situation in which it succeeds, it's a narrow situation in which it fails. You greater invisibility, 1 shot foes the entire fight and the fight is won before your'e out of spells. In the uncommon case where obstacles do appear your damage goes down partially from using different options (or not at all if there's a single open target) or you switch spells and have to put up with being <gasp> normal.

[Boci]

It's not a narrow situation in which it succeeds, it's a narrow situation in which it fails. You greater invisibility, 1 shot foes the entire fight and the fight is won before your'e out of spells. In the uncommon case where obstacles do appear your damage goes down partially or you switch spells and have to put up with being <gasp> normal.

Like a monster immune to SR/Fire, or one with blindsight, a decent touch AC...

[ericgrau]

Yeup the vast majority of monsters are not simple as that. When they are, you still have other options. So you only break casual games 80% of the time :smallconfused:.

[ThiagoMartell]

Yeup the vast majority of monsters are not simple as that. When they are, you still have other options. So you only break casual games 80% of the time :smallconfused:.

Funnily enough, he is using the same fallacy he just coined from something you said.

[Boci]

Funnily enough, he is using the same fallacy he just coined from something you said.

How so? You mean by focusing only on the SR+SA combo?


Yeup the vast majority of monsters are not simple as that. When they are, you still have other options. So you only break casual games 80% of the time :smallconfused:.

You cannot always start an encounter with GI on, so your combo takes two rounds, and a 2nd, 4th and 6th level spell. Sometimes it will be obvious when you cannot use it, but always. Some undead pretend to be humans, some creatures are colour coded for their immunities like the red dragon and it is not always immediately obvious that the combo won't work. Breaking casual game 80% of the time is a pretty bold claim, especially when the PC and DM could compromise, the PC agreeing not to quicken SR if the DM allows him to add SA to all 3 attacks.

[Dusk Eclipse]

So 12d6 fire and precision damage 1/day if both attacks hit against a creature denied their dex to AC or flanked for the purpose of a ranged attack. Doesn't strike me as that powerful.

Wasn't mean to be powerful, I aas juat trying to show that Answerer Ful bab, SA ans two casting of Scorching ray per round were possible.

[ThiagoMartell]

Wasn't mean to be powerful, I aas juat trying to show that Answerer Ful bab, SA ans two casting of Scorching ray per round were possible.

Let me guess: posting from your cell phone. :smallwink:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Yes, how did you guess?

[ThiagoMartell]

Yes, how did you guess?

I'm psychic. Try to keep that a secret. :smalltongue:

[Crake]

Don't forget a creature with spell resistance would screw it up just as bad