I was just looking over the character sheet for the Valeros and noticed the section that says "What you can do on your turn."
I noticed that you can do one standard action (attack, move, or use a magic item), one move action (move...), and one free action.
So, if a character can move as a standard action... Can a character attack as a move action? If not, why not?
Under Favored Class Options, for fighter... The ARG says that:
Fighter: Add a +1/2 circumstance bonus on critical hit confirmation rolls with a weapon of the fighter's choice (maximum bonus +4). This bonus does not stack with Critical Focus.
This might seem like a really dumb question, but...
What circumstance bonus is this talking about??? One half of what???
1. What amount of character points do you allow at creation for abilities? [10, 15, 20, 25]
2. What rate of experience do you use? [Slow, Medium, Fast]
3. What supplements do you usually allow?
If a monster were given a higher than normal point-buy, how would it affect its CR?
"Creatures with class levels receive +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to their ability scores, assigned in a manner that enhances their class abilities. Creatures with NPC class levels do not receive adjustments to their ability scores."
As best as I can figure, getting the +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to its ability scores is included in getting a PC class level and part of that CR adjustment.
By my calculations, that gives the monster an increase from a 3-point buy to a 15-point buy. Would giving the monster a 20-point buy increase their CR in any way? What about a 25-point buy?
Hrothgar and Lakeside appear to have changed their minds insofar as RAW is concerned (think Lakeside still prefers to houserule it the other way).
I still might houserule it, but not right away.
I'm actually leaning away from houseruling to allow a move after the first shot of rapid shot (or two-weapon fighting or flurrying or whatever the other casesmight be, too). Or, houseruling that Vital Strike can be used with the first attack of a full-attack.
To tell the truth, were it not for the first post in this thread, I don't think I'd've ever questioned that Manyshot required a full attack.
When making a full-attack, I'm taking my iteratives!
Does this only function with a range of touch? Or, can the wand wielder be some distance from a wounded character?
"To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole."
How far away can the wand wielder be if the range isn't touch?
Thanks! I'm more interested in learning the rules than in wanting to win an argument.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The part about being a feat allowing an exception to the rule was important to me. The basic rule is that you normally choose whether or not to make a full attack after your first attack. However, the feat requires an exception to that rule because you can only fire two arrows with your first shot when making a full-attack. So, you're already full-attacking. Not decision is necessary after the first attack. And, movement (other than possibly a 5' step) is impossible, because you cannot move during a full-attack (except, possibly, a 5' step).
If you haven't committed to the full-attack, your first shot only fires one arrow.
Exactly. But, I'd still allow an archer to fire only one arrow, if he chose to.
I actually think rapid shot should allow the bonus arrow shot before a move, too. But, that's a house-rules topic. Same for two-weapon fighting (an off-hand attack before move) and flurry (would need to look at how I'd want that to work, as I don't play monks).
Yeah, charge is a special case. Technically, it's (usually) composed of a double-move plus an attack (which is a standard action, technically). But, that's rulebreaking, except when such an exception is allowed.
I agree. But, I'd still like to see examples so I can have a better idea of why this shouldn't be house-ruled.
There are quiet a few ways to abuse the rules without breaking them. IIRC you can get a +10 to your caster level, and call monsters that can win the game for you. Actually you can do it with monsters +5 above you CL.
Gotta confess ignorance about how to do those. I've only every really played up to level 7 in 3.5, and then not in a very min-maxed or overly optimized party. Most powerful spell I've actually seen in combat is scorching ray.:)
(And, that should be sufficient to say we haven't majored on spellcasters...)
Well, that wouldn't be the first time my logic has been called weird.
That wouldn't work for me, either, because I want to keep the option of using iteratives with manyshot, instead of a move action. Basically, I don't want to remove the choice of move or iteratives from manyshot (rapid shot, two-weapon, or flurry, etc...).
As I understand it, you don't normally get iteratives if you use a standard action.
Probably. I'd guess opinions vary.
The difference between Manyshot and the other full-attack options discussed is that Manyshot only has a benefit; namely, two arrows with the first attack. The other options (rapid shot, flurry, etc.) all carry a penalty to the first attack. I think that's why many GMs will allow a player to drop out of a full attack after those; the player hasn't gained any benefit at all from beginning the flurry or rapid shot that he or she wouldn't have gained from a standard attack.
I understand that, but the logic is the same. If you can't gain the benefit of manyshot on the first attack and then move... You can't accept the penalty on the first attack of the others and then move. Whether it's a benefit or penalty has no bearing on whether any of them is a full-attack.
If you allow it on either, you're in house-rules territory.
So did Hrothgar Mitt Romney on us ;)
I don't have enough ranks in acrobatics!
I'm just examining the issue further.
I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).
If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).
However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.
RAW says that you only get your iterative attacks if you are using a full-round action ("you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks").
It also says that "A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step."
Notice it says it cannot be "coupled with" rather than cannot be made up of. That's a difference. A full-round action can be composed of a standard and a move action, but not "coupled with" either or both.
So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.
Problem is that Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action..." I think RAI and RAW are that you declare you're making a full-attack before your first shot (same as rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry, etc...). By doing so, you give up the option to decide after your first attack.
But, now the hard part... (and the crux of the whole thread, as I see it...) Deciding between an attack or a full-attack...
With manyshot and it's like, the decision is made before the first attack. Manyshot (and such like) are exceptions to the rule that you normally decide whether or not to full-attack after your first attack. You can no more nock two arrows for a manyshot than you can apply the modifiers to two-weapon fight or flurry or rapid shot without having already made the decision to full-attack.
You pick up the iteratives as a resource to use when you decide to attack before moving. When you decide to full-attack before making your first shot, you give up the option to change your mind after the first attack.
But, as James Jacobs (and others have noted), many GMs do not enforce this for things like two-weapon, rapidshot, or flurry. And, to be consistent, I don't think they should enforce it with manyshot, either (if they're not gonna enforce it with the other attack options). But, to each his own.
Personally, I prefer a manyshot that allows a move after the first attack (as well as allowing a move after the first attack of the other full-attacks that rule-out trading in iteratives for a move).
I am glad that my posts, last night got this thread heated up again. It is, after all, just like a dwarf to instigate a fight in the tavern so he can get all the ale he wants while the others are fighting!!!
I was actually leaning back toward my original position, last night, but now... Manyshot works when taking a full-round action with a bow. Once you nock two arrows, you're committed to the full-attack. At that point, you've given up the option to move.
Should it work that way? Probably not. But, this is a game and there are rules to this game. Thankfully, houseruling is allowed by the rules (for home games, anyway).
You have to use a full-round action to get you're additional attacks.
So, by default, you're already using a full-attack on you're first attack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to take a move action, instead of your remaining attacks. You wouldn't have any attacks remaining if you weren't using a full-round action.
Since this question of Overhand Chop has been brought up, please check my stats.
This character is a 6th-level Two-Handed Fighter with a 17 Strength.
Do these two attack routines look right?
Greatsword w/Overhand Chop & Vital Strike
Greatsword w/Power Attack, Overhand Chop, & Vital Strike
David knott 242 wrote:
Where are you coming up with double Int mod?You also get one extra language (free choice, not limited to racial list) per rank in Linguistics, not per point of Linguistics bonus.
I was thinking that it could possibly be based off of total Linguistics bonus and that the bonus languages from high intelligence could be considered separately since you don't benefit from the actual linguistics skill if you are untrained.
But, since the number of languages is based off of the actual ranks, not the final bonus, the question is resolved.
...will he grow back from the finger if you kill him and burn everything else?
But, I like old-school trolls, too.
Believe me, I understand what you're saying and I'd like to see that addressed.
Unless we conclude that the Paizo staff does not know how to properly interpret their own rules, though, I don't see how we can ignore what James Jacobs said on the subject.
Manyshot says "When making a full-attack action with a bow..." If you decide not to take a full-attack action, you can't fire two arrows at once, even with the first shot.
To use Rapid Shot, Manyshot, etc... You have to decide before your first shot that you're using the full-attack action. This is an exception to the deciding between rule that says you can decide after the first attack. The decision has to be made before the first attack with manyshot (and other esceptional cases). Otherwise, there'd be no need for the language saying "When making a full-attack action..."
Here's what changed my mind... I didn't understand that James Jacobs was talking about house rules when talking about letting people decide after the first attack with a flurry, two-weapon fighting, or rapid shot. Not his fault. It was mine. I was focusing on the fact that he allowed it and thinking it ought to allow the same for manyshot (as I disagreed with his reasoning for not allowing it with manyshot, thinking only that part was the house rule).
By raw, you cannot move after taking the first shot of rapid shot. Or, taking the first attack of a flurry. Or, taking the first attack of two-weapon fighting.
You can only decide between when making a normal full attack action. All those special attack actions require a full attack.
Apparently, it's a common houserule to allow the decision to sacrifice the iteratives and move after the first attack on practically every variation of these full attack actions, except manyshot.
Personally, I'd be consistent in my houseruling and include manyshot, too. (And, I'd also allow iteratives after vital strike, for example...) But, that's all in house rules territory.
Using the standard 3.5 rules interpretation, you would add 1 to the weapon's critical hit multiplier and then base charging critical hit damage on the weapon's normal damage.
So, a warmain using a falchion...
normal base: 2d4
Power Charge from Arcana Evolved:
When using the charge action, the character deals double damage with a melee weapon. Only the weapon’s damage doubles, not the bonuses from Strength, magic, or other factors.
I think we're dealing with damage based upon extra dice that isn't multiplied on a critical hit. Also, it sounds a lot like vital strike, which doesn't allow the extra weapon damage dice to be rolled, again, on a crit.
This might seem like an odd question, but do creatures automatically increase their base land speed movement rate as they increase in size?
In looking at the giants in the Bestiary, it appears that they have a +10-ft. to their base movement rate over medium humanoids.
If there is such a rule, where can I find it?
(I have a character in my party that has recently been permanently increased in size from medium to large and may, eventually, be permanently increased to huge size.)