ClaimingLight's page

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

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%.

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?

I'd allow it. You have the actions for it and the uses per day for it. There isn't anything stopping you, arbitrary or otherwise.

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'

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.

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.

While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

Well, Undead is a type. By polymorphing, you'd lose any undead special abilties. Ghost isn't a type and isn't reliant on the original form of the character (much like polymorph). You can be a ghost aberation, ghost animal or ghost elemental. So, I'm suggesting that 'ghost' is not your original form- but a template upon your original form.

I'd say that the ghost template is a 'top-level' effect. It could perhaps be argued in a different direction- but would that meet the goals you're looking to achieve? If this druid could shapeshift into a non-ghost and just leave, wouldn't she?

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!

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

:D

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.

Yes, you could wild shape. It doesn't actually change your type from undead to animal- it just lets you assume the shape of an animal type.

Incorporeal sets your strength to 0. If it were a instanenous effect, you might increase it beyond 0 after you became a ghost. Since it is a continuous effect, it continues to set you to 0, even after new gains.

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.

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

Well, it's fair to say that a person is a painting and you can't draw conclusions about them from one swath of paint.

Did you mug someone for personal gain? That's an evil act and a chaotic act.
Did you rescue the people in the orphanage for their own sake? That's a Good act and a non-ethics related act.

Ultimate answer: You're complicated. Typically speaking, complicated means neutral. Probably chaotic neutral, given this example.

If you've got any doubt about whether something is evil or not, the answer is neutral.

Applying the Evil label should be done only when you don't have two minds about it. Same as the Good label. If you've gotten to the point where you're not sure what to do, you're still not at the point where you can call it Evil.

In my games, I've ruled in three shades of neutrality for this purpose. Neutral, Neutral-Up-Shift and Neutral-Down-Shift. They act as buffer zones and warnings to players that they're on their way down a certain path and will eventually get there when I've "had enough". It still gives them time to change (or continue) their behavior as they see fit, without making a change to their character dramatic enough to make them feel persecuted.
-------
OOO! I saw some people talking about relativism. Relativism is a limp-wristed invention. Why?

Imagine a prison wall with a hole in it.
A: If a prisoner stays in this prison, the wall had no meaning.
B: If a prisoner leaves the prison, the wall had no meaning.
C: The wall has no meaning.

Imagine that the wall does not yet have a hole in it and that the warden asks a prisoner if he'd like a hole in it.
A: If the prisoner asks that there be a hole in the wall- the wall had no meaning (since it didn't keep him there).
B: If the prisoner asks that the wall has no hole, the wall had no meaning (since he clearly doesn't want to leave).

Lastly, imagine a person wakes up with no memory in a dark room. It occurs to him that the dark room may be the only thing in existence.
Either:
A: The dark room is only thing in existence or
B: The dark room is not the only thing in existence but
C: The answer cannot logically be BOTH A and B.

*In the first instance, it is illustrated that a thing has no purpose if it doesn't affect the outcome it exists to affect.
*In the second instance, it is illustrated that a thing has no purpose if it can be freely modified by the things it seeks to affect.
*In the third instance, it is illustrated that truth is greater then observation.

So what does that add up to? It means that
-If Good exists, it has no purpose if it doesn't affect decisions.
-If Good exists, it has no purpose if you can modify Good to account for your decisions.
-Good may exist independently from us, or it may not. If it does not exist independently from us, it is either meaningless (see first two points) or does not exist at all.

In the end it means this: While we may be correct or incorrect in what we believe Good is, by choosing to believe that Good somehow matters, we should accept that some things are Good and some aren't. If we choose to think otherwise, we are left with the only remaining logical option- that Good has no purpose for existence and therefore can be safely ignored (thus invalidating your belief in Goodness).

That said, what I believe is right may not be. What others believe is right may be. It's probably more complicated then 'do this, don't do that'. A cannibal who was raised to eat people may be morally just by virtue of not knowing any different. I can't judge to that.

What I can say is that relativism is short-sighted and question-begging. If you believe Good exists, you MUST believe that Good exists. Alternatively, you can choose believe that it doesn't exist. And if you believe that "Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum" then just say so. Because absolutism DOES require that things be cut and dry- but doesn't require that they be simple.

(I'm not gonna proofread this further- if there's a hole in the argument, I'm cool with someone pointing that out, but I think the meaning behind the argument is sound)