Just wondering how many Full Round Actions you allow a character to combine? The wording on some of these Feats differs...
"When performing a Full Round Action..." [Vital Strike]
or
When making a Full Round Action..." [Many Shot]
Would you allow Rapid Shot and Vital Strike?
Many Shot and Vital Strike?
Many Shot, Rapid Shot, and Vital Strike all together?
I was under the impression that you picked one Feat to apply to a Full Round Action?
Just wondering how many Full Round Actions you allow a character to combine? The wording on some of these Feats differs...
"When performing a Full Round Action..." [Vital Strike]
or
When making a Full Round Action..." [Many Shot]
Would you allow Rapid Shot and Vital Strike?
Many Shot and Vital Strike?
Many Shot, Rapid Shot, and Vital Strike all together?
I was under the impression that you picked one Feat to apply to a Full Round Action?
Wow, Bob, you are tricky...
I don't think there's a ruling in the book on this, and I suck at picking hidden quotes off of long-buried post threads, or long-forgotten sage advice.
So unless someone says otherwise, I rule it this way:
Some feats are incompatible. Your own example of Rapid Shot vs. Multishot, as well as Whirlwind Attack vs. Cleave, etc. Essentially, any two feats that do basically the same thing (though their mechanics may vary, both of these example feat pairs allow multiple attacks) are incompatible.
So, when someone wants to apply two feats that do (generally) the same thing, such as two feats that boost their saving throw, or two feats that give extra attacks, etc., I don't let the feats stack. Use just one of them.
But if two feats don't do generally the same thing, I allow them to stack. For example, Weapon Focus strikes with all the other feats mentioned in this thread.
But sometimes there are clashes where this simplistic rule doesn't work, such as with Vital Strike.
Vital Strike actually takes away one of your attacks.
So some basic logic needs to be applied. Rapid Shot and Cleave add attacks, but they still use your BAB and your iterative attack progression to resolve. So Vital Strike is not incompatible with these feats. They don't do generally the same thing (one adds an attack, one takes an attack away).
But Whirlwind Attack and Manyshot do not use your BAB/iterative attack sequence, they use an entirely different mechanic established by the feats themselves, which means they are not compatible with Vital Strike. Essentially, these two feats don't give you a specific set number of attacks, so you can't subtract one attack from an unspecified number. You can't say "I attack every target in range except this little orc right over here, and in return, I do additional damage to all the targets I hit".
At least, that's how I see it.
Does anyone know if there are any official rulings on it?
|
How they work depends on whether you use 3.5 or PRPG.
In 3.5, most of the feats said "as a standard action" which meant they could not be combined.
In the Pathfinder Beta, this is different.
As the feats all state 'as part of a full attack action' and nothing else, there is feasibly no limit onto how many you could combine. A ranger could indeed use both Rapid Shot and Manyshot at the same time. It would work out like the following, assuming a +6/+1 BAB. I am ignoring Dexterity and other bonuses for ease in calculation.
Normal: +6/+1
Rapid Shot: +4/+4/-1
Manyshot: +6 (two arrows)/+1
Vital Strike: +6 (bonus damage)
Rapid Shot and Manyshot: +4 (two arrows)/+4/-1
Vital Strike and Rapid Shot: +4 (bonus damage)/+4 (bonus damage)
Vital Strike and Manyshot: +6 (two arrows and bonus damage)
Vital Strike, Manyshot, and Rapidshot: +4 (two arrows, bonus damage)/+4 (bonus damage)
It should also be noted that Manyshot was changed a lot from 3.5, as it imposed penalties back in 3.5, and does not anymore.
OP, your best rule of thumb is to assume that if the feat says 'as part of a full attack action', then it can work with other feats that work 'as part of a full attack action'. As it stands, when you make a full attack action, you are spending a full round to get all your attacks. Then, you may choose the feats you wish to activate as part of that.
If a feat says 'as a full-round action' or 'as a standard action', then they are unique feats that cannot be combined. This is the case with, say, Cleave and Dazzling Display. They both require full-round actions, and thus cannot be combined.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Any other views out there?
Well Manyshot use to be a standard action too, offering more versitility of actions.
All in all Nethys said everything I would have said... that's why you keep gods around, so you don't get bothered by the trivial stuff.
Aye, all hail Nethys! :-)
So generally, I don't see a problem with stacking stuff,
the only exception being Vital Strike & Whirlwind, but NOT because of Full-Round Actions.
Hopefully, Vital Strike will be clarified that you're required to drop an ITERATIVE attack, which means full-round attack options like Whirlwind that replace your Iterative Attacks simply aren't compatable. The wording in Beta actually doesn't say this explicitly, but I think that is the intent (as designating one pixie to not get hit while Whirlwinding in order to activate Vital Strike seems wierd). Actually, reading Whirlwind, it isn't 100% clear whether you have any choice of hitting some vs. all opponents in range, and obviously if you don't have any choice in the matter, you can't choose to leave one out for Vital Strike.
|
|
Do not fear. The feat clarifies itself in this manner.Aye, all hail Nethys! :-)
So generally, I don't see a problem with stacking stuff,
the only exception being Vital Strike & Whirlwind, but NOT because of Full-Round Actions.Hopefully, Vital Strike will be clarified that you're required to drop an ITERATIVE attack, which means full-round attack options like Whirlwind that replace your Iterative Attacks simply aren't compatable. The wording in Beta actually doesn't say this explicitly, but I think that is the intent (as designating one pixie to not get hit while Whirlwinding in order to activate Vital Strike seems wierd). Actually, reading Whirlwind, it isn't 100% clear whether you have any choice of hitting some vs. all opponents in range, and obviously if you don't have any choice in the matter, you can't choose to leave one out for Vital Strike.
When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
This single line is what prevents anyone from combining it and other feats, such as Vital Strike, for a bonus.
Continue your praise and worship.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Surely the purpose of classifying these Feats as Full Round Actions is because they take more time to achieve?
knocking Many arrows, firing Rapidly[sacrificing accuracy for extra attacks], losing an attack to spend more time aiming at Vital areas etc. etc.
Doesn't that make combining them a little broken, or at least, "not as intended"?
Do not fear. The feat clarifies itself in this manner.When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.This single line is what prevents anyone from combining it and other feats, such as Vital Strike, for a bonus.
Hm. I read that as "you forfeit (any bonus or extra attacks)..." (i.e. superfluously worded) rather than "you forfeit (any bonus) or (any extra attacks)..." (i.e. you forfeit "bonuses" as well, i.e. att bonus, dmg bonus)
The second one would seem to mean you can't use Weapon Specialization/ Focus or Weapon Training, much less Bless Weapon (example of a Spell)...?
In any case, that wording clearly does disallow combining Whirlwind + Cleave, as well as stuff like the Knockback Rage Power & Whirlwind (unfortunately, since that would be a cool image)
To the OP, I think it's using a broad assumption that a "Full Action", but not a "Standard Attack", is "enough effort/focus" to allow these Feats to work, rather than a specific accounting that these these Feats "use up" a certain portion of the Full Action - Obviously, different characters have a very different outcome to their "normal" Full Attack (depending on BAB & # of iteratives), so "a certain portion" would depend on your BAB. Signifigantly, Vital Strike *IS* designed to "use up" a certain portion of a Full Iterative Attack. ...The other examples (Cleave, Whirlwhind) have their own exclusivities in their wording which disallow stacking amongst themselves (while allowing "Full Attack only" Feats GENERALLY as long as they don't have further specific requirements/ activations)
Oh Nethys, how can mere mortals comprehend thy infinite wisdom?
|
|
Surely the purpose of classifying these Feats as Full Round Actions is because they take more time to achieve?
knocking Many arrows, firing Rapidly[sacrificing accuracy for extra attacks], losing an attack to spend more time aiming at Vital areas etc. etc.
Doesn't that make combining them a little broken, or at least, "not as intended"?
If they were classified as Full Round Actions, that would be one thing. As it stands, they are classified as being usable when the character makes a Full Attack Action. The difference being that a "Full Attack Action" is a type of "Full Round Action", but one where the user takes all attacks available to them as part of BAB, spells like Haste, or other abilities. The aforementioned feats activate when the user makes a Full Attack Action (if the player so desires), and they do not mention any limit to how many can activate.
If a feat required a Full Round Action, then a user could not take a Full Attack Action and would only gain the benefit listed from that single feat.
Combining is not broken in the least. The penalties do stack up, and the time it takes to accrue that many feats, not to mention meet the prerequisites, means the enemies will have just as powerful abilities as well.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
|
|
Hm. I read that as "you forfeit (any bonus or extra attacks)..." (i.e. superfluously worded) rather than "you forfeit (any bonus) or (any extra attacks)..." (i.e. you forfeit "bonuses" as well, i.e. att bonus, dmg bonus)
The second one would seem to mean you can't use Weapon Specialization/ Focus or Weapon Training, much less Bless Weapon (example of a Spell)...?
In any case, that wording clearly does disallow combining Whirlwind + Cleave, as well as stuff like the Knockback Rage Power & Whirlwind (unfortunately, since that would be a cool image)
Indeed, it would be superfluous if it meant the former, as it could say the same thing with the sentence "you forfeit any bonus attacks" or "you forfeit any extra attacks". As it stands, that it says both implies that you do forfeit any bonus, as well as any extra attacks, granted by feats, spells, or abilities.
Personally, I find this makes the feat rather useless, and do hope the mortals at Paizo clarify it in the final version. As it stands, by RAW, that is my interpretation. A more lenient DM may allow some static bonuses like Weapon Specialization to still count, but that is up to them.
To the OP, I think it's using a broad assumption that a "Full Action", but not a "Standard Attack", is "enough effort/focus" to allow these Feats to work, rather than a specific accounting that these these Feats "use up" a certain portion of the Full Action - Obviously, different characters have a very different outcome to their "normal" Full Attack (depending on BAB & # of iteratives), so "a certain portion" would depend on your BAB. Signifigantly, Vital Strike *IS* designed to "use up" a certain portion of a Full Iterative Attack. ...The other examples (Cleave, Whirlwhind) have their own exclusivities in their wording which disallow stacking amongst themselves (while allowing "Full Attack only" Feats GENERALLY as long as they don't have further specific requirements/ activations)
The easiest way to remember is the following, assuming the feat itself does not clarify any further (as with Whirlwind Attack).
"As a full-round action" <-- only action that turn, may not be used with other feats that require full-round actions, standard actions, part of a full-attack action, etc. May take free/swift actions still.
"As a standard action" <-- As above, except the user may do a move action as well.
"As part of a full-attack action" <-- The user is making a full-attack action (a type of full-round action), meaning they get all their normal attacks for a high BAB, and may feasibly combine this with other feats that activate 'as part of a full-attack action'.
Oh Nethys, how can mere mortals comprehend thy infinite wisdom?
You cannot. Though I applaud the attempts.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Surely the purpose of classifying these Feats as Full Round Actions is because they take more time to achieve?
knocking Many arrows, firing Rapidly[sacrificing accuracy for extra attacks], losing an attack to spend more time aiming at Vital areas etc. etc.
Doesn't that make combining them a little broken, or at least, "not as intended"?
Considering that the people that developed these feats have lots of experience in 3.x I'm of the mind that they put things the way they did on purpose.
James and the crew aren't stupid, and I can't imagine they didn't see that the wording they used left these sorts of action stacking stuff open to be used... since I don't think their stupid, and not blind, they must have done it on purpose. Especially since with how long of an alpha and beta testing they hadn't changed it (to current knowledge).
Surely the purpose of classifying these Feats as Full Round Actions is because they take more time to achieve?
knocking Many arrows, firing Rapidly[sacrificing accuracy for extra attacks], losing an attack to spend more time aiming at Vital areas etc. etc.
Doesn't that make combining them a little broken, or at least, "not as intended"?
Considering that the people that developed these feats have lots of experience in 3.x I'm of the mind that they put things the way they did on purpose.
James and the crew aren't stupid, and I can't imagine they didn't see that the wording they used left these sorts of action stacking stuff open to be used... since I don't think their stupid, and not blind, they must have done it on purpose. Especially since with how long of an alpha and beta testing they hadn't changed it (to current knowledge).
I don't want to contradict you when you say they're not stupid, for that would mean I would be saying they are, which I'm not...
But with a little more foresight, they could have worded these feats better to avoid any ambiguity and rule out the need for us to figure out the stacking.
Since the official Beta doesn't seem to include that degree of foresight, it's not a far cry to wonder if the lack of explanation in the rules means the problem wasn't considered during design. Perhaps these (non-stupid) poeople were hurried, or harried, or simply had bigger things on their mind and they didn't think about it.
After all, if they had thought "Hey, this is a bit vague, the players will have to interpret this." then the very next logical thought would be "We should make it less vague."
The absense of one calls into question the absense of the other.
Which means we cannot simply rely on "Those guys are smart, they must have meant for it to be this way."
Sometimes you gotta put faith in the back seat and grab ahold of the wheel yourself.
Well the wording is quite specific, and easy to understand to me.
After all if they didn't want them stacking, why even change the way the feats originally worked?
Beyond that why is there even a question ?
It states in both cases what you can do on a full attack action.
It's not exactly broken, it's not even crazy powerful (like getting 4 x strength mod damage with power attack and overhead chop) it's simply more arrows (in fact I would point out that manyshot is less powerful than rapid shot is as you can crit and get sneak attack with rapid shot but not with manyshot).
Finally no one even thought to ask about it during playtest, and no one seemed to have a problem with it when it was possible to actually do something about it...
Seems pretty clear to me. Never had problem with it.
The only real issue on can make is that the text must be wrong. It's not really a confusing issue but you can disagree with the issue. I personally find the rules to be fine.