Scorching Ray

[CRGreathouse]

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.

The Sage has promised to rule on this in his next Rules of the Game column. We'll see what he has to say, but if he says he's addressing volley spells, I imagine it means 1/volley... or why would he call that out?

 

[Darklone]

The Sage has promised to rule on this in his next Rules of the Game column. We'll see what he has to say, but if he says he's addressing volley spells, I imagine it means 1/volley... or why would he call that out?

Sooo, he's going to rule on this like he does with the current sneak attack issue?

Sorry. But it looks like I'm degenerating into a strange thing that tries to play the game by the books instead of how it's supposed to be played ...

 

[Caliban]

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.

PHB, page 50: "Basically the rogue's attack dels extra damage..."

That's attack, not "attack roll". You get your sneak attack damage once per attack you make, not once per attack roll. A single spell is a single attack, unless the spell lets you make iterative attacks (such as chill touch, flame blade, or produce flame.)

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.

The rule hasn't gone anywhere. Volley attacks still exist, even if shuriken aren't volley attacks.

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.

It doesn't need to exist. It exists to provide clarification, as it turns your normal arrow attack into a volley attack.

Volley attacks should be a defined term, with all this spelled out. Unfortunately it is not a defined term, and so they try to point out this stuff every time it comes up.

 

[Caliban]

Sooo, he's going to rule on this like he does with the current sneak attack issue?

Sorry. But it looks like I'm degenerating into a strange thing that tries to play the game by the books instead of how it's supposed to be played ...

Didn't you just say you were going to house rule it instead of play it by the books...?

 

[Hardhead]

PHB, page 50: "Basically the rogue's attack dels extra damage..."

That's attack, not "attack roll". You get your sneak attack damage once per attack you make, not once per attack roll. A single spell is a single attack, unless the spell lets you make iterative attacks (such as chill touch, flame blade, or produce flame.)

"Basically, the rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

Uh, it doesn't say how often it does that. It could be once per game session for all that quote tells us. If you want to talk about what constitutes an attack, though, the SRD says (in the Magic section, admittedly):

"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."

So, if I aim three rays at three targets, I'm attacking all three, according to the above. Thus, even if it's only "once per attack," I still get SA damage three times.

The rule hasn't gone anywhere. Volley attacks still exist, even if shuriken aren't volley attacks.

Then where is it? I certainly can't find it, and no one else in this thread has been able to, either.

Volley attacks should be a defined term, with all this spelled out. Unfortunately it is not a defined term, and so they try to point out this stuff every time it comes up.

It would be nice.

Probably, the Sage will use his "Rules of the Game" column to unofficially errata the rule into place, the same way he's apparently trying to errata flanking in his latest column. I wouldn't mind it, either. SA is probably too powerful if you let that work, even though it seems to be permissible by the 3.5 rules.

Incidently, I'm curious as to Hypersmurf's opinion, since he is learned in these matters, and I generally respect his opinion. Hyp?

 

[Caliban]

"Basically, the rogue's attack deals extra damage..."

Uh, it doesn't say how often it does that.

Each time you attack.

It could be once per game session for all that quote tells us. If you want to talk about what constitutes an attack, though, the SRD says (in the Magic section, admittedly):

"Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."

So, if I aim three rays at three targets, I'm attacking all three, according to the above. Thus, even if it's only "once per attack," I still get SA damage three times.

Nope. One standard action equals one attack, even if you happen to make multiple attack rolls.

 

[Hardhead]

Each time you attack.

Nope. One standard action equals one attack, even if you happen to make multiple attack rolls.

Why one standard action? Why not one full-round action? In both situations, you're rolling the die multiple times for multiple seperate chances to deal damage.

Clearly, spells consider them different attacks. Imagine a spell called "Reactive Smack." If you "attack" that a character enchanted with "Reactive Smack," you take 1d6 force damage.

Now, imagine a wizard buffs three people with this spell (cast three different tiems). Later, an enemy sorcerer casts a Scorching Ray that hits all three of them with three seperate rays.

If it's only one attack, would he only take 1d6 points of damage from the first guy he hit, and the second two not have their spells trigger, because it wasn't an "attack?" Of course not. He'd take 3d6 damage for hitting three people enchanted with Reactive Smack. Because all three are attacks, as D&D defines them. Ergo, he should get SA damage to each one as well, since all three are attacks, and you get SA damage each time you "attack."

Incidently, you have not quoted anything that supports the idea that an attack roll is seperate from an attack. Nowhere is this mentioned. There are specific exceptions for things like Manyshot, but it is not a blanket rule applied to all "volley" attacks.

 

[LGodamus]

for reactive smack he would take 1d6 damage, he activated the smack spell not 3 smack spells

 

[Caliban]

Why one standard action? Why not one full-round action? In both situations, you're rolling the die multiple times for multiple seperate chances to deal damage.

Because in one instance you are making a single attack that releases multiple missiles/rays at once, and in the other you are making multiple attacks that follow one after the other.

The first is what we call a "volley" and you can only apply the sneak attack damage (or any other precision based damage) to a single shot in the volley because you can only aim one of the shots precisely.

You can find the rule mentioned in the "Special" section of the Manyshot feat, but it's not specific to that feat. It's a general rule that was first introduced in Sage Advice and Sword & Fist, then further clarified in Tome & Blood, and has been made part of the 3.5 core rules.

If you choose to ignore the spirit of the rules that is your choice, but I promise you that this is how it is supposed to work.

 

[Hardhead]

Because in one instance you are making a single attack that releases multiple missiles/rays at once, and in the other you are making multiple attacks that follow one after the other.

OK, then what if I hit someone with a SA, then cleave onto another, all with a standard action. By your "one standard action = one attack" rule (which, BTW, is not supported by the rules in the SRD that I can find, and you've quoted none to back it up, but for the sake of argument, assuming it's in there somewhere), you don't get a sneak attack on the second guy, even if he's flat footed.

The first is what we call a "volley" and you can only apply the sneak attack damage (or any other precision based damage) to a single shot in the volley because you can only aim one of the shots precisely.

I'm aware of what your position on the subject is. That's been stated clearly. What I'm not clear on is where you're getting this rule from for 3.5.

You can find the rule mentioned in the "Special" section of the Manyshot feat, but it's not specific to that feat.

OK, I'll be generous. Even though it's listed in the "Special" entry under the feat, and you'd therefore assume it was specific to that feat, let's assume that it's a general rule that's somehow been misplaced. It says "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage."

If that's true, and it's a general rule, you also don't get SA when using Rapid Shot, since you're firing multiple arrows. Hell, you don't get a SA when preforming a full round action and shooting a bunch of arrows.

But, even then, it still says nothing about "volley" attacks (which is not a defined term in 3.5, and as best as I can tell, not used anywhere in the SRD) in general. Just about arrows.

It's a general rule that was first introduced in Sage Advice and Sword & Fist, then further clarified in Tome & Blood,

Follow you so far. And, I'd like to point out, I've never argued that it wasn't a rule in 3.0. I've only argued that the rule was removed in 3.5.

and has been made part of the 3.5 core rules.

Here, we disagree, aparently. I'm of the opinion that since this rule hasn't been mentioned in the 3.5 rulebooks, then it's not a rule in 3.5.

If you choose to ignore the spirit of the rules that is your choice, but I promise you that this is how it is supposed to work.

Here... I totally agree. My point is not, and has never been, that it's a balanced rule. As I said, my group limits SA's to once per round (this was imposed when another person was DMing, and I use it when I'm DMing too). I doubt SAs were supposed to be quite as common as they ended up being. The "spirit" of the rule is almost certainly not that you should be able to deal a hojillion d6 damage with Scorching Rays. Your way may even be how it's supposed to work, and they forgot to put it in the rulebooks. More likely, I think, they figured the "volley" attack rule, without shuriken, was specialized enough they could just put it under the only "volley" attack in 3.5, Manyshot, and not worry about it.. forgetting about that new ray spell they added.

But, I'm arguing that, as far as the rules are concerned, it's legal. It's certainly not balanced. It's most likely not what they intended. But it's what the 3.5 rules say happens.