Is Scorching Ray Too Good?

[Saeviomagy]

Yup. The sneak attack quote above speaks about an attack. Fireball is not an attack in the D&D rules sense.

Please find the phrase "attack" in the glossary as it relates specifically to only those attacks which require an attack roll.

Specifically note that the description of dexterity (at least in the srd) includes:
"Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly"

Also note things like breath weapons being attacks along with death attacks and the like. Or bullrush which requires no attack roll...

Frankly there's nowhere in the core rules that says "the only things considered attacks are those which have attack rolls".

 

[Al'Kelhar]

The d&d world seems to ignore the existance of bases, or at least treats both acids and bases as the same thing.

The second half of this sentence if correct. The energy type "acid" in D&D equates to any corrosive substance, including what chemists call alkalis (hydroxides). For the purposes of the D&D game there is very little need to differentiate. As soon as you start attempting to use modern science to explain D&D things, you're on a slippery slope to disaster (how would Einstein explain teleport f'rinstance). Carrying around a great tub of sodium hydroxide is not going to save you from the effect of the green dragon breath or the acid arrow spell. What might save you from the long-term effects of the latter is jumping into a big pool of water - because of dilution. This is obviously a DM call.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Liquidsabre]

My point was - the original designation of sneak attack is so vague that MM IS a valid attack for the purposes of sneak attack. Specifically the original writeup just says that

a) The rogue must make an attack
b) The rogue must be within 30ft for a ranged attack
c) the various concerns about being flat-footed and the like

At which point sneak attack damage is applied

I was trying to prove that you need to use the 3.0 clarifications to have any degree of sanity. It just so happens that those clarifications include the rules on volleys.

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.

 

[apsuman]

Originally Posted by Saeviomagy
My point was - the original designation of sneak attack is so vague that MM IS a valid attack for the purposes of sneak attack. Specifically the original writeup just says that

a) The rogue must make an attack
b) The rogue must be within 30ft for a ranged attack
c) the various concerns about being flat-footed and the like

At which point sneak attack damage is applied

I was trying to prove that you need to use the 3.0 clarifications to have any degree of sanity. It just so happens that those clarifications include the rules on volleys.

But wait...

If the rogue must make an attack and Riga has pointed out that Scorching ray is not an attack, it is simply an standard action, then wouldn't it logically follow that there could be NO sneak attack damage to a scorching ray?

 

[Thanee]

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

Bye
Thanee

 

[Prism]

Why penalize a player (character) for being creative?

You shouldn't but with your ruling a creative player will be getting up to 9 fully sneakable ranged touch attacks all at their highest attack bonus and all for a single standard action. The twin spell feat lets you cast the spell twice for a 6th level slot and a cheap metamagic quicken (1st-3rd) nets you another spell. This could range anywhere from an extra 27d6 to 72d6 damage on an opponent which is a little OTT for a 6th and 2nd level slot

And there are many ways for a character to get sneak attacks, especially as a caster. Obscuring mist/solid fog with blindsight, grease (balancing), blink, improved blink, greater invisibility, evards tenticles (grapple) are some good options

 

[RigaMortus]

Wizard 11/Rogue 2 - 15d6 (3 5d6 rays), Base to Hit +6 (not including mods)

I thought we were assuming the Character would want to get into Arcane Trickster ASAP. And the soonest they could get Imp. Sneak Attack is at character level 13. Sure, if he went 11 levels as a Wizard, he could do more damage, but at level 11 you have a lot more better spells (save vs. die one for example) than to worry about maximizing your Scorching Ray Sneak Attack damage...

 

[mikebr99]

And there are many ways for a character to get sneak attacks, especially as a caster. Obscuring mist/solid fog with blindsight, grease (balancing), blink, improved blink, greater invisibility, evards tenticles (grapple) are some good options

I'll add the sniping mechanic (see hide skill) to that list also.


Mike

 

[RigaMortus]

You shouldn't but with your ruling a creative player will be getting up to 9 fully sneakable ranged touch attacks all at their highest attack bonus and all for a single standard action. The twin spell feat lets you cast the spell twice for a 6th level slot and a cheap metamagic quicken (1st-3rd) nets you another spell. This could range anywhere from an extra 27d6 to 72d6 damage on an opponent which is a little OTT for a 6th and 2nd level slot

And there are many ways for a character to get sneak attacks, especially as a caster. Obscuring mist/solid fog with blindsight, grease (balancing), blink, improved blink, greater invisibility, evards tenticles (grapple) are some good options

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?

 

[RigaMortus]

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,

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

casting a spell where no attack rolls are made fail to meet the requirements for sneak attack in the PHB.

The casting of Scorching Ray leads to the requirement of making one or more attack rolls. Therefore, you meet a requirement of Sneak Attack.

No need for FAQ for that one, it's only when getting spells such as scorching ray that the FAQ need be referenced.

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

But wait...

If the rogue must make an attack and Riga has pointed out that Scorching ray is not an attack, it is simply an standard action, then wouldn't it logically follow that there could be NO sneak attack damage to a scorching ray?

Right, Scorching Ray is not an attack. The effect(s) of Scorching Ray is an attack. You do not get Sneak Attack damage upon casting Scorching Ray. You do get Sneak Attack damage for each attack (ie each Ray).