Is Scorching Ray Too Good?

[Prism]

Well, if they spend the feats, and choose the spells... Why not? Sure there are ways to almost gaurantee a sneak attack as a caster, but you have to give up your resources (spell slots) to do it. For all those spells you mentioned, the character will be giving up other useful spells. If the player wants to make an arcane sneak attack master, and picks the feats and spells to do so, while giving up other (better and/or more versatile) feats and spells, why not?

I absolutely agree with you that if a character invests in spells and feats that focus on being able to sneak attack then they should get a reward for their efforts. I'm trying to suggest that having a single sneak attack in addition to the already strong scorching ray attack is good enough and to me at least seems to be the intent of the designers.

I know that the rules of the game link doesn't specifically mention sorching ray and that you are suggesting that it is different from the example given of the energy orb spells but it seems that you are in the minority at least in this thread with respect to the number of sneaks allowed for a single spell

I just can't see anything really vague with these two rulings

You blast your enemies with fiery rays. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.

The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all bolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously

and

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

I am currently playing an arcane trickster and it is very rare that I directly attack an opponent unless I am also sneak attacking. Its not at all difficult to pull off and the spells I mentioned earlier are some of the strongest spells in their own right without even considering sneak attacks so you don't really lose anything. Casting grease on the floor is an excellent way of taking out warrior types - the fact you can also sneak them is icing on the cake. Being invisible has huge advantages in addition to being able to sneak. All these spells are strong whether you sneak or not

Using ranged touch attacks are good ways to get sneak attacks as they usually hit but to get 3 sneaks per 2nd level spell is just a little strong as they all attack at your highest attack bonus as a standard action. There are other spells such as the druidical produce flame or FR snillocs snowball which allow multiple sneakable ranged touch attacks a round but these are limited by your iterative attacks, take a full round action to pull off and a round to effectively set up (ie cast the spell). They also factor in the -5/-10/-15 to hit for each subsequent attack after the first

if you choose not to consider scorching ray as a volley type spell then you also have to consider what will happen when you get telekineses as this spell allows up to 15 simultaneous attacks which means you can do a ridiculous 105d6 sneak damage as a standard action and 315d6 using the two easy techniques I mentioned before (twin and quicken).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is really recycled olds news.

It was unambiguous under the 3.0 RAW that a Rogue could use shurikens to get triple sneak attacks as a standard action. It was also unambiguously broken and presumed to be a loophole that the designers inadvertently overlooked. There was a clear consensus on these boards that it would probably be best to houserule a "clarification" that a trio of shurikens are one attack even though there are three attack rolls. Eventually that tweak was recommended by WotC.

I have not kept up with the subtle changes of language in 3.5 but it looks like the exact same story here. It is a Very Bad Idea to allow multiple sneaks from a single Scorching Ray spell, even if it looks like it might be legal by the letter of the rules.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yes that's the point though, right there (highlighted in bold abov) is the answer to the question for MM. The rogue must make an attack roll, casting a spell where no attack rolls are made fail to meet the requirements for sneak attack in the PHB. No need for FAQ for that one, it's only when getting spells such as scorching ray that the FAQ need be referenced.

That's not what it says, and it's not what I said. The PHB says an attack

NOT AN ATTACK ROLL.

Just an attack. Got it? Good.

Furthermore, there are multiple instances within the rules whereby things which require no attack roll are referred to as attacks.

The point is, that you have to make an attack roll, but it's not very clearly written.

In that case, all clerics are dead at birth. It's just not very clearly written.

The attack roll thing IS NOT IN THE PHB as it stands. It's only in the faq. Which means that either we use the faq (volleys and all), or we allow every magic missile in a volley to sneak attack. Not to mention a whole host of other spells.

Choose.

 

[Thanee]

What's wrong with the FAQ?

Yes, you need to make an attack roll to be able to apply sneak attack, and it applies only once per attack (or volley, or however you want to call it).

As I said, it's not very clearly written in the book, since they do not actually make the necessary distinction with "attack". It's, of course, obvious, that not every attack can be a sneak attack, however. It doesn't need much common sense, for example, to realize, that you cannot sneak attack with a Flesh to Stone spell, or a Fireball spell. Both are attacks, however, when using common sense, but obviously not per the rules in the PHB (see below posts).

Bye
Thanee

 

[green slime]

The attack roll thing IS NOT IN THE PHB as it stands. It's only in the faq. Which means that either we use the faq (volleys and all), or we allow every magic missile in a volley to sneak attack. Not to mention a whole host of other spells.

Choose.

No sorry. I choose a third path. I look at the rules as they are written. I read the FAQ. I bounce ideas off others (my players, mostly). Then I make a decision based on what I feel is reasonable. There is no "requirement" to accept one or the other at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "cherry-picking" sensible (IMO) rulings from the FAQ and ignoring others.

And I don't see the MM description mentioning anything about "attack" at all. Nor in the "Magic" Chapter (10).

"attack" is defined in the glossary.

from the Glossary
attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

So... magic missile is not an attack (no attack roll). An attack is defined as having... an attack roll! Without an attack roll, there is no attack!

from the "sneak attack" description under Rogue
Basically, the rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC, or when the rogue flanks her target

So, no sneak attacking with magic missile.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Scorching Ray provides up to 3 Rays. EACH ray requires an attack roll. Each ray is an attack. Therefore Sneak Attack applies, right?

I'm afraid not. Multiple attacks in a volley only apply sneak attack damage to a single attack. As has already been stated.

Can't wait for the 3.5 FAQ to get updated then, because this is getting silly.

Well, I'm startign to think so. The 3.5 FAQ won't be "updated" as the 3.0 FAQ applies to the scorching ray spell just fine. If you're having a hard time figuring out why a 3.0 FAQ applies to a 3.5 spell, this understandable. Nonetheless, the 3.0 FAQ provides a relevant and accurate ruling for the spell as it mirrors the T&B Orb spells in it's use. If you can't get past that, there is nothing anyone can do to help and we'll have to leave it at that. You're satisfaction can only be had by an uneccessary addition to the 3.5 FAQ, trying to add anything else to the points already iterated would be just more wasted time I'm sorry to say.

If you'd like to have scorching ray clarified in the FAQ the best thing to do would to send your questions on to WotC and ask them to add if you feel this strongly about it.

Best of luck!

 

[Liquidsabre]

The attack roll thing IS NOT IN THE PHB as it stands. It's only in the faq.

You are mistaken.

PHB p.305, Glossary:
"Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll."

 

[Thanee]

I was just wondering how this works out with invisibility, but it actually clarifies what an attack is for the purpose of that spell only in the description.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Saeviomagy]

Does an achaierai's black cloud require an attack roll? It's under "special attacks"?

How about an allip's babble? The spell like abilities of angels? An avoral's fear aura?

Attack has meanings outside of melee and ranged attacks.

Oh, and a character under the effect of sanctuary can go to town with non-attack spells like fireball.

And finally, from the srd section marked "Special spell effects"

"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."

May I say kaboom now?

 

[Brisk-sg]

Does an achaierai's black cloud require an attack roll? It's under "special attacks"?

How about an allip's babble? The spell like abilities of angels? An avoral's fear aura?

Attack has meanings outside of melee and ranged attacks.

Oh, and a character under the effect of sanctuary can go to town with non-attack spells like fireball.

And finally, from the srd section marked "Special spell effects"

"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."

May I say kaboom now?

lol. This is nuts. Its called having common sense and looking at the context of the usage. The word attack is difficult to avoid using in an RPG that is centered around combat. Next edition perhaps they should make the books more technical then they already are and use things like attack (magic), attack (physical), attack (special), attack (this is just a word we are using to describe offensive action, don't get confused).

I personally don't think this is necessary, I don't think anyone is seriously considering letting sneak attack occur on anything that has ever been mentioned as an attack of any sort.