One spell, 135d6 damage?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Before posting here, I made a reasonably extensive search of the 3.5 core books and Tome and Blood, and couldn't find anything addressing the situation. It's similarly absent from the most recent FAQ. It's funny that everyone seems to be familiar with a rule that (as best I can tell) never saw print before this month. I'm glad to know they finally addressed it in the Complete Arcane. Thanks for your input everyone.

I think it may be in the 3.0 FAQ. We are just logically extending the clarification on the shuriken.

 

[Ionmancer]

As a DM interested in having a good time but not allowing PC/NPC attacks to get out of hand, I'd read the rule pasted below as such. If a spell provides multiple simultaneous attacks only one of the attacks that "successfully hits" delivers the added damage of sneak attack. Where the rule verbiage below is misleading is in the attack hitting or not. How can damage be delivered if the attack doesn't hit! Just poor wording as I have found many times while reading/re-reading/re-re-reading the rules for the 3.x versions of D&D.

"Some weapon like spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster gets a bonus on damage with such spells (including sneak attack damage), the extra damage applies only to the first attack, whether that attack hits or not."

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Some weapon like spells can strike multiple times in the same round. When the caster gets a bonus on damage with such spells (including sneak attack damage), the extra damage applies only to the first attack, whether that attack hits or not."

What that means is that your sneak attack damage does not apply to your first successful attack, but only to your first attack.

If I cast a three-ray Scorching Ray, and only the first ray hits, I deal 4d6 fire + 3d6 Sneak Attack, for example.

If I cast a three-ray Scorching Ray, and only the second ray hits, I deal 4d6 fire. The Sneak Attack damage is not added, because it only applies to the first attack, and the first attack missed. It doesn't apply to the second attack, even though that was the only ray that hit.

-Hyp.

 

[Shadeus]

I think this was in the FAQ as well, but just to clarify, the extra sneak damage is of the same type as the damage, right? So for a ray of frost attack, the extra dmg is cold damage and for sorching ray the dmg is fire.

So if you hit a red dragon with a scorching ray sneak attack, it will be immune to all of the damage (both from the scorching ray and the sneak attack) because its immune to fire. Is that right?

 

[Yeoman]

So if you hit a red dragon with a scorching ray sneak attack, it will be immune to all of the damage (both from the scorching ray and the sneak attack) because its immune to fire. Is that right?

That's correct.

 

[dcollins]

I think this was in the FAQ as well, but just to clarify, the extra sneak damage is of the same type as the damage, right? So for a ray of frost attack, the extra dmg is cold damage and for sorching ray the dmg is fire.

I must admit, that is not in the FAQ (even though I too have heard it before).

What is in the 3.5 FAQ is the application of this rule to the Multishot feat (and that's it).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I must admit, that is not in the FAQ (even though I too have heard it before).

It's in Tome and Blood.

Someone with Complete Arcane might be able to tell us if it appears there also.

Oh, and Monte Cook has stated that Vile damage is an exception. If you sneak attack with something that deals exclusively Vile damage (like a Vile Lance spell), the sneak attack dice are not Vile damage, but rather are normal lethal damage.

-Hyp.

 

[coyote6]

It's in Tome and Blood.

Someone with Complete Arcane might be able to tell us if it appears there also.

It is.

(Exception: for spells that deal energy drain or ability damage*, the sneak attack damage is negative energy damage)

((*Ability damage, not ability penalties; no sneak attacks with ray of enfeeblement.))

 

[dcollins]

It's in Tome and Blood.

Thanks for that confirmation. You may want to post a page number considering the thread-starter said he looked in there and couldn't find anything (post #10 above).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thanks for that confirmation. You may want to post a page number considering the thread-starter said he looked in there and couldn't find anything (post #10 above).

p79.

"A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell deals extra damage according to your sneak attack ability, of the same type as the spell deals..."

-Hyp.