# Is Scorching Ray Too Good?



## Astalanya (Aug 4, 2004)

So we've seen a year of 3.5 and many of its changes. Spellcasters are a perennial favourite in any campaign I've participated in, whether DMing it or playing it, and I've seen a few spells that are considered practically mandatory. While _Magic Missile_ has always been a first level mainstay, I've found another on that "must have" list: _Scorching Ray_.

Seeing it used more often, I have to wonder if this spell isn't a bit much for second level. First, you get more than one ray and all you need to hit is a ranged touch attack. It does pretty decent damage and there's no saving throw. Though a lot of stuff eventually gets fire resistance, that's easily overcome through certain feats (IE: elemental substitution, which you can make a metamagic rod of in most campaigns) or if the DM allows you to change the element into, say, acid.

Does anyone else see any problems with this spell, or am I just looking too far into it? Are there any DMs who have seen to balance it in some way, or is there no need?


----------



## Pax (Aug 4, 2004)

IMO the damage should have been d4 based, in keeping with Melf's Acid Arrow.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 4, 2004)

I got rid of it In my game.  but i am more restrictive on spells on the whole.

It is pretty strong, though the short range hinders it in larger areas.

Ranged Touch is not equal to a save for half IMO, plus you get more damage per level out of it.

lots of things resist fire.

Empowering it has  BIG issues with damage cap.


----------



## Kalendraf (Aug 4, 2004)

I haven't seen a problem with it in my campaigns.  The biggest drawback is the wimpy range.  In most cases when it may have been a good spell, the caster was way out of range.  In fact, the party sorceress got so fed up that she wound up taking Acid Arrow when she learned another 2nd level spell.  This is likely a factor of the campaign, since at that point, a lot of our battles were outdoors, but even indoors, the sorceress was having a lot of difficulty getting to within short range to use it.

I've given the spell to a number of NPC casters and it has yet to get out of control.  Make no mistake, it is a good spell, but it's not broken by any means.  Fire resistance is a fairly common ability or spell for both monsters and PCs as well.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 4, 2004)

I have never used this spell for my own spellcasters, but seen it used by someone else occasionally, and it seemed quite balanced to me (although I have definitely seen it too few times to have a strong opinion...).

What is peculiar about its "balance" is that it doesn't progress in a very linear way, such as a Fireball does which is +1 dice / 1 level. The fact that damage is incremented by +4 dice / 4 levels means that when the increase happens the spell is top-notch, and then it stays behind other spells until it gets to the next increase. What I mean is that at caster level 3rd, 7th and 11th it is definitely a great choice. Acid Arrow only has the advantage of a much longer range and bypassing SR, but is in general worse than Scorching Ray.


----------



## Palagast (Aug 4, 2004)

I'm currently playing a rogue 2/sorcerer 4 (going arcane trickster etc) and just gained my 4th sorcerer level, thus having to pick one 2nd level spell to cast 4 times a day. It was a very tough choice to make, having both Acid Arrow and Scorching Ray to choose from. In the end I picked SR and I'll be buying a wand of AA in the future. I think I'd end up casting SR more often than AA. The no-spell resistance and extreme range of AA both have their advantages for certain (lots?) situations. For the rest I don't think it's overpowered, but it definately is on the higher end of the power-bar.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 4, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> IMO the damage should have been d4 based, in keeping with Melf's Acid Arrow.




_Acid arrow_ does up to 14d4 acid damage, over up to seven rounds.  It requires only one ranged touch attack roll, can be used at Long range, and does not allow Spell Resistance.

_Scorching ray_ does up to 12d6 of fire damage.  It does the damage in one round, but requires up to three ranged attack rolls.  It works only at Close range, and allows Spell Resistance.

On average damage, _scorching ray_ wins, especially considering that the maximum is reached more quickly, at 11th level rather than 18th.  It's also generally more advantageous to deal damage quickly and in large chunks, to aid in attrition and in getting past resistances.  Continuing damage does aid some in keeping targets from using spells and spell-like abilities, however.

IMO, potential damage is the only criterion by which _scorching ray_ is better than _acid arrow_.

At close range, a target is likely to be in melee, and most wizards don't have ranged feats to minimize the impact on their attack rolls.  For a wizard, not even touch attacks are anything close to a sure thing, so it's unlikely that the full damage potential of _scorching ray_ will be reached.

Fewer potential targets have acid resistance than fire resistance, so _acid arrow_ wins there.  (Acid also damages objects better than fire does.)  Likewise, the fact that _acid arrow_ blows past Spell Resistance is huge.

If _scorching ray_ is broken, so is _acid arrow_.  But they're actually both fine.  Just be sure to remember the limitations, and I really don't think a DM can find either spell abusive.


----------



## Darklone (Aug 4, 2004)

Acid Arrow is even more susceptible to energy resistance.

Scorching Ray is strong, but not overly strong. I don't allow E-sub or similar feats though. 

The main balancing factor is the comparison to most other damage dealers at comparable levels. A wizard who casts scorching ray is in range for a charge attack by a power attacking barbarian in rage with greatsword. Baaaad idea.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Aug 4, 2004)

Are people enforcing the core rules of firing into melee and cover? I was always finding my sorceror subject to these conditions and would magic missile instead.


----------



## Blue (Aug 4, 2004)

One big advantage that acid arrow has is that it's continuing damage, which means spellcasters hit by it need to make concentration checks for any spell they cast, even if casting defensively.  This isn't a big deal at higher levels, but at lower levels it's a very important point.

Scotching Ray is the direct fire part of the old Flame Arrow spell, which was underpowered at 3rd.  So taking out the versitility of casting in different ways, dropping the damage cap, and making it 2nd seems like a good idea.

I see both picked - AA a bit more (especially by sorcerers) because it bypasses SR.

=Blue


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 4, 2004)

Indeed, the -4 for firing into melee, not to mention the penalty for cover if an ally gets in the way as well. Yea, scorching ray is a nice spell but nothing to be worried about, certainly balanced with Acid Arrow, False Life, Resist Energy, etc. all great spells.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 4, 2004)

Yes, ranged touch attacks are subject to the -4 penalty, if the target is in melee, and cover as well.

 Also, I don't think that the touch attack is that much more advantegous compared to a save for half. Missing negates the attack completely, a spell with a save deals at least half damage. And the save DC is usually pretty low at higher levels, so most targets will make that save easily, while touch AC can go up quite a bit for some targets (deflection bonuses and whatnot), while the wizard's BAB only climbs at a very slow rate. With the requirement to hit every attack to deal full damage, it is more than likely to end up doing only half to two-thirds damage on average, which is totally in line with a similar spell, which has a save for half damage.

 All in all, I think Scorching Ray is a strong, but balanced 2nd level spell. In some occasions Magic Missile is even superior and in most situations  involving multiple targets Fireball is a clear winner. That sounds about right for the power of a 2nd level spell to me. The close range is its greatest disadvantage, as others have already mentioned.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## dcollins (Aug 4, 2004)

Personally, I do think that _scorching ray_ is too powerful. But I'm pretty conservative, and generally don't like the radical spell list changes in 3.5 -- I'm used to 2nd level spells being utility slots and not damage-dealers.

The spell came in 2nd place in a poll I ran recently, being preferred more than any spell except _invisibility_ at that level:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2305


----------



## Darklone (Aug 4, 2004)

I think Magic Missile is worse


----------



## Thanee (Aug 4, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> The spell came in 2nd place in a poll I ran recently, ...



 With the current votes, See Invisibility is 2nd, also Alter Self and Mirror Image are about the same level.

 So, according to the poll, it is right up there with the best 2nd level spells. That makes it a good spell, but not an overpowered spell.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Pax (Aug 4, 2004)

wilder_jw said:
			
		

> _Acid arrow_ does up to 14d4 acid damage, over up to seven rounds.  It requires only one ranged touch attack roll, can be used at Long range, and does not allow Spell Resistance.



  Average damage 5 per round (10 in the first round), or 35 total.  Optimum damage is 56.



> _Scorching ray_ does up to 12d6 of fire damage.  It does the damage in one round, but requires up to three ranged attack rolls.  It works only at Close range, and allows Spell Resistance.



  Average damage 14 per bolt, or 42 total ... _in a single round_.  Optimum damage is 72.

  Against the appropriate energy resistance at (5) or higher, MAA is generally useless, while SR retains SOME damage (against Resistance(10), MAA can't hope to do a single point; SRay on *average* still does 4 per bolt.



> IMO, potential damage is the only criterion by which _scorching ray_ is better than _acid arrow_.



  Not so.  Consider the result of a critical hit - only possible once, for +4d4[acid] damage, with MAA.  But, it's possible up to three times with SRay, for +4d6 _each_.  With a few lucky rolls, it's _possible_ (though admittedly unlikely) to *double* the damage output of a Scorching Ray.



> At close range, a target is likely to be in melee, and most wizards don't have ranged feats to minimize the impact on their attack rolls.  For a wizard, not even touch attacks are anything close to a sure thing, so it's unlikely that the full damage potential of _scorching ray_ will be reached.



  Really?  Funny, at ~11th level, "touch attack" against most creatures and foes is likely to be against AC10-ish,which means 75% of all attacks will hit, _if the wizard has no bonusses other than his inherent BAB_.


----------



## Patlin (Aug 4, 2004)

The power also varies significantly based on character type.  An arcane trickster with point blank shot and precise shot is all about the ranged touch attacks, and can get a lot of use out of Scorching Ray.  (Even though the sneak attack damage is only on the first ray.)  Such a character needs to be within close range to be most effective anyway.


----------



## dcollins (Aug 4, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> With the current votes, See Invisibility is 2nd, also Alter Self and Mirror Image are about the same level.




Good point. I'm finally seeing a reason to set a time limit on those polls, so the results don't slide around indefinitely afterwards.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 4, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> [ "Damage, damage, damage, critical hit, damage, damage ..." ]




Which part of "_scorching ray_ is better than _acid arrow_ for potential damage" did you miss in my original post?



> Really?  Funny, at ~11th level, "touch attack" against most creatures and foes is likely to be against AC10-ish,which means 75% of all attacks will hit, _if the wizard has no bonusses other than his inherent BAB_.




First, I dunno what games you play in, but in my games, a touch AC of 10 at 11th-level is pretty close to minimum.

Second, I dunno what games you play in, but I consider a 25% chance to miss to be fairly significant.  At 12th level, accepting these numbers, _arguendo_, an _acid arrow_ will do its max damage (10d4, or 25 average) 75% of the time.  _Scorching ray_ will do its max damage (12d6, or 36 average) only 14% of the time.


----------



## Christian (Aug 4, 2004)

I didn't see any mention of it above, so I thought I'd throw in the comment that _Acid Arrow_ has cheaper damage-bumping metamagic options. Besides the +2 Empower and +3 Maximize, you can use a +1 Extend to very good effect. (This was better in 3.0, when you could use multiple Extends on one spell. A 9th level sorcerer could use a 4th level slot to toss an arrow doing 2d4 per round for 12 rounds. But it's still effective in 3.5 with only a single Empowerment.)

One of the fun parts of this is messing up DM plans for recurring villians. Often, by the time an enemy realized he was in trouble, it was far too late to escape ...

DM: "OK, initiative count 16-that's Bart. What do you do?"
Me: "Well, first I'll roll damage for the acid arrow still going from last round ... five points."
DM: "Got it. So ..."
Me: "Wait, then there's the one from the round before ... four more points."
DM: "Um ..."
Me: "And the one from the first round of combat ... six points."
DM: "Wait, isn't that one expired?"
Me: "No, that one was extended-it still has another round left. OK, so for this round ... What the heck. I cast acid arrow!"
DM: ")*#@$&"
Another player: "Isn't that thing dead yet?"
Me: "Yes, it is. It just hasn't stopped moving yet."


----------



## AuraSeer (Aug 4, 2004)

The short range has been a big handicap for the wizard IMC. If he's close enough to fire a _scorching ray_, that puts him well within charge range. And at the levels where this spell is worth casting, he's still so fragile that any threat of physical combat is Very Bad News.

An enemy who's already preoccupied in melee won't likely charge the caster, but firing the ray into melee means -4 to hit and a chance of frying another PC, which wouldn't exactly be a useful outcome.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 4, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Good point. I'm finally seeing a reason to set a time limit on those polls, so the results don't slide around indefinitely afterwards.




Though, more votes equal higher accuracy. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## rrealm (Aug 4, 2004)

I have always been on the recieving end of SR and I don't find it to be overbalancing.  Powerful yes, but not worthy of bumping it to third level.  Since the caster has to contend with concealment and cover, they don't hit often.  Many times they have allies that are in front of them engaging me and they don't want to risk wounding them.  For those that have a clear line of sight from them to me, I usually have a clear path to charge them.


----------



## Astalanya (Aug 4, 2004)

Lots of responses!  Wow, thank you. I've seen _acid arrow_ put to good use, but it seems _scorching ray_ just keeps on smacking over and over again. Though I see the points here. Thank you!


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Aug 4, 2004)

I think scorching ray is often overrated. It is a very good spell... but not until 7th level when you get a 2nd ray. At levels 3-6, it's pretty marginal. The touch attack is still difficult unless you're specialized in touch attacks (point blank and precise shot, etc--otherwise your typical 3rd level wizard with 14 dex is shooting at -1 (BAB +1, Dex +2, -4 shooting into melee) at AC 11 or 12 touch--15 or 16 if there's cover). And the damage is not so much better than other options (Flaming Sphere or acid arrow) as to be conclusive. The big advantage of scorching ray is the way it scales and thus retains its usefulness at high levels (though, my experience playing at 12th-14th level and using quickened scorching rays is that it only works about half the time; the other half my target has energy resistance or spell resistance--both of which shut it down pretty effectively).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 4, 2004)

The modest range means the typical wizard will not get many clean shots.  Shooting into melee and/or over the shoulders of his ally will cause a lot of misses.

I am playing an 11th level wizard in a converted G2.  The damage potential against Frost Giants looks very impressive for a 2nd level spell, but it is not a stand out compared to my other options in our very short & violent combats.


----------



## Rel (Aug 4, 2004)

Christian said:
			
		

> DM: "OK, initiative count 16-that's Bart. What do you do?"
> Me: "Well, first I'll roll damage for the acid arrow still going from last round ... five points."
> DM: "Got it. So ..."
> Me: "Wait, then there's the one from the round before ... four more points."
> ...




*Evil Grin*

Christian, when the ENWorlders at the upcoming North Carolina Game Day start to hate on me, I'm gonna' say, "Don't hate me.  Hate Christian.  He's the evil genius that came up with the Acid Arrow/Extend gambit."


----------



## Christian (Aug 4, 2004)

Wish I could take credit, but I got the idea from someone else here, a long time back. I can confirm that it works in practice, though. Especially when the DM thinks that a troll with a bunch of fighter levels will be a tough opponent for your party, and your sorcerer has a whole bunch of unused second & third-level spell slots.


----------



## dcollins (Aug 4, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Though, more votes equal higher accuracy.




Actually, I would presume otherwise. You want a sample a particular point in time, not months or a year later when people are responding to a different supplement environment (new classes, spells, feats, monsters), or making new accounts and forgetting they voted before, etc.


----------



## Felix (Aug 5, 2004)

This thread has convinced my 10th level wizard to pick up _Acid Arrow_ at the next chance, and to leave _Scorching Ray_ alone. And with my Rod of Extend Spell... Heh heh heh.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 5, 2004)

Praise to the gods you are still alive, by 10th level you should be hitting all sorts of SR nasties. For the love of pete, you GOTTA have acid arrow man! For the sake of your party man! Think of the hafling, think of the halfling!!!! *runs off screaming*


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Aug 5, 2004)

Oh, a second thought: the primary thing that makes scorching ray look good is the generally pathetic nature of nearly all the other second level attack spells.

Acid Arrow: Yuck! If I'm going to do damage, I want to do it NOW. Battles are generally finished in two to four rounds and are often over at the end of the first round. If the bad guy would be dead five times over instead of one time over in six rounds, it doesn't much matter. (Anyway, the earlier in combat you deal the damage, the more significant it is--2d4 points of damage in round 10 just isn't as significant as 2d4 points of damage in round 2). After level four or so, I'd rather have magic missile in the second level slot than Acid Arrow. (And I'd definitely rather have an Empowered Magic Missile than an extended acid arrow). Lesser Energy Orb would do too.

Flaming Sphere: pretty good from levels two through five. Acceptable at level six, and after that, I'd rather have Magic Missile in the slot than Flaming Sphere.

Scorching Ray is about the only 2nd level damage spell left. . . and as I said, first level damage spells often look good in comparison to the others.


----------



## Victim (Aug 5, 2004)

Acid Arrow is good when using special hit and run strategies designed to exploit its decent damage potential over time (especially when extended), or when fighting enemies that require SR: NO!! like Golems and such.  

Scorching Ray damage is immediate so it's more useful in normal battles.  The spell runs pretty close to the DMG damage guides for a single target spell - the total damage is higher, but it requires success on multiple rolls for full effect.


----------



## Pax (Aug 5, 2004)

Scorching Ray is not subject to being dispelled in the next round to eliminate 80% or more of it's damage potential.

Acid Arrow *is*.


----------



## The Souljourner (Aug 6, 2004)

You can't compare Acid Arrow and Scorching Ray.  Why?  Because Acid Arrow is a very narrowly focused spell.  When it's good, it'll be great, but most of the time, it sucks.  In fact, I'd say 95% of the time, it sucks.  Why?  Because damage over time is not nearly as useful as damage *now*.  When you start a battle... every round you *don't* cast your AA, you're losing 2d4 damage.  If you hit a guy with only 8 hitpoints left and he dies in the first hit, you've wasted many many rounds of damage.... it's just not that great.  Saying Scorching Ray is better than Acid Arrow is like saying Fireball is better than Secret Page.  Of course it is, it's made to be.

Scorching Ray is made to be the main 2nd level damage spell, like magic missile and fireball.

Now that being said, I've seen scorching ray miss far too often to think it's broken.  And 4d6 damage just isn't that much at 5th level.  14 damage.  Woo hoo.  My fighter does more than that in just a couple hits, and has a much better chance of hitting.

The extreme short range mean that if you're out in the open, you're often out of range, and have to wander into the middle of melee to use the spell.  If you're in close quarters, you're almost always firing into melee with cover, which means a -8 to hit.  Wizards do not like -8 to hit.

I've played with it, in many games, and it just never does as well as people expect.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 6, 2004)

Scorching Ray potentially does approximately twice as much damage as MM, but it requires a roll(s) to hit and your wizard will have a -8 penalty the majority of the time he could use it because the target is engaged in melee with an ally.

The bottom line is this spell fits nicely between MM and Fireball/Lightning Bolt.  I agree with Elder-Basilisk: it only attracts our attention because traditionally there were no good damage dealing 2nd level spells (although 2nd level spells are wonderfully effective for other purposes)


----------



## Darklone (Aug 6, 2004)

Can't Acid Arrow still be countered, e.g. by hopping into water?

Another "problem" with scorching ray: At 4th level, when the sorcerer first gets it, Shocking Grasp does the same damage. And with both spells you're in melee range.


----------



## Kyrail (Aug 6, 2004)

Scorching ray can be too much depending on who uses it. 

A party of level 2 PC's can take out a level 4 Sor/Wiz pretty easily.  But 1 sorching ray can kill just about any PC of 2nd level in one shot, so I had to forgo it for one of my combats.


----------



## Scion (Aug 6, 2004)

?

4d6 avg 14 damage.. even a 2nd level mage with no con bonus has 6hp.. so if the ray hits it probably wont kill this walking dead man anyway  Plus it has to hit, not exactly a incredible chance there either, probably near 50/50. Any combatant at this point will have at least 14hp (d8 hd, 14 con = 16 hp avg)

Doesnt seem horribly out of line.. at low levels someone 2 levels above you can kill you rapidly at these levels, but they are pretty extreme examples where it occurs easily.


----------



## Darklone (Aug 6, 2004)

Right Scion. Comparing that to the change that a raging charging level 4 barbarian with Power Attack will hit the same mage... with 2d6+17 damage ...


----------



## Olorin (Aug 6, 2004)

My 14th level wizard finds a maximized Scorching Ray to be quite nice. 

Useful when you don't want to use the big stuff to take out some lower powered foes.

But I know that's not really the point of this thread.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Patlin said:
			
		

> (Even though the sneak attack damage is only on the first ray.)




Are you sure this is correct?  Is there a rule written somewhere that states it only applies to the first ray?

Usually a spell or effect (such as that from a feat) states in the description that you only apply precision based damage (like sneak attack) to the first shot (or ray) fired.  An example of this is Manyshot.

However, if you look at the text of Greater Manyshot, it specifically states that the precision based damage is applied to each arrow, even if they all target the same opponent.  You also make an attack roll for each arrow, regardless if you aim at the same target or not.

Scorching ray is just like Greater Manyshot.  You can choose to shoot all the rays at one target, or split them up to multiple targets.  You do an attack roll for each one.  It doesn't specifically state that you do not apply precision based to only one ray though.

Anyway, I'd really like to see the rule that states when you can and can't apply precision based damage.  For my own peace of mind here, heh.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 7, 2004)

Yes, Sneak Attack only applies once per _attack_.

_Scorching Ray_ is *one attack*, but it requires *three attack rolls* (at maximum effect).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kyrail (Aug 7, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> ?
> 
> 4d6 avg 14 damage.. even a 2nd level mage with no con bonus has 6hp.. so if the ray hits it probably wont kill this walking dead man anyway  Plus it has to hit, not exactly a incredible chance there either, probably near 50/50. Any combatant at this point will have at least 14hp (d8 hd, 14 con = 16 hp avg)
> 
> Doesnt seem horribly out of line.. at low levels someone 2 levels above you can kill you rapidly at these levels, but they are pretty extreme examples where it occurs easily.




Yeah I put it back in.  I misread the spell that you get 1 extra ray/4 levels, where it's actually 1 extra ray per 4 levels after level 3.  I thought you got 2 rays at level 4.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 7, 2004)

Where is greater manyshot? Never heard of it, sure isn't core. Or is it an epic feat?


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yes, Sneak Attack only applies once per _attack_.
> 
> _Scorching Ray_ is *one attack*, but it requires *three attack rolls* (at maximum effect).
> 
> ...




Not that I don't believe you or anything  but what page is it on in the PHB that states this?

If I cast Scorching Ray at three seperate targets, I am casting one spell, but attacking three seperate targets, am I not?  Am I only attacking 1 target, even though I am shooting a total of 3?  Can you (or do you) declare which target you are officially "attacking"?


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Where is greater manyshot? Never heard of it, sure isn't core. Or is it an epic feat?




It is a General Feat in the Expanded Psionics Handbook.  No it is not core, but it is 3.5.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 7, 2004)

Yes, you are attacking three targets, but with the same attack.

If you cast fireball, that is also a single attack, but you are attacking a lot of targets at once. Of course, you cannot sneak attack with a fireball, just an example to show the difference between attack and attacking here.

It's the same with Manyshot. One attack, multiple targets. Greater Manyshot is one of the few (the only?) exception to the general rule, that you cannot apply precision based damage more than once per attack.

It's in the FAQ somewhere. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yes, you are attacking three targets, but with the same attack.
> 
> If you cast fireball, that is also a single attack, but are attacking a lot of targets at once. Of course, you cannot sneak attack with a fireball, just an example to show the difference between attack and attacking here.
> 
> ...




This is true, but Fireball is not subject to sneak attack because you don't make any attack rolls.  Same thing with Magic Missile.  You can fire multiple missiles at multiple targets, but you do not apply sneak attack because no attack roll is made.

Another qualifying factor is critical hits (as they are precision based, I believe).  If I hit 3 seperate targets with Scorching Ray and I somehow crit on all of them, is my damage not doubled for each one?

If the answer is *YES*, then why is extra sneak attack damage not added to each ray?  Especially if I am hitting seperate targets and can reach/target their vital spots?



> From the PHB Glossary:
> 
> *critical hit (crit):* A hit that that strikes a _vital area_ and therefore deals double damage or more.  To score a critical hit, an attacker must first score a threat (usually a natural 20 on an attack roll) and then succeed on a critical roll (just like another attack roll)...






> PHB page 50:
> 
> *Sneak Attack:* If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a _vital spot_ for extra damage.  Basically the rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC...




I can't seem to find anything in the DMG that explains what "precision based" damage is, or anything of relevance in regards to critical hits, and nothing on sneak attacks.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 7, 2004)

You can crit on every attack roll, a critical hit would not count as "precision based" damage. That's damage, which is simply added to a damage roll, but requires some sort of precision (usually that damage only applies within 30' for ranged attacks, like sneak attack or weapon specialization).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You can crit on every attack roll, a critical hit would not count as "precision based" damage. That's damage, which is simply added to a damage roll, but requires some sort of precision (usually that damage only applies within 30' for ranged attacks, like sneak attack or weapon specialization).
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




No you can not crit on every attack roll.  You can not crit undead, constructs, oozes and objects (such as a door).  Also, there is no definition for "precision based" damage.  So if a spell, feat, or other effect prevents you from getting sneak attack, it is explicitly stated, as it is stated in Manyshot.



> PHB page 97
> 
> *Manyshot*
> *Special:* Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage _(such as sneak attack)_ only once.  If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.




Also, damage from Weapon Specialization is not considered precision-based, and it is not limited to a mere 30' range (like sneak attack is).  I can shoot someone 500 feet away with my Longbow, and if I hit, they will take Weapon Spec. damage.  The same thing with damage from the Ranger's Favored Enemy.  AND...  I can apply Weapon Spec. damage and/or Favored Enemy bonus damage to EVERY arrow I fire using Manyshot, even if I hit someone 500 feet away.

So:

Sneak Attack = precision based damage (as stated in Manyshot, also you need to strike a vital spot for sneak attack to occur)
Critical Hits = precision based damage (my basis on this is...  like sneak attack, you stike a vital spot when you score a critical AND enemies that are not subject to sneak attacks are not subject to critical hits, and vice versa)
Weapon Spec = not precision-based damage
Ranger's Favored Enemy = not precision-based damage


----------



## Thanee (Aug 7, 2004)

Hmm... might be, that they changed Weapon Specialization in 3.5 (in 3.0 it only applied to targets within 30' for sure).

Critical hits are more luck than precision.

Precision-damage is mentioned with Manyshot, but it is nowhere clearly defined, that's right. Not my fault, sorry. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (Aug 7, 2004)

creatures that are immune to crits are immune to sneak attack

The reverse is not necissarily true.

Being in concelment kills sneak attack and other precision based damages, but critical hits and other nonprecision based are not stopped.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> creatures that are immune to crits are immune to sneak attack
> 
> The reverse is not necissarily true.




Not doubting you, but can you name me an instance this is true?  My mind is on overload at the moment, and I can't think of one.  I am sure there is an instance out there (other than a spell/feat/effect that obviously breaks the rule).



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Being in concelment kills sneak attack and other precision based damages, but critical hits and other nonprecision based are not stopped.




Hmmm...  Ok, I guess agree with this.  It says in the glossary that critical hits hit vital spots, but I guess that can be based on luck rather than precision...

Still though, that doesn't preclude the arguement that:

(a) there is no clear definition for precision-based damage
(b) sneak attack IS considered precision-based damage
(c) no where in the Core rules (that I can find) does it state that you only apply precision-based damage to one attack (within a volley of attacks) or anything else to that effect.  Please someone find this rule...
(d) Manyshot states this SPECIFICALLY within the text
(e) Scorching Ray, which functions exactly like Manyshot as far as I can tell, does not specifically state this.

What I can find (some of which I stated earlier) is :

(1) The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC... (as quoted from the PHB)
(2) "an attack" is different from "an attack roll" and "a ranged touch attack" is different from "a ranged touch attack roll".
(3) Ranged attacks count as sneak attacks, only if the target is within 30' (also quoted from the PHB)
(4) A "ranged touch attack" is still considered a ranged attack, and thus allows the use of sneak attack.
(5) Scorching Ray requires you to make a ranged touch attack for every ray fired, whether it is at the same target or three seperate targets.
(6) Scorching Ray counts as an attack.  Each ray counts as an attack.  If not, then I could cast Scorching Ray while Invisible and not break invisibility.

Please correct anything I may be off on...

EDIT: In 3.0, this was clearly defined.  I beleive it was even in their FAQ.  But many things changed in 3.5, and I am not sure that is the case any more, that you only get 1 Sneak Attack on spells like Scorching Ray.  Weapon Spec. and Ranger's Favored Enemy was restricted to doing damage if the target was within 30'.  But not anymore.  Which is why I beleive you are allowed to stack Sneak Attack on each ray.  I don't think it is clearly defined one way or the other, but if you add up all the clues (like I did above) they seem to point in favor of allowing Sneak Attack.  Just my personal findings.  I'd love a clear resolution to this, because I want to building an Arcane Trickster for an upcoming campaign, and if this tactic is truely not viable, I'm going with a different character concept.

Thanks...


----------



## Scion (Aug 7, 2004)

you alreadyfound the rule, in manyshot.

It may be elsewhere as well, but it is not without precidence that a rule is found only in a single obscure spot such as that.

So, you have the rule, applying it is generally pretty easy.


The scorching ray spell is a single attack. It doesnt matter if it has one ray, two rays or a thousand rays. It is still a single attack. You make an attack roll for each, precission damage is only placed on a single one of them, and all of them can potentially crit.


----------



## HellHound (Aug 7, 2004)

Scorching Ray is at the Strong end of balanced, IMO - and it's nice to have some non-utility level 2 spells besides Mel's Acrid Arrow.

And yes, as has been said, one sneak attack with the rays, no matter how many rays. The old "Acid Orb" series spells from Tome & Blood (to be reissued in Complete Arcane - the lesser ones were reprinted for 3.5 in the Miniatures Handbook, but don't have the multiple orbs option) was the biggest source of debate on this topic in 3.0 days, and it was quite solidly rules on as being one sneak attack for the batch, no matter how many orbs from the spell.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> you alreadyfound the rule, in manyshot.




"The rule", in Manyshot, only applies to the feat and effects of Manyshot.  It is not a general rule, and it does not state that all similiar effects are like that.  This is not a hidden rule like the one found under "Crossbow, Heavy" in the 3.0 PHB.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> It may be elsewhere as well,




Great, show me, LOVE to see it...



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> but it is not without precidence that a rule is found only in a single obscure spot such as that.




Again, the rule only applies to that specific feat, Manyshot.  It does not apply to all other instances.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So, you have the rule, applying it is generally pretty easy.




And I will apply that rule whenever my character uses Manyshot.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> The scorching ray spell is a single attack.




Not true.  According to the chart on page 141 of the PHB, to "Cast a spell" it is not an attack.  It is not an attack type (such as Attack (melee), it is not a Special Attack (such as Trip), it isn't any sort of Attack action that I can find.  It is in fact a Standard Action.  Just as Attack (melee), Attack (range), Attack (unarmed) are all Standard Actions.  If I cast Scorching Ray at a wall, that is not an attack.  It is a casting of a spell, which is a Standard Action, which happens to deal damage.  The "attack" comes in when I aim my Ray(s).

The Scorching Ray spell does NOT have a Target.  It has a Range (25 ft +5 ft/2 levels) and it has an Effect.  It's Effect is "One or more Rays".  This means that, simply casting Scorching Ray (Standard Action) does not qualify as an attack.  Here is the order of operation:

You cast Scorching Ray (Standard Action, not at attack)
The effect of the spell occurs (One or more Rays) within the specified range (25 feet +5 feet/2 levels).

Just so we are clear on what a ray is, let's look at the PHB



> PHB page 157:
> 
> *Effect:*
> _Ray:_ Some effects are rays (for example, ray of enfebblement).  You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack...




So where were we?  Oh yeah, we fire "One or more rays" at a maximum range of 25 feet +5 feet/2 levels.  I can see here we aim a ray just as if I was using a ranged weapon.  So I will aim one ray at opponent 1, aim the second ray at opponent 2, and aim the third ray at opponent 3.  All of which must (a) be within the spells Range and (b) be within 30 feet of each other, as the spell description tells us.

Now what do we do?  Let's look back at the description for "Rays"...  I aimed each ray as if I was aiming a ranged weapon.  If I was firing a ranged weapon, do you think I could aim at someone's vital spots (as long as they are within 30' of me)?  If I was aiming a ranged weapon, do you think Sneak Attack damage would apply?  Well since I am aiming each ray as I would a ranged weapon, this would apply as well (unless you found a passage that states otherwise).  So I can therefore aim they Rays at the opponents vital spots and apply Sneak Attack damage just like I was aiming a ranged weapon.

Ok, now what?  Oh yeah, we have to see if we hit yet.  Once again, let's look at our description for "Rays".  Says here we make a ranged touch attack.  We all know what that is by now.  So we resolve the Rays as a ranged touch attack.

Seems pretty cut and dry when you break it down like that, doesn't it?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> It doesnt matter if it has one ray, two rays or a thousand rays. It is still a single attack.




Each ray counts as a seperate attack.  See the description of "Rays".



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> You make an attack roll for each,




For once, we agree on this topic!  



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> precission damage is only placed on a single one of them,




Where are you getting this from?  As I just showed you above, each Ray is it's own attack.  You aim a Ray (singular) as you aim a Ranged Weapon.  Since there are three Rays, it is like you are aiming a Ranged Weapon 3 times.  If you aim a ranged weapon three times, at three different opponents (and you qualify for Sneak Attack), then the same holds true for each Ray because "you aim a ray like you aim a ranged weapon".



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> and all of them can potentially crit.




Ok, twice we agree on this topic


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Scorching Ray is at the Strong end of balanced, IMO - and it's nice to have some non-utility level 2 spells besides Mel's Acrid Arrow.
> 
> And yes, as has been said, one sneak attack with the rays, no matter how many rays. The old "Acid Orb" series spells from Tome & Blood (to be reissued in Complete Arcane - the lesser ones were reprinted for 3.5 in the Miniatures Handbook, but don't have the multiple orbs option) was the biggest source of debate on this topic in 3.0 days, and it was quite solidly rules on as being one sneak attack for the batch, no matter how many orbs from the spell.




You are basing this assumption off of 3.0 rules.  No where is it specifically stated or defined in 3.5 that precision-based damage (ie Sneak Attack damage) only applies to the first Ray fired from a series of Rays.  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE find me this ANYWHERE in the Core Rules!  And I am not talking about the one instane it comes up and applies to one specific feat, and only that feat (ie Manyshot).


----------



## HellHound (Aug 7, 2004)

Yes, you are right, Riga.

I'm basing it entirely on 3.0

The same rules set upon which all of 3.5 is based on.

If you REALLY want to push the issue, instead of just saying "I won't play it that way", then ask the Sage, instead of CAPLOCKING PEOPLE TO FIND IT IN THE CORE RULES.

Hey, guess what, it wasn't specifically in the core rules for 3.0 either. Just chill, and ask the pros if you disagree.


----------



## Scion (Aug 7, 2004)

If nothing else it can be written off as a balance issue.

It was ruled that way in 3.0 and nothing has changed on that issue for 3.5.

Imagine a 20th level rogue who is able to lob out 3 of those rays for 14d6 each  It isnt very abusive, but there were quite a few spells that would cause problems and there are many in other sources as well.

Precision based damage only works in very specific circumstances, generally outlined in the ability but never applied when you do not have a clear shot. Such as from concealment.

Precision based means that exactly. Why it is not defined in the glossary who knows, I guess they assume it should be clear 

Check the 3.0 faq's for these answers or tome and blood.. both will support this position. Hopefully the new arcane book will as well.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Yes, you are right, Riga.
> 
> I'm basing it entirely on 3.0
> 
> The same rules set upon which all of 3.5 is based on.




It is the same mechics as 3.0, but with minor tweaks.  For example, they removed the range restriction (target within 30') for applying Weapon Spec damage and Ranger's Favored Enemy damage when applied to ranged weapons/attacks.  In 3.0 it was clearly defined, it was in their descriptions.  Now in 3.5 it was removed.  Did they forget to put it in there?  Should we assume there is still a 30' ranged restriction to apply such damage?  No, it was omitted because WotC "tweaked" it.  I can only speculate, but they probably felt it wasn't that over balanced to do an extra +2 damage on every arrow in a Manyshot (not just the first arrow), to an opponent 500 feet away.  They "tweaked" Power Attack, allowined giving +2 damage for every -1 to hit using a 2Handed Weapon.



			
				HellHound said:
			
		

> If you REALLY want to push the issue, instead of just saying "I won't play it that way", then ask the Sage, instead of CAPLOCKING PEOPLE TO FIND IT IN THE CORE RULES.




I'm not sure what you mean about "pushing the issue".  My opinion, based on the 3.5 rules as I understand them, leads me to believe you apply Sneak Attack damage to each Ray in Scorching Ray (as the example we are using).  Obviously there are people of opposing opinion.  I am just wondering where everyone is getting this assumption from.  It seems everyone is applying old 3.0 rules to the new 3.5 system, which may not necessarily carry over like other "game mechanics" did.  IMHO, it only seems right that if you think something works a certain way in the Core Rules, there would be current (3.5) rules there to back it up.  I'm trying to find out the "correct" way Sneak Attack and Rays (and spells that fire multiple Rays) are handled in 3.5, as I do not want to build an Arcane Trickster for my upcoming campaign, only to find out it doesn't work the way I thought.

I'm not asking people to look anything up for me.  But I do think it is fair that, if you are stating a rule as fact or official, you would have some 3.5 text to back that up.  Am I asking too much?  Sorry if that is unreasonable thing to ask for.



			
				HellHound said:
			
		

> Hey, guess what, it wasn't specifically in the core rules for 3.0 either. Just chill, and ask the pros if you disagree.




I thought I was asking the pros by posting here.    

Maybe I'll scour the FAQ, and if I find something noteworthy, I'll post it here.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

From the 3.0 FAQ:



> *
> Do I have to roll three times when attacking with three shuriken, or just once? If I have to roll three times, are there penalties on the second and third attacks? If I have to roll only once, is there any reason why I would throw fewer than three shuriken?
> *
> 
> When you throw three shuriken, make a separate attack roll for each, even though it counts as one attack. There’s no attack penalty for the extra two shuriken.






> *
> Can a rogue sneak attack with three shuriken if she is within 30 feet of a target? If each hits, does each gain the sneak attack bonus?
> *
> 
> You apply sneak attack damage only once per attack. If you use one attack to throw three shuriken, you get to apply sneak attack bonus damage only once. Sneak attack damage—and a ranger’s favored enemy bonus damage—apply only to one of the three shuriken that you throw. You do not have enough precision with the extra shuriken to get bonus sneak attack or favored enemy damage.






> *
> An earlier question says a rogue deals extra damage with a sneak attack anytime the target is denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class or anytime the rogue flanks the target, no matter how many attacks the rogue makes. But it also says you apply sneak attack damage only once per attack. If you use one attack to throw three shuriken, you get to apply sneak attack. Which is correct?
> *
> 
> They’re both correct. The difference here is the number of attack rolls you make with one attack. You can throw up to three shuriken with one attack. If you do so, you’re still making only one attack—even though you’re making more than one attack roll. Only the first shuriken in the volley can be a sneak attack. Note that this also means that you don’t have to use the full attack action to throw multiple shuriken.






> *
> The description of the shuriken in the Player’s Handbook says you can’t apply your Strength bonus on shuriken damage. Can you use the +2 damage bonus from specialization if you’re specialized with shuriken?
> *
> 
> Yes, you can apply the damage bonus for specialization in shuriken, but only if the target is within 30 feet. Only the first shuriken you throw in an attack gets the bonus damage. As noted before, only one shuriken thrown in an attack has any real degree on precision; the other one or two are just along for the ride.






> *
> Is the throwing rate for throwing shuriken always 3
> shuriken a round, or is that 3 per normal attack? (So if you
> have 3 attacks, you can actually throw 9 shuriken?)
> ...




Again, please note that this is 3.0 FAQ and I agree that is how it worked in 3.0.

From the 3.5 FAQ



> *
> Can you use Manyshot with a sneak attack? If so, do all
> the arrows deal sneak attack damage?
> *
> ...




Again, I agree with this.  Note that it is specifically talking about Manyshot ONLY.  It does not say to apply this to any other instance.  Quite frankly, this seems kind of silly to be put in the FAQ as the answer is stated right in the description of Manyshot.  I guess this question really must be frequently asked.

And that is the ONLY instance in the 3.5 FAQ where Sneak Attack is addressed in that manner.


----------



## HellHound (Aug 7, 2004)

And have you asked Customer Service or the Sage, without the ALLCAPPING?

I have.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 7, 2004)

I think *Scion* means a Rogue 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, as a 20th level rogue wouldn't be able to cast a *scorching ray* unless they got a hold of a staff that could cast _scorching ray_ and he was able to emulate an 11th level caster and having the spell on their list (though really all they need is the Arcane Schooling FR regional feat and a straight rogue coudl be dealing this damage by 11th level). 

So for the AT that would be 3 rays at 4d6+8d6 sneak attack (12d6 dmg) each . Still not bad for a 2nd level spell, though multiple attack rolls need still need to be made. As opposed to normal BAB +10/+5, scorching ray looks to be a much better prospect, with more attacks and requiring to hit only a touch AC. Though in order to get sneak attacks at range requires for your opponents to be caught flat-footed, climbing a wall, grappling (eeww, wouldn't want to try that with a ranged attack heh), etc. anything that denies them dex from you while at range. Something that is difficult to do in 3.5, ranged rogues (the most survivable) are alot more scarce in 3.5 because it isn't easy to do.

There aren't too many spells at all that this becomes a problem with, _scorching ray_ appears to be unique as far as the number of attacks available by the time you hit 11th caster level (as early as 14th character level for the arcane trickster or possibly as early as 11th character level for an arcane tricksster with the practised spellcaster feat). This same arcane trickster at 11th level could be firing 3 *scorching rays* at 4d6+3d6 sneak attack (7d6 damage) each ray. Thats something that'll make any experienced D&D'er/DM pause for thought, what with the AT being able to potentially lay down 21d6 of damage in one round at 11th character level.




> Check the 3.0 faq's for these answers or tome and blood.. both will support this position.




The FAQ only states that you get 1 sneak attack per attack, as with multi-shot and the old shuriken, multiple items are fired but only a single attack is made. Scorching _ray_ is different, as three *separate* attacks are made and by the RAW and FAQ, sneak attack damage is added to each attack (when target is denied dex at range).


----------



## HellHound (Aug 7, 2004)

I disagree that Scorching Ray is different, as the 3.0 ruling also applied to the Acid Orb spell series, which had the exact same mechanics as Scorching ray, but to an extreme, where you produced up to fifteen different ranged touch attack missiles, and had to make an attack roll with each one, yet only one would have sneak attack damage applied.

But once again, this is 3.0 instead of 3.5.

Personally, I think it would be a distinct mistake to go against that 3.0 rule in this case, otherwise the split ray metamagic feat gets significantly more powerful, and this whole problem starts up with the Scorching Ray debate occuring here.

-PERSONALLY- I'm sticking to the 3.0 ruling in this, since it was not covered in the 3.0 Core Rules just as it is not covered in the 3.5 Core Rules.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 7, 2004)

Yea, just checked out the Tome & Blood FAQ, and it refers to the Acid Orb spell as a volley, similar to shurikens. Strange, but it is pretty clear that only the first orb gets sneak attack despite separate attacks must be made with the other orbs for the spell.

Here's the quote:

"The sneak attack damage applies only to the first orb in the volley, just as it does when you throw multiple shuriken as part of a single attack action. If the first orb hits, add the sneak attack damage to the orb damage, then roll the save, and halve the result if the save succeeds."


----------



## Scion (Aug 7, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> I think *Scion* means a Rogue 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, as a 20th level rogue wouldn't be able to cast a *scorching ray* unless they got a hold of a staff that could cast _scorching ray_ and he was able to emulate an 11th level caster and having the spell on their list (though really all they need is the Arcane Schooling FR regional feat and a straight rogue coudl be dealing this damage by 11th level).




Actually, I meant 20th level rogue. Enough umd and/or a wand with an appropriate caster level in it 

It isnt horribly abusive, but there are some combos that might wind up being so. Especially if there are quite a few attacks for some spell out there.. better to cover it early rather than have it pop up as a problem later.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Ok, I found some interesting info.  In the article "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)".  This article came out 3/9/04.  I don't remember if 3.5 was out at this time, so I am not sure if the article is referrencing 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules.  I have the feeling it is still referring to 3.0 rules (I'll show you why below).


The article can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a



> *Volley Type Attacks*
> 
> Sometimes, you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as when you use the Manyshot feat. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack.




Ok, I beleive there was a Manyshot feat in 3.0, so I don't know if they are referring to 3.0 or 3.5.  It is very clearly stated (in 3.5) right in the description of Manyshot, that only the first arrow fired gets sneak attack, so I don't know why they would clarify it there.

Also...  It states that you make multiple attack rolls _as part of the same attack_.  As I noted in an earlier post, the casting of Scorching Ray is not an attack (not an attack action or type).  It is a Standard Action.  The "attack" comes in after you aim each ray and roll to hit with each Ray.  For this statement to be true, you would need 1 Ray to be able to hit multipe targets (like with Split Ray).  THEN I would agree, only the first ray (in the volley) gets Sneak Attack.



> *Spells as Sneak Attacks*
> 
> With spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls, such as the energy orb spells or the Split Ray feat from _Tome and Blood_, you must treat the effect like a volley -- only the first attack can be a sneak attack.




I agree with what they are stating here, but I do not feel it applies to Scorching Ray.  Here is why.  First off, they are referring to 3.0 rules and books.  They are referencing a spell (energy orb) and a feat (Split Ray) from _Tome & Blood_.  If I were playing 3.0, I'd have my answer.

Secondly, it says _with spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls_.  The strange thing is, Acid Orb (from T&B) doesn't have a spell Effect.  It has a Range (which is the same exact Range as Scorching Ray) and it has "Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart".  Scorching Ray does not have a "Target" for the spell, like Acid Orb does.  Instead it has an "Effect: One or more Rays".  Well, the effect for Scorching Ray certainly does give you multiple attack rolls.  But at the same time, each Ray is it's own seperate attack.  I guess if you want to play 3.25 rules, you could apply this 3.0 rule to the 3.5 Scorching Ray.

Anyone have the sages email addy?  I don't email him enough to have it memorized...  Thx


----------



## Caliban (Aug 7, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Ok, I found some interesting info. In the article "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)". This article came out 3/9/04. I don't remember if 3.5 was out at this time, so I am not sure if the article is referrencing 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules. I have the feeling it is still referring to 3.0 rules (I'll show you why below).
> 
> 
> The article can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a
> ...



I think you are trying to be more technically precise with the language than the designers are. 

A volley is multiple attack rolls as part of a single attack. Casting an attack spell is one form of attack (a magical attack). It is supposed to represent launching multiple attacks at the same instant, of which only one is going to hit the precise spot you are aiming for. The others all hit nearby (or miss) and are not eligible for "precision based damage" modifiers. 

3.0 shuriken, the various "Orb" spells, and the 3.5 scorching ray are all "Volley" type attacks. 

The 3.5 version of Manyshot is one attack roll, multiple arrows. It's uses a different mechanic than the volley (although it represents the same concept) which is why it has it's own sneak attack limitation. I believe the 3.0 version of Manyshot was a volley.

In 3.5 the ranger favored enemy damage bonus changed, and does not seem to be "precision" based any longer.

And regardless of all that, sneak attacks are "when you attack".   That's not "whenever you make an attack roll", but "one per attack".  If you make multiple attack rolls as part of a single attack (such as with when you cast Scorching Ray), then you only get one sneak attack.    The Full Attack action allows you to make multiple seperate attacks, so each one is eligible for sneak attack damage. 

The point of debate is on whether a spell or attack that allows you to strike multiple targets at the same instant counts as a single attack, or counts as multiple attacks. 

I think that the "volley" concept is meant to indicate that it counts as a single attack (even though you make multiple attack rolls).


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 7, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> And regardless of all that, sneak attacks are "when you attack".   That's not "whenever you make an attack roll", but "one per attack".




Right.  But every ray that you fire is it's own seperate attack.  You aim them all seperately, and you roll for them all seperately.  If I had Weapon Spec (Rays), would you add +2 damage to just the first ray or all of them?

I would agree with your assessment if Scorching Ray had "Target: One or more creatures/objects" because then you are targetting the spell at one or more targets, and the spell would be considered an attack (one attack, with multiple attack rolls).

As it stands now, the casting of Scorching Ray is NOT an attack.  The attack comes in after you aim each ray.  Each ray is it's own attack.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> If you make multiple attack rolls as part of a single attack (such as with when you cast Scorching Ray), then you only get one sneak attack.




This is true in 3.0.  Where can I read about this in 3.5?



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> The Full Attack action allows you to make multiple seperate attacks, so each one is eligible for sneak attack damage.




Agreed.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> The point of debate is on whether a spell or attack that allows you to strike multiple targets at the same instant counts as a single attack, or counts as multiple attacks.
> 
> I think that the "volley" concept is meant to indicate that it counts as a single attack (even though you make multiple attack rolls).




Yeah, that's what I am trying to figure out too.

I feel that the mere casting of Scorching Ray does not make it an attack.  The aiming of the Rays are the point it becomes an attack, and each Ray is a seperate attack.

Is "one attack" that allows "multiple attack rolls" (Scorching Ray) the same thing as "multiple attacks" that allows "one attack roll" (Manyshot)?

I will add "volley" and "precision-based damage" to my list of terms not defined in the Core rules.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 7, 2004)

@Riga - 3.5 came out a year ago this month. THe "Rules of the Game Series" states the rules as they are for 3.5! As the article you quoted states:



> *Spells as Sneak Attacks*
> With spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls, such as the energy orb spells or the Split Ray feat from Tome and Blood, you must treat the effect like a volley -- _*only the first attack can be a sneak attack*_.




If this doesn't clear up your issue Riga, nothing will. There should be no point for debate here any longer. This clearly states how sneak attacks and scorching ray works. Note the split ray metamagic feat, this feat allows for firing multiple RAY attacks with a single spell (as with _scorching ray_ gets multiple ray attacks with a single casting) and that "only the first attack can be a sneak attack".


----------



## Caliban (Aug 7, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> As it stands now, the casting of Scorching Ray is NOT an attack. The attack comes in after you aim each ray. Each ray is it's own attack.



Neither "volley" nor "precision based damage" were ever defined in the core rules, 3.0 or 3.5. The concepts were added later to deal with sneak attack damage and "multiple simultaneous attacks" effects (shuriken, flame arrow, and orb spells). Regardless, the concepts have been consistently used by the designers since then, even if they don't always get the details right. 

I think the important bit for scorching ray (and similar spells) is that all the attacks happen at exactly the same time. You do not shoot out a series of rays, with a pause between each one. That would be a full attack action.

Instead you shoot one or more rays simultaneously. That's where the limitation on "precision based damage" comes in: you can aim them all at the same target, but only one can hit the precise point you are aiming at.

If you are making an attack roll, then you are making attack. It doesn't matter if the spell is "effect: ray" or "target: one more more creatures". If an attack roll is involved, it's an attack. (Note: a spell can be an attack even if it doesn't involve an attack roll, but such spells aren't part of this debate.)


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 7, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Ok, I found some interesting info. In the article "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)". This article came out 3/9/04. I don't remember if 3.5 was out at this time, so I am not sure if the article is referrencing 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules. I have the feeling it is still referring to 3.0 rules (I'll show you why below).



The Rules of the Game Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) is all current to the 3.5 rules. The 3.5 Players Handbook came out in June of 2003. I compared the articles in that section (the 1st one is dated 1/20/2004, 6 months after 3.5 was released) with the 3.5 books and they match up for what chapters they reference. The sneak attacks part 4 article you reference is for the 3.5 rules.

The article can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a




			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> I agree with what they are stating here, but I do not feel it applies to Scorching Ray. Here is why. First off, they are referring to 3.0 rules and books. They are referencing a spell (energy orb) and a feat (Split Ray) from _Tome & Blood_. If I were playing 3.0, I'd have my answer.



Remember, when 3.5 was released, per WOTC, other books were still compatible with it. WOTC never said that any book that is not 3.5 is not usuable in a game. That is something many DMs have done, yes, but not something WOTC has ever put forward. The Energy Orb spell was likely referenced as it was debated and ruled on specifically in the past.

Now, you will probally refute this as proving nothing as it does not specifically say Scorching Ray anyware. I would personally check with your DM and see how he will rule on this issue before you create your character.

I know how I will rule in the future about Scorching Ray and sneak attack, that you only get sneak attack damage on the 1st Ray.



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's what I am trying to figure out too.
> 
> I feel that the mere casting of Scorching Ray does not make it an attack. The aiming of the Rays are the point it becomes an attack, and each Ray is a seperate attack.
> 
> Is "one attack" that allows "multiple attack rolls" (Scorching Ray) the same thing as "multiple attacks" that allows "one attack roll" (Manyshot)?



Also, per the 3.5 FAQ:

_Both of the example spells _(Scorching Ray and Meteor Swarm)_ have a casting time of 1 standard action and an instantaneous duration. The caster uses the cast a spell action (a standard action), and makes all the ranged touch attacks the spell allows as part of that standard action (not as part of the attack or full attack action); making these attacks is not an action at all._

The ranged touch attacks are part of the normal standard action, and the attacks themselves are not actions (ie full round action, or standard action).  I would argue that any action that is instant (as this action basically is) does not make sense to have multiple sneak attacks on.  How can you be precise on multiple targets with a free action that takes no time.


----------



## babomb (Aug 7, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Ok, I found some interesting info.  In the article "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)".  This article came out 3/9/04.  I don't remember if 3.5 was out at this time, so I am not sure if the article is referrencing 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules.  I have the feeling it is still referring to 3.0 rules (I'll show you why below).




The first printing of 3.5 was in July 2003.



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Also...  It states that you make multiple attack rolls _as part of the same attack_.  As I noted in an earlier post, the casting of Scorching Ray is not an attack (not an attack action or type).  It is a Standard Action.  The "attack" comes in after you aim each ray and roll to hit with each Ray.  For this statement to be true, you would need 1 Ray to be able to hit multipe targets (like with Split Ray).  THEN I would agree, only the first ray (in the volley) gets Sneak Attack.




Nor is Acid Orb an attack action. It doesn't really matter if the attack comes in "after". (Show me in the 3.5 rules where it says the attack comes "after" anything!) It doesn't matter "when" the attack comes. It's still "an attack".



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> I agree with what they are stating here, but I do not feel it applies to Scorching Ray.  Here is why.  First off, they are referring to 3.0 rules and books.  They are referencing a spell (energy orb) and a feat (Split Ray) from _Tome & Blood_.  If I were playing 3.0, I'd have my answer.




Acid Orb and Split Ray are directly compatible with 3.5. I.e., they require absolutely no changes to work with 3.5.



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Secondly, it says _with spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls_.  The strange thing is, Acid Orb (from T&B) doesn't have a spell Effect.  It has a Range (which is the same exact Range as Scorching Ray) and it has "Targets: One or more creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart".  Scorching Ray does not have a "Target" for the spell, like Acid Orb does.  Instead it has an "Effect: One or more Rays".




See, this is where you're being more technically precise than the designers are. When it says "spell effects" it doesn't mean the game term Effect (as the in a spell entry). It means the normal, non-game meaning of "effect". If an NPC calls your party Fighter "a powerful warrior", does the fighter correct him, "I'm not a warrior; I'm a fighter"? I'm guessing no. Same kind of thing. Downside of using common words as game terms.



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Well, the effect for Scorching Ray certainly does give you multiple attack rolls.  But at the same time, each Ray is it's own seperate attack.




This is possibly a valid point. The description of Scorching Ray says "Each ray requires a ranged touch attack...", which implies that each is a seperate attack, though I doubt that was the intention.


----------



## Christian (Aug 8, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Can't Acid Arrow still be countered, e.g. by hopping into water?




There is no indication in either 3.0 or 3.5 that Acid Arrow can be countered by 'hopping into water'. The spell says that it continues to deal damage unless the acid is 'somehow neutralized', but does not specify how it would be neutralized. This is evidently a DM judgment call ... but I wouldn't recommend making it _too_ easy to avoid the continuing damage-this isn't a spell in desperate need of nerfing, after all. (It's powerful enough in certain combat situations, but certainly not overpowered, and as pointed out, it's fairly weak in situations where you need to deal a lot of damage _right now_.)


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 8, 2004)

Heh, a skilled alchemist adventurer should carry arounda flask or two of base. Just poor it on and neutralize.


----------



## Scion (Aug 9, 2004)

how much does a flask of base cost?


----------



## HellHound (Aug 9, 2004)

Got the email from Customer Service.



> Subject: RE: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:22:25 -0700
> Thread-Topic: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms Feedback
> From: "Wizards Customer Service" <custserv@wizards.com>
> ...


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 9, 2004)

Christian said:
			
		

> There is no indication in either 3.0 or 3.5 that Acid Arrow can be countered by 'hopping into water'. The spell says that it continues to deal damage unless the acid is 'somehow neutralized', but does not specify how it would be neutralized. This is evidently a DM judgment call ... but I wouldn't recommend making it _too_ easy to avoid the continuing damage-this isn't a spell in desperate need of nerfing, after all. (It's powerful enough in certain combat situations, but certainly not overpowered, and as pointed out, it's fairly weak in situations where you need to deal a lot of damage _right now_.)



Then again, combat probably isn't going to take place right next to a large body of water often enough to _not_ have "hopping into water" work, for balance purposes.  Unless you're running a pirate game, anyway.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> how much does a flask of base cost?




A strong enough base will do as much damage as a strong acid, just turn your skin to soap is all heh. A flask of Base should cost the same as a flask of acid, funnily enough. In fact, a base can be even more dangerous if gotten i nthe eye as it eats away at the cornea, even if it is just a weak base. Jars of sodium hydroxide always come with plastic stoppers rather than glass because it will eat away at the glass, causing the glass cap and bottle to fuse together.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 9, 2004)

Interestingly enough, quoting from the SRD:


> The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
> 
> Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.




Now, to me, I can't see anything there which says that fireball doesn't qualify for sneak attacks.

Interesting, huh?


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 9, 2004)

Unfortunately there is no _*target*_ for a fireball, it is an area effect and cannot target anyone.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 9, 2004)

How about Magic Missile? 

No, really, I think it only works with weapon-like spells (isn't that explained in T&B)?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 9, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> How about Magic Missile?




MM allows for you to target but no attack roll is made, so again no sneak attack.


----------



## Darklone (Aug 9, 2004)

Yup. The sneak attack quote above speaks about an attack. Fireball is not an attack in the D&D rules sense.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 9, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> MM allows for you to target but no attack roll is made, so again no sneak attack.



 Hey! You weren't supposed to answer that question... 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 9, 2004)

Hehe, I just couldn't resist teasing you Thanee!

(Real reason: Liquid didn't figure it out until after he already posted)


----------



## apsuman (Aug 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> how much does a flask of base cost?




A flask of baking soda should not cost much.  You know one of those flasks with an muscular ARM holding a HAMMER on the front.


----------



## Scion (Aug 9, 2004)

apsuman said:
			
		

> A flask of baking soda should not cost much.  You know one of those flasks with an muscular ARM holding a HAMMER on the front.




Which says nothing for the point I was trying to make. The last guy said it should cost the same as acid, you say it shouldnt cost much, but the point remains that it isnt in the core (unless someone can find it somewhere?)

The d&d world seems to ignore the existance of bases, or at least treats both acids and bases as the same thing.

After all, Acid is one of the basic energy types, base is not mentioned at all. It could very well be that in the d&d world there are no bases 

I believe that in older editions a flask of wine was enough to get rid of the spell. However, given its elemental properties that would seem like coating yourself in water in order to reduce damage from a fireball (or holding a piece of ice, same thing).


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 10, 2004)

Are your bases are belong to us.


----------



## green slime (Aug 10, 2004)

Christian said:
			
		

> Wish I could take credit, but I got the idea from someone else here, a long time back. I can confirm that it works in practice, though. Especially when the DM thinks that a troll with a bunch of fighter levels will be a tough opponent for your party, and your sorcerer has a whole bunch of unused second & third-level spell slots.




That would be of coure, assuming the fighters and you survive the first six rounds of combat with the rending raging troll to actually enjoy the fruits of the continued acidic damage.

IMX, the touch attacks required by the _Acid Arrow_ for 7th level wizards/sorcerers is such that _Magic Missile_ is generally a better option (trollhunting excluded). 

The problem with _acid arrow_ is that, while sexy and stylish, delayed damage is a problem for your buddies, as they will be taking more damage while everyone waits for the effect of the damage to kick in. You need to drop the opponent NOW. Not tomorrow. 

_Scorching Ray_ (at 7th level) will deal 8d6, if you hit twice and you beat Spell Resistance (or 28 damage), on average.
_Acid Arrow_ deals 6d4 of damage over three rounds, if you hit, regardless of any Spell Resistance (15 damage average, 5 per round)
_Magic Missile_ deals 4d4+4 damage, automatically, if you beat SR. 14 damage on average.

Now, let us assume, that the Wizard (BAB +3, +2 Dex) fires into melee (-4) and has feats to alleviate the problem (he likes creating things). 
50% chance to hit Touch AC 11...

25% chance that both rays hit, 25% that they both miss, and 50% chance that only one hits: Average damage for the _scorching ray_: 14 damage...

For _ acid arrow_, the same hit chance: average damage drops to 7.5.

And the _Magic Missile_? Still looking good at 14 damage. And it is first level!

Assume (because the poor arcane user must, he cannot know his opponent's touch AC) that the chance to hit is slightly better: 60% (12 in 20, must roll 9 or better) then:

36% chance that both rays hit, 16% that they both miss, and 48% chance that only one hits: Average damage for the _scorching ray_: 16.8 damage...

For _ acid arrow_, the same hit chance (60%): average damage 9.

And the _Magic Missile_? Yet again, looking good at 14 damage.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 10, 2004)

Yep Magic Missile is a very good spell. 

 My Sorceress still prefers Scorching Ray most of the time, but she has a Dex of 18 now and there is a Bard in the party, so hitting is rarely a big problem.

 Then again, this is just fair, considering, that Scorching Ray is 2nd level, has a really bad range and is fire-based (weakest element, since fire resistance is common) instead of a cool force effect.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Darklone (Aug 10, 2004)

Yep Magic Missile is a very good spell.


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 10, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Actually, I would presume otherwise. You want a sample a particular point in time, not months or a year later when people are responding to a different supplement environment (new classes, spells, feats, monsters), or making new accounts and forgetting they voted before, etc.




Not to beat a dead horse when the conversation has moved on, but I find volunteer polls on this and other websites an oft cited source of information or validation.

Technically both Thanee and dcollins are right.  There is a larger issue here though.

Without question, assuming honest responses, the spell poll is a 100% accurate representation of the population it is measuring.  However, the only population that is being measured is "total population of people who responded to the 2nd level spell utility poll".

Once you move beyond that population -- into ENworld users, or general gamers, the polls accuracy drops to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0%.

To gain accurate information requires a sampling model which is A) random and B) surveyor initiated.  That's what keeps high paid political consultants employed as opinion researchers  .

It's a nitpick -- but as somebody who has worked in opinion research, I find it a personal irritant the increasing number of media sources who use respondant initiated phone and/or internet polls as a valid source of opinion research when neither are worth squat as accurate indicators of population preference.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 10, 2004)

0% is a bit harsh there don't you think? 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 10, 2004)

IMC, sorcerers and wizards used acid arrow well into hteir teen levels, by empowering and extending it.  Creatures with SR start becoming pretty common in those levels, and my adventures tended toward the outdoors; it became fairly difficult for me to design encounters that were fun for the fighters and still challenging for a flying sorcerer popping off another empowered acid arrow every round .  

Daniel


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 10, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> 0% is a bit harsh there don't you think?
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




You're right of course.  I'm just using the well worn internet tactic of making my points as stridently as possible in order to gain attention.  It's why internet messageboards have the reputation for civil idea exchange that they do  .

But since you brought the point up...

...What I meant, of course, is that, without proper sampling tecniques, there is no way whatsoever to determine if a given poll is, in fact an accurate representation of the larger community.  It could very well be that the poll is (coincidentally) 100% accurate.  Equally so 0%.  The fact is we don't know, and never can.  However, as a prescriptive tool, the margin of error of any poll must be taken into account.  By definition -- a non random poll has a margin of error of 100%...and is therefore useless as tool to draw anything more than anecdotal references to the larger population.

Just don't ask me to dig into the nuts and bolts of the math.  I'm not a stats guy.  My work in this field has been on the other end -- in research design.  I'll leabe the math parts to the math pros.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 10, 2004)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Got the email from Customer Service.




I got an email from Customer Service too.  I will _italicize_ their answers for ease of reading.



> My questions are all in reference to the current 3.5 rulings.
> 
> What is the definition of "precision-based damage"?  It is not in the
> glossary of the PHB or the index in the PHB or DMG.  The only thing I know
> ...




I think Darrin and Chris from Customer Service need to get together and discuss this...


----------



## Scion (Aug 10, 2004)

now someone should send the question again to get some unknown third option.

Customer service really is like flipping a coin sometimes 

Of course by sometimes I mean every single time.


----------



## Henry (Aug 10, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> now someone should send the question again to get some unknown third option.
> 
> Customer service really is like flipping a coin sometimes
> 
> Of course by sometimes I mean every single time.




Y'see, that's what gets me about rules discussions that depend on a final authority from Wizards: In the end, you're just asking another fan of the game what his opinion is in a tricky question. 

I'll go with Darrin Drader's interpretation of this (I'm presuming that's the "Darrin" in question), mainly because I've seen more sources that disallow it than allow it. The real reason is a game-balance aspect: a rogue with multiple attacks of any sort would deal out a level of damage comparable with an equivalent fighter that I'm not comfortable allowing. I'd rather my fights weren't over in one round because the rogue killed the main opponent on initiative 26.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 10, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> The real reason is a game-balance aspect: a rogue with multiple attacks of any sort would deal out a level of damage comparable with an equivalent fighter that I'm not comfortable allowing. I'd rather my fights weren't over in one round because the rogue killed the main opponent on initiative 26.




The game balance issue is not that the Rogue can do as much damage as the Fighter.  That is not a problem.  The game balance issue is when you make it trivial for the Rogue to do as much damage with a ranged standard action as the Fighter can do with a melee full iterative attack.


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 10, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The game balance issue is not that the Rogue can do as much damage as the Fighter.  That is not a problem.  The game balance issue is when you make it trivial for the Rogue to do as much damage with a ranged standard action as the Fighter can do with a melee full iterative attack.




That depends on your definition of trivial...  How often can a Rogue pull this off, really.  First, it doesn't apply to undead, constructs and the like.  It uses up a resource (spell slot).  The Rogue would get 1 casting off if the opponent is flat-footed, then after that he has to come up with other ways to sneak attack.  It doesn't work with flanking.  If the Rogue was Invis, he would onlt get one casting off, because it breaks Invis.  If the Rogue uses Greater Invis (or Blink), he can only do it a limited number of rounds.  Not to mention this expends more resources (more spell slots) AND consider the level of spells needed as well. 

Compared to the fighter who can pump this amount of damage out (probably more), every round, to creatures that a Rogue can't, and w/o having to use up resources to do so.  Long after the Rogue/Wizard is out of Scorching Rays, the Fighter can continue his barrage of attacks.

I don't think I would consider it trivial to pull off.  Don't get me wrong, in the right circumstance, with the right spells, against the right enemy, it can be devastating.


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 11, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> That depends on your definition of trivial... How often can a Rogue pull this off, really. First, it doesn't apply to undead, constructs and the like. It uses up a resource (spell slot). The Rogue would get 1 casting off if the opponent is flat-footed, then after that he has to come up with other ways to sneak attack. It doesn't work with flanking. If the Rogue was Invis, he would onlt get one casting off, because it breaks Invis. If the Rogue uses Greater Invis (or Blink), he can only do it a limited number of rounds. Not to mention this expends more resources (more spell slots) AND consider the level of spells needed as well.
> 
> Compared to the fighter who can pump this amount of damage out (probably more), every round, to creatures that a Rogue can't, and w/o having to use up resources to do so. Long after the Rogue/Wizard is out of Scorching Rays, the Fighter can continue his barrage of attacks.
> 
> I don't think I would consider it trivial to pull off. Don't get me wrong, in the right circumstance, with the right spells, against the right enemy, it can be devastating.



One of my friends had this same argument, that its OK because a rogue will only get to use it once in a blue moon.  That is true, a rogue/wizard wouldn't get it to often...

But...

What about the Arcane Trickster "Impromptu Sneak Attack" ability.  Lets face it, most likely anyone who could really abuse this anyways is going to be an Arcane Trickster (as you get both sneak attack and spell progression).

That means that twice a day, a Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, can do 33d6 damage with one standard action, either to one person or divided to hit up to three.  Even though he does have to be fighting someone who is not immune to critical hits, and within 30 feet of that person(s), that still seems very powerful to me.  No other class can do 33d6 damage using a 2nd level spell slot.


----------



## dcollins (Aug 11, 2004)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Without question, assuming honest responses, the spell poll is a 100% accurate representation of the population it is measuring.  However, the only population that is being measured is "total population of people who responded to the 2nd level spell utility poll".




Actually, I understand this pretty well. My Master's degree is actually in Mathematics and Statistics. I've given a lecture in the past on calculating confidence intervals for political polling. However, I find this poll here pretty useful for two reasons. 

(#1) I am _not_ trying to objectively estimate the opinion of the total D&D player base, which is what scientific polling is all about. I'm actually trying to figure out the best spells, which is a subjective issue in the first place. Voting for the Director's Oscar is restricted to guild Directors only, who in theory know best. Similarly, ENWorld has the most active, intense D&D players, who are likely the best informed about power-gaming issues. 

(#2) We can do it for free. With such a small niche population of RPG players, a scientific random request poll is for all practical purposes impossible. A poll on ENWorld stands as the best ballpark representation until someone ponies up several (tens of?) thousand dollars for a scientific poll, which we all know will never happen on an issue like this.


----------



## The Souljourner (Aug 11, 2004)

Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> That means that twice a day, a Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, can do 33d6 damage with one standard action, either to one person or divided to hit up to three.




A straight wizard of the same level can do 32d6 damage twice a day with one standard action using his 9th level spell slots (that the arcane trickster doesn't even get) to cast meteor swarm.  Works on undead, constructs, whatever, and can be done from 1120 feet away.

-The Souljourner


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 11, 2004)

Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> One of my friends had this same argument, that its OK because a rogue will only get to use it once in a blue moon.  That is true, a rogue/wizard wouldn't get it to often...
> 
> But...
> 
> ...




Again, I don't see the big deal.  First off, we are talking a level 20 character doing 33d6.  It is only two extra times per day, and it still doesn't apply to undead/constructs/etc. nor does it work against concealment (Blur for example).  How much damage does a Fireball do?  How many targets can you affect with that?  Fighting something with Fire Resistance, use Energy Substitution.  Need to hit more targets, Widen Spell.  There are tons of ways to alter spells for maximum efficency.  There are only a handful of ways to maximize Sneak Attacks efficiency, and again, they don't apply in a lot of situations.

A character would have to be level 9 before they can do 1 Impromptu Sneak Attack.  That would be 6 caster levels and 3d6 Sneak Attack OR d6 damage total (only 1 ray).  Not a big deal IMHO.  By level Character Level 13 you could do all 3 rays for 10d6 (20d6 total) twice a day with Impromptu Sneak Attack.  As much damage as a level 20 Fireball, but just to one target (as opposed to many) and only if specific conditions are met.

Why penalize a player (character) for being creative?


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 11, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> How much damage does a Fireball do? How many targets can you affect with that? Fighting something with Fire Resistance, use Energy Substitution. Need to hit more targets, Widen Spell. There are tons of ways to alter spells for maximum efficency. There are only a handful of ways to maximize Sneak Attacks efficiency, and again, they don't apply in a lot of situations.



Since Scorching Ray is a spell, you can also maximize a portion of its damage potential through using metamagic feats.

Going with the Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10 as an example, by using a 6th lvl spell slot, our Arcane Trickster could memorize a quickened Scorching Ray.  If he really wanted, he could do 66d6 damage in a single round (either by getting initiative, being invisible, or using his two uses of Impromptu Sneak Attack) by memorizing a normal scorching ray, and one quickened Scorching Ray. 



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> A character would have to be level 9 before they can do 1 Impromptu Sneak Attack. That would be 6 caster levels and 3d6 Sneak Attack OR d6 damage total (only 1 ray). Not a big deal IMHO. By level Character Level 13 you could do all 3 rays for 10d6 (20d6 total) twice a day with Impromptu Sneak Attack. As much damage as a level 20 Fireball, but just to one target (as opposed to many) and only if specific conditions are met.



How do you only get 10d6 damage at 13th lvl? Assuming all 3 rays hit, you should get the following dmg based on class selection:

Wizard 11/Rogue 2 - 15d6 (3 5d6 rays), Base to Hit +6 (not including mods)
Wizard 7/Rogue 6 - 14d6 (2 7d6 rays), Base to Hit +7
Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 5 - 24d6 (3 8d6 rays) Base to Hit +6

I can personally see this as abusive.  If you do not, then bring the character you are planning on making up with you DM and go and make it, and see how it does in the campaign.  In the end it all comes down to how you play the character, how your DM runs the game, and if it causes any problems.  If it doesn't, do it.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 11, 2004)

Trivial may be too strong a word, but Bluffing as a MEA is not exactly a difficult ability to acquire for a Roguish character.

I actually have no problem with a Rogue doing more damage in a round than a Fighter or Barbarian _if_ we are comparing standard action vs. standard action and full action vs. full iterative attack.  It is simply a Bad Idea to allow effects available as a standard action to multiply SA dice.  It is too easily broken.


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 11, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> A straight wizard of the same level can do 32d6 damage twice a day with one standard action using his 9th level spell slots (that the arcane trickster doesn't even get) to cast meteor swarm. Works on undead, constructs, whatever, and can be done from 1120 feet away.
> 
> -The Souljourner



An 18th lvl wizard does have 9th lvl spells, a Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10 has to wait 2 more levels before he can get 9th lvl spells.  

So, an 18th lvl wizard is using the most powerfull spell (dmg wise) he can ever use (barring epic lvl).  And Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10 can do more dmg (to one target) then that already using a 2nd lvl spell slot (and potentially a twice a day ability or some other setup like getting initiative or using greater invis), and at 20th lvl (a whole 3 lvls behind a straight up wizard) I get meteor swarm as well.  Also, that 9th lvl spell slot isn't going to be altered by Metamagic.  Check out my Empowered Quickened Scorching Ray (using one of my 8th lvl spell slots) which can do 39d6 dmg.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 11, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> MM allows for you to target but no attack roll is made, so again no sneak attack.




My point was - the original designation of sneak attack is so vague that MM IS a valid attack for the purposes of sneak attack. Specifically the original writeup just says that

a) The rogue must make an attack
b) The rogue must be within 30ft for a ranged attack
c) the various concerns about being flat-footed and the like

At which point sneak attack damage is applied

I was trying to prove that you need to use the 3.0 clarifications to have any degree of sanity. It just so happens that those clarifications include the rules on volleys.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 11, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Yup. The sneak attack quote above speaks about an attack. Fireball is not an attack in the D&D rules sense.




Please find the phrase "attack" in the glossary as it relates specifically to only those attacks which require an attack roll.

Specifically note that the description of dexterity (at least in the srd) includes:
"Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly"

Also note things like breath weapons being attacks along with death attacks and the like. Or bullrush which requires no attack roll...

Frankly there's nowhere in the core rules that says "the only things considered attacks are those which have attack rolls".


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Aug 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> The d&d world seems to ignore the existance of bases, or at least treats both acids and bases as the same thing.




The second half of this sentence if correct.  The energy type "acid" in D&D equates to any corrosive substance, including what chemists call alkalis (hydroxides).  For the purposes of the D&D game there is very little need to differentiate.  As soon as you start attempting to use modern science to explain D&D things, you're on a slippery slope to disaster (how would Einstein explain _teleport_ f'rinstance).  Carrying around a great tub of sodium hydroxide is not going to save you from the effect of the green dragon breath or the _acid arrow_ spell.  What might save you from the long-term effects of the latter is jumping into a big pool of water - because of dilution.  This is obviously a DM call.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 11, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> My point was - the original designation of sneak attack is so vague that MM IS a valid attack for the purposes of sneak attack. Specifically the original writeup just says that
> 
> *a) The rogue must make an attack*
> b) The rogue must be within 30ft for a ranged attack
> ...




Yes that's the point though, right there (highlighted in bold abov) is the answer to the question for MM. The rogue must make an attack roll, casting a spell where no attack rolls are made fail to meet the requirements for sneak attack in the PHB. No need for FAQ for that one, it's only when getting spells such as _scorching ray_ that the FAQ need be referenced.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 11, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Saeviomagy
> My point was - the original designation of sneak attack is so vague that MM IS a valid attack for the purposes of sneak attack. Specifically the original writeup just says that
> 
> *a) The rogue must make an attack*
> ...




But wait...

If the rogue must make an attack and Riga has pointed out that Scorching ray is not an attack, it is simply an standard action, then wouldn't it logically follow that there could be NO sneak attack damage to a scorching ray?


----------



## Thanee (Aug 11, 2004)

The point is, that you have to make an attack _roll_, but it's not very clearly written.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Prism (Aug 11, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Why penalize a player (character) for being creative?




You shouldn't but with your ruling a creative player will be getting up to 9 fully sneakable ranged touch attacks all at their highest attack bonus and all for a single standard action. The twin spell feat lets you cast the spell twice for a 6th level slot and a cheap metamagic quicken (1st-3rd) nets you another spell. This could range anywhere from an extra 27d6 to 72d6 damage on an opponent which is a little OTT for a 6th and 2nd level slot

And there are many ways for a character to get sneak attacks, especially as a caster. Obscuring mist/solid fog with blindsight, grease (balancing), blink, improved blink, greater invisibility, evards tenticles (grapple) are some good options


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 11, 2004)

Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> Wizard 11/Rogue 2 - 15d6 (3 5d6 rays), Base to Hit +6 (not including mods)




I thought we were assuming the Character would want to get into Arcane Trickster ASAP.  And the soonest they could get Imp. Sneak Attack is at character level 13.  Sure, if he went 11 levels as a Wizard, he could do more damage, but at level 11 you have a lot more better spells (save vs. die one for example) than to worry about maximizing your Scorching Ray Sneak Attack damage...


----------



## mikebr99 (Aug 11, 2004)

Prism said:
			
		

> And there are many ways for a character to get sneak attacks, especially as a caster. Obscuring mist/solid fog with blindsight, grease (balancing), blink, improved blink, greater invisibility, evards tenticles (grapple) are some good options



I'll add the sniping mechanic (see hide skill) to that list also.


Mike


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 11, 2004)

Prism said:
			
		

> You shouldn't but with your ruling a creative player will be getting up to 9 fully sneakable ranged touch attacks all at their highest attack bonus and all for a single standard action. The twin spell feat lets you cast the spell twice for a 6th level slot and a cheap metamagic quicken (1st-3rd) nets you another spell. This could range anywhere from an extra 27d6 to 72d6 damage on an opponent which is a little OTT for a 6th and 2nd level slot
> 
> And there are many ways for a character to get sneak attacks, especially as a caster. Obscuring mist/solid fog with blindsight, grease (balancing), blink, improved blink, greater invisibility, evards tenticles (grapple) are some good options




Well, if they spend the feats, and choose the spells...  Why not?  Sure there are ways to almost gaurantee a sneak attack as a caster, but you have to give up your resources (spell slots) to do it.  For all those spells you mentioned, the character will be giving up other useful spells.  If the player wants to make an arcane sneak attack master, and picks the feats and spells to do so, while giving up other (better and/or more versatile) feats and spells, why not?


----------



## RigaMortus (Aug 11, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Yes that's the point though, right there (highlighted in bold abov) is the answer to the question for MM. The rogue must make an attack roll,




Scorching Ray provides up to 3 Rays.  EACH ray requires an attack roll.  Each ray is an attack.  Therefore Sneak Attack applies, right?



			
				Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> casting a spell where no attack rolls are made fail to meet the requirements for sneak attack in the PHB.
> 
> 
> > The casting of Scorching Ray leads to the requirement of making one or more attack rolls.  Therefore, you meet _a_ requirement of Sneak Attack.
> ...


----------



## Prism (Aug 11, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Well, if they spend the feats, and choose the spells...  Why not?  Sure there are ways to almost gaurantee a sneak attack as a caster, but you have to give up your resources (spell slots) to do it.  For all those spells you mentioned, the character will be giving up other useful spells.  If the player wants to make an arcane sneak attack master, and picks the feats and spells to do so, while giving up other (better and/or more versatile) feats and spells, why not?




I absolutely agree with you that if a character invests in spells and feats that focus on being able to sneak attack then they should get a reward for their efforts. I'm trying to suggest that having a single sneak attack in addition to the already strong scorching ray attack is good enough and to me at least seems to be the intent of the designers. 

I know that the rules of the game link doesn't specifically mention sorching ray and that you are suggesting that it is different from the example given of the energy orb spells but it seems that you are in the minority at least in this thread with respect to the number of sneaks allowed for a single spell

I just can't see anything really vague with these two rulings



> You blast your enemies with fiery rays. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage.
> 
> The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all bolts must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously




and



> With spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls, such as the energy orb spells or the Split Ray feat from Tome and Blood, you must treat the effect like a volley -- only the first attack can be a sneak attack




I am currently playing an arcane trickster and it is very rare that I directly attack an opponent unless I am also sneak attacking. Its not at all difficult to pull off and the spells I mentioned earlier are some of the strongest spells in their own right without even considering sneak attacks so you don't really lose anything. Casting grease on the floor is an excellent way of taking out warrior types - the fact you can also sneak them is icing on the cake. Being invisible has huge advantages in addition to being able to sneak. All these spells are strong whether you sneak or not

Using ranged touch attacks are good ways to get sneak attacks as they usually hit but to get 3 sneaks per 2nd level spell is just a little strong as they all attack at your highest attack bonus as a standard action. There are other spells such as the druidical produce flame or FR snillocs snowball which allow multiple sneakable ranged touch attacks a round but these are limited by your iterative attacks, take a full round action to pull off and a round to effectively set up (ie cast the spell). They also factor in the -5/-10/-15 to hit for each subsequent attack after the first

if you choose not to consider scorching ray as a volley type spell then you also have to consider what will happen when you get telekineses as this spell allows up to 15 simultaneous attacks which means you can do a ridiculous 105d6 sneak damage as a standard action and 315d6 using the two easy techniques I mentioned before (twin and quicken).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 12, 2004)

This is really recycled olds news.

It was unambiguous under the 3.0 RAW that a Rogue could use shurikens to get triple sneak attacks as a standard action.  It was also unambiguously broken and presumed to be a loophole that the designers inadvertently overlooked.  There was a clear consensus on these boards that it would probably be best to houserule a "clarification" that a trio of shurikens are one attack even though there are three attack rolls.  Eventually that tweak was recommended by WotC.

I have not kept up with the subtle changes of language in 3.5 but it looks like the exact same story here.  It is a Very Bad Idea to allow multiple sneaks from a single Scorching Ray spell, even if it looks like it might be legal by the letter of the rules.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 12, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> Yes that's the point though, right there (highlighted in bold abov) is the answer to the question for MM. The rogue must make an attack roll, casting a spell where no attack rolls are made fail to meet the requirements for sneak attack in the PHB. No need for FAQ for that one, it's only when getting spells such as _scorching ray_ that the FAQ need be referenced.




That's not what it says, and it's not what I said. The PHB says an attack 

NOT AN ATTACK ROLL.

Just an attack. Got it? Good.

Furthermore, there are multiple instances within the rules whereby things which require no attack roll are referred to as attacks.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> The point is, that you have to make an attack _roll_, but it's not very clearly written.




In that case, all clerics are dead at birth. It's just not very clearly written.

The attack roll thing IS NOT IN THE PHB as it stands. It's only in the faq. Which means that either we use the faq (volleys and all), or we allow every magic missile in a volley to sneak attack. Not to mention a whole host of other spells.

Choose.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

What's wrong with the FAQ?

Yes, you need to make an attack roll to be able to apply sneak attack, and it applies only once per attack (or volley, or however you want to call it).

As I said, it's not very clearly written in the book, since they do not actually make the necessary distinction with "attack". It's, of course, obvious, that not every attack can be a sneak attack, however. It doesn't need much common sense, for example, to realize, that you cannot sneak attack with a Flesh to Stone spell, or a Fireball spell. Both are attacks, however, when using common sense, but obviously not per the rules in the PHB (see below posts).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## green slime (Aug 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The attack roll thing IS NOT IN THE PHB as it stands. It's only in the faq. Which means that either we use the faq (volleys and all), or we allow every magic missile in a volley to sneak attack. Not to mention a whole host of other spells.
> 
> Choose.




No sorry. I choose a third path. I look at the rules as they are written. I read the FAQ. I bounce ideas off others (my players, mostly). Then I make a decision based on what I feel is reasonable. There is no "requirement" to accept one or the other at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "cherry-picking" sensible (IMO) rulings from the FAQ and ignoring others. 

And I don't see the MM description mentioning anything about "attack" at all. Nor in the "Magic" Chapter (10). 

"attack" is defined in the glossary.


> * from the Glossary*
> _attack:_ Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.




So... magic missile is not an attack (no attack roll). An attack is defined as having... an attack roll! Without an attack roll, there is no attack!



> *from the "sneak attack" description under Rogue*
> Basically, the rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC, or when the rogue flanks her target




So, no sneak attacking with _magic missile_.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 12, 2004)

> Scorching Ray provides up to 3 Rays. EACH ray requires an attack roll. Each ray is an attack. Therefore Sneak Attack applies, right?




I'm afraid not. Multiple attacks in a volley only apply sneak attack damage to a single attack. As has already been stated.




> Can't wait for the 3.5 FAQ to get updated then, because this is getting silly.




Well, I'm startign to think so. The 3.5 FAQ won't be "updated" as the 3.0 FAQ applies to the scorching ray spell just fine. If you're having a hard time figuring out why a 3.0 FAQ applies to a 3.5 spell, this understandable. Nonetheless, the 3.0 FAQ provides a relevant and accurate ruling for the spell as it mirrors the T&B Orb spells in it's use. If you can't get past that, there is nothing anyone can do to help and we'll have to leave it at that. You're satisfaction can only be had by an uneccessary addition to the 3.5 FAQ, trying to add anything else to the points already iterated would be just more wasted time I'm sorry to say.

If you'd like to have scorching ray clarified in the FAQ the best thing to do would to send your questions on to WotC and ask them to add if you feel this strongly about it.

Best of luck!


----------



## Liquidsabre (Aug 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The attack roll thing IS NOT IN THE PHB as it stands. It's only in the faq.




You are mistaken.

PHB p.305, _Glossary_:
"Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an *attack roll*."


----------



## Thanee (Aug 12, 2004)

I was just wondering how this works out with _invisibility_, but it actually clarifies what an attack is for the purpose of that spell only in the description.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 12, 2004)

Does an achaierai's black cloud require an attack roll? It's under "special attacks"?

How about an allip's babble? The spell like abilities of angels? An avoral's fear aura?

Attack has meanings outside of melee and ranged attacks.

Oh, and a character under the effect of sanctuary can go to town with non-attack spells like fireball.

And finally, from the srd section marked "Special spell effects"

"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."

May I say kaboom now?


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 12, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Does an achaierai's black cloud require an attack roll? It's under "special attacks"?
> 
> How about an allip's babble? The spell like abilities of angels? An avoral's fear aura?
> 
> ...



lol.  This is nuts.  Its called having common sense and looking at the context of the usage.  The word attack is difficult to avoid using in an RPG that is centered around combat.  Next edition perhaps they should make the books more technical then they already are and use things like attack (magic), attack (physical), attack (special), attack (this is just a word we are using to describe offensive action, don't get confused).

I personally don't think this is necessary, I don't think anyone is seriously considering letting sneak attack occur on anything that has ever been mentioned as an attack of any sort.


----------



## Brisk-sg (Aug 12, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> I thought we were assuming the Character would want to get into Arcane Trickster ASAP. And the soonest they could get Imp. Sneak Attack is at character level 13. Sure, if he went 11 levels as a Wizard, he could do more damage, but at level 11 you have a lot more better spells (save vs. die one for example) than to worry about maximizing your Scorching Ray Sneak Attack damage...



I was responding to your post saying:



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> By level Character Level 13 you could do all 3 rays for 10d6 (20d6 total) twice a day with Impromptu Sneak Attack.



Since you cannot do 10d6 dmg with scorching way at lvl 13 with most normal builds, I listed three builds to show the damage based on what class you took.



			
				Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> Wizard 11/Rogue 2 - 15d6 (3 5d6 rays), Base to Hit +6 (not including mods)



Wizard 11/Rogue 2 doesn't seem all that abusive. He gives up 2 lvls of spell progression for 3d6 dmg on scorching ray. Not very important.



			
				Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> Wizard 7/Rogue 6 - 14d6 (2 7d6 rays), Base to Hit +7



Wizard 7/Rogue 6 doesn't either. He is half Rogue, half wizard, not all that great, and alot less powerfull then a full version of either. Not a big deal really.



			
				Brisk-sg said:
			
		

> Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 5 - 24d6 (3 8d6 rays) Base to Hit +6



Wow, look at that damage increase over the other two builds, a full 9d6 more the a wizard 11/rogue 2, and 10d6 over wizard 7/rogue 6.

Of course, only play will ever tell if this is in fact broken. Of course, it could be fine in one game and broken in the next. All I know is at level 18, I can make a character that can do the equivilent of 78d6 damage in one round (Memorize Empowered Quickened Scorching ray and Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray) using this. With no magic items. For a fighter or damage dealer class to do even half of that much he would need some very good gear and good stats, and he wouldn't be nearly as versitile as an Arcane Trickster. A wizard would have a very hard time coming close to this using the Core Books.

So in a game that is shelling out very high end equipment constantly it won't be as unbalanced as in a game with normal gear or not very good gear, as this ruling doesn't rely at all on magic items.


----------

