Sneak Attacks on Rays
- Thread starter Eccles
- Start date
Will
First Post
Petrosian said:
My bad. My math was wrong. Not that it matters, I was, for some reason, thinking you have to _beat_ AC, not equal it. I... don't know why I thought that.
But, ultimately, that made no difference to the core result. The two calculations were still about the same distance away.
Your point, that wand becomes more useful against armored foes, is correct. Assuming heavily armored foes and a very skilled UMD.
I do not consider the difference 'bad', however. Using a magic item that ignores armor seems to me a natural way to avoid the problems of, er, armor.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
AGGEMAM said:
I don't think they need to be able to react -- regaining a Dex modifier is a passive, not an active, occurence. Just as you can spot a hidden opponent if they move when it's not your turn, you can start dodging an invisible opponent if they become visible when it's not your turn.
Otherwise, here's a great tactic:
Cleric casts deeper darkness on a stone and covers it.
Cleric readies an action to uncover the stone as soon as the enemy attacks. Everyone is effectively invisible to everyone else.
A friend covers the stone on their turn. Now everyone can see.
As each of your allies takes their turn, they regain their dex bonus against everyone else. However, the enemy are still denied their dex bonus, since it's not their turn. They can be sneak-attacked with impunity.
The cleric, when it becomes her turn, covers the stone back up. Rinse, repeat.
As you can see, it becomes rapidly implausible. I'm with Caliban on this one.
Daniel
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
AGGEMAM said:
Hee hee!
I trust you take my point, though: if folks cannot regain their dex bonus when it isn't their turn, there's a whole slew of ways to turn that into a ridiculous advantage in combat.
Daniel
AGGEMAM
First Post
Caliban,
I finally figured out why I came to the conclusion that you are denied your dex bonus (if any) for the attackers entire round.
From the Table 8-8 in the PHB, we see that an invisible attacker gets a +2 attack bonus and the defender is denied dex bonus, ok this of course goes away when the attacker is now visible, but later on the same table it says that a surprised or flat-footed defender is denied dex bonus as well, now assuming that the defender was unaware of the invisible attacker I would say the defender would pretty surprised (not flat-footed, but surprised) and will be so for entire round.
Of course this only works the first time said attacker attacks after that everyone will be aware of the attackers even if he turns invisible again, they will still be aware that he is present.
Does it make sense to you ?
I finally figured out why I came to the conclusion that you are denied your dex bonus (if any) for the attackers entire round.
From the Table 8-8 in the PHB, we see that an invisible attacker gets a +2 attack bonus and the defender is denied dex bonus, ok this of course goes away when the attacker is now visible, but later on the same table it says that a surprised or flat-footed defender is denied dex bonus as well, now assuming that the defender was unaware of the invisible attacker I would say the defender would pretty surprised (not flat-footed, but surprised) and will be so for entire round.
Of course this only works the first time said attacker attacks after that everyone will be aware of the attackers even if he turns invisible again, they will still be aware that he is present.
Does it make sense to you ?
Last edited:
Uhh actually no. i never brought multiclassing into it. i was comparing a rogue using a wand of ray of frost at mid-level using UMD to a rogue with TWf or rapid shot against high armored characters.
I wads doing this because more than one post had brought up the myth that TWf/RS and the multiple sneak attacks produced WAY MORE damage than th ray of frost one shot per round option. I felt this grossly ignored the hit chances and so i compared EXPECTED damage to get a reasonable estimate (Again, the argument presumes HIG ARMOR on the targets.)
[/B][/QUOTE]
It's not a myth, it's a fact. You are biased. Melee foes are not always highly armored creatures. Besides, after you take into account stuff like Weapon Finesse, Cat's Grace/Gloves of Dex (having a +7 dex bonus is overkill to the touch attack, but not with a dagger), and other minmaxed stuff, the difference in the attack roll can be marginalized quite a bit, which lessens even more when you consider eventually making 5 or 6 attack rolls vs. just one (add another to that 5 or 6 if you want to include haste). Not to mention a few cool items in MoF, like the Mask that gives you a bite attack (another potential sneak attack) and the dagger that acts as a Chill Touch (NASTY rogue weapon). That last one (a weapon my pc would like
) should make a few of you wince in pain. A full attack action using touch attacks + sneak attacks (assuming the conditions were met)!I play a mc'ed rogue/wizard/fighter/ranger/temple raider (please, no ignorant munchkin comments...unless you've played in our campaign and read his background, you haven't a clue) myself, who is geared towards melee/flanking. Sure, I've used Ray of Frost a few times, but it is NEVER as effective as melee is. At 12th level, I get 4 attacks/round with my ring of blinking and Expert Tactician. By 15th level, he'll take ITWF and gain another iterative attack, for a grand total of 6 attacks, 7 if hasted. 8 if I get that Fanged Mask doohickey. Oh, and most of these are at my highest BAB, minus 2.
However, our party fights non-crittable foes all the time, so I probably only get to sneak attack 25% of the time. Maybe even less than that. So, a great deal of the time, I am just rolling (and rolling and rolling...) a LOT for the miss chances and attack rolls, and all I get for that (right now) is a possible (1d4+str+weapon enhancement)X4. Also, I've lost out on a lot of skill points, which the party never ceases to rag me on.
I ASSURE you, I'd rather take my chances on the 20% miss chance, AND the 3 or 4 attack rolls I'll get, than fire off one Ray of Frost. I have good hitpoints too; like I said, he's good in melee. I just wouldn't waste my time with the Ray Wand. I pull it out against fire creatures sometimes, but even then I am often more effective just going into melee. That Chill Touch dagger might be a bit too good, but that's easily bannable as a house rule. Anyway, this a little bit of personal experience of playing a wizard/rogue/fighter type over 12 levels. If my pc was more geared towards missile fire, then he'd be better off taking 4 or 6 bowshots imo. YMMV.Here's the math for my pc: W/Cat's Grace, he usually has a +7 Dex bonus (could be +8 if 4 is rolled), +8/3 BAB, 2 +2 daggers, +2 flanking, +2 invisible/blinking...equals a +21 to hit. Also, sometimes the cleric will cast prayer/bless or something to boost that a bit higher. Let's assume a 30 AC here (10 from Fullplate +2, 4 from a Shield +2, +1 Dex, +3 Ring of Protection, +2 Amulet of Natural Armor). So, that's a touch AC of 14. My damage on an attack is 1d4 +2str+4d6SA=average 18.5. With the Ray, I can expect to do 1.75+14=15.75 damage, 14.875 on a successfull save.
I get 4 attacks on a full attack, at +19/19/19/14, vs. the +17 with the Ray of Frost. So, with the Ray, I can expect to do .95x15.75=14.9625, and 14.13125 if the save is made. With the daggers, it is more complicated.
I have a 50%/50%/50%/25% chance of hitting, but while blinking, these go down to 40/40/40/20%. So, I can expect to do:
.4x18.5x3 + .2x18.5 = 25.9. Now, add in crits, and this number increases much more in relation to criting with a ray. Correct me if my math is wrong, but this seems like a no-brainer to me. And, it only gets worse when I get more attacks. Granted, this is specific to my PC, but then, that's all that really matters now isn't it?
Note, that we like high magic campaigns, so we probably have more than the listed treasure in the DMG. However, the monster's are that much nastier, so it balances out. For example, I scored that sweet ring of blinking after we barely managed to defeat a vampire with whirlwind attack who wore it and nearly killed our entire 7 member party single-handedly. We were about 7th level, maybe 8th.Now, the Arcane Trickster is a different story. Many feel that class is overpowered. I haven't actually read it, so I can only comment on what I've heard through the boards. It doesn't seem overly powerful to me to be able to cast a spell at 75% or so of the power of a normal wizard, just to get one (maybe 2) sneak attack(s) off. You can't cast as well as a wizard (never will), and you can't attack or use skills as well as a rogue. It's a neat combo, but doesn't seem to be too much. I could be wrong, as we have never playtested this class.
As for this rogue, he's gonna stick to daggers, hope, and good luck.
And Petrosian, in my example before, I was pointing out the weaknesses of sneak attack (touch or non-touch) to show that it isn't overpowered in ANY form. That's quite relative to a discussion on the balance issue of a specific form of sneak attack. Also, I listed Dispel Magic to use against invisibility, NOT for use against a silly Ray (a wasted readied action). Also, there's another addition to the list, in Dust of Appearance. I'm sure many mid-high level fighters will be carrying around a pouch or 2 of this. Ok, I'm done.[crowd roars]
AGGEMAM said:
Surpise only applies when combat starts, before the first round.
Flat-footed only applies during the first round of combat, before your first action.
They never apply at any other time.
Invisibility may help you achieve initial surprise when combat starts, but after combat has started you can't "surprise" someone, even if you were invisible the whole time.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
