Is Scorching Ray Too Good?

[green slime]

Wish I could take credit, but I got the idea from someone else here, a long time back. I can confirm that it works in practice, though. Especially when the DM thinks that a troll with a bunch of fighter levels will be a tough opponent for your party, and your sorcerer has a whole bunch of unused second & third-level spell slots.

That would be of coure, assuming the fighters and you survive the first six rounds of combat with the rending raging troll to actually enjoy the fruits of the continued acidic damage.

IMX, the touch attacks required by the Acid Arrow for 7th level wizards/sorcerers is such that Magic Missile is generally a better option (trollhunting excluded).

The problem with acid arrow is that, while sexy and stylish, delayed damage is a problem for your buddies, as they will be taking more damage while everyone waits for the effect of the damage to kick in. You need to drop the opponent NOW. Not tomorrow.

Scorching Ray (at 7th level) will deal 8d6, if you hit twice and you beat Spell Resistance (or 28 damage), on average.
Acid Arrow deals 6d4 of damage over three rounds, if you hit, regardless of any Spell Resistance (15 damage average, 5 per round)
Magic Missile deals 4d4+4 damage, automatically, if you beat SR. 14 damage on average.

Now, let us assume, that the Wizard (BAB +3, +2 Dex) fires into melee (-4) and has feats to alleviate the problem (he likes creating things).
50% chance to hit Touch AC 11...

25% chance that both rays hit, 25% that they both miss, and 50% chance that only one hits: Average damage for the scorching ray: 14 damage...

For acid arrow, the same hit chance: average damage drops to 7.5.

And the Magic Missile? Still looking good at 14 damage. And it is first level!

Assume (because the poor arcane user must, he cannot know his opponent's touch AC) that the chance to hit is slightly better: 60% (12 in 20, must roll 9 or better) then:

36% chance that both rays hit, 16% that they both miss, and 48% chance that only one hits: Average damage for the scorching ray: 16.8 damage...

For acid arrow, the same hit chance (60%): average damage 9.

And the Magic Missile? Yet again, looking good at 14 damage.

 

[Thanee]

Yep Magic Missile is a very good spell.

My Sorceress still prefers Scorching Ray most of the time, but she has a Dex of 18 now and there is a Bard in the party, so hitting is rarely a big problem.

Then again, this is just fair, considering, that Scorching Ray is 2nd level, has a really bad range and is fire-based (weakest element, since fire resistance is common) instead of a cool force effect.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darklone]

Yep Magic Missile is a very good spell.

 

[nothing to see here]

Actually, I would presume otherwise. You want a sample a particular point in time, not months or a year later when people are responding to a different supplement environment (new classes, spells, feats, monsters), or making new accounts and forgetting they voted before, etc.

Not to beat a dead horse when the conversation has moved on, but I find volunteer polls on this and other websites an oft cited source of information or validation.

Technically both Thanee and dcollins are right. There is a larger issue here though.

Without question, assuming honest responses, the spell poll is a 100% accurate representation of the population it is measuring. However, the only population that is being measured is "total population of people who responded to the 2nd level spell utility poll".

Once you move beyond that population -- into ENworld users, or general gamers, the polls accuracy drops to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0%.

To gain accurate information requires a sampling model which is A) random and B) surveyor initiated. That's what keeps high paid political consultants employed as opinion researchers .

It's a nitpick -- but as somebody who has worked in opinion research, I find it a personal irritant the increasing number of media sources who use respondant initiated phone and/or internet polls as a valid source of opinion research when neither are worth squat as accurate indicators of population preference.

 

[Thanee]

0% is a bit harsh there don't you think?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Pielorinho]

IMC, sorcerers and wizards used acid arrow well into hteir teen levels, by empowering and extending it. Creatures with SR start becoming pretty common in those levels, and my adventures tended toward the outdoors; it became fairly difficult for me to design encounters that were fun for the fighters and still challenging for a flying sorcerer popping off another empowered acid arrow every round .

Daniel

 

[nothing to see here]

0% is a bit harsh there don't you think?

Bye
Thanee

You're right of course. I'm just using the well worn internet tactic of making my points as stridently as possible in order to gain attention. It's why internet messageboards have the reputation for civil idea exchange that they do .

But since you brought the point up...

...What I meant, of course, is that, without proper sampling tecniques, there is no way whatsoever to determine if a given poll is, in fact an accurate representation of the larger community. It could very well be that the poll is (coincidentally) 100% accurate. Equally so 0%. The fact is we don't know, and never can. However, as a prescriptive tool, the margin of error of any poll must be taken into account. By definition -- a non random poll has a margin of error of 100%...and is therefore useless as tool to draw anything more than anecdotal references to the larger population.

Just don't ask me to dig into the nuts and bolts of the math. I'm not a stats guy. My work in this field has been on the other end -- in research design. I'll leabe the math parts to the math pros.

 

[RigaMortus]

Got the email from Customer Service.

I got an email from Customer Service too. I will italicize their answers for ease of reading.

My questions are all in reference to the current 3.5 rulings.

What is the definition of "precision-based damage"? It is not in the
glossary of the PHB or the index in the PHB or DMG. The only thing I know
for sure is that Sneak Attack is considered "precision-based damage".

Besides Sneak Attack, are there any other forms of attack and/or damage that
are considered "precision-based"? If so, what are they?


-The term "precision based" doesn't exist in any official capacity within the
rules of the game. The only time it is mentioned is in the description of the
Manyshot feat.


If I use the Manyshot feat, I know that I can not apply Sneak Attack damage
to every arrow I fire. I know that it only applies to the first arrow
fired, as it is clearly defined in the description of Manyshot. What other
types of damage can I (or can't I) apply to Manyshot, and why?


-It really depends. There is no definitive list of what can and cannot. However,
that said, if you're looking for ideas, you might try casting flame arrow on
your ammunition. It will cause each arrow to do an additional 1d6 fire damage.
When using Manyshot this could be particularly effective for dealing massive
ammounts of damage.


If I have a Mighty Composite Longbow +2, may I apply +2 Str bonus to every
arrow I fire from Manyshot? Why or why not? Does the damage apply no
matter how far my opponent may be from me (as long as I don't go over my
maximum range for the weapon)?


-Yes, you may apply the +2 to each arrow for damage. This doesn't go away with
range.


In 3.0 Weapon Specialization and damage from the Ranger's Favored Enemy
ability could only be applied to damage done by a ranged weapon as long as
the target was no more than 30' away from you. This seems to imply Weapon
Specialization damage and Ranger's Favored Enemy damage was considered
"precision-based". However, the current 3.5 rules seem to have removed this
limitation.

If I have Weapon Specialization: Longbow, do I apply the +2 damage bonus on
EVERY arrow I fire using Manyshot? Why or why not? Do I apply Weapon
Specialization damage even if I hit my target who is 500 feet away? Why or
why not? Is Weapon Specialization damage considered precision-based damage?
Why or why not?


-Yes, on every arrow. No where in the rules does it say that it is limited by
range.


If I have Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus, and I am attacking my Favored Enemy,
do I apply that damage bonus on EVERY arrow I fire using Manyshot? Why or
why not? Do I apply the Ranger's Favored Enemy damage bonus even if I hit
my target who is 500 feet away? Why or why not? Is the damage (or attack)
from Ranger's Favored Enemy considered precision-based damage? Why or why
not?


-Yes, each arrow deals damage normally.


If I have the ability to cast 3 rays from Scorching Ray, can I apply Sneak
Attack damage to each Ray? I beleive I can. If I can not, please explain
to me why. Here is why I beleive you can:

The mere casting of Scorching Ray is not considered an "attack". It is a
Standard Action (called "Cast a Spell"). The spell does not have any
Targets listed. It has a Range (Close) and an Effect (One or more Rays).
If I follow the description of Rays from the 3.5 PHB (page 157) it states:

--------------------------------------------
Effect:
Ray: Some effects are rays (for example, ray of enfebblement). You aim a ray
as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack
rather than a normal ranged attack...
--------------------------------------------

From my perspective, the order of operation is this:

(a) Standard Action "Cast a Spell" (in this case, Scorching Ray).
(b) The effect of the spell occurs, in this case "One or More Rays".
(c) I then aim each ray at a target. I can choose the same target for each
ray, or I can choose three seperate targets for each ray.
(d) Don't forget, that according to the description of Rays I "aim a ray as
if using a ranged weapon". If I can aim a ranged weapon at an opponent's
vital spot (thus allowing the use of Sneak Attack so long as they are within
30 feet of me), then I can aim a Ray at a vital spot (again, allowing the
use of Sneak Attack.
(e) If I were aiming a ranged weapon 3 seperate times, I would qualify for
sneak attack on all 3 of those times. No matter if I aim that ranged weapon
at the same opponent 3 times, or I aim the ranged weapon at 3 seperate
opponents, each shot is a candidate for Sneak Attack. Since I aim a ray
like I aim a ranged weapon, I should qualify for Sneak Attack on each ray,
no matter if I aim them all at the same target or three seperate targets.

If this is not the correct way to resolve this, please tell me why.

I do not feel Scorching Ray works the same way as Manyshot (in relation to
Sneak Attacks). Manyshot is a Standard Action to perform, but is considered
"Attack (Range)". In other words, it is one attack, but allows for seperate
attack rolls. Plus it is SPECIFICALLY stated that you only apply Sneak
Attack damage to the first arrow shot.

Scorching Ray is not an attack. It is a Standard Action to perform, and is
considered "Cast a Spell". The three rays that fire from Scorching Ray is
the attack part. All three Rays are considered an attack, and they all
require their own attack roll, and it is not specifically stated under the
description of Scorching Ray or anywhere else in the 3.5 Core Rules (that I
can find) that you do not apply precision-based damage to Scorching Ray (or
other similiar spells/effects).


-Each ray would have sneak attack damage applied to it. Good Gaming!



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

I think Darrin and Chris from Customer Service need to get together and discuss this...

 

[Scion]

now someone should send the question again to get some unknown third option.

Customer service really is like flipping a coin sometimes

Of course by sometimes I mean every single time.

 

[Henry]

now someone should send the question again to get some unknown third option.

Customer service really is like flipping a coin sometimes

Of course by sometimes I mean every single time.

Y'see, that's what gets me about rules discussions that depend on a final authority from Wizards: In the end, you're just asking another fan of the game what his opinion is in a tricky question.

I'll go with Darrin Drader's interpretation of this (I'm presuming that's the "Darrin" in question), mainly because I've seen more sources that disallow it than allow it. The real reason is a game-balance aspect: a rogue with multiple attacks of any sort would deal out a level of damage comparable with an equivalent fighter that I'm not comfortable allowing. I'd rather my fights weren't over in one round because the rogue killed the main opponent on initiative 26.