Scorching Ray

[Plane Sailing]

Empower makes it 3d6 per round. Lasts 4 rounds = 12d6
Extend doubles the time to 8 rounds... 24d6 damage. (Avg 84hp)

Shouldn't that be 3d4 per round, for 12d4 over 4 rounds?

 

[Darklone]

Yupp, Plane is right. And I would rule as a DM that you can hop into a river to wash it off.

 

[Scion]

Duration: 1 round +1/3 levels

level 12 sorcerer = 5 round duration.

extended = 10 round duration

empowered = 2d4*1.5

=10*(2d4*1.5), avg = 75

Not great, but it will definately put a nice hole in a wall assuming that acid damage does indeed ignore hardness.

And as for the sneak attack thing, hasnt it always been that you get only one sneak attack damage per 'attack'? Which means that even though you get multiple attack rolls, it is still just a single 'attack' from the spell so you only get sneak attack damage on one of them. Something about percission and such

I know that is how it worked for all of the lesser orb spells, I see no reason why it would be different for the scorching ray.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, SA is applied to an attack, not to an attack roll or somesuch.

Scorching Ray, even when hitting multiple targets, or one target multiple times, is still one attack.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hardhead]

Yep, SA is applied to an attack, not to an attack roll or somesuch.

Scorching Ray, even when hitting multiple targets, or one target multiple times, is still one attack.

Bye
Thanee

It doesn't say that anywhere that I can find. The "sneak attack" entry makes no mention of it, the "touch attacks" entry make no mention of it, and the entry under "rays" makes no mention of it either.

Now, this used to be a rule in 3E, a rule that came from the weird way shuriken acted. However, shuriken were changed in 3.5, and the rule is gone so you don't have any weird special exceptions anymore.

And though this isn't direct proof, if what you're saying was a standard rule, then you'd also expect Manyshot to have different wording. It has special rules about precision-based damage only applying once, but doesn't say anything like "since Manyshot is considered to be one attack..." If what you say is true, the first line of Manyshot's special entry doesn't even need to exist.

 

[jgsugden]

If what you say is true, the first line of Manyshot's special entry doesn't even need to exist.

Need to exist? No. But it does clarify things for people that do not know the rules too well, especially with regards to fairly rare issues like this one.

We have a 3.0 rule. There is no evidence that the rule was changed in 3.5. If you consider balance reasons, it makes sense for the rule to remain. Allowing multiple instances of sneak attack damage to be inflicted in a standard action is a bad idea as it creates too much damage for a single attack trigger.

If you and your DM want to use it, be prepared for excessive damage being dealt. This tends to be fine with a player ... until the DM uses it on him and kills his PC in 1 round.

 

[Hardhead]

Need to exist? No. But it does clarify things for people that do not know the rules too well, especially with regards to fairly rare issues like this one.

That's true, which is why I said it didn't directly support my argument.

We have a 3.0 rule. There is no evidence that the rule was changed in 3.5.

The rulebook does not have to specifically repeal a rule. It merely has to not mention it anymore. It does that in a lot of places, too. It doens't specifically repeal Wilderness Lore as a skill, it just doesn't mention it anymore. It doesn't specifically repeal the fact that you only get characters with NPC levels from the Leadership feat, it just doesn't mention it anymore. If a rule is specifically left out from the 3.5 rulebooks, the default assumption should be that they meant to leave it out.

If you consider balance reasons, it makes sense for the rule to remain. Allowing multiple instances of sneak attack damage to be inflicted in a standard action is a bad idea as it creates too much damage for a single attack trigger.

If you and your DM want to use it, be prepared for excessive damage being dealt. This tends to be fine with a player ... until the DM uses it on him and kills his PC in 1 round.

Oh, I agree there. Our group only allows one sneak attack per round, to keep Improved Invisibility'd rogues from making full round attacks that kill pretty much everyone. But that's a house rule.

 

[shilsen]

Here's a question - does energy resistance count against each of the separate rays from scorching ray (if used against one creature)? If so, that would substantially lower its power level, since a creature with fire resistance 10, for example, would take only 4d6-10 from each ray.

 

[Scion]

Each, yes

 

[Darklone]

So, you argue that several scorching rays come from a standard action, while several attacks must come from a full attack action... therefore the standard action would allow only one sneak attack, the full attack action would allow several sneak attacks...

Guess that's a rather valid interpretation. Hmm. I feel free to houserule though. Sneak attack is too easily countered to nerf it in that way.