This is going to be a two-fold question. First one is: is this allowed by RAW? Second one is: if not, would it be broken to allow it?
The whole question is about creatures with multiple base attack per round (IE: more then +6 BAB)
First off; do you have to make every attack with the same weapon, or could you use different weapons for each attack? For example, could you hold two weapons and strike once with each of them; one at +6 and one at +1, or must you use the same weapon for both strikes?
Could you strike once, drop weapon, quickdraw another weapon, and then strike again?
Could you use a throwing weapon, use quickdraw to grab your greataxe with both hands and then strike with that?
And then; must you use your attacks from high to low? Or can you change the order? For above example; use the throwing weapon at your +1 attack bonus and the Greataxe as second attack with +6?
Are there any reasons why doing so shouldn't be allowed? I think it would make for much more exciting fights (roleplayingwise ;) then when characters run their normal attacks from top to bottom as 'swing with sword, swing with sword, swing with sword, swing with sword.'
This is going to be a two-fold question. First one is: is this allowed by RAW? Second one is: if not, would it be broken to allow it?
The whole question is about creatures with multiple base attack per round (IE: more then +6 BAB)
First off; do you have to make every attack with the same weapon, or could you use different weapons for each attack? For example, could you hold two weapons and strike once with each of them; one at +6 and one at +1, or must you use the same weapon for both strikes?
Could you strike once, drop weapon, quickdraw another weapon, and then strike again?Could you use a throwing weapon, use quickdraw to grab your greataxe with both hands and then strike with that?
And then; must you use your attacks from high to low? Or can you change the order? For above example; use the throwing weapon at your +1 attack bonus and the Greataxe as second attack with +6?
Are there any reasons why doing so shouldn't be allowed? I think it would make for much more exciting fights (roleplayingwise ;) then when characters run their normal attacks from top to bottom as 'swing with sword, swing with sword, swing with sword, swing with sword.'
1) Usually. Two-weapon fighting has its own rules on pg. 160 of the PHB. A monk can flurry (PHB pg. 40-41) with certain weapons and freely choose on each attack if it is made with the weapon or unarmed. There's nothing prohibiting the attack-drop-Quick Draw-attack sequence as part of a full attack, but you don't gain extra attacks with it.
2) Not in the core rules. You can make either ranged attacks or melee attacks in the same action, not both. However, there's nothing preventing you or the DM from creating a house-rule feat that allows you to throw a weapon or fire a crossbow with your off-hand while attacking with a melee weapon in your primary hand (prerequisites of Point Blank Shot and Two Weapon Fighting).
3) Attacks must be high to low.
4) Combats are complex enough without making them more so. If you are bored with the top to bottom "swing sword, swing sword, etc.," then look at the other options available (trips, grapples, shield bashes, bull rushes, etc.).
2) Not in the core rules. You can make either ranged attacks or melee attacks in the same action, not both. However, there's nothing preventing you or the DM from creating a house-rule feat that allows you to throw a weapon or fire a crossbow with your off-hand while attacking with a melee weapon in your primary hand (prerequisites of Point Blank Shot and Two Weapon Fighting).
I don't see this distinction spelled out for a full attack. Furthermore I do see an example that indicates otherwise.
This is from page 13 of the FAQ - first column near the bottom.
"A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can
make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows.
Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three
off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five
attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any
weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also
has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her
flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged
attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her
primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer
a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this:
+11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with
shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand."
2) Not in the core rules. You can make either ranged attacks or melee attacks in the same action, not both. However, there's nothing preventing you or the DM from creating a house-rule feat that allows you to throw a weapon or fire a crossbow with your off-hand while attacking with a melee weapon in your primary hand (prerequisites of Point Blank Shot and Two Weapon Fighting).I don't see this distinction spelled out for a full attack. Furthermore I do see an example that indicates otherwise.
This is from page 13 of the FAQ - first column near the bottom.
Both a melee attack and a ranged attack are different standard actions. A full attack allows you gain multiple attacks from feats and attack progression, not perform two standard actions in the same round. A feat could allow you to make a melee attack with one hand and a ranged attack with the other, but there is no feat in the core rules for this (Two-Weapon Fighting reduces penalties for making melee attacks with both hands or ranged attacks with both hands).
The FAQ is wrong.
The monk's Flurry of Blows ability and Unarmed Strike are both spelled out in detail in the PHB (pg. 40-41). Two-Weapon Fighting does not apply to a monk's Flurry of Blows or Unarmed Strike since "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack" when attacking using either (granted, the description of Flurry of Blows doesn't state that explicitly, only by inference, but the intent is reletively clear). A monk can both throw shuriken and attack in melee with Flurry of Blows, but must follow the normal flurry rules.
No, "attack actions" are standard actions; there's no distinction between melee and ranged attacks except for considerations of AoO (whether you can make them and whether you provoke them). There is nothing stopping you from attacking with a longsword, quickdrawing a dagger and throwing it, and then attacking again with the longsword.
I ran a one-shot game once where a fighter walked around with about five different weapons and quickdraw. Each weapon was suited for a different purpose, and his whole "gimmick" was switching weapons in the middle of a full attack. Granted, those were all melee.
But I can't count the number of times I've had a rogue or bard with quickdraw who takes out a dagger to throw and then switches back to a melee attack all in one round.
Everything in the OP is legal with the exception of changing order of attack bonuses. I agree- if it seems boring, just try to diversify the tactics you employ, rather than house-ruling a mechanical change.
|
Saern's right on this one. It's no problem for a character (or NPC) to use a mix of ranged and melee attacks in a full attack action. Of course, using a ranged weapon within reach of your opponent usually nets you an AoO, so be sure to catch your quarry flat-footed or some other trick for best results.
Both a melee attack and a ranged attack are different standard actions. A full attack allows you gain multiple attacks from feats and attack progression, not perform two standard actions in the same round.
A full attack is a different action completely. Its not a standard action+ but some other action with its own rules, benefits and limitations.
Nothing in Full Attack limits whether or not a character can choose to switch between ranged and melee attacks.
Both a melee attack and a ranged attack are different standard actions. A full attack allows you gain multiple attacks from feats and attack progression, not perform two standard actions in the same round.
A full attack is a different action completely. Its not a standard action+ but some other action with its own rules, benefits and limitations.
Nothing in Full Attack limits whether or not a character can choose to switch between ranged and melee attacks.
Addendum.
I think Saern's right.I've noted that a full attack certainly does not limit whether one would like to switch weapons etc. There is some small possibility of arguing that the standard actions can be broken up by melee, ranged or unarmed. However the first sentence of actions in combat states that making an attack is a standard action. I think the rest of the part where its broken up by categories is essentially just done to make explaining the rules for the different flavours of attack easier. At the end of the day an attack action is an attack action and if you decide to throw a dagger from one hand and club the enemy with a mace in the other your free to do so.
Your certainly free to do so with full round attacks where there is no attempt to break the actions up. I think that this is in effect the single strongest bit of evidence that the standard attack actions are not meant to be thought of as completely separate from each. Except perhaps that we are told at the start of the section that making an attack is a standard action and are never told that the different flavours are somehow exclusive.
In other words there is some slight possibility that there are significantly different rules for what one can do when making a full round attack versus a standard action attack but the evidence seems to indicate that in fact they all work the same way and that one is welcome to use the different flavours of attack in the same action for both the full round and the standard versions of attack.
The FAQ certianly comes down in support of the idea that one is welcome to mix and match.
See the description of elvencraft weapons (Races of the Wild) for a roundabout answer. An elvencraft bow functions as both a bow and a club/quaterstaff (depending on size of bow). It specifically mentions the possibility of use in a full attack action as mixing up ranged and melee.
Finally, there is nothing in the RAW to prevent it. Assuming quick draw is had, a character can draw a weapon as a free action. Free actions can be done an unlimited number in a round, assuming common sense (you can't draw 1000 weapons, because you shouldn't be carrying that many. 10 might be reasonable, if they were small like daggers, 20 if using both hands.)
So, if you can do unlimited free actions on your turn, and you make a full attack, which just requires that each successive attack be at -5 from the first, then you can (with an 11 base attack): quick draw bow, fire (attack 1), drop bow, quickdraw flail, five foot step into melee, attempt to trip (attack2), drop flail, quickdraw greatsword, attack hopefully prone foe (attack3).
You want to get really techincal, you could even do the above progression and be power attacking for a few points, because the penalties only apply to melee attack rolls. The ranged attack is unnafected, and the trip, while melee, is a touch attack. Fun stuff!
The FAQ is wrong.The monk's Flurry of Blows ability and Unarmed Strike are both spelled out in detail in the PHB (pg. 40-41). Two-Weapon Fighting does not apply to a monk's Flurry of Blows or Unarmed Strike since "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack" when attacking using either (granted, the description of Flurry of Blows doesn't state that explicitly, only by inference, but the intent is reletively clear). A monk can both throw shuriken and attack in melee with Flurry of Blows, but must follow the normal flurry rules.
"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Presumably if they are striking with a light weapon in their off hand they are not striking unarmed. This is a weak sentence in any case since it curtails what monks can do but not what say,fighters with the improved unarmed strike feat, can do. I think its simply a bad choice of words but if not then it simply clarifies that other classes are better at some parts of unarmed combat then monks.If we follow the FAQs example then it attempts to clear up this contradiction by bringing the monk in line with the rest of the classes in terms of how these attacks work.
Nothing in Full Attack limits whether or not a character can choose to switch between ranged and melee attacks.
Just adding my two cents: this is correct, and Dragonchess Player is wrong.