PDA

View Full Version : Nuking without Metamagic?



Alcopop
2009-08-17, 08:59 AM
Okay, so the spell darkbolt(SpC) fires off 7 missiles (cl 14) at 2d8 per missile. Each of these missiles are touch attacks which got me thinking.

Could you combine this spell with, say, divine might to add cha to damage per missile? Now divine might says it adds to weapon damage, but as it's a weapon like spell it should still qualify for the extra damage.

So letís go for a Cha or 30. if it works thatís an extra 70 damage on top of 14d8 (assuming they all hit) not too bad, but not fantastic, so i'll open this up too you guys.

Can you think of any other ways (bar metamagic) of adding damage to this?

(The only other thing i can think of is weapon spec, and that means losing 4 caster levels for a lousy 2.)

valadil
2009-08-17, 09:03 AM
I think Warmage has an option for adding int to damage. I'm not sure if that would add to each missile though.

Telonius
2009-08-17, 09:12 AM
I don't have SpC on me at the moment - is it arcane or divine? If Arcane, you could spice it up with some Sneak Attack if you go Arcane Trickster; if Divine, Sacred Outlaw lets your rogue levels stack with cleric for sneak attack dice.

JeenLeen
2009-08-17, 09:20 AM
I don't have SpC on me at the moment - is it arcane or divine? If Arcane, you could spice it up with some Sneak Attack if you go Arcane Trickster; if Divine, Sacred Outlaw lets your rogue levels stack with cleric for sneak attack dice.

Spellwarp Sniper from Complete Scroundel has similiar abilities. It has the prereq of Sneak Attack and maybe Point Blank Shot. It gives you some archery-related feats that can apply to weapon-like spells (as well as letting you warp most if not all spells into rays, thereby increasing your amount of weapon-like spells.)

Cyclocone
2009-08-17, 09:22 AM
These spells usually count as volley attacks, meaning only the first bolt would get the bonus damage, regardless of source.

Glyde
2009-08-17, 09:39 AM
These spells usually count as volley attacks, meaning only the first bolt would get the bonus damage, regardless of source.

Yeppers. Same with chain missile, magic missile, scorching ray, fire shuriken, etc.

Though that last one might be different... Anybody got a verdict?

Telonius
2009-08-17, 10:00 AM
Kind of getting it in sideways, but spell storing arrows and Greater Manyshot could do it. Probably too feat-intensive to pull off effectively, though.

Keld Denar
2009-08-17, 10:04 AM
Darkbolt is Divine, and it only appears on the Darkness domain list at level 5. That means its limited to a handful of Clerics and....just about every Archivist with access to SpC.

It has 2 modes. The first IS a volley attack where you fire all missiles at one time. The other mode fires 1 the first round, and one every round thereafter as a free action. This mode is not a volley.

Oh, and each bolt has a chance to daze the target...its pretty sick, you can chain daze one creature for multiple rounds...as a free action...with free damage tacked on...just a save every round while you do other stuff.

PinkysBrain
2009-08-17, 10:08 AM
Some weaponlike spells can strike multiple times in the same round.
When the caster receives a bonus on damage rolls or some form of extra damage (such as precision damage) with such spells, the extra damage applies only on the first attack, whether that attack hits or not.

So no. 10ch10ch

Eloel
2009-08-17, 10:12 AM
These spells usually count as volley attacks, meaning only the first bolt would get the bonus damage, regardless of source.

If you make multiple attack rolls, you add multiple bonus damage. Scorching Ray gets a handful of dice every ray for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass...

(Bonus question; What is the lowest level spell with the most attack-rolls required? Meteor Swarm is 4 rolls, but by that point, you can already kill anything you wish)

Anyone know any race or something that gets Scorching Ray at-will? That could make for a good Rogue build now that I think on it. (3 RTAs as a Standard Action, with 4d6 weapon-damage? Yes please.)

Signmaker
2009-08-17, 10:28 AM
Kind of getting it in sideways, but spell storing arrows and Greater Manyshot could do it. Probably too feat-intensive to pull off effectively, though.

I could swear that doesn't work. :smallfrown:

Keld Denar
2009-08-17, 10:34 AM
If you make multiple attack rolls, you add multiple bonus damage. Scorching Ray gets a handful of dice every ray for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass...


Go reread Complete Arcane's section on Weaponlike Spells. Actually, just read Pinky's post above yours. Scorching Ray is a volley attack, and volley attacks only apply precision damage once.

Darkbolt has 2 forms. One is a volley like Scorching Ray, but the other is 1 attack roll per round until you are out of bolts. Since its multiple attacks on seperate rounds, each should apply precision damage.

And to the OP, no. Divine Might is only with works with weapon damage rolls.



DIVINE MIGHT [DIVINE]
<snip>
Benefit : As a free action, spend one of your turn or rebuke undead attempts to add your Charisma bonus to your weapon damage for 1 full round.


Weapon damage would include natural and manufactured weapons, but not weaponlike spells.

What you DO want is Knowledge Devotion


Knowledge Devotion
<snip>
You then receive an insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against that creature type for the remainder of the combat. The amount of the bonus depends on your Knowledge check result, as given on the following table.
<snip>


Since its unspecified, anything with an attack roll would get bonus damage. That includes EVERY bolt in a Darkbolt, since KD isn't identified as precision based damage.

Eloel
2009-08-17, 10:35 AM
You could also go Psion, and Energy Missile to your heart's content. At level 20, that's 20d6+40 (110) damage at 5 people closeby (total: 550), without even making your build towards it. (You only need 1 feat [the one that adds +1 damage/dice on 1 element], and 1 power). You're still a fully efficient Psion on top of that.

Cyclocone
2009-08-17, 10:38 AM
If you make multiple attack rolls, you add multiple bonus damage. Scorching Ray gets a handful of dice every ray for a sorcerer/rogue multiclass...

Skip says no. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a)

Telonius
2009-08-17, 10:59 AM
it only appears on the Darkness domain list at level 5.

So above the spell level limit for Spell Storing. What a shame. :smallbiggrin:

Frosty
2009-08-17, 11:53 AM
You don't get precision or crit damage more than once, but you DO get other bonus sources of damage.

For example, Manyshot is a vollet. Yet each arrow can benefit from the Flaming enhancement from the bow.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-17, 02:55 PM
Honestly, volley attacks is a stupid idea, and it doesn't exist in Core.

If you don't have Complete Mage and you are playing Core only, Scorching Ray does extra damage.

If you are playing with complete mage, throwing daggers is a volley attack so you only get extra damage on the first dagger, and that's dumb.

There is nothing overpowered about getting SA on multiple scorching rays, since Rogues can already get like 4 attacks at level 5 and 8 attacks at level 13 anyway, and they have more SA dice than you.

I personally recommend to everyone ever that you just ignore stupid volley attacks that were made up in complete mage to nerf SA using Wizards, who didn't even need a nerf anyway.

sofawall
2009-08-17, 03:06 PM
Volley attacks never made sense to me anyway, what is and what isn't a volley?

Is throwing a bunch of daggers a volley? Then why isn't stabbing with the same daggers?

I allow sneak attack once per attack roll.

Signmaker
2009-08-17, 03:13 PM
Volley attacks never made sense to me anyway, what is and what isn't a volley?

Is throwing a bunch of daggers a volley? Then why isn't stabbing with the same daggers?

I allow sneak attack once per attack roll.


Volley Type Attacks

Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack.

Dat. Personally, I kind of like the idea of volley attacks. They thematically make sense.

sofawall
2009-08-17, 03:19 PM
It still doesn't make any sense. A full attack is a volley, so only one of the attacks gets sneak attack?

Signmaker
2009-08-17, 03:22 PM
To my knowledge, a full attack isn't a volley. Throwing three skullmarbles with a single iterative attack would be, though.

Keld Denar
2009-08-17, 03:26 PM
A full attack is NOT a volley. A full attack is a full attack. Whether you are fighting with 1 weapon or 2, each attack gets SA.

A volley is when you hit multiple times with a single attack. A Multishot is a volley. A Palm Throw is a volley. A Scorching Ray is a volley. They are all single attacks that hit muliple times.

If you are a Master Thrower and you have TWF and Rapid Shot, and you throw 3 daggers in a round (1 + 1 Rapid + 1 Offhand), you get Sneak Attack on all 3. If you use Master Thrower's Palm Throw to double your attacks (essentially throwing 2 with each toss), you still only get SA on 3 attacks, rather than all 6.

THATS the difference between a volley and a non-volley attack.

sofawall
2009-08-17, 03:29 PM
I still don't understand why Scorching Ray is a volley, it has multiple rays and multiple attack rolls. If the rays attack different targets, is it a volley still?

Signmaker
2009-08-17, 03:34 PM
It's a single spell. Simple as that. You're getting three attacks from one source, even if it's three different attack rolls.

sofawall
2009-08-17, 03:46 PM
Yet multiple attacks with a crossbow come from just one source...

I'm sorry, the rule just seems stupid to me.

Telonius
2009-08-17, 03:59 PM
One difference: full attack is a full-round action. Casting a spell is (generally) not.

9mm
2009-08-17, 04:10 PM
Yet multiple attacks with a crossbow come from just one source...

I'm sorry, the rule just seems stupid to me.

no they didn't, you fired 3 fully distinct, and independent bolts; you loaded the string 3 times, and you squeezed the release 3 different times. the thing you have to remeber is how percision damage works, flavor wise, is that your SO good with your weapon you hit an especially open vital part of there anatomy when you strike, but a volley is filling the air with projectiles. you trade accuracy for damage at least in terms of flavor, if not mechanicly.

Starbuck_II
2009-08-17, 04:34 PM
Yeppers. Same with chain missile, magic missile, scorching ray, fire shuriken, etc.

Though that last one might be different... Anybody got a verdict?

Fire Shuriken as written isn't a volley because it doesn't shoot anything.

It acts like Explosive runes: a cast prior to battle spell that lasts till used.
Duration means they last forever till used.

sofawall
2009-08-17, 05:07 PM
One difference: full attack is a full-round action. Casting a spell is (generally) not.

Empowered Scorching Ray, cast by a sorcerer.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-17, 05:14 PM
Actually, a full attack is a volley by any interpretation that makes scorching ray a volley:

"Volley Type Attacks

Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack."

No, obviously stuff like multiple attacks with the same attack roll is fine, that's how it's always been. But let's look at multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack:

1) Palm throw
2) Full attack action
3) Scorching Ray

Palm throw gives you two attacks. It gives a new attack, and therefore clearly isn't multiple attack roles with the same attack. Any interpretation that would declare an ability that gives extra attacks as being a volley would have to include full attack.

Scorching Ray: Scorching ray gives you new attacks. It does not give you new attack rolls with an attack, it gives you new attacks, each ray is an attacks, not an attack roll that is part of a single attack.

Similarly, a full attack is an attack action. Seriously, a full attack is one action that gives you multiple new attacks, exactly like palm throw or scorching ray or greater many shot. And when it grants you those new attacks, they are as separate and distinct as separate attacks granted by scorching ray.

There is no way around the scorching ray -> full attack equivalence except that they decided Scorching Ray giving SA multiple times was bad, so they explicitly declared it a volley for no reason because it doesn't fit their definition of volley.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-08-17, 05:41 PM
Actually, a full attack is a volley by any interpretation that makes scorching ray a volley:

"Volley Type Attacks

Sometimes, you make multiple attacks with the same attack roll, such as when you use the Manyshot feat, or you make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack, such as with the scorching ray spell. When you do so, only the first attack in the volley can be a sneak attack."

No, obviously stuff like multiple attacks with the same attack roll is fine, that's how it's always been. But let's look at multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack:

1) Palm throw
2) Full attack action
3) Scorching Ray

Palm throw gives you two attacks. It gives a new attack, and therefore clearly isn't multiple attack roles with the same attack. Any interpretation that would declare an ability that gives extra attacks as being a volley would have to include full attack.

Scorching Ray: Scorching ray gives you new attacks. It does not give you new attack rolls with an attack, it gives you new attacks, each ray is an attacks, not an attack roll that is part of a single attack.

Similarly, a full attack is an attack action. Seriously, a full attack is one action that gives you multiple new attacks, exactly like palm throw or scorching ray or greater many shot. And when it grants you those new attacks, they are as separate and distinct as separate attacks granted by scorching ray.

There is no way around the scorching ray -> full attack equivalence except that they decided Scorching Ray giving SA multiple times was bad, so they explicitly declared it a volley for no reason because it doesn't fit their definition of volley.

Well also a full attack is a full round action. where as casting scorching ray is standard action... so no they are slightly different. Especialy where i can move then cast scorching ray and get multiple rays. I believe a volly attack for spells is any spell you get multiple rays/ranged attacks.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-17, 06:07 PM
Well also a full attack is a full round action. where as casting scorching ray is standard action... so no they are slightly different. Especialy where i can move then cast scorching ray and get multiple rays. I believe a volly attack for spells is any spell you get multiple rays/ranged attacks.

A) nothing in the definition is about full round action vs standard action. A standard action Greater Many Shot grants extra SA damage, a full round action Scorching Ray doesn't.

b) No, it's any spell which gives you extra attack rolls for a single attack, which is basically none of them. Because they all give you extra attacks, not extra attack rolls for the same attack. If you define attack = spell you get crap like Produce Flame only working on one attack, and not on later rounds, and if you define attack=action, well, a full attack is one action that gives multiple attack rolls.

No matter how you define attack, Scorching Ray + Full attack action +Produce Flame, one of them is not going to work the way you want.

But honestly, there is no reason to make SA apply to only on attack, Rogues can Greater Many Shot, or Pounce, or Polymorph into a Hydra, or take Travel Devotion, or fight with a Marshal Cohort.

Scorching Ray is never going to be more than like 4 rays anyway, and you have to give up several d6s to even get those 4.

It's absolutely balanced to let Rogues SA on multiple Scorching Rays.

Keld Denar
2009-08-17, 06:20 PM
If you don't like it, house rule it. Or have your DM house rule it. Either way, it doesn't change RAW. Complete Arcane defines what volley attacks are, and explicitly defined Scorching Ray as one of them. Thems the rules.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-17, 06:37 PM
If you don't like it, house rule it. Or have your DM house rule it. Either way, it doesn't change RAW. Complete Arcane defines what volley attacks are, and explicitly defined Scorching Ray as one of them. Thems the rules.

1) Thank you for not paying any attention. What did you think: "I personally recommend to everyone ever that you just ignore stupid volley attacks that were made up in complete mage to nerf SA using Wizards, who didn't even need a nerf anyway." was?

2) Scorching Ray is in fact a volley attack because they said, "Scorching Ray is a volley attack."

But if they printed rules that said: "The casting time on Sorcerer spells is increased for all standard action spells that are metamagiced. Therefore the casting time of Twinned Blockade is one full round because Blockade is a standard action casting time spell." Wouldn't you call that rule out as retarded?

They defined volley attack, then they stated that Scorching Ray is a volley attack, however, scorching ray does not fit the definition of volley attack they presented. That is a rules failure.

3) RAW doesn't even make sense. Complete Arcane explicitly contradicts the RAW of the PHB, and the RAW of the PHB wins by primary source rule. By RAW, Complete Arcane "Weaponlike spells" doesn't even exist.

Keld Denar
2009-08-17, 06:42 PM
New books expand on rules and clarify things.

Thats like saying Knowledge Devotion contradicts RAW, because the PHB doesn't say you can gain bonuses to hit things by making Knowledge checks. Therefore Knowledge Devotion doesn't exist.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-17, 07:01 PM
New books expand on rules and clarify things.

Thats like saying Knowledge Devotion contradicts RAW, because the PHB doesn't say you can gain bonuses to hit things by making Knowledge checks. Therefore Knowledge Devotion doesn't exist.

No, knowledge devotion is a specific feat that's new. Volley attacks is a specific ruling about SA that contradicts the PHB.

It's exactly like saying that Complete Divine saying "Turn Undead doesn't work on undead, it only works on humanoids." would be a wrong ruling. It doesn't have the authority to contradict the PHB, and that's all it's doing. New feats say that the rules change when you take the new feat, just like the PHB explicitly states that feats create new rules in their feat text for someone with the feat.

You don't have to lie about what your opponents are saying if you are right, so why are you strawmanning?

PinkysBrain
2009-08-17, 07:05 PM
I agree it's a stupid rule, multiple attack rolls normally means multiple sneak attacks ... but it's still the rules.

BTW, the rules never called it a volley attack ... that's a stupid argument, scorching ray is clearly not a volley. Don't confuse the stupid arguments from others with the stupid rules in the book :)

Seffbasilisk
2009-08-17, 07:33 PM
Warmage edge only applies to a singular aspect of a spell, like a single magic missile, or scorching ray, out of the entire lot.

As for boosting spells without metamagic...try sudden metamagic?

Or failing at that, have a teammate douse the target in oil. Then even if you only hit with one scorching ray, it ignites'm, and adds a mundane 10d6 fire which bypasses SR.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-17, 08:28 PM
BTW, the rules never called it a volley attack ... that's a stupid argument, scorching ray is clearly not a volley. Don't confuse the stupid arguments from others with the stupid rules in the book :)

Under "Multiple hits" subsection of the "Weaponlike spell" section:

"For example, a 7th-level sorcerer/3rd-level rogue with Point
Blank Shot makes a scorching ray attack at less than 30 feet (two
rays, each requiring a ranged touch attack roll and dealing
4d6 points of fi re damage). If the fi rst ray hits, it deals 6d6+1
points of fi re damage (4d6 normal + 2d6 sneak attack + 1 for
Point Blank Shot), while each subsequent ray deals only 4d6
points of fi re damage whether the fi rst ray hits or not."

PinkysBrain
2009-08-17, 08:44 PM
I don't see the word volley. It only does sneak attack on the first attack roll, I'm not disputing that (I quoted the rule further up). I'm just saying the books don't say it's because it's a volley, because that would be stupid. The rule is simply a specific rule which overrides the general rules, not a result of them.