Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Malcaor 04-06-08, 07:35 PM	I have a question about the splitting enhancement. I think I remember reading something that stated it didn't allow a rogue to sneak attack more times than normal, but I can't find it. Can anyone give me a ruling please?
aelryinth 04-06-08, 07:44 PM	Let's ignore the cheese factor of an enchantment that basically allows you to double your damage. I want one for my longsword. Ahem. Now, then, the SA dice occur per attack. Splitting doesn't give you additional attacks...it creates a second arrow to complement the one you already have. There are two rolls, but just like Manyshot, you only get SA once per SHOT...and the split arrow is part of that shot. So, no, no doubling up of SA damage. Be satisfied with causing twice as much arrow damage as before. Few DM's actually allow this, as it is rather overpowered for what it does. ===Aelryinth
Malcaor 04-06-08, 08:09 PM	K thanx
archerpwr 04-06-08, 09:08 PM	Ignore Aelryinth. He doesn't own champions of ruin. SA et all work off anything that has an attack roll unless stated otherwise (ray/orb volleys being the only ones I've ever heard of). Splitting allows a second attack roll, so SA applies to each. The rule is on every attack roll unless stated as an exception.
Malcaor 04-07-08, 04:00 PM	Can either of you (or someone else) confirm the rule with some quoted text?
archerpwr 04-07-08, 09:34 PM	Can either of you (or someone else) confirm the rule with some quoted text? Can't quote from here, but these are the pieces of text you need to look up: Sneak Attack-PHB, what triggers it, in the rogue class description Splitting-CoR, specifically where it gives 2 attack rolls FAQ entry on volley attacks. It's really that simple. Multiple attack rolls that aren't spell effects or regular manyshot aren't volleys, which is the rule ael is mistaking.
Andrew 04-09-08, 11:55 PM	The above are incorrectly conveying the rules for volley fire and precision damage. According to Rules Compendium, page 42, a volley is any ability to make more than one attack roll during an action other than a full attack. Precision damage, such as sneak attack, only applies to the first in each volley. A full attack with a splitting bow would be a series of volleys, with each getting precision damage on the first arrow.
Lilinthra 04-10-08, 11:13 AM	Ah, wasn't aware of that bit of text; I'll keep it in mind for RPGA DMing. I take it that Greater Manyshot would still be precision damage applied per attack roll, since the feat text explicitly states this is the case?
archerpwr 04-13-08, 01:35 AM	Ah, wasn't aware of that bit of text; I'll keep it in mind for RPGA DMing. I take it that Greater Manyshot would still be precision damage applied per attack roll, since the feat text explicitly states this is the case? Exactly.
Andrew 04-13-08, 02:17 PM	I take it that Greater Manyshot would still be precision damage applied per attack roll, since the feat text explicitly states this is the case? Definately so for straight-up Greater Manyshot. Unsure of exactly how the rules would parse out for Greater Manyshot with a splitting bow. My best interpretation would be that you would get sneak attack for all the arrows fired originally, but not for the split copies of each, as the former's special sneak attack rules are called out for the arrows fired from Manyshot. One divergence not mentioned above is that for volley fire, I believe you still can crit with any given attack in the volley; each of them also suffers the possibility of automatically missing on a natural 1.
archerpwr 04-13-08, 11:42 PM	Definately so for straight-up Greater Manyshot. Unsure of exactly how the rules would parse out for Greater Manyshot with a splitting bow. My best interpretation would be that you would get sneak attack for all the arrows fired originally, but not for the split copies of each, as the former's special sneak attack rules are called out for the arrows fired from Manyshot. Wrong
Andrew 04-14-08, 02:19 AM	Wrong Given your username, I'm going to have to suggest your opinions may have a bias.
archerpwr 04-14-08, 04:40 PM	Given your username, I'm going to have to suggest your opinions may have a bias. Take a look at my posting info. 99% is over in CO (*the* place to learn how the rules work). I have the bias of seeing 2-3 debates (all started by fighter fanboys such as aelryinth, who were upset that splitting *didn't* put the fighter above the swift hunter) and reading all the important text. I don't EVER post without reading first. Ad-Hominem attacks not welcome.
Andrew 04-14-08, 08:03 PM	Chill. Apparently you didn't see the humor or irony. Could you be more informative on how and why you believe greater manyshot with a splitting bow should allow sneak attack on each and every shot? From my reading, the general volley rules for precision damage in the Rules Compendium establish that splitting does not normally keep sneak attack on the arrow copies. Greater Manyshot's exception calls out the arrows fired, not the arrows that hit. Putting what we already know about splitting from volley rules at that point, that gives all the original arrows gaining sneak attack, and all the copies not. If somehow Greater Manyshot was applied second in the order (which would be nonsensical), you'd be splitting the arrows before they were fired, so you'd be entirely unable to fire the copies because they're over your original limit on what you can shoot with the feat. All the boards, all the time, are the place to learn how to apply the material properly based on topic. The CO boards are how to apply that material in the most powerful manner with the most favorable rules interpretations, and they are very good at that. This board is where you go to be something other than the smile-and-nod DM that is required for CO as an abstract and impartial activity. The CO community is excellent at what they do and are entirely proper in the venue in which this occurs; all I'm saying is that there are different inherent assumptions elsewhere, and you need to explicate your reasoning further.
archerpwr 04-14-08, 09:07 PM	Stuff On CO: Absolutely false. CO (and TO, which you are thinking of) assume the most strict and rules as written interpretation. When it cannot be determined via RAW, the most conservative (ie lower power) reading is used. Volley rules only allow 1 SA/Crit per volley. Splitting in itself has none of the characteristics of a volley (the volley clause on basic manyshot or CA section on rays). If it isn't stated to follow the volley restrictions an attack does not.
Andrew 04-14-08, 09:44 PM	See Rules Compendium reference for volley definition, above. Rules Compendium is stated to trump earlier sources. Any divergence in the below from prior posts is due to continued analysis. The Rules Compendium defines the default; the exceptions to this must be noted. The specific ruling on Splitting in this case is clear on further reading: you are not taking a full-round action, and Splitting grants you extra attacks. I believe the Rules Compendium is weak here and should have been written clearer. It is not put in such a manner that a general rule can be derived that is arbitrarily applicable, because as per the RAW, if you were a rogue/sorcerer empowering an 11th-level Scorching Ray spontaneously, you'd get sneak attack on all three rays because you used a full-round action (RAW). What I think it should have been written as (RAI) is that any ability is considered under volley rules if outside of a full attack action, it allows you to make multiple attack rolls, and if it is also usable in a full attack action, each component attack should be treated as a separate volley before applying the ability. This is also something that ought have been defined in Core.
archerpwr 04-14-08, 10:26 PM	Let me put it this way: Volley is a descrIptor to attacks that is called out in any ability that has it. An attack is assumed to be not a volley unless explicitly stated otherwise. Splitting gives no such descriptor, thus is just another attack. D&D tells you when the rules for exceptions (volleys) apply, not when they don't. Offtopic: RC was also wrong on the longheld stance on how AMFs work. It may just be CP style pay for errata though. I do not own RC, so am working from memory of the last debate
Andrew 04-14-08, 11:10 PM	If you don't want to play with RC in your game, that's fine, and I thoroughly support your authority to do so. It doesn't define it well, but it's about the only source I can find that generically deals with volleys. The little-loved Rules of the Game series has the following (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a): 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. Volleys are not explicitly defined in the core-only 3.5 sources that I can find. Is there a source you're drawing from for your repeated statement that only those attack forms called out as volleys count, especially in a venue that can challenge RotG or RC? Your enthusiasm has certainly not gone unnoticed, but is there an associated reference that I can consider? As above, the rules for critical hits and sneak attacks do not completely overlap. I believe that anything with an attack roll that does damage can crit. The same doesn't go for precision damage attacks.
archerpwr 04-14-08, 11:35 PM	Premise 1: SA applies to any attack that qualifies. Premise 2: An attack is anything that has an attack roll. Premise 3: Specific named exceptions can override the first two points. The same rules work for crits. Volleys are individually named exceptions to general rules. This is my understanding. Show me where I am wrong.
Andrew 04-14-08, 11:59 PM	This is my understanding. Show me where I am wrong. The specific exception for #3 is volley fire in general, as referenced in RC and RotG, both of which define general cases and have not been answered. What has to be enumerated are volleys that don't follow all volley rules, such as Greater Manyshot. The disparity between crits and SA can be shown by replacing "SA" in #1 with "Damage". Crit damage has qualifiers based on what you're attacking (undead, constructs, etc.). Precision-based damage has pretty much all the qualifiers needed for crits, and has the volley issue added. Volley applies because you make one attack (or X attacks with Greater Manyshot) but get two (2x) attack rolls.
archerpwr 04-15-08, 12:07 AM	Naw, Fighter archers get just as much out of splitting. The last debate was in the fighter handbook 2007 iirc (one of dictum mortuum's). This was post-RC. We came to the conclusion that I've been stating (that splitting is not a volley). Better debaters than myself (who OWN RC) came to that conclusion, not me. I'll just let this die now. I won't convince you.