Your GM is always right. However, if this happened at my table, I would probably allow it. It isn't much different than a monk's deflect arrow feat and I like the creative and heroic use of the skill.
|
Sometimes you just gotta accept your GM's ruling.
In my game, something like that would be allowable, but I tend towards the "rule of cool" and a gunslinger shooting an arrow out of the air sounds like a wicked move.
Sounds like your GM thinks it sounds silly and is disallowing it.
Accept it and move on.
It is kind of hard sometimes to let go of "facts" and let the game run on magic. Unfortunately, sometimes for my players me being an engineer I let "facts" trump magic. Although, I try to think in terms of in-game physics rather than real-world. I trying to remind myself, if I can believe in a mage creating a fireball out of thin air, why should I balk about someone shooting an arrow out of mid-air.
I then have to look at the in-game physics (AKA the rules-as-written) because that is what the players expect to happen in-game and keep the world consistent. I don't see excessive abuse potential for this. If you spent the feat you could get deflect arrows and do it all day without even having to use an attack or make a to-hit roll. I pretty much figure anything a feat or a spell could do, is therefore possible my in-game physics.
Aren't you spending a grit to do it? The grit and a reserved action is the balancing factor.
|
Well, allowing the gunslinger to shoot an arrow midflight doesn't seem to work out too well to me.
Wait, wait, yes, I get the cinematic thing about it.
If the gunslinger in question had the deflect arrows feat, then I would let him storyline it with his gun.
But destroying an arrow targeting someone else? Nope. I think it also sets a bad precedence. I mean, what else can he target mid-flight? Another bullet? The bead from a fireball? A ballista? Acid Flask? Alchemists bomb?
Nah. Pass.
The CRB is specific that sunder attacks must be melee attacks. I'm not aware of a pathfinder ability that allows for ranged sunders, which is what you are trying to do. If there is one, then those would be the rules to follow. If there isn't, then you can't do it with a gun.
Just had an argument with a player and my DM about unnatended objects. Does an arrow count as being unnattened since while it is in the air, you are not able to physically do anything to it and therefore you are not ATTENDING to it. Basically, fire and forget. The reason this came up is because I wanted to do a ready attack with my gunslinger's scoot unattended object ability to shoot at and deflect an arrow. They said it is not unattended because it is moving too fast. I argued about movies where they shoot a dagger being thrown and also skeet shooting. They further argued that an arrow moves faster than that, so I said a bullet is even faster since it is propelled with an explosion. Then they said it would take remarkable skill to do that so I can't, and I argued "what the hell is the scoot class ability other than a remarkable skill? it is not something common people can do since it is a third level class ability.
Hmm. Devils advocate time. You could argue that the arrow is not "unattended" because it was dispatched by an act of will towards it's intended target. Not like it was left laying around and just happened to be there or was dropped or otherwise lost control of. You could also argue the arrow is striking the same round it leaves the bow and does not have the time to be "unattended". Or a combination of those. The only mention of "unattended" items I recall was in the magic items section and all it dealt with was their having saving throws seperate from their owner. So, what is "unattended"? In any event I think the scoot unattended object bit was to remove an item from proximity to someone, not knock down arrows in flight. That would take considerably more skill than shifting an unmoving item with a bullet.
|
|
Yep. That was kind of the point I was making.
What you're trying to do through the Scoot ability is better represented as a sunder attempt, and you should follow the rules for that to stop the arrow.
Put another way, in game terms the bow and the arrow are considered part of an attack against a target. The bow provides the range and damage, and the arrow provides the method of imparting that damage. Since the rules do not provide for a timegap between making an attack roll *firing the arrow* and dealing damage *the arrow impacting*, there's not a point in the action where you can separate the arrow from the attack.
And since weapons must be wielded to make an attack, the arrow counts as being wielded until it strikes its target and disintegrates or misses and rolls its 50% break chance.
And yes, you can deflect all sorts of fun things with the deflect arrows feat, including bullets. Mythbusters did a great show with a real life "master" who specialized in deflecting arrows. He only succeeded with an arrow fired at a specific poundage and partial pull, at a set distance, when he was positioned perfectly. When the team simulated a real encounter with archers, he was hit with many, many blunted arrows.
Even blocking arrows on a reliable basis sits in the realm of fantasy. No reason bullets shouldn't join them.
But, again, I'm addressing this from a game mechanics standpoint. Destroying part of a weapon during an attack sequence is best covered with the sunder mechanics. Scoot doesn't really apply well as the game doesn't allow for a time gap between firing an arrow and the arrow dealing damage.
Thus, I think your immediate action would either have to occur before the arrow was released from the bow, or after the arrow hit the target.
Yep. That was kind of the point I was making.
What you're trying to do through the Scoot ability is better represented as a sunder attempt, and you should follow the rules for that to stop the arrow.
Put another way, in game terms the bow and the arrow are considered part of an attack against a target. The bow provides the range and damage, and the arrow provides the method of imparting that damage. Since the rules do not provide for a timegap between making an attack roll *firing the arrow* and dealing damage *the arrow impacting*, there's not a point in the action where you can separate the arrow from the attack.
And since weapons must be wielded to make an attack, the arrow counts as being wielded until it strikes its target and disintegrates or misses and rolls its 50% break chance.
And yes, you can deflect all sorts of fun things with the deflect arrows feat, including bullets. Mythbusters did a great show with a real life "master" who specialized in deflecting arrows. He only succeeded with an arrow fired at a specific poundage and partial pull, at a set distance, when he was positioned perfectly. When the team simulated a real encounter with archers, he was hit with many, many blunted arrows.
Even blocking arrows on a reliable basis sits in the realm of fantasy. No reason bullets shouldn't join them.
But, again, I'm addressing this from a game mechanics standpoint. Destroying part of a weapon during an attack sequence is best covered with the sunder mechanics. Scoot doesn't really apply well as the game doesn't allow for a time gap between firing an arrow and the arrow dealing damage.
Thus, I think your immediate action would either have to occur before the arrow was released from the bow, or after the arrow hit the target.
That's not exactly right, the arrow isn't the weapon, it's the ammunition.
If this were a spell, there is the "time gap" of saving throw, as well as the time gap of counterspell.There are certain action that allow a character the opportunity to interrupt an action.
Even deflect arrow allows for an interruption of the attack action.
Look at some of the new feats like deflecting rays with your shield?
Cinematically this has been done before. Multiple times.
There is semi precedence for something similar mechanically in game.
He isn't trying to destroy the arrow perse, but move it off course to cause it to miss.
I would also argue the gunslinger could have used targeting, and "disarmed" the arrow, thereby ruining the attack as well, or the entire bow for that matter.
The theme and intent of the gunslinger is he can do crazy stuff with shooting, so it's totally out outside of he realm of influence.
On a related note, I never understood why I had to have a free hand and and improved unarmed strike to deflect an arrow, seems like I should be able to do it a) easier with a sword or shield, or b) just as easily with an another arrow, as my bare hand.
Ok I am basically just calling this trolling now by the form of your responses. Kinda funny but I am done with that. I would still like someone to address my original question about what constitutes an unattended object.
What is an unattended objet is, rules-as-written, what ever your GM says it is. His guess is as good as anyone's since the rules don't define what unattended means. My interpretation is unattended is "not in the possession of a creature."
In most cases possession is obvious. The problem is with any definition there is always some small portion that will remain GM discretion. What about an object that is subject of the spell telekinesis? is it attended? Does it matter whether the spell is instantaneous or sustained?
Now we need to define what possession means. In my book, possession is being held, worn, and/or otherwise subject to a conscious creature that can exert control over the object.
In my opinion, I would say it depends on the type of telekinesis. An object that is subject to sustained telekinesis is an attended object. An object that was subject to an instantaneous telekineses is an unattended object.
Same as with the arrow, the bowman was in possession of it but no longer has control of it. Physics (real-world or in-game) now has control of the arrow.
Since this is likely to come up again in your campaign you should sit down with the GM and have him provide an explanation of what is and what is not an unattended object.
Would a pea-sized bead count? If so, then this skill could be used to intercept a fireball. So, even with the detailed explanation above. I would probably draw the line short of allowing that, even if it seems to meet the criteria I just laid out. As funny as the image of a mage having his spell literally explode in his face, I think game balance has to be invoked as being able to intercept spells would require something altogether more powerful.
My definition of an unattended object would be an object that is:
A) Not currently worn, held, or being manually manipulated...
B) Not in motion and...
C) Not being magically manipulated (via mage hand or some such).
I also believe in consistency, and that if you allow a player to do something once they will continue to do it. This is an instance of where the Rule of Cool bends my personal tastes, in that, it sounds feasible in a fantasy environment, and is ARGUABLE enough to allow.
I would tell the player that under the circumstances, I would reward the clever idea by allowing it this one instant. Future instances would require a feat. Truly, this is a sunder attempt, as the arrow is an extension of the attack and is a weapon. I would not allow this to work on other firearms, though I may bend more on thrown weapons, if only because I can easily see an alchemists fire being shot out of the air mid-flight. It has a very cinematic quality to it.
Another possible way to handle this I think, rather than treating it as a sunder... if a DM felt compelled to allow the use of Scoot on a projectile, one could say that scooting the projectile imposes a penalty on the attack. That could cause a miss, or cause the projectile to hit an unintended target, or not affect it all. You're not damaging the projectile after all, your intent is to move it out of the way.
This is a tough call, honestly. Normally, I rule in favor of "physics" because of immersion is impossible without SOME semblance of reality, but I agree that characters who aren't wizards should be able to do amazing things outside of that realm as well.
Aren't you spending a grit to do it? The grit and a reserved action is the balancing factor.No you just have to HAVE 1 grit so if I have spent it all, I can not do it. But reserved action and an attack roll. Remember the deflect arrows ability has no rolls at all and does not even count as an action.
As I read it, you have to spend a grit point.
Utility Shot (Ex): At 11th level, a gunslinger can spend grit to use one of the following utility shots. All of the following uses of utility shot cost 1 grit point.
[...]
Scoot Unattended Object: The gunslinger makes an attack roll against a Tiny or smaller unattended object within the first range increment of her firearm. A Tiny unattended object has AC 5, a Diminutive unattended object has AC 7, and a Fine sized unattended object has AC 11. On a hit, you do not damage the object with the shot, but can move it up to 15 feet farther away from shot’s origin. On a miss, the gunslinger damages the object normally.
Maybe it would be best to make this ability not applicable to moving objects (which should at least have a way higher AC). But form a balancing point of view I don't care much - spending a grit point and a full action (readying+standard) to handle one arrow ...
My definition of an unattended object would be an object that is:
A) Not currently worn, held, or being manually manipulated...
B) Not in motion and...
C) Not being magically manipulated (via mage hand or some such).
Not to pick on you Fog, but B) is one I often see used in such arguments that just lends itself to all sorts of problems. Is an object on a ship or cart considered "in motion." You then have to bring in all kinds of caveats of speed, intent, frame of reference, etc.
From a Newtonian physics point of view, I would say anything that a creature can exert force on is attended.
My definition of an unattended object would be an object that is:
A) Not currently worn, held, or being manually manipulated...
B) Not in motion and...
C) Not being magically manipulated (via mage hand or some such).I also believe in consistency, and that if you allow a player to do something once they will continue to do it. This is an instance of where the Rule of Cool bends my personal tastes, in that, it sounds feasible in a fantasy environment, and is ARGUABLE enough to allow.
I would tell the player that under the circumstances, I would reward the clever idea by allowing it this one instant. Future instances would require a feat. Truly, this is a sunder attempt, as the arrow is an extension of the attack and is a weapon. I would not allow this to work on other firearms, though I may bend more on thrown weapons, if only because I can easily see an alchemists fire being shot out of the air mid-flight. It has a very cinematic quality to it.
Another possible way to handle this I think, rather than treating it as a sunder... if a DM felt compelled to allow the use of Scoot on a projectile, one could say that scooting the projectile imposes a penalty on the attack. That could cause a miss, or cause the projectile to hit an unintended target, or not affect it all. You're not damaging the projectile after all, your intent is to move it out of the way.
This is a tough call, honestly. Normally, I rule in favor of "physics" because of immersion is impossible without SOME semblance of reality, but I agree that characters who aren't wizards should be able to do amazing things outside of that realm as well.
Again, the arrow is not the weapon but the ammo. Just like a bullet.
But under the definition of "being manipulated by..." I would say in that case the arrow IS being manipulated, as it is being projected and could not move under it's own power, projected, as in projectile... so yea it is currently being manipulated.
My definition of an unattended object would be an object that is:
A) Not currently worn, held, or being manually manipulated...
B) Not in motion and...
C) Not being magically manipulated (via mage hand or some such).
Not to pick on you Fog, but B) is one I often see used in such arguments that just lends itself to all sorts of problems. Is an object on a ship or cart considered "in motion." You then have to bring in all kinds of caveats of speed, intent, frame of reference, etc.
From a Newtonian physics point of view, I would say anything that a creature can exert force on is attended.
"Newtonian physics" are a bit deep to bring into this discussion.
My definition is for in game purposes where physics are simplified, and therefore I don't think any of those questions bear any relevance. Were this not a game based on ambiguous rulings over which a DM held sway, I would agree.
Point B is mainly for purposes such as an instance where someone rolls a marble down a hall or drops a stone into a pit to see how long it takes to make a sound. Corner cases, to be sure, but in my opinion, to make the game fair to players and NPCs, any object set in motion that leaves a character's person is still considered attended until it ceases to perform the function it was set to do.
Again, it's only MY ruling and MY interpretation. I posted it here because the forum was asked for opinions.
@Pendagast: I do not differentiate ammunition from the weapon because without one, neither functions as intended. Some melee weapons may be designed to fire projectiles as a secondary function, but in the vast majority of cases, a ranged weapon is not intended to be used in melee. It is for that reason that I do not make the distinction in this case.
My definition of an unattended object would be an object that is:
A) Not currently worn, held, or being manually manipulated...
B) Not in motion and...
C) Not being magically manipulated (via mage hand or some such).
Not to pick on you Fog, but B) is one I often see used in such arguments that just lends itself to all sorts of problems. Is an object on a ship or cart considered "in motion." You then have to bring in all kinds of caveats of speed, intent, frame of reference, etc.
From a Newtonian physics point of view, I would say anything that a creature can exert force on is attended.
"Newtonian physics" are a bit deep to bring into this discussion.
My definition is for in game purposes where physics are simplified, and therefore I don't think any of those questions bear any relevance. Were this not a game based on ambiguous rulings over which a DM held sway, I would agree.
Point B is mainly for purposes such as an instance where someone rolls a marble down a hall or drops a stone into a pit to see how long it takes to make a sound. Corner cases, to be sure, but in my opinion, to make the game fair to players and NPCs, any object set in motion that leaves a character's person is still considered attended until it ceases to perform the function it was set to do.
Again, it's only MY ruling and MY interpretation. I posted it here because the forum was asked for opinions.
@Pendagast: I do not differentiate ammunition from the weapon because without one, neither functions as intended. Some melee weapons may be designed to fire projectiles as a secondary function, but in the vast majority of cases, a ranged weapon is not intended to be used in melee. It is for that reason that I do not make the distinction in this case.
But the game does specifically differentiate between the ammo and the weapon.
|
|
That's not exactly right, the arrow isn't the weapon, it's the ammunition.
If this were a spell, there is the "time gap" of saving throw, as well as the time gap of counterspell.
There are certain action that allow a character the opportunity to interrupt an action.
Even deflect arrow allows for an interruption of the attack action.
Look at some of the new feats like deflecting rays with your shield?
Cinematically this has been done before. Multiple times.
There is semi precedence for something similar mechanically in game.
He isn't trying to destroy the arrow perse, but move it off course to cause it to miss.
I would also argue the gunslinger could have used targeting, and "disarmed" the arrow, thereby ruining the attack as well, or the entire bow for that matter.
The theme and intent of the gunslinger is he can do crazy stuff with shooting, so it's totally out outside of he realm of influence.On a related note, I never understood why I had to have a free hand and and improved unarmed strike to deflect an arrow, seems like I should be able to do it a) easier with a sword or shield, or b) just as easily with an another arrow, as my bare hand.
Well, deflecting an arrow with a shield would be the arrow hitting the ac provided by the shield. Already incorporated. The sword maneuver could be incorporated as your base 10 ac.
The thing is, you're attempting to use an ability intended to manipulate unattended items to negate an attack.
Bows and arrows are separate - except that they are jointly used in an attack, which is what I was talking about in my post. So in the context, "they are separate" isn't much of an argument. The arrow is dealing damage based on the bow, not its own base 1d4 *medium arrow*. Plus any magical/composite bonuses the bow imparts to it.
Ok, well, from a very basic mechanical standpoint it doesn't work at all.
The action sequence of a combat roll is "Declare target, attack roll, damage roll"
So with your example, here's what would happen.
Attacker: Declare target
Attacker: Attack roll
Defender: Scoot arrow
Attacker: Damage roll
Why? Because once the attack roll has been made, the mechanics don't recheck whether the target remains a valid one. The logic construct doesn't continually reassess.
As far as the time gap goes, you're taking it as implied. However, there is no time listed between a spell and the save, or firing an arrow and it hitting the target. Rules are an abstraction. By adding a time gap in, you're creating an area of vulnerability where one didn't exist before.
And again, I know this has been done cinematicly. I mentioned that in an earlier post. DESPITE wanting to do it cinematicly, you need to look at it from a total game balance viewpoint instead of what seems cool to you at the moment. It's part of the reason they took called shots out of the game. Yes, firing an arrow into a monsters eye is very cinematic, but when everyone used it to hamstring/decapitate all their enemies...
Well, the cr of giants went down a bit.
Also, I totally agree with you that this needs to be addressed for society play. And addressing it for general play as well wouldn't be bad either.
Just a little subnote: Yes, the game differentiates between the bow and the arrow. However, it also combines them together, using characteristics of both as part of an attack. Since the question at hand occurs during an attack, it's a valid interpretation to say that until the action is completed, the arrow counts as being wielded.
|
One of the reasons I think this needs to be addressed is because when the gunslinger is finished and put into PFS organized play, where house rules and homebrew are not allowed and you have to go by RAW, this IS going to come up again for other people and will cause more problems.
Stuff that gets sticky for organized play is stuff that makes a difference in character development regarding the interaction of feats, equipment, character build stuff. This doesn't fall into these areas. Just because something can be seen in different ways doesn't mean it requires an official answer due to organized play.
Gunslinger is already allowed in PFS. Should this issue come up it's merely a question of variance after, "I ready to scoot an arrow if he shoots..." between 1) "Sounds cool, go for it?" and 2) "Scoot doesn't work that way, choose another action."