Is Scorching Ray Too Good?

[Liquidsabre]

@Riga - 3.5 came out a year ago this month. THe "Rules of the Game Series" states the rules as they are for 3.5! As the article you quoted states:

Spells as Sneak Attacks
With spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls, such as the energy orb spells or the Split Ray feat from Tome and Blood, you must treat the effect like a volley -- only the first attack can be a sneak attack.

If this doesn't clear up your issue Riga, nothing will. There should be no point for debate here any longer. This clearly states how sneak attacks and scorching ray works. Note the split ray metamagic feat, this feat allows for firing multiple RAY attacks with a single spell (as with scorching ray gets multiple ray attacks with a single casting) and that "only the first attack can be a sneak attack".

 

[Caliban]

As it stands now, the casting of Scorching Ray is NOT an attack. The attack comes in after you aim each ray. Each ray is it's own attack.

Neither "volley" nor "precision based damage" were ever defined in the core rules, 3.0 or 3.5. The concepts were added later to deal with sneak attack damage and "multiple simultaneous attacks" effects (shuriken, flame arrow, and orb spells). Regardless, the concepts have been consistently used by the designers since then, even if they don't always get the details right.

I think the important bit for scorching ray (and similar spells) is that all the attacks happen at exactly the same time. You do not shoot out a series of rays, with a pause between each one. That would be a full attack action.

Instead you shoot one or more rays simultaneously. That's where the limitation on "precision based damage" comes in: you can aim them all at the same target, but only one can hit the precise point you are aiming at.

If you are making an attack roll, then you are making attack. It doesn't matter if the spell is "effect: ray" or "target: one more more creatures". If an attack roll is involved, it's an attack. (Note: a spell can be an attack even if it doesn't involve an attack roll, but such spells aren't part of this debate.)

 

[Brisk-sg]

Ok, I found some interesting info. In the article "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)". This article came out 3/9/04. I don't remember if 3.5 was out at this time, so I am not sure if the article is referrencing 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules. I have the feeling it is still referring to 3.0 rules (I'll show you why below).

The Rules of the Game Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) is all current to the 3.5 rules. The 3.5 Players Handbook came out in June of 2003. I compared the articles in that section (the 1st one is dated 1/20/2004, 6 months after 3.5 was released) with the 3.5 books and they match up for what chapters they reference. The sneak attacks part 4 article you reference is for the 3.5 rules.

The article can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a

I agree with what they are stating here, but I do not feel it applies to Scorching Ray. Here is why. First off, they are referring to 3.0 rules and books. They are referencing a spell (energy orb) and a feat (Split Ray) from Tome & Blood. If I were playing 3.0, I'd have my answer.

Remember, when 3.5 was released, per WOTC, other books were still compatible with it. WOTC never said that any book that is not 3.5 is not usuable in a game. That is something many DMs have done, yes, but not something WOTC has ever put forward. The Energy Orb spell was likely referenced as it was debated and ruled on specifically in the past.

Now, you will probally refute this as proving nothing as it does not specifically say Scorching Ray anyware. I would personally check with your DM and see how he will rule on this issue before you create your character.

I know how I will rule in the future about Scorching Ray and sneak attack, that you only get sneak attack damage on the 1st Ray.

Yeah, that's what I am trying to figure out too.

I feel that the mere casting of Scorching Ray does not make it an attack. The aiming of the Rays are the point it becomes an attack, and each Ray is a seperate attack.

Is "one attack" that allows "multiple attack rolls" (Scorching Ray) the same thing as "multiple attacks" that allows "one attack roll" (Manyshot)?

Also, per the 3.5 FAQ:

Both of the example spells (Scorching Ray and Meteor Swarm) have a casting time of 1 standard action and an instantaneous duration. The caster uses the cast a spell action (a standard action), and makes all the ranged touch attacks the spell allows as part of that standard action (not as part of the attack or full attack action); making these attacks is not an action at all.

The ranged touch attacks are part of the normal standard action, and the attacks themselves are not actions (ie full round action, or standard action). I would argue that any action that is instant (as this action basically is) does not make sense to have multiple sneak attacks on. How can you be precise on multiple targets with a free action that takes no time.

 

[babomb]

Ok, I found some interesting info. In the article "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)". This article came out 3/9/04. I don't remember if 3.5 was out at this time, so I am not sure if the article is referrencing 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules. I have the feeling it is still referring to 3.0 rules (I'll show you why below).

The first printing of 3.5 was in July 2003.

Also... It states that you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack. As I noted in an earlier post, the casting of Scorching Ray is not an attack (not an attack action or type). It is a Standard Action. The "attack" comes in after you aim each ray and roll to hit with each Ray. For this statement to be true, you would need 1 Ray to be able to hit multipe targets (like with Split Ray). THEN I would agree, only the first ray (in the volley) gets Sneak Attack.

Nor is Acid Orb an attack action. It doesn't really matter if the attack comes in "after". (Show me in the 3.5 rules where it says the attack comes "after" anything!) It doesn't matter "when" the attack comes. It's still "an attack".

I agree with what they are stating here, but I do not feel it applies to Scorching Ray. Here is why. First off, they are referring to 3.0 rules and books. They are referencing a spell (energy orb) and a feat (Split Ray) from Tome & Blood. If I were playing 3.0, I'd have my answer.

Acid Orb and Split Ray are directly compatible with 3.5. I.e., they require absolutely no changes to work with 3.5.

Secondly, it says with spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls. The strange thing is, Acid Orb (from T&B) doesn't have a spell Effect. It has a Range (which is the same exact Range as Scorching Ray) and it has "Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart". Scorching Ray does not have a "Target" for the spell, like Acid Orb does. Instead it has an "Effect: One or more Rays".

See, this is where you're being more technically precise than the designers are. When it says "spell effects" it doesn't mean the game term Effect (as the in a spell entry). It means the normal, non-game meaning of "effect". If an NPC calls your party Fighter "a powerful warrior", does the fighter correct him, "I'm not a warrior; I'm a fighter"? I'm guessing no. Same kind of thing. Downside of using common words as game terms.

Well, the effect for Scorching Ray certainly does give you multiple attack rolls. But at the same time, each Ray is it's own seperate attack.

This is possibly a valid point. The description of Scorching Ray says "Each ray requires a ranged touch attack...", which implies that each is a seperate attack, though I doubt that was the intention.

 

[Christian]

Can't Acid Arrow still be countered, e.g. by hopping into water?

There is no indication in either 3.0 or 3.5 that Acid Arrow can be countered by 'hopping into water'. The spell says that it continues to deal damage unless the acid is 'somehow neutralized', but does not specify how it would be neutralized. This is evidently a DM judgment call ... but I wouldn't recommend making it too easy to avoid the continuing damage-this isn't a spell in desperate need of nerfing, after all. (It's powerful enough in certain combat situations, but certainly not overpowered, and as pointed out, it's fairly weak in situations where you need to deal a lot of damage right now.)

 

[Liquidsabre]

Heh, a skilled alchemist adventurer should carry arounda flask or two of base. Just poor it on and neutralize.

 

[Scion]

how much does a flask of base cost?

 

[HellHound]

Got the email from Customer Service.

Subject: RE: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:22:25 -0700
Thread-Topic: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
From: "Wizards Customer Service" <custserv@wizards.com>
To: <mjasonparent@ambient.ca>

You still only get sneak attack damage on one ray.

Thanks!

*Please quote this e-mail in any reply.*
Darrin
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496


-----Original Message-----
From: mjasonparent@ambient.ca [mailto:mjasonparent@ambient.ca]
Sent: Fri 8/6/2004 7:32 PM
To: Wizards Customer Service
Subject: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback

Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
From: M Jason Parent (mjasonparent@ambient.ca)

When casting a spell that produces multiple rays in the same action such as the level 2 Scorching Ray, do you deal sneak attack damage with each ray, or just with one of the rays as it was in the 3.0 rules?

Sent to: custserv@wizards.com

 

[Lord Pendragon]

There is no indication in either 3.0 or 3.5 that Acid Arrow can be countered by 'hopping into water'. The spell says that it continues to deal damage unless the acid is 'somehow neutralized', but does not specify how it would be neutralized. This is evidently a DM judgment call ... but I wouldn't recommend making it too easy to avoid the continuing damage-this isn't a spell in desperate need of nerfing, after all. (It's powerful enough in certain combat situations, but certainly not overpowered, and as pointed out, it's fairly weak in situations where you need to deal a lot of damage right now.)

Then again, combat probably isn't going to take place right next to a large body of water often enough to not have "hopping into water" work, for balance purposes. Unless you're running a pirate game, anyway.

 

[Liquidsabre]

how much does a flask of base cost?

A strong enough base will do as much damage as a strong acid, just turn your skin to soap is all heh. A flask of Base should cost the same as a flask of acid, funnily enough. In fact, a base can be even more dangerous if gotten i nthe eye as it eats away at the cornea, even if it is just a weak base. Jars of sodium hydroxide always come with plastic stoppers rather than glass because it will eat away at the glass, causing the glass cap and bottle to fuse together.