Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Want to make sure these feats stack


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'm working on a throwing weapon build and want to make sure Rapid Shot and Two Weapon Fighting still stack with each other at a total of -4 to attack when throwing light weapons. They stacked in 3.x, but I don't know if there may be am official ruling in PF. Thanks!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Seems legit.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thrown two-weapon fighting is definitely legit - it is explicitly called out in the combat rules. Rapid shot simply allows an extra attack with "a ranged weapon", which thrown weapons are.

Yep, BBT got it in one - completely legitimate use of feats.


Good good. I thought as much, but really wanted to make sure before I took the time to make the build.

Sczarni

You'll need QuickDraw to make full use of TWF though.


Krodjin wrote:
You'll need QuickDraw to make full use of TWF though.

Or shuriken, since you can draw them like ammunition (free action).


Quick draw is in the build.

Silver Crusade

PF nerfed Rapid Shot. : (

Rapid Shot wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.

In 3.5 there was no requirement to use a ranged weapon for any attack except the extra attack granted by the Rapid Shot feat. I could have a melee build with Quick Draw (or shuriken) to get an extra attack each round, with judicious use of 5-foot steps.

Does anyone know why they nerfed it in PF?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
PF nerfed Rapid Shot.

Is there a reason you're reading it as "When making a full-attack action exclusively with ranged weapons" instead of "When making a full-attack action that involves an attack with a ranged weapon" ?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quick Draw does indeed let you take additional attacks with thrown weapons. Rapid Shot is a trickier case, though, since its name implies, flavor wise, that it should work with ranged weapons you "shoot" (like bows). Further reading indicates that Rapid Shot works with ranged weapons, not melee weapons, and thrown weapons are technically classified as melee weapons despite the fact that they can be hurled.

So, the flavor and intent of the feat Rapid Shot is that it should work on bows (and crossbows of lighter construction, assuming the user has Rapid Reload), and were I a strictly by-the-rules guy I'd say that Rapid Shot won't work with thrown weapons.

That said, I'm not a strictly by-the-rules guy. If a character wants to spend the feats and take Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot, and Quick Draw... I'd say let him make those extra attacks with thrown weapons. After all... he's still in a situation where he's sub-par to the bow, since his thrown weapons are more valuable than arrows.

This is, by the way, an example of a rule that I'm not keen on making an "official" ruling, since both options and interpretations are, I think, equally valid and make for different (but not necessarily better one way or another) game play. Pick the one that works best for you!

NOTE: Were I building such a character as an NPC in an adventure, I'd err on the conservative side and make him a bow fighter if I really wanted him to use Rapid Shot.

Equipment lists the categories as "the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons)"

"melee" and "ranged" both contain two types of weapons, those that are thrown, and those that aren't.

Melee and Ranged Weapons: "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."

Melee weapon: Longsword
Melee weapon, thrown weapon: Dagger
Ranged weapon, thrown weapon: Dart
Ranged weapon: Longbow

The first two are effective in melee, the last two aren't.

This has some possibly unintended side effects.

You can use Deflect Arrows on an arrow, bolt, or dart, but not a thrown dagger. (specifies "ranged weapon")

You can use Deadly Aim with bows, darts, or daggers, because it specifies "ranged attack rolls" not "ranged weapons."

You can't use Point-Blank Shot with a thrown dagger, since it specifies "ranged weapons" (Sorry rogues!).

And, by RAW, you can't use Rapid Shot with thrown daggers, since it specifies ranged weapon(s). (Also "fire" one extra time, etc.)

I highly recommend taking James' post to heart, though.

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
PF nerfed Rapid Shot.

Is there a reason you're reading it as "When making a full-attack action exclusively with ranged weapons" instead of "When making a full-attack action that involves an attack with a ranged weapon" ?

I did read it that way. The extra attack would only apply if your (non Rapid Shot) full attack was 'with a ranged weapon'. This strongly implies 'exclusively', but even with a looser interpretation (which seems dodgy) it would certainly require at least one of those attacks to be with a ranged weapon. It even seems to imply that the extra attack granted by RS must be with the same weapon.

In 3.5 all of the attacks could be melee, with the bonus RS being the only ranged attack in the entire sequence.


EDIT: Actually, you know what? Since we're splitting hairs about the rules, I'd note that Rapid Shot says "When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round."

So, as soon as you can start 'firing' your thrown weapons, NP!

-------------
I REALLY wanted to kill this. :D

I've only got one thing that I can find that might be a concern- but it's nitpicky and probably a little bs.

The two-weapon fighting feat says "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."

It specifically calls it 'THE secondary weapon'. So the feat applies to the equipment you wield, not to the hand that wields it.

So, if you throw a weapon from your secondary hand, that was the weapon that two-weapon fighting applied to. If you draw another one, two-weapon fighting doesn't apply to it.

That doesn't really affect you until you get to the next tier of two-weapon fighting feats, though. And frankly, I'm not sure I'm buying it either. I just really want to kill this.

EDI


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I did read it that way.

Yeah, I asked why.

"When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon"

Are you taking a full-attack action? Yes or no.
Are you using a ranged weapon? Yes or no.

If both of those are yes, then you can fire one additional time this round.

I am a crazy 11th-level fighter. I use a full round action to full attack. I stab a guy with my dagger, killing him. I then throw my dagger at the guy behind him. I then draw my shortbow (via quickdraw) and shoot him in the face. I then shoot him again with my rapid shot.

I made a full-attack action, and it was with a ranged weapon. It wasn't exclusively with a ranged weapon, but it was with one.

I do agree you should have to (intend to) use a ranged weapon in the full-attack before you're eligible to use the rapid shot feat. I assume that's part of the 'theme' of the feat being bows/guns/etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see what Malachi is saying.

Rapid Shot's text changed to be something that can be read that you need to be making the whole full attack with a ranged weapon, rather than ranged weapons.

This would imply, when read this way, that you can only use rapid shot with a weapon you can make multiple attacks with, and you can't normally do that with thrown weapons since well...you're throwing them. And they're different weapons if you have multiple.

We do have this FAQ, but interestingly it says the reason you can do it is because the bombs functions "just like a full-attack with a ranged weapon".

Don't think this is the intent, but strange things have happened. More investigation is necessary.

Silver Crusade

For comparison, the phrase in the 3.5 version of RS is, 'You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon', so the extra attack must be ranged, but the other attacks are undefined; just 'full attack' and '-2 to all attacks in that round'.

On the other issue: wow! I can't believe it's RAI that thrown weapons can't use RS!


ClaimingLight wrote:
The two-weapon fighting feat says "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."

That's the fluff text.

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat): "Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat."

Combat, Two-Weapon Fighting: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

One extra attack, correct. With the off-hand weapon, correct. All is well.

ClaimingLight wrote:
That doesn't really affect you until you get to the next tier of two-weapon fighting feats, though.

Yep, ITWF is where you get hosed.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat): "Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty."

That specifies an extra attack with the weapon, not with the hand. It's probably not intended that way.


Grick wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I did read it that way.

Yeah, I asked why.

"When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon"

Are you taking a full-attack action? Yes or no.
Are you using a ranged weapon? Yes or no.

If both of those are yes, then you can fire one additional time this round.

I am a crazy 11th-level fighter. I use a full round action to full attack. I stab a guy with my dagger, killing him. I then throw my dagger at the guy behind him. I then draw my shortbow (via quickdraw) and shoot him in the face. I then shoot him again with my rapid shot.

I made a full-attack action, and it was with a ranged weapon. It wasn't exclusively with a ranged weapon, but it was with one.

I do agree you should have to (intend to) use a ranged weapon in the full-attack before you're eligible to use the rapid shot feat. I assume that's part of the 'theme' of the feat being bows/guns/etc.

Well, that does stand up to reason. It's munchkin. Certainly a loophole if not an exploit. I think someone would be hard pressed to say it was intentional. But it does stand up.

Silver Crusade

If we are being nitpicky...

My DM went on a minor rant about 'firing' bows. You 'fire' firearms. You 'shoot' bows. You do not 'fire' bows! or anything else that doesn't use gunpowder!

Rapid Shot wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.

I'm not risking my hard-earned XPs for anyone!

If we're being nitpicky enough that we disallow RS with thrown daggers on the grounds that daggers are melee weapons, then we should also disallow RS with any weapon, unless that weapon can be 'fired', which means firearms only.

So, Rapid Shot can only be used with firearms, and only those firearms that can be loaded as a free action!

Actually, wouldn't it be better not to be nitpicky here, and allow RS with daggers and bows?

Silver Crusade

BTW Grick, I'm happy to interpret PF's RS in your looser way, but I'd feel dirty afterwards!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If we are being nitpicky...

My DM went on a minor rant about 'firing' bows. You 'fire' firearms. You 'shoot' bows. You do not 'fire' bows! or anything else that doesn't use gunpowder!

Rapid Shot wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.

I'm not risking my hard-earned XPs for anyone!

If we're being nitpicky enough that we disallow RS with thrown daggers on the grounds that daggers are melee weapons, then we should also disallow RS with any weapon, unless that weapon can be 'fired', which means firearms only.

So, Rapid Shot can only be used with firearms, and only those firearms that can be loaded as a free action!

Actually, wouldn't it be better not to be nitpicky here, and allow RS with daggers and bows?

If we're going to be continually nitpicky, your assertion is wrong. You don't shoot bows. How could you? With a cannon that shot bows out of it? That seems inefficient.

Silver Crusade

ClaimingLight wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If we are being nitpicky...

My DM went on a minor rant about 'firing' bows. You 'fire' firearms. You 'shoot' bows. You do not 'fire' bows! or anything else that doesn't use gunpowder!

Rapid Shot wrote:
When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.

I'm not risking my hard-earned XPs for anyone!

If we're being nitpicky enough that we disallow RS with thrown daggers on the grounds that daggers are melee weapons, then we should also disallow RS with any weapon, unless that weapon can be 'fired', which means firearms only.

So, Rapid Shot can only be used with firearms, and only those firearms that can be loaded as a free action!

Actually, wouldn't it be better not to be nitpicky here, and allow RS with daggers and bows?

If we're going to be continually nitpicky, your assertion is wrong. You don't shoot bows. How could you? With a cannon that shot bows out of it? That seems inefficient.

Excellent point!

Bows shoot arrows!

Airguns shoot air!

Tranquilliser guns shoot tranquillisers!

Elephant guns shoot elephants!


Ha! Would have been more clever if you had said "Um, excuse me- but cannons would fire bows out of them."

:D


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You do not 'fire' bows! or anything else that doesn't use gunpowder!

fire: noun, verb, fired, fir·ing:

verb (used without object)
30. to hurl; throw: to fire a stone through a window.
37. to shoot, as a gun.
38. to discharge a gun: to fire at a fleeing enemy.
39. to hurl a projectile.

Mirriam-Webster Examples of FIRE "She fired the arrow at the target."

And from the PRD:

Blowgun: "They are nearly silent when fired."
"You can fire a repeating crossbow..."
"You can fire, but not load, a sling with one hand."
"You can fire, but not load, a halfling sling staff with one hand."
"Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon"

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
we should also disallow RS with any weapon, unless that weapon can be 'fired'

Yep, James addressed that.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
So, Rapid Shot can only be used with firearms, and only those firearms that can be loaded as a free action!

Even if it was restricted to firearms, you could always use multiple firearms, or firearms with multiple barrels.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Actually, wouldn't it be better not to be nitpicky here, and allow RS with daggers and bows?

Again, I highly recommend taking James' post to heart.

Silver Crusade

ClaimingLight wrote:

Ha! Would have been more clever if you had said "Um, excuse me- but cannons would fire bows out of them."

:D

Sometimes 'funny' is more important than 'clever'. : )


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
ClaimingLight wrote:

Ha! Would have been more clever if you had said "Um, excuse me- but cannons would fire bows out of them."

:D

Sometimes 'funny' is more important than 'clever'. : )

Zing!

Silver Crusade

@ Grick; it was my DM's rant, not mine. Still, I'm careful how I phrase these things when he's DM! : )


Semantics aside, what I'm taking away from this is as long as my DM and I are on the same page beforehand, the feats stack. But please keep posting, I find it rather amusing. Lol :-D


Dawsjax wrote:
what I'm taking away from this is as long as my DM and I are on the same page beforehand, the feats stack.

That's pretty much universal.

The Most Important Rule: "The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."

Step 1: Find out what the rules actually say
Step 2: Change them to make your game fit your groups play style

The rules forum can help with step 1, and the house rules forum can help if you're unsure about step 2.


Grick, this is how I usually play. But I don't ever want to knowingly play contrary to the RAI if not the RAW.


Yeah- your mutual interpretation of the rules is all that matters.

But I think we all kind of know that we're talking about a little bit of a stretch here (to understate it).

So, opinion-wise, I'd say no as a DM. Grick would say yes. We're both right.


ClaimingLight wrote:

But I think we all kind of know that we're talking about a little bit of a stretch here (to understate it).

So, opinion-wise, I'd say no as a DM. Grick would say yes.

I'm not really sure what you're claiming here.

Also, don't mistake my arguing what the rules actually say with how I would run it at my table.


Grick wrote:
ClaimingLight wrote:

But I think we all kind of know that we're talking about a little bit of a stretch here (to understate it).

So, opinion-wise, I'd say no as a DM. Grick would say yes.

I'm not really sure what you're claiming here.

Also, don't mistake my arguing what the rules actually say with how I would run it at my table.

Well, I don't consider it an unfair assumption. You run a character that utilizes this interpretation of the rules. Since you're using the rules in that manner, I think it fair to assume you support their use.

What I'm claiming is that I think it evident that the feats were not intended to be used in that manner, but that the text of the feats don't prohibit their use in that manner.

Extrapolating: In the spirit of the rules, you wouldn't use the feats in that manner, but by the letter, you might.

Edit: Specifically, I'm referring to using Rapid Shot in combination with melee attacks (which I'd say no to). Naturally, I might be wrong about my analyses of their intentions.


I may change the build to be a little more dynamic. Rather than double daggers, maybe a pepperbox and dagger. Keep the dagger in hand if melee happens so I can pistol whip and stab. But still get the extra shot with rapid shot. That way I'm only ever incurring a -2, barring special circumstance. I try hard not to min/max and just play what I think will be fun.


You know... I'm starting to come around a little bit.

Truth be told, I think the concept as a whole sounds really cool. But it also sounds like you're trying to get "just one more attack" out of two-weapon fighting. Which kind of makes the premise less pure and more 'power-gamey'


The idea behind the dagger throw is to cram as many attacks as possible in one round. Not so much power gaming as "let's see how many daggers the DM allows me to carry on my person, and how quickly my character will need to start retrieving them." Plus, I always get the vision of a dagger expert throwing his blades into a wall to provide hand and foot holds for others to climb. Or pinning an opponent to a wall with several well aimed throws. So really, not as much power game as flashy game.


ClaimingLight wrote:
You run a character that utilizes this interpretation of the rules. Since you're using the rules in that manner, I think it fair to assume you support their use.

I do?

OHHHH, the "crazy 11th-level fighter" was an example. I could have said "You are a crazy 11th-level fighter" or "Bob is a crazy 11th-level fighter." It was just an illustration of someone making a full-attack with a ranged weapon in addition to a melee weapon.

ClaimingLight wrote:

What I'm claiming is that I think it evident that the feats were not intended to be used in that manner, but that the text of the feats don't prohibit their use in that manner.

Extrapolating: In the spirit of the rules, you wouldn't use the feats in that manner, but by the letter, you might.

Edit: Specifically, I'm referring to using Rapid Shot in combination with melee attacks (which I'd say no to).

Ok. You're saying it's a stretch to not assume that every attack you make that turn must be made with a ranged weapon in order to use Rapid Shot. That's similar to what Malachi Silverclaw was saying.

No-one has yet explained why they think that's the case.

If I had a feat that said "When eating a dinner with a fork, you can eat one additional potato this meal." That doesn't prohibit me from also using a knife, I just have to use a fork as well.

ClaimingLight wrote:
But it also sounds like you're trying to get "just one more attack" out of two-weapon fighting. Which kind of makes the premise less pure and more 'power-gamey'

What about wielding two hand crossbows? Rapid Shot clearly works there, so does Two-Weapon Fighting. (Or a repeating crossbow if you're worried about reloading and free hands and stuff)


Well, in the case of the crossbows in particular, you would need two hands to reload them. EDIT: Just read the repeating crossbow bit.

You're right to say that a crossbow would apply. I've come around to that part. I'm more interested in combining melee and ranged attacks with rapid shot.

Turnabout seems like fair play here. Since there is a mathematical 50% chance that the missing text in the Rapid Shot feat applies to either possibility, it seems like your own argument would have to prove that melee attacks could be used in combination with ranged attacks.

It further seems that, given the nature of the OP's post, that common sense would indicate that my position is the one someone would naturally assume.

Edit x2: Actually OP didn't say that. Guess this is just between us! I suppose it'd be fair to ask then- wouldn't you agree that the layman's reading of Rapid Shot would read that way? Given that agreement, wouldn't it be fair to say that the burden of proof is on your side?


ClaimingLight wrote:
Well, in the case of the crossbows in particular, you would need two hands to reload them.

Start with primary-hand crossbow. Make iterative and rapid shots, using free hand to reload. Drop crossbow. Swift recover off-hand crossbow from weapon cord. Make off-hand shots, using free hand to reload.

ClaimingLight wrote:
Since there is a mathematical 50% chance that the missing text in the Rapid Shot feat applies to either possibility

Words do not work that way. There's not an equal chance that the word "exclusively" belongs in that sentence any more than there's an equal chance the word "pudding" belongs there.

ClaimingLight wrote:
it seems like your own argument would have to prove that melee attacks could be used in combination with ranged attacks.

See post 13. You're making a full attack, you're using a ranged weapon, you're good.

ClaimingLight wrote:
It further seems that, given the nature of the OP's post, that common sense would indicate that my position is the one someone would naturally assume.

The OP asked if Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon Fighting stack, and they do.

Even if the OP was asking if Rapid Shot applies only to full-attacks in which you exclusively attack only with ranged weapons, that doesn't make the answer automatically "yes." Common sense would indicate the rules mean what they say, and don't mean something else without some sort of reason for it.


Yeah, I realized OP didn't say that. Edited my post while you were likely typing yours.

Words do work that way in this case. It says 'full attack with a ranged weapon'. It does not say 'full attack -including- a ranged weapon'.

So, the full attack must be made with a weapon that is ranged. If at any time the weapon stops being ranged, it fails to meet the requirements of the feat. Throwing weapons are only ranged weapons when they are thrown. Using them in melee makes them melee weapons.

Now, you might suggest that 'with' is an ambiguous term. Really, that's what the conversation is about. But, as there are two ways to interpret 'with', I would suggest a 50%.


Either way- I'm packing it in on this one. No more responses from me on this post. :)


ClaimingLight wrote:
Throwing weapons are only ranged weapons when they are thrown. Using them in melee makes them melee weapons.

They're defined based on whether they are effective in melee. A dart is always a ranged weapon, just like a dagger is always a melee weapon. They are both thrown weapons. See post 10 for citations.

ClaimingLight wrote:
Now, you might suggest that 'with' is an ambiguous term. Really, that's what the conversation is about.

Not really. I'm saying that without any evidence to say otherwise, the intent is what's written. A full-attack action in which a ranged weapon is used is a full-attack action with a ranged weapon.

In order to effectively argue that the intent is contrary to what is written, there should be some evidence. None has been presented.

As an amusing side, last year I was arguing almost the opposite in a thread about Flurry of Stars. Flurry of stars works when a ninja "makes a full-attack attack with shuriken." I argued that the intent is that the full-attack had to be made only with shuriken, and not a mix of shuriken and other weapons. My reasoning was balance: Flurry of Shuriken gives you two extra shuriken attacks, and you take a -2 penalty on all shuriken attacks. If you make some unarmed strikes, then throw shuriken, the -2 penalty only applies to the shuriken, unlike Rapid Shot, where the penalty applies to all attack rolls you make.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just to check the "not all thrown weapons are ranged weapons when thrown" thing, which ability score do you use to calculate your attack bonus when throwing daggers?

Quote:

Attack Bonus

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:

Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty


Chemlak wrote:

Just to check the "not all thrown weapons are ranged weapons when thrown" thing, which ability score do you use to calculate your attack bonus when throwing daggers?

Quote:
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:

Good catch. That should probably say "melee attack" and "ranged attack" instead of weapon. Otherwise, you're using strength instead of dex when throwing a melee weapon.

Sczarni

Hmm. I've always thought that a thrown weapon with a listed range increment would count as a ranged weapon - and thus qualify for Point Blank Shot.

Grick wrote:
You can't use Point-Blank Shot with a thrown dagger, since it specifies "ranged weapons" (Sorry rogues!).

Well that sucks.

People that think Paizo hates the Monk Class have it all wrong - obviously they hate the Rogues.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Something isn't right here...hmm...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can do better:

If a thrown dagger is still a melee weapon (and specifically NOT a ranged weapon), you cannot make a ranged attack with it, since "With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight."

Using the "thrown daggers are still melee weapons, not ranged weapons" interpretation causes more than a few rules to melt. Try arguing that throwing a dagger provokes an AoO, when it's not a ranged weapon, therefore cannot be used to make an "Attack (ranged)", and thus doesn't provoke.

My interpretation (using a common sense approach) is that the RAI are that if a ranged attack is made with a melee weapon that has a range increment, it is treated as a ranged weapon.


RAI this works, Rapid shot was intended for all ranged attacks (even thrown)

But if you get someone that's really butthurt and goes "NO! RAW IS ONLY ALLOWED!" Then go two weapon fighting with many pepperbox pistols on weapon cords while you have haste cast upon you. Then do 9 ranged attacks a round (10 if you go wild barbarian rager) and let the powder fly!


I think as long as my GM and I are on the same page concerning the RAI, I'm sticking with the dagger idea. It's really not ss much about the number of attacks as it is about presenting an agile fighter so decked out in daggers you might think he's peace-bonded spiked armor. *Fighter walks into tavern, bouncer tells him to check his weapons at the door. 30 daggers later, bouncer says "enough, just promise not to stab anyone".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like your style, Daws.

Absolutely agree that as long as you and your GM don't get into an argument about it, the strict interpretation of RAW doesn't matter.

We just love a juicy rules contradiction.


Chemlak wrote:
If a thrown dagger is still a melee weapon (and specifically NOT a ranged weapon), you cannot make a ranged attack with it, since "With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight."

A greataxe is absolutely not a ranged weapon, but if you throw one (as a full-round action) you're making a ranged attack.

Chemlak wrote:
Try arguing that throwing a dagger provokes an AoO, when it's not a ranged weapon, therefore cannot be used to make an "Attack (ranged)", and thus doesn't provoke.

Ranged attack != ranged weapon

Chemlak wrote:
My interpretation (using a common sense approach) is that the RAI are that if a ranged attack is made with a melee weapon that has a range increment, it is treated as a ranged weapon.

That's almost certainly how it's intended.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Want to make sure these feats stack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.