RotG: Sneak Attack IV

[Hypersmurf]

I understand the balance aspect of choosing to lump scorching ray in with volley effects, except for one thing. It clearly ISN'T a volley as he's defined it (multiple hits with one die roll).

Uh-uh - he hasn't said "one die roll". He's said "multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack".

3E Shuriken made multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack... but you rolled a separate die for each one.

You're right - Scorching Ray doesn't fit the "multiple hits with one die roll" definition. But you're also wrong - that's not how Skip defined a volley.

I would say Double Toss, Palm Throw, and Two with One Blow abilities of the CW Master Thrower all fit the volley definition... even though only Palm Throw actually uses a single attack roll.

Edit - actually, on second reading, I'd say Scorching Ray fits Skip's definition, but Manyshot doesn't, since Manyshot doesn't actually involve multiple attack rolls at all, and "multiple attack rolls" is part of his definition...

If only they had said something like "Sometimes, you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same action..."

Urk. No. Because the first thing that brings to mind is the fact that iterative attacks are multiple attack rolls as part of the same (full attack) action, which is exactly the opposite impression to what you're trying to give...

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I would say Double Toss, Palm Throw, and Two with One Blow abilities of the CW Master Thrower all fit the volley definition... even though only Palm Throw actually uses a single attack roll.

Good points. I've not got CW, so I wasn't aware that there were many other things that actually did use a similar mechanism.

The use of "multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack" bugged me because "attack" seemed such a loose word to use. It isn't necessarily obvious that shooting three different people is still only one attack (for scorching ray) but is three different attacks (if using rapid shot/iterative attacks etc).

It seems clear that there is one sneak attack per "initiating activity", so one spell can only have one sneak attack, one draw of the bowstring makes one sneak attack, one cast by the arm makes one sneak attack. Two draws of the bowstring can make two sneak attacks, two casts by the arm can make two sneak attacks and so forth.

Do you think his definition does enough to incldue volleys which are aimed at more than target?

 

[Darklone]

Too bad. AT with Quickened Scorching Ray plus normal scorching ray and thus 6 sneak attacks would have been funny.

 

[Firzair]

Hi everybody,
is it just me or are Skips (house) rules concerning invisible creatures getting an AoO against visible foes a little mad? With Skip's house rule it is said that an invisible foe is automatically ignored and by this the foe gets an AoO for being ignored? So the rogue with greater invisibility gets an extra attack for being invisible... nice to know.

Greetings
Firzair

 

[Christian]

Simple definition of a 'volley': multiple attacks made with one standard action. I.e., when your attack is a standard action, you only get one sneak attack, even if magic or a special ability lets you make multiple attacks in that action. To get multiple sneak attacks, you have to be taking a full attack action.

Vat you tink?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hi everybody,
is it just me or are Skips (house) rules concerning invisible creatures getting an AoO against visible foes a little mad? With Skip's house rule it is said that an invisible foe is automatically ignored and by this the foe gets an AoO for being ignored? So the rogue with greater invisibility gets an extra attack for being invisible... nice to know.

Greetings
Firzair

For more madness along these lines, take a look at this thread http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42745

Cheers

 

[DarkMaster]

After reading the last part I am happy to see that I wasn't too far off with my idea of ignoring the flanker. Now it is clear that the see rule of the 3rd part has much more to do with being "aware" of the enemy than simply seeing or not seeing.

 

[Hardhead]

Well, the concept of "volley" attacks isn't supported in the actual rulebook at all, but hey. It *would* be broken if every scorching ray did SA damage too, so I'm not going to complain.

 

[Chroma]

Sneak attack things that should have been discussed...

...but weren't...

1. Sneak attacks from hiding.

2. Sneak attacks while feinting.

3. Sneak attacks from grenade-like weapons.

4. Sneak attack damage from attacks that don't do actual damage.

 

[jessemock]

(Some might consider the negative-energy sneak attacks with spells to be Skip's house rules as well, but at least he got them published in Tome and Blood )

-Hyp.

I'm one of those--at least, I'm one who thinks that it should be made clear that this is a patch on, not a deduction from, the sneak attack rules.

It's been chosen from a number of possibilities for resolution, obviously because he doesn't want some poor bastard taking +5d6 negative levels, but I suspect that someone will wring a bizarre effect out of this precedent, i.e. extra damage in the manner of a sneak attack follows the [whatever negative energy is] of the base damage, therefore...well; I don't know, but I anticipate something absurd.

actually, on second reading, I'd say Scorching Ray fits Skip's definition, but Manyshot doesn't, since Manyshot doesn't actually involve multiple attack rolls at all, and "multiple attack rolls" is part of his definition...

He contradicts himself in the example he provides for his definition. Nice catch!