Only one sneak attack per spell???

[irdeggman]

Or spells which aren't attacks themselves, but allow later attacks, like Chill Touch. If you can attack multiple times in a round with Chill Touch (which grants an unarmed touch attack but requires that you make those attacks), then you can sneak with each one.

But now they aren't spell attacks as referred to in the original post but melee ones (a touch attack per se) so the normal rules of melee attacks apply. And of course the character must be doing a full attack in the round in which he executes his touch attack.

Note that a rogue using manyshot has the option of taking a feat so that all of them get sneak attack damage applies. It wouldn't be too far a stretch to allow a similiar feat for mages. Although since improved multishot has enough prereq's that it can't be taken until relatively high level, you'd want to put in something to keep the level of the multispell sneak feat to similiar levels. Probably the ability to cast spells of level X would do it best.

Now I'm confused as to when this could apply since pretty much the spell has to already have been metamagiced in order to get there (twin spell or split ray). Sneak attacks can't be applied to magic missile (no attack roll). Maybe you could point out to me a spell with multiple attacks (rays or such, other than magic missile) - don't know of any off hand, but with the constant number of spells being added on an almost daily basis. . .

Nevermind - I just looked up scorching ray (in first post) 1 ray plus 1 additional for every 4 levels above 3 (max of 3 at 11th).

Now I haven't seen anything that specifically ties making a full attack to using sneak attacks for more than one attack in a round. There is for volley attacks and normally a character can't make more than one attack a round without using a full attack. But this spell specifically allows otherwise (up to 3 attacks at up to 3 different opponents). But they are made simultaneously - interesting use of the word here since it is not normally used.

Need to do some more research on ths one but off the cuff I can't see a reason to say a rogue couldn't apply sneak attack damage to each attack with the spell, at least not in the rules that I've found yet.

 

[irdeggman]

I checked some more.

From Sage Advice
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.

From rules of the game
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.


Now the RAW doesn't specifically address this but making the logic application that manyshot and multiple attacks with the same spell are equivalent then it makes sense. They are essentially "extra attacks" and not part of the normal BAB multiple attack tree.

So for scorching ray I would change my mind and say you can't apply sneak attack except to the first attack and treat it as a voley.

Now if you could get two spells off in the same round. . . .

 

[UltimaGabe]

The reason that spells can't get multiple Sneak Attacks, in my opinion, doesn't have to do with the number of actions or whatever- it has to do with the fact that most spells, without sneak attack, do a lot more damage than a rogue's attack, without sneak attack.

Meaning, a Halfling Rogue wielding a Kukri against something immune to Sneak Attacks does pitiful damage (1d3 base, coupled with their racial penalty to strength). A Wizard, on the other hand, does that same amount of damage with a 0-level spell- and their damage only gets better. True, a Rogue can get a bazillion sneak attacks by taking the two-weapon fighting feats, but a Wizard with high-level Scorching Ray spells does just as much damage. Letting a mage use Scorching Ray (dealing 12d6 damage at higher levels) add multiple sneaks onto that would just be ridiculous- especially when compared to the straight Rogue, who's only doing 1d3 damage without Sneak Attack. See what I'm saying?

 

[Shellman]

The reason that spells can't get multiple Sneak Attacks, in my opinion, doesn't have to do with the number of actions or whatever- it has to do with the fact that most spells, without sneak attack, do a lot more damage than a rogue's attack, without sneak attack.

Meaning, a Halfling Rogue wielding a Kukri against something immune to Sneak Attacks does pitiful damage (1d3 base, coupled with their racial penalty to strength). A Wizard, on the other hand, does that same amount of damage with a 0-level spell- and their damage only gets better. True, a Rogue can get a bazillion sneak attacks by taking the two-weapon fighting feats, but a Wizard with high-level Scorching Ray spells does just as much damage. Letting a mage use Scorching Ray (dealing 12d6 damage at higher levels) add multiple sneaks onto that would just be ridiculous- especially when compared to the straight Rogue, who's only doing 1d3 damage without Sneak Attack. See what I'm saying?

So what your really saying is you feel allowing spells to do multiple sneak attacks is too overpowering to the game?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

My thoughts on why it isn't allowed, and shouldn't be, at that.

1. It would be way out there. Have a spell that does 1d6/level, which you can divine among all targets, making a touch attack for each set. So you are level 10, you have 10d6, but instead of fireball, where everyone gets the 10, you can have one target with 10d6, 2 with 5 each, and so on - and 10 targets with 1d6 each. Now allow sneak attack with each, and things get insane pretty fast, especially with arcane tricksters.

2. It doesn't make sense. They're fired as a volley, meaning they all are fired at the same time. You cannot get the precision needed to sneak attack someone on a dozen different targets all over the place. You can concentrate on one, the others are just quick shots.

 

[irdeggman]

2. It doesn't make sense. They're fired as a volley, meaning they all are fired at the same time. You cannot get the precision needed to sneak attack someone on a dozen different targets all over the place. You can concentrate on one, the others are just quick shots.

Which is what I had said, only leaving out the precision reference which is an important one by the way since sneak attacks are all about precision. The difference being if a caster can actually cast 2 spells in the same round (quicken spell for example) then they are completely separate attacks and not a volley.

 

[Ahrimon]

My thoughts on why it isn't allowed, and shouldn't be, at that.

1. It would be way out there. Have a spell that does 1d6/level, which you can divine among all targets, making a touch attack for each set. So you are level 10, you have 10d6, but instead of fireball, where everyone gets the 10, you can have one target with 10d6, 2 with 5 each, and so on - and 10 targets with 1d6 each. Now allow sneak attack with each, and things get insane pretty fast, especially with arcane tricksters.

But what spell is there that you can split like that? The only ones I know of were in 3rd edition. CA updated the spells to 3.5 and you can't do that anymore. The only spell I know of in 3.5 in scorching ray. There's always metamagic feats to split ray or twin spell. But those come with thier own cost.

2. It doesn't make sense. They're fired as a volley, meaning they all are fired at the same time. You cannot get the precision needed to sneak attack someone on a dozen different targets all over the place. You can concentrate on one, the others are just quick shots.

When you resolve the spell, you get your full attack bonus with each missile. There's no penalty for making multiple attacks with a spell. You can crit with each one and improved crit applies to each missile. To me that says that each missile has full accuracy.

I'd buy the "it's another wacky rule for balance" excuse. But other than that it just doesn't feel fair. The worst case scenario I can come up with is a caster 7/rogue 3/arcane trickster 10. He could cast scorching ray and get three missiles for 4d6+7d6 sneak attack damage. For a total of 33d6 if all the missiles hit. Where as a meteor swarm does 24d6 for a normal caster. Of course a 20th level rogue could get three touch attacks with brilliant energy arrows for 33d6 + 3x weapon bonus on a full attack as well, but that would cost him 3k gp for that full attack.

 

[Ahrimon]

Small side question:
Do you need the BAB requirements for feats like weapon focus, weapon specialization and improved crit for spells? I remember Tome and blood converting the BAB requirements to caster level, but I can't find anything about it in the 3.5 books. If they went back to BAB then my mage won't be qualifying for those feats for a long, long time.

 

[the Jester]

Small side question:
Do you need the BAB requirements for feats like weapon focus, weapon specialization and improved crit for spells? I remember Tome and blood converting the BAB requirements to caster level, but I can't find anything about it in the 3.5 books. If they went back to BAB then my mage won't be qualifying for those feats for a long, long time.

Hmm, I don't recall that from T&B, but Complete Arcane has updated versions of Touch Spell Specialization and Ranged Spell Specialization; they require the appropriate Weapon Focus and caster level 4th.

Say, could a ftr/wiz 4/4 have both Weapon Specialization (touch spell) and Touch Spell Specialization?

 

[Ahrimon]

Hmm, I don't recall that from T&B, but Complete Arcane has updated versions of Touch Spell Specialization and Ranged Spell Specialization; they require the appropriate Weapon Focus and caster level 4th.

Say, could a ftr/wiz 4/4 have both Weapon Specialization (touch spell) and Touch Spell Specialization?

I'd say no. A fighter would still be taking weapon specialization (touch spell) I would let a ftr4/wiz4 have weapon specialization (touch spells) and weapon specialization (unarmed combat) and use the both on an unarmed strike delivering a touch spell. But it would be a normal attack and not a touch attack per the rules for using an unarmed strike for touch spells.