Combat implyes that actions of all characters happen simultaneously, with initiative meaning only split second difference long enough to swing a blade or release an arrow before you opponent do. If you machinegunning with the bow your hand is occupied. This is what i think intention was, rules may be bent other way.
GIVEN: We both agree that RAI is crystal clear that snap shot can be used in conjunction with combat reflexes.
GIVEN: RAW can be read in more than one way in many cases, and this is one of those cases.
THEN: The only logical reading is to take the reading that matches RAI. Doing so gives us RAI and eliminates conflict that the other RAW reading would give.
The bolded GIVEN is incorrect. RAW Specifically says that drawing an arrow is a FREE action. Nowhere in RAW is it said that drawing an arrow is a non-action.
The Quickdraw feat allows someone to draw a weapon as a free action, does that mean drawing a weapon is always a free action? No it requires that feat. Combat Reflexes and Snap Shot are the same thing. Just because they allow you to make multiple AoO does not change the fact that drawing an arrow is a Free action.
Not that I would agree with this limitation, but are you admitting that if a person had Combat Reflexes, Reflexive Shot or Snap Shot, and Crane Riposte, they could pull off the Reflexive Shot/Crane Riposte combination.
If not, it sure sounds that way.
I was implying that at first (in my previous post, not the one you quoted), but after re-reading the FAQ, no you can't. Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes allow you to make multiple AoO's a round. It does NOT change drawing an arrow from a Free Action to a non-action.
Driver I apologize for not being perfect. In the future I shall endeavor to improve my imperfections. Although if you are being fair, instead of just mindlessly attacking anyone who disagrees with you, you'll see my position ALMOST changed to closer to your side, but instead it stayed the same. So the fact that I'm NOT saying it means my position DID stay consistent.
That said, I rarely say this, but you are completely wrong. You don't want to see it fine bury your head. All the rules disagree with you and you haven't presented ANYTHING that could remotely be considered a rational argument for your position. The strongest thing you can say is that a FAQ allows multiple free actions for an AoO, so please allow this too. That's the strongest argument you have, and it's weak. Everything presented in the rules disagrees with you, so don't get upset when the people who read the rules disagree with you also.
EDIT
So now I guess you are saying the a zen archer walks around with a fist full of arrows. He is not able to draw and shoot.
Drawing an arrow is a free action. That's the rule. That's what I'm saying.
Yet the Two-Handed Weapons FAQ (which a Bow requires two hands to use) says applying and removing hands from such weapons is a Free Action, and in turn it distinguishes itself an action type all on its own. If a FAQ comes in which they clarify it to mean the same as nocking an arrow for ranged two-handed weapons, then by...
And the FAQ which talks about that is a general rule on removing/re-gripping. It is not a specific rule. Nocking an arrow is a specific rule for bows. Specific > general. Appeals to the FAQ on regripping have no bearing here.
Among two handed ranged weapons are also blowguns and slings. Neither would require a second hand to ever physically be on the weapon to reload them - it would be tricky to reload a sling that way, but not required - with a little practice you could drop the bullet into the pouch. With a blow gun the second hand is on the ammo pushing it into the end. Both of these are more akin to nocking an arrow than is placing a second hand on the weapon. All these weapons require two hands to use. Nothing specifies they require two hands physically touching the weapon. Common sense tells us the bow requires a hand on the string, and the sling requires a hand stuffing the bullet into the pouch (after which it is a one handed weapon as far as attacking with it). And a blow gun, depending on its length, might require a second hand to steady it for better aim - but not required for a short blow gun. But in general principle the second hand here in all three cases is needed for the reloading of the weapon - not for gripping the weapon.
...provided you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack of opportunity as a Free Action.
It doesn't actually say that though.
It says "you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making". Normally a weapon like a crossbow takes a move action or more to reload. A gun, depending on type and lack of class features or...
Nocking an arrow would require you to already have the ammunition out of the quiver and in your hand to nock. I simply applied the FAQ mechanic to demonstrate that the Bow is not above the concept of being two-handed, since Driver said it's a Ranged weapon, not a two-handed weapon, and thusly not subject to such concepts. It is, and just served as ammunition for my War Machine of Doom and Sadness. Necessary? Not really. Helpful to demonstrate a point? Certainly.
Let me try to explain my point of view a bit more clearly, since you don't seem to understand it.
Random Archer A starts the encounter with one hand holding the bow and a quiver full of assorted arrows on his back before a given combat is initiated. The Book says drawing ammunition from such storage is a Free Action, and nocking an arrow counts as a non-action. So even if we go with the "nocking an arrow" non-action, what's he going to nock? An Arrow he doesn't have in his hand? So we can draw the ammunition from the quiver, right? Yes, as a Free Action. You can't do so outside your turn, and there is zero text from the Snap Shot feat, Combat Reflexes, or whatever, that says you can or gives any sort of allowance to.
The FAQ regarding Snap Shot + Combat Reflexes, as written, says "As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat." Revising the obvious redundancy, to utilize Combat Reflexes in conjunction with Snap Shot, it has the requirement of being able to "reload your weapon with a free action...as part of the ranged attack of opportunity you are making."
Do you see the problem now? The FAQ as written says you can only utilize Combat Reflexes for Snap Shot if you can reload your weapon with a Free Action as part of the Attack of Opportunity. One, you cannot take Free Actions outside your turn unless they specify otherwise (and Drawing Ammunition does not). Two, the book says reloading the bow requires both the Free Action to draw ammunition and the Non-Action to nock it. You can't nock an arrow if it's not drawn, and you can't fire ammunition from a bow if it's not nocked. The issue lies not with the nocking, but the drawing. The rules clearly show that you cannot do both actions outside your turn, as they are mutually exclusive in such regard.
*Edit* Now, if the FAQ had some better punctuation, having it written like, "As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action, you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat," your interpretation would be valid and mine would be...well...rubbish.
GIVEN: We both agree that RAI is crystal clear that snap shot can be used in conjunction with combat reflexes.
GIVEN: RAW can be read in more than one way in many cases, and this is one of those cases.
THEN: The only logical reading is to take the reading that matches RAI. Doing so gives us RAI and eliminates conflict that the other RAW reading would give.The bolded GIVEN is incorrect. RAW Specifically says that drawing an arrow is a FREE action. Nowhere in RAW is it said that drawing an arrow is a non-action.
The Quickdraw feat allows someone to draw a weapon as a free action, does that mean drawing a weapon is always a free action? No it requires that feat. Combat Reflexes and Snap Shot are the same thing. Just because they allow you to make multiple AoO does not change the fact that drawing an arrow is a Free action.
You are attributing what I said to something I did not apply it to.
I am not disputing that "It is a free action to draw ammo" can be read in multiple ways. That is the general rule and has no ambiguity.
What I'm saying can be read in multiple ways is the FAQ on snap shot. Reading it one way leaves the FAQ as a meaningless set of words that doesn't change how anything works and doesn't allow snap shot to work with combat reflexes. Reading it the other way allows for the RAW to match RAI. This is then a specific rule (that can be read in multiple ways to get different meanings) that overrides the general rule of it taking a free action to draw ammo.
While I don't believe Crane Riposte and Reflexive Shot/Snap Shot combo works, I do believe you are reading the FAQ wrong Darksol.
"Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat."
Looking at the first part of it, "As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action" So, can an archer reload their weapon with a free action? Yes they can. It is not saying they are using a free action right than, The FAQ is just asking, is it possible for you to reload your weapon with a free action, which you can. (Yu can't take that free action on your opponent's turn, but regardless, when you reload your bow/weapon, you do it with a free action.)
The second part only follows if you have the capability to reload your weapon with a free action, " you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack of opportunity you are making with the snap shot feat"
Now the FAQ says you don't use the free action to load your weapon, loading the weapon is now wrapped up into the AOO. You don't need to try to use a free action on your opponent's turn to load your weapon, it is part of your AOO, if you get the AOO, you can load your weapon and shoot all in the AOO.
If that was how it was supposed to be read, then like many other things they worded, they did it poorly.
If they took the time to make separate points between the two different subjects, (like I did with my edit,) then it would've been clear that if you could reload your weapon as a free action, you can also do it as part of the AOO.
The intent was clear; the wording, as usual, was ambiguous and difficult to properly discern.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the whole question and answer are not looked at fully, it can be unclear. But when taken in context with the question, which all answers should be.
Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
Someone asks specifically, if they can make multiple AOO with a ranged weapon, assuming the loading of the ranged weapon is a free action, and the FAQ says "Yes"
Even if you don't want to look at the rest of the explanation, or if they left out a comma where it would make the explanation clearer, the answer is still Yes.
Which would in turn mean that the FAQ also demonstrates drawing ammunition is something you can do outside your turn (whether it's something that Snap Shot inadvertantly allows, it doesn't say).
It is clearer when looking at it from that perspective, though it can still be a tad ambiguous. I would still raise the point of its qualification being a two-handed ranged weapon and regards in application and removing of hands for the weapon, even though the intent for ranged weapons is to not function that way, the FAQ (not specified toward just melee weapons) has something else to say.
As far as the combo at this point, ignoring the two-handed FAQ applying to the bow, it is allowed by RAW. RAI, I'd highly doubt it though.
bbangerter - I may have misunderstood you if so I apologize.
I really think people need to stop applying a FAQ that applies to one given circumstance (spelled out in the FAQ) and trying to apply to every situation. Drawing an arrow is a Free action. You can make multiple AoO's dispite this fact if you have those feats. Just like drawing a sword is a move action, but you can draw it as a free action if you have the Quickdraw feat. Or just like a monk can only flurry with certain monk weapons, just because Zen Archer can do it with a bow, doesn't mean that fact changes the rules for all monks in every instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Snap Shot doesn't allow you to draw an arrow to make an attack of opportunity outside of your turn, the feat is nigh pointless. Might as well be a teamwork feat because it does pretty much nothing for the person taking it.
If Snap Shot doesn't allow you to draw an arrow to make an attack of opportunity outside of your turn, the feat is nigh pointless. Might as well be a teamwork feat because it does pretty much nothing for the person taking it.
You draw the arrow as a free action at the end of your regular attack, which would make sense as a reason the bow requires two hands.
|
If Snap Shot doesn't allow you to draw an arrow to make an attack of opportunity outside of your turn, the feat is nigh pointless. Might as well be a teamwork feat because it does pretty much nothing for the person taking it.You draw the arrow as a free action at the end of your regular attack, which would make sense as a reason the bow requires two hands.
Or, more simply, the Snap Shot feat provides an exception to the rule that drawing an arrow as a free action must occur on your turn. Hence, you are able to make multiple AoO (assuming you also have combat reflexes).
That Crossbows specifically mention that they can be fired with one hand (at a penalty), even though you need two hands to use them otherwise, implies to me that the intent is both hands are, for all intents and purposes, occupied during the course of using a Bow of the Long or Short variety.
If Snap Shot doesn't allow you to draw an arrow to make an attack of opportunity outside of your turn, the feat is nigh pointless. Might as well be a teamwork feat because it does pretty much nothing for the person taking it.You draw the arrow as a free action at the end of your regular attack, which would make sense as a reason the bow requires two hands.
Or you draw the arrow as a part of making your AoO as Hangar mentioned, which also makes sense as a reason the bow requires two hands.
It seems a bit silly to say I couldn't make an AoO with a bow (even without Snap Shot) if I'm always running around with an arrow loaded and the string drawn unless threatening with the weapon has nothing to do with having an arrow nocked and drawn or having a bolt loaded on a crossbow. And it doesn't. Threatening is something melee weapons do, which is why you ordinarily can't with a ranged weapon, whether an arrow is in place for an attack or not. The Snap Shot feat changes nothing about one's ability to run around with an arrow nocked. It only addresses whether you can threaten an area around you while wielding a weapon which ordinarily would not do so.
Combat Reflexes would be utterly pointless for a person using Snap Shot et al. You couldn't make an AoO in the first round until you'd acted, unless you also run around everywhere you go with an arrow nocked and drawn (which is preposterous). And if you can't make multiple AoO in a round with Improved Snap Shot, the point of threatening out to 15' is all but completely relegated to helping the Rogue get more sneak attacks. And mind you, Improved Snap Shot has prereqs of Dex 15, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot (which seems rather thematically appropriate for a person who wants to potentially make multiple AoO with a bow ...), Weapon Focus, Snap Shot, and BAB +9. Tack on Combat Reflexes if you actually want to make multiple AoO. That's a massive feat investment to help the party's Rogue get flanking from a 15' distance. 6 feats by BAB +9. You're either a fighter or completely devoted to the build. So you can help a Rogue flank.
Or, the point of the chain is to allow a person to make AoO with a ranged weapon regardless of having an arrow drawn because they could draw the arrow (or dagger or whatever) as a part of the AoO. You can chalk it up to ambiguous wording if you want to, but it seems quite silly to me to think that these feats were intended to work otherwise.
You all are going back and forth and in circles on this topic. This is because both sides of the argument are totally legit, and it is going to take a judgment call from some higher authority type.
Not true. The side saying it's possible is saying it's possible becuase of a FAQ that has nothing to do with the Crane Style.
Having read through most of the thread, I believe it all comes down to one question:
Is the long bow a two handed weapon?
Again Incorrect. It comes down to the fact that by RAW drawing an arrow is a Free Action. Certian feats allow you to make AoO's, but the people "For Crowd" are trying to make it seem that since you can do it with feats, you should be able to do it any time.
The Devs may allow it. If they do Yay! But as of right now, it is clearly illegal by RAW.
You all are going back and forth and in circles on this topic. This is because both sides of the argument are totally legit, and it is going to take a judgment call from some higher authority type.Not true. The side saying it's possible is saying it's possible becuase of a FAQ that has nothing to do with the Crane Style.
Having read through most of the thread, I believe it all comes down to one question:
Is the long bow a two handed weapon?
Again Incorrect. It comes down to the fact that by RAW drawing an arrow is a Free Action. Certian feats allow you to make AoO's, but the people "For Crowd" are trying to make it seem that since you can do it with feats, you should be able to do it any time.
The Devs may allow it. If they do Yay! But as of right now, it is clearly illegal by RAW.
I don't think this can be done because of the two-handed weapon thing, not because of the free action thing. I disagree that a person with the Snap Shot chain is prohibited from drawing arrows as a part of making an AoO because drawing arrows is a free action; I think the implication of the Snap Shot chain is to create this exception, allowing you to take this free action outside of your turn when done in conjunction with an AoO.
So, depending on context, I disagree with your "it is clearly illegal by RAW" statement.
So, depending on context, I disagree with your "it is clearly illegal by RAW" statement.
Show me anywhere that says drawing an arrow ISN'T a free action.
-Can you use Snap Shot as is if drawing is a Free Action?-Yes, archer draws arrow as free action after full attack.
- Can you use Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes as is if drawing an arrow is a Free Action?
- No, Devs had to create an exception to do this and put it into the FAQ.
You can disagree all you want, RAW is RAW.
So, depending on context, I disagree with your "it is clearly illegal by RAW" statement.Show me anywhere that says drawing an arrow ISN'T a free action.
-Can you use Snap Shot as is if drawing is a Free Action?
-Yes, archer draws arrow as free action after full attack.- Can you use Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes as is if drawing an arrow is a Free Action?
- No, Devs had to create an exception to do this and put it into the FAQ.You can disagree all you want, RAW is RAW.
I never said drawing an arrow isn't a free action. What I said is I believe the clear implication from Snap Shot is that said free action can be taken outside of one's turn, an exception to the ordinary rule. Despite your apparent protestations, inference is also a part of RAW. Ergo, RAW is RAW. Check the Snap Shot feat. The necessary language is contained therein.
Don't need a FAQ. It might be useful, but don't need one. You can disagree all you want, clear implication of RAW is RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, depending on context, I disagree with your "it is clearly illegal by RAW" statement.Show me anywhere that says drawing an arrow ISN'T a free action.
-Can you use Snap Shot as is if drawing is a Free Action?
-Yes, archer draws arrow as free action after full attack.- Can you use Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes as is if drawing an arrow is a Free Action?
- No, Devs had to create an exception to do this and put it into the FAQ.You can disagree all you want, RAW is RAW.
The Devs didn't make an exception, they made a clarification. If you normally load a ranged weapon as a free action (such as a bow, or a crossbow with certain feats), you can make multiple AoO. If you can't load a ranged weapon as a free action (such as a crossbow without any feats) then you can't make multiple AoO--you can still make one with the Snap Shot feat.
No one is saying that drawing an arrow isn't a free action, we're just saying that Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes provides an exception to the rule that free actions may only be accomplished on your turn.
Besides, "RAW is RAW" is probably the dumbest argument anyone can make considering "RAW" is nothing more than an interpretation of what is written in the rule book. Someone may have a different interpretation than you and still be able to argue "RAW".
I never said drawing an arrow isn't a free action. What I said is I believe the clear implication from Snap Shot is that said free action can be taken outside of one's turn, an exception to the ordinary rule. Despite your apparent protestations, inference is also a part of RAW. Ergo, RAW is RAW. Check the Snap Shot feat. The necessary language is contained therein.
Don't need a FAQ. It might be useful, but don't need one. You can disagree all you want, clear implication of RAW is RAW.
Okay just finished reading Snap Shot. Please point out the words that imply you can draw the arrow as a Free Action not on your turn. All it says is that you can make an AoO, and it doesn't provoke. That's it, that's all that's there. Anything else you're adding all on your own. There is no implication there at all.
The Devs didn't make an exception, they made a clarification. If you normally load a ranged weapon as a free action (such as a bow, or a crossbow with certain feats), you can make multiple AoO. If you can't load a ranged weapon as a free action (such as a crossbow without any feats) then you can't make multiple AoO--you can still make one with the Snap Shot feat.
Please note the bolded text.
No one is saying that drawing an arrow isn't a free action, we're just saying that Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes provides an exception to the rule that free actions may only be accomplished on your turn.
But I'm confused, didn't you just get done telling me it wasn't an exception(see bolded text above)? Hmmm.
More to the point, however, I would recommend you read my posts. When you do, you'll see I'm saying the exact same thing.
Besides, "RAW is RAW" is probably the dumbest argument anyone can make considering "RAW" is nothing more than an interpretation of what is written in the rule book. Someone may have a different interpretation than you and still be able to argue "RAW".
You would think that wouldn't you? Except read this sentence and tell me all the ways you can interpret it:
Drawing an arrow is a Free action.Seems like it needed to be said doesn't it?
It allows you to threaten and Improved makes it out to 10'. Threaten has really only two points - flanking and AoO. Why would they give you the ability to threaten (with a substantial feat investment - 4 of them just to threaten out to 5') if they didn't intend intend for you to be able to actually make use of you ability to threaten? The idea that you couldn't use a bow to make multiple AoO after spending 5 feats to do it because while drawing an arrow takes virtually no game time to do at all it ordinarily can only be done on your turn is patently unreasonable.
They give you the ability to make AoO by threatening. That's the point of the feat. That carries along with it the implication that you ought to be able to make use of that ability by drawing an arrow in conjunction with it. Reading the feat otherwise unquestionably relegates it to near worthlessness.
Instead of answering the same questions over and over, I'll just quote myself
Show me anywhere that says drawing an arrow ISN'T a free action.
-Can you use Snap Shot as is if drawing is a Free Action?
-Yes, archer draws arrow as free action after full attack.- Can you use Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes as is if drawing an arrow is a Free Action?
- No, Devs had to create an exception to do this and put it into the FAQ.You can disagree all you want, RAW is RAW.
I bolded the relevant parts.
|
|
But I'm confused, didn't you just get done telling me it wasn't an exception(see bolded text above)? Hmmm.
More to the point, however, I would recommend you read my posts. When you do, you'll see I'm saying the exact same thing.
(EDIT: No, I didn't contradict anything. I said that the Devs didn't make an exception with their FAQ ruling. That doesn't mean that there wasn't an exception there in the first place. The Devs were merely clarifying that an exception does exist.)
You would think that wouldn't you? Except read this sentence and tell me all the ways you can interpret it:
Drawing an arrow is a Free action.Seems like it needed to be said doesn't it?
No one is saying that drawing an arrow isn't a free action. We are merely pointing out the fact that free actions may only be performed on your turn and since you can make multiple AoO with a bow (using Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes), it is clearly evident that in the case of an AoO, an exception exists that allows you to draw the arrows as "a free action" when it isn't your turn.
|
|
Instead of answering the same questions over and over, I'll just quote myself
I bolded the relevant parts.Show me anywhere that says drawing an arrow ISN'T a free action.
-Can you use Snap Shot as is if drawing is a Free Action?
-Yes, archer draws arrow as free action after full attack.- Can you use Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes as is if drawing an arrow is a Free Action?
- No, Devs had to create an exception to do this and put it into the FAQ.You can disagree all you want, RAW is RAW.
The problem with your inference is that a) only one AoO would be allowed, which is false, and b) that an archer may only make an AoO after he has made a full attack...which doesn't make any sense.
Besides, "RAW is RAW" is probably the dumbest argument anyone can make considering "RAW" is nothing more than an interpretation of what is written in the rule book. Someone may have a different interpretation than you and still be able to argue "RAW".You would think that wouldn't you? Except read this sentence and tell me all the ways you can interpret it:
Drawing an arrow is a Free action.Seems like it needed to be said doesn't it?
Sure. It means drawing an arrow is a free action. Now, you tell me all the ways you can interpret this:
Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
Is there some other meaning to "as a part of the ranged attack" that I'm missing that would mean it does not work in conjunction with Combat Reflexes? Is there some other meaning to "Can I make multiple AoO with Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes? Yes." that I'm missing?
I still don't think a FAQ was necessary, but it exists regardless. RAW is still RAW. You don't need to have an arrow nocked and the bow drawn to make an AoO with a bow using Snap Shot et al. You can draw the arrow as a part of the ranged attack. RAW is RAW and all that. My contention is that the RAW was clear prior to the FAQ, but it was really made explicit with the FAQ. Not only is it not illegal to draw an arrow to make multiple AoO outside of your turn if you have Combat Reflexes and Snap Shot, it is expressly the point of the feats - to be able to make multiple ranged AoO outside of one's turn.
Now, to clarify again, I do not think this means it can be used in conjunction with Crane Style. I've said that. But my reasoning has nothing to do with this specious "drawing an arrow is a free action" nonsense. That whole argument is inapplicable. Whether you can use the AoO from Crane Riposte if you have Snap Shot has nothing to do with whether drawing an arrow is uniformly a free action. It has to do with whether you have a hand available to deflect the attack and devote it to firing a bow within the same time span.
Sure. It means drawing an arrow is a free action. Now, you tell me all the ways you can interpret this:
Is there some other meaning to "as a part of the ranged attack" that I'm missing that would mean it does not work in conjunction with Combat Reflexes? Is there some other meaning to "Can I make multiple AoO with Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes? Yes." that I'm missing?Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
Yes. You are missing the part that it only applies when the two feats are used togther.Read the FAQ read the question. That answer applies to that question only. It does not change any rules at all. It applies only when those two feats are togther. If you try to use that FAQ's answer and apply anywhere except this specific instance it is wrong. Not only that, but it doesn't say as "part of that ranged attack" it says "as part of that ranged attack of opportunity". That's important.
I still don't think a FAQ was necessary, but it exists regardless.
So it is inconcievable to you, that the fact that it exists proves I'm right? The fact that they needed a FAQ lends credit to my arguemnt. If things were the way you were saying, it wouldn't be needed.
So we look at the Crane Wing argument again, and ignore wheather a bow is two handed or not.
Are you using Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes to make your AoO with Crane Wing? No. Then drawing an arrow is a Free action, and you can't take free actions when it's not your turn, even with Snap Shot. Why? Well because there is nothing that allows you to draw an arrow as less than a Free Action with Snap Shot alone. There is no implication that you can, there is no rule that you can, there is no FAQ that says you can, and no erratta that says you can.
The free action "nonsense" you are refering to is a direct quote from the Core Rule Book. Are you saying the all the rules in the Core Rulebook are nonsense or just this particular one that you don't seem to like?
Again Incorrect. It comes down to the fact that by RAW drawing an arrow is a Free Action. Certian feats allow you to make AoO's, but the people "For Crowd" are trying to make it seem that since you can do it with feats, you should be able to do it any time.The Devs may allow it. If they do Yay! But as of right now, it is clearly illegal by RAW.
You've made several assumptions here that are incorrect.
There is a "for crowd" regarding the original question of can you crane wing + snap shot.
There is the "how does snap shot actually work crowd".
And there is the "the snap shot FAQ didn't fix snap shot crowd".
Myself, fretgod99, and I believe Hanger (and probably others) fall into the middle group.
The original snap shot feat didn't work by RAW. The FAQ (which is also part of RAW) fixes that.
There are some who suppose that because of the FAQ that drawing ammo as a free action was always allowed even when not your turn. They are wrong in this. Drawing ammo as a free action outside of your turn is only allowed in conjunction with the snap shot feat. Snap shot is an exception to the general rule.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yes. You are missing the part that it only applies when the two feats are used togther.Read the FAQ read the question. That answer applies to that question only.
I may have missed it, but I don't believe fretgod99 has ever claimed otherwise.
Are you using Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes to make your AoO with Crane Wing?
The FAQ doesn't limit you to using only those two feats and adding nothing else. If there was a feat that said "When you make an AoO add +5 to your attack roll", using Snap Shot, Combat Reflexes, and that feat could all be applied at the same time. Adding the extra feat doesn't stop you from using snap shot - which is why some believe crane wing/snap shot is valid. The feats themselves don't conflict in this case - the question that causes the conflict is "can you use crane wing while using a ranged weapon that requires two hands"?
Or stated another way, if I had some form of ranged weapon that only required one hand (say a modern pistol with a full clip), could I use crane wing and snap shot and combat reflexes all together? The answer is yes (till my clip runs out and I have to apply a second hand to reload the weapon - then it becomes 'maybe').
So it is inconcievable to you, that the fact that it exists proves I'm right? The fact that they needed a FAQ lends credit to my arguemnt. If things were the way you were saying, it wouldn't be needed.
So we look at the Crane Wing argument again, and ignore wheather a bow is two handed or not.
Are you using Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes to make your AoO with Crane Wing? No. Then drawing an arrow is a Free action, and you can't take free actions when it's not your turn, even with Snap Shot. Why? Well because there is nothing that allows you to draw an arrow as less than a Free Action with Snap Shot alone. There is no implication that you can, there is no rule that you can, there is no FAQ that says you can, and no erratta that says you can.
The free action "nonsense" you are refering to is a direct quote from the Core Rule Book. Are you saying the all the rules in the Core Rulebook are nonsense or just this particular one that you don't seem to like?
So your point is that you can make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon and circumvent the "drawing an arrow is a free action" issue, but you cannot make a single AoO with a ranged weapon? If that's your position, then yes, I find that inconceivable.
The FAQ language says if you have the Snap Shot feat (though the question is posed mentioned both Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes), you may draw an arrow as a part of the ranged attack of opportunity. Your interpretation means that a character with the feats could not make the first AoO with a ranged weapon unless an arrow was already nocked, unless somebody else later provoked, too. Then the character could magically make the first AoO too because now they can ignore the "draw as a free action" rule? That's preposterous. If you have the feats, you can draw an arrow as a part of making the attack. This is true whether you make one attack of opportunity or many. Reading it otherwise is patently ridiculous and leads to absurdity.
And yes, I believe the intent is for Snap Shot alone to function the same way. Why? Because the FAQ language states explicitly that.
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
Notice the answer never mentions Combat Reflexes. The answer says, explicitly, if you have Snap Shot, you may reload your weapon as a part of the ranged attack AoO. It's explicit now, due to the FAQ. It was implied before. You do not need Combat Reflexes to circumvent the "drawing an arrow is a free action" language.
And I never said "drawing an arrow is a free action" is nonsense. I said your insistence on discussing it in conjunction with the issue being addressed in this thread is nonsense. It's irrelevant to resolving this FAQ. It's not a "rule I don't like". I have no problem with the rule. I have a problem with you trying to apply it when it's not applicable.
Yes. You are missing the part that it only applies when the two feats are used togther.Read the FAQ read the question. That answer applies to that question only.I may have missed it, but I don't believe fretgod99 has ever claimed otherwise.
Are you using Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes to make your AoO with Crane Wing?
The FAQ doesn't limit you to using only those two feats and adding nothing else. If there was a feat that said "When you make an AoO add +5 to your attack roll", using Snap Shot, Combat Reflexes, and that feat could all be applied at the same time. Adding the extra feat doesn't stop you from using snap shot - which is why some believe crane wing/snap shot is valid. The feats themselves don't conflict in this case - the question that causes the conflict is "can you use crane wing while using a ranged weapon that requires two hands"?
Or stated another way, if I had some form of ranged weapon that only required one hand (say a modern pistol with a full clip), could I use crane wing and snap shot and combat reflexes all together? The answer is yes (till my clip runs out and I have to apply a second hand to reload the weapon - then it becomes 'maybe').
Fight with a single dagger. Or a one-handed melee weapon with Throwing added to it.
Just got a good idea for an addition to my Weapon Master (Dervish Dance focused) Duelist going with the Crane Style tree. Put Throwing and Returning on that bad boy and you can use your Crane Riposte and (probably) your Parry against creatures with reach. I mean, I'd be wasting loads of feats to get there, but whatever.
Yeah, that's too many feats though.
The Snap Shot feat is ambiguous and lacks a lot of information that should be written for the feat, and on its own does not constitute being able to make AOO's outside your turn. RAW, it's about as useless as the Prone Shooter feat and many others like it.
If the Devs wanted their intent to be clear (FAQs included), they should have them written clearer in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, as written, the FAQ with Snap Shot + Combat Reflexes has the very rare interpretation that it allows Combat Reflexes to work with Snap Shot, but makes no real or direct mention of saying that Snap Shot ignores the rules of regular combat with a bow. At best, your interpretation would lead to be the correct one, but when it makes no obvious/blatant connection as to what they want the feat to accomplish, or that the wording they implement really doesn't solve anything, and so players make threads like these.
I mean, the FAQ does very little to alleviate the primary issue (drawing ammunition outside of your turn), and a FAQ regarding a possible secondary issue (application and removing of hands towards weapons) only complicates it even more. Now, if the secondary issue only applied towards Melee Weapons and the like, then it would help. If the primary issue was outright addressed (literally saying "You can/can't draw ammunition outside of your turn [unless you have the Snap Shot feat]), but it doesn't say that.
All it says is "As long as can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat." When it's not cleaned up with proper (or even if it isn't proper, important grammer), it leads to amiguity and debate as to what the sentence even means. That's the problem we're at right now.
Honestly, the intent as far as I'm concerned is crystal clear. But when the wording doesn't really reflect it that well, (even with the FAQs,) it turns into the arguments we present currently.
The implication that Snap Shot lets you circumvent the ordinary rule of drawing ammunition outside your turn is clear. I honestly can't see how the feat language is ambiguous. That the implication isn't spoken doesn't mean it's ambiguous.
As you said, the feat would be literally worthless if it did not except you from the rule regarding drawing ammunition. If it does, then the feat makes sense and is worthwhile. When you have two possible interpretations, but only one actually has any in-game impact, both interpretations aren't reasonable; only the one that has any actual effect is reasonable.
It's not like Prone Shooter. Prone Shooter (as originally drafted) tried to give you the ability to do something that already existed in the game, meaning the feat literally did nothing.
Snap Shot grants an ability to do something useful, but only if you infer the implication that it excepts you from the ordinary rule which would disallow you from doing so. If you don't infer that implication, then the feat is worthless. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation is to infer the implication. Again, though, that doesn't make it ambiguous. That another interpretation exists doesn't matter if that interpretation is not in any way reasonable.
It's a statutory interpretation thing. If language can be interpreted to mean two things, but one of those things leads to clear absurdity, it is safe to assume that only the reasonable interpretation is intended.
If Snap Shot does not except a character from the "you can only draw ammunition on your turn" rule, then it is a worthless feat. If it does, it is quite usable. Ergo, the only reasonable interpretation of the language is that the Snap Shot feat must except the character from that rule.
The implication that Snap Shot lets you circumvent the ordinary rule of drawing ammunition outside your turn is clear. I honestly can't see how the feat language is ambiguous. That the implication isn't spoken doesn't mean it's ambiguous.
As you said, the feat would be literally worthless if it did not except you from the rule regarding drawing ammunition. If it does, then the feat makes sense and is worthwhile. When you have two possible interpretations, but only one actually has any in-game impact, both interpretations aren't reasonable; only the one that has any actual effect is reasonable.
It's not like Prone Shooter. Prone Shooter (as originally drafted) tried to give you the ability to do something that already existed in the game, meaning the feat literally did nothing.
Snap Shot grants an ability to do something useful, but only if you infer the implication that it excepts you from the ordinary rule which would disallow you from doing so. If you don't infer that implication, then the feat is worthless. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation is to infer the implication. Again, though, that doesn't make it ambiguous. That another interpretation exists doesn't matter if that interpretation is not in any way reasonable.
It's a statutory interpretation thing. If language can be interpreted to mean two things, but one of those things leads to clear absurdity, it is safe to assume that only the reasonable interpretation is intended.
If Snap Shot does not except a character from the "you can only draw ammunition on your turn" rule, then it is a worthless feat. If it does, it is quite usable. Ergo, the only reasonable interpretation of the language is that the Snap Shot feat must except the character from that rule.
Just because it's the "reasonable" interpretation doesn't mean it's the interpretation that the Devs will implement. It's not the first time Paizo made useless feats, or feats that, as written, don't do what they are intended to do, and most certainly not the last.
Snap Shot is one of those feats, and when the Feat itself (which according to you, should circumvent an important aspect in participating combat with a bow) makes no such acclimation, then there's the question of intent. So we go to the FAQ, which is also poorly written since it either looks like the answer as to what should be written in the feat itself, or a redundance that confirms the "Snap Shot feat is useless" interpretation.
Unless they are going to revise that FAQ to make the "reasonable" interpretation more clear, or create another FAQ that specifically calls out what is required in order to perform the Snap Shot feat, we can do no more than agree to disagree, since at this point no new information is available to go on other than "This is my 2 cp".
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that if there is only one interpretation that is reasonable, it makes little sense to act like the unreasonable interpretation has a legitimate argument as the intended one.
If there's a question about whether the alternative interpretation actually is unreasonable, that's a separate matter entirely. But it seems wasteful and silly to act like the only reasonable interpretation might not be the intent because some completely unusable interpretation can be created out of the same language, particularly when nobody disagrees that the reasonable interpretation should be how the feat functions.
This is how courts read statutes, court decisions, and other advisory language all the time. If there exists multiple interpretations of the same language, but only one is reasonable in context, there's no ambiguity; you go with the interpretation that actually makes sense. It should be the same here. I'm not going to assume that the PDT may have intended something completely unworkable when a perfectly functional and valid interpretation is apparent on the face of the language. If no such reasonable interpretation exists from the existent language (See: original draft of Prone Shooter), then it's fair to assume the PDT may have made a mistake. That doesn't apply here. There's an obvious and valid interpretation. There's no reason not to adopt it because it's the only one that actually makes sense.
It's not that it's a reasonable interpretation, it's that it's the only reasonable interpretation.