Is Scorching Ray Too Good?

[RigaMortus]

Yes, you are right, Riga.

I'm basing it entirely on 3.0

The same rules set upon which all of 3.5 is based on.

It is the same mechics as 3.0, but with minor tweaks. For example, they removed the range restriction (target within 30') for applying Weapon Spec damage and Ranger's Favored Enemy damage when applied to ranged weapons/attacks. In 3.0 it was clearly defined, it was in their descriptions. Now in 3.5 it was removed. Did they forget to put it in there? Should we assume there is still a 30' ranged restriction to apply such damage? No, it was omitted because WotC "tweaked" it. I can only speculate, but they probably felt it wasn't that over balanced to do an extra +2 damage on every arrow in a Manyshot (not just the first arrow), to an opponent 500 feet away. They "tweaked" Power Attack, allowined giving +2 damage for every -1 to hit using a 2Handed Weapon.

If you REALLY want to push the issue, instead of just saying "I won't play it that way", then ask the Sage, instead of CAPLOCKING PEOPLE TO FIND IT IN THE CORE RULES.

I'm not sure what you mean about "pushing the issue". My opinion, based on the 3.5 rules as I understand them, leads me to believe you apply Sneak Attack damage to each Ray in Scorching Ray (as the example we are using). Obviously there are people of opposing opinion. I am just wondering where everyone is getting this assumption from. It seems everyone is applying old 3.0 rules to the new 3.5 system, which may not necessarily carry over like other "game mechanics" did. IMHO, it only seems right that if you think something works a certain way in the Core Rules, there would be current (3.5) rules there to back it up. I'm trying to find out the "correct" way Sneak Attack and Rays (and spells that fire multiple Rays) are handled in 3.5, as I do not want to build an Arcane Trickster for my upcoming campaign, only to find out it doesn't work the way I thought.

I'm not asking people to look anything up for me. But I do think it is fair that, if you are stating a rule as fact or official, you would have some 3.5 text to back that up. Am I asking too much? Sorry if that is unreasonable thing to ask for.

Hey, guess what, it wasn't specifically in the core rules for 3.0 either. Just chill, and ask the pros if you disagree.

I thought I was asking the pros by posting here.

Maybe I'll scour the FAQ, and if I find something noteworthy, I'll post it here.

 

[RigaMortus]

From the 3.0 FAQ:

Do I have to roll three times when attacking with three shuriken, or just once? If I have to roll three times, are there penalties on the second and third attacks? If I have to roll only once, is there any reason why I would throw fewer than three shuriken?


When you throw three shuriken, make a separate attack roll for each, even though it counts as one attack. There’s no attack penalty for the extra two shuriken.

Can a rogue sneak attack with three shuriken if she is within 30 feet of a target? If each hits, does each gain the sneak attack bonus?


You apply sneak attack damage only once per attack. If you use one attack to throw three shuriken, you get to apply sneak attack bonus damage only once. Sneak attack damage—and a ranger’s favored enemy bonus damage—apply only to one of the three shuriken that you throw. You do not have enough precision with the extra shuriken to get bonus sneak attack or favored enemy damage.

An earlier question says a rogue deals extra damage with a sneak attack anytime the target is denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class or anytime the rogue flanks the target, no matter how many attacks the rogue makes. But it also says you apply sneak attack damage only once per attack. If you use one attack to throw three shuriken, you get to apply sneak attack. Which is correct?


They’re both correct. The difference here is the number of attack rolls you make with one attack. You can throw up to three shuriken with one attack. If you do so, you’re still making only one attack—even though you’re making more than one attack roll. Only the first shuriken in the volley can be a sneak attack. Note that this also means that you don’t have to use the full attack action to throw multiple shuriken.

The description of the shuriken in the Player’s Handbook says you can’t apply your Strength bonus on shuriken damage. Can you use the +2 damage bonus from specialization if you’re specialized with shuriken?


Yes, you can apply the damage bonus for specialization in shuriken, but only if the target is within 30 feet. Only the first shuriken you throw in an attack gets the bonus damage. As noted before, only one shuriken thrown in an attack has any real degree on precision; the other one or two are just along for the ride.

Is the throwing rate for throwing shuriken always 3
shuriken a round, or is that 3 per normal attack? (So if you
have 3 attacks, you can actually throw 9 shuriken?)


You throw 3 shuriken as a single attack. If you’re allowed
more than one attack each round, you could throw more than
three shuriken; however, unless you have the Quick Draw feat,
you’ll need an action to draw more shuriken and one attack is
all you’ll get.

Again, please note that this is 3.0 FAQ and I agree that is how it worked in 3.0.

From the 3.5 FAQ

Can you use Manyshot with a sneak attack? If so, do all
the arrows deal sneak attack damage?


You can sneak attack with Manyshot. If you do, only one
arrow in the volley deals sneak attack damage.

Again, I agree with this. Note that it is specifically talking about Manyshot ONLY. It does not say to apply this to any other instance. Quite frankly, this seems kind of silly to be put in the FAQ as the answer is stated right in the description of Manyshot. I guess this question really must be frequently asked.

And that is the ONLY instance in the 3.5 FAQ where Sneak Attack is addressed in that manner.

 

[HellHound]

And have you asked Customer Service or the Sage, without the ALLCAPPING?

I have.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I think Scion means a Rogue 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, as a 20th level rogue wouldn't be able to cast a scorching ray unless they got a hold of a staff that could cast scorching ray and he was able to emulate an 11th level caster and having the spell on their list (though really all they need is the Arcane Schooling FR regional feat and a straight rogue coudl be dealing this damage by 11th level).

So for the AT that would be 3 rays at 4d6+8d6 sneak attack (12d6 dmg) each . Still not bad for a 2nd level spell, though multiple attack rolls need still need to be made. As opposed to normal BAB +10/+5, scorching ray looks to be a much better prospect, with more attacks and requiring to hit only a touch AC. Though in order to get sneak attacks at range requires for your opponents to be caught flat-footed, climbing a wall, grappling (eeww, wouldn't want to try that with a ranged attack heh), etc. anything that denies them dex from you while at range. Something that is difficult to do in 3.5, ranged rogues (the most survivable) are alot more scarce in 3.5 because it isn't easy to do.

There aren't too many spells at all that this becomes a problem with, scorching ray appears to be unique as far as the number of attacks available by the time you hit 11th caster level (as early as 14th character level for the arcane trickster or possibly as early as 11th character level for an arcane tricksster with the practised spellcaster feat). This same arcane trickster at 11th level could be firing 3 scorching rays at 4d6+3d6 sneak attack (7d6 damage) each ray. Thats something that'll make any experienced D&D'er/DM pause for thought, what with the AT being able to potentially lay down 21d6 of damage in one round at 11th character level.

Check the 3.0 faq's for these answers or tome and blood.. both will support this position.

The FAQ only states that you get 1 sneak attack per attack, as with multi-shot and the old shuriken, multiple items are fired but only a single attack is made. Scorching ray is different, as three separate attacks are made and by the RAW and FAQ, sneak attack damage is added to each attack (when target is denied dex at range).

 

[HellHound]

I disagree that Scorching Ray is different, as the 3.0 ruling also applied to the Acid Orb spell series, which had the exact same mechanics as Scorching ray, but to an extreme, where you produced up to fifteen different ranged touch attack missiles, and had to make an attack roll with each one, yet only one would have sneak attack damage applied.

But once again, this is 3.0 instead of 3.5.

Personally, I think it would be a distinct mistake to go against that 3.0 rule in this case, otherwise the split ray metamagic feat gets significantly more powerful, and this whole problem starts up with the Scorching Ray debate occuring here.

-PERSONALLY- I'm sticking to the 3.0 ruling in this, since it was not covered in the 3.0 Core Rules just as it is not covered in the 3.5 Core Rules.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Yea, just checked out the Tome & Blood FAQ, and it refers to the Acid Orb spell as a volley, similar to shurikens. Strange, but it is pretty clear that only the first orb gets sneak attack despite separate attacks must be made with the other orbs for the spell.

Here's the quote:

"The sneak attack damage applies only to the first orb in the volley, just as it does when you throw multiple shuriken as part of a single attack action. If the first orb hits, add the sneak attack damage to the orb damage, then roll the save, and halve the result if the save succeeds."

 

[Scion]

I think Scion means a Rogue 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, as a 20th level rogue wouldn't be able to cast a scorching ray unless they got a hold of a staff that could cast scorching ray and he was able to emulate an 11th level caster and having the spell on their list (though really all they need is the Arcane Schooling FR regional feat and a straight rogue coudl be dealing this damage by 11th level).

Actually, I meant 20th level rogue. Enough umd and/or a wand with an appropriate caster level in it

It isnt horribly abusive, but there are some combos that might wind up being so. Especially if there are quite a few attacks for some spell out there.. better to cover it early rather than have it pop up as a problem later.

 

[RigaMortus]

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

Volley Type Attacks

Sometimes, you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as when you use the Manyshot feat. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack.

Ok, I beleive there was a Manyshot feat in 3.0, so I don't know if they are referring to 3.0 or 3.5. It is very clearly stated (in 3.5) right in the description of Manyshot, that only the first arrow fired gets sneak attack, so I don't know why they would clarify it there.

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.

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.

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.

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". 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. I guess if you want to play 3.25 rules, you could apply this 3.0 rule to the 3.5 Scorching Ray.

Anyone have the sages email addy? I don't email him enough to have it memorized... Thx

 

[Caliban]

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



Ok, I beleive there was a Manyshot feat in 3.0, so I don't know if they are referring to 3.0 or 3.5. It is very clearly stated (in 3.5) right in the description of Manyshot, that only the first arrow fired gets sneak attack, so I don't know why they would clarify it there.

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.



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.

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". 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. I guess if you want to play 3.25 rules, you could apply this 3.0 rule to the 3.5 Scorching Ray.

Anyone have the sages email addy? I don't email him enough to have it memorized... Thx

I think you are trying to be more technically precise with the language than the designers are.

A volley is multiple attack rolls as part of a single attack. Casting an attack spell is one form of attack (a magical attack). It is supposed to represent launching multiple attacks at the same instant, of which only one is going to hit the precise spot you are aiming for. The others all hit nearby (or miss) and are not eligible for "precision based damage" modifiers.

3.0 shuriken, the various "Orb" spells, and the 3.5 scorching ray are all "Volley" type attacks.

The 3.5 version of Manyshot is one attack roll, multiple arrows. It's uses a different mechanic than the volley (although it represents the same concept) which is why it has it's own sneak attack limitation. I believe the 3.0 version of Manyshot was a volley.

In 3.5 the ranger favored enemy damage bonus changed, and does not seem to be "precision" based any longer.

And regardless of all that, sneak attacks are "when you attack". That's not "whenever you make an attack roll", but "one per attack". If you make multiple attack rolls as part of a single attack (such as with when you cast Scorching Ray), then you only get one sneak attack. The Full Attack action allows you to make multiple seperate attacks, so each one is eligible for sneak attack damage.

The point of debate is on whether a spell or attack that allows you to strike multiple targets at the same instant counts as a single attack, or counts as multiple attacks.

I think that the "volley" concept is meant to indicate that it counts as a single attack (even though you make multiple attack rolls).

 

[RigaMortus]

And regardless of all that, sneak attacks are "when you attack". That's not "whenever you make an attack roll", but "one per attack".

Right. But every ray that you fire is it's own seperate attack. You aim them all seperately, and you roll for them all seperately. If I had Weapon Spec (Rays), would you add +2 damage to just the first ray or all of them?

I would agree with your assessment if Scorching Ray had "Target: One or more creatures/objects" because then you are targetting the spell at one or more targets, and the spell would be considered an attack (one attack, with multiple attack rolls).

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.

If you make multiple attack rolls as part of a single attack (such as with when you cast Scorching Ray), then you only get one sneak attack.

This is true in 3.0. Where can I read about this in 3.5?

The Full Attack action allows you to make multiple seperate attacks, so each one is eligible for sneak attack damage.

Agreed.

The point of debate is on whether a spell or attack that allows you to strike multiple targets at the same instant counts as a single attack, or counts as multiple attacks.

I think that the "volley" concept is meant to indicate that it counts as a single attack (even though you make multiple attack rolls).

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)?

I will add "volley" and "precision-based damage" to my list of terms not defined in the Core rules.