Sneak Attack + Wand of Scorching Ray vs. Cold Subtype?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But would the Rogue spellcaster gain even more temp hps from SAing with vamp. touch?

Depends on how you want to read it.

You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. However, you can’t gain more than the subject’s current hit points +10, which is enough to kill the subject. The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later.

You can read that as saying you get hit points equal to the base damage of the spell (1d6 / 2 CL), and the sneak attack damage is gravy.

Or, you can read that as saying you get hit points equal to all damage you deal - wherever that source comes from.

I prefer the 2nd reading myself, though that might open up some issues (i.e., what happens when you deliver the spell with an unarmed strike?).

 

[mikebr99]

Depends on how you want to read it.



You can read that as saying you get hit points equal to the base damage of the spell (1d6 / 2 CL), and the sneak attack damage is gravy.

Or, you can read that as saying you get hit points equal to all damage you deal - wherever that source comes from.

I prefer the 2nd reading myself, though that might open up some issues (i.e., what happens when you deliver the spell with an unarmed strike?).

Well... then you are SAing with the unarmed strike, not the spell...

Mike

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well... then you are SAing with the unarmed strike, not the spell...

Yes, but the spell text doesn't say, "You gain temporary hit points equal to the base damage you do with this spell."

It says, "You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you do."

In other words, if I count 4d6 (spell) + 3d6 (SA) when determining "damage do," do I count 1d3+Str (unarmed strike) + 4d6 (spell) when determining "damage do?"

 

[mikebr99]

Yes, but the spell text doesn't say, "You gain temporary hit points equal to the base damage you do with this spell."

It says, "You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you do."

In other words, if I count 4d6 (spell) + 3d6 (SA) when determining "damage do," do I count 1d3+Str (unarmed strike) + 4d6 (spell) when determining "damage do?"

heh...

I would rule... that it is irrelevant how you deliver the Vamp touch... the spell does exactly what it says it does, and no more. ie. no extra temp hps from the delivery method, or for any extra sneak attack.

Though the target is still screwed.


Mike

 

[darthkilmor]

Plus, you can't make a wand of maximized scorching ray. A maxed scorching ray is a 5th level spell, which is beyond the cap of 4th level on wands.

Well then use ray of frost or seomthing.

 

[mikebr99]

Well then use ray of frost or seomthing.

Still, no.

A critical SA doesn't do any more SA damage then a non-crit SA.


Mike

 

[ARandomGod]

heh...

I would rule... that it is irrelevant how you deliver the Vamp touch... the spell does exactly what it says it does, and no more. ie. no extra temp hps from the delivery method, or for any extra sneak attack.

Though the target is still screwed.


Mike

Ah.. But to do exactly what the spell says it does then you absolutely must get temp HP from the damage you deal. Not from just what the spell deals, it doesn't say "you get this amount of health", but from sneak attack, unarmed, etcetera. From the damage you deal. Of course, I could completely understand a GM looking at that and saying "Umm, NO!"

(I've played it with getting sneak attack damage, and it hasn't seemed to be an issue (hasn't been 'overpowered') but I could completely understand someone disallowing it out of general outrage.)

 

[Mistwell]

Plus, you can't make a wand of maximized scorching ray. A maxed scorching ray is a 5th level spell, which is beyond the cap of 4th level on wands.

An Incantatrix could maximize the ray however...

In fact, I believe they could maximize the ray coming from someone elses wand even...