|
If you already have the Bow Ready then After the first AOO it is a Free action to ReloadErr? I'm not sure of your point here.
Barring the ruling that specifically states that you can not use Free Actions outside of your turn.
My point was that no where in the ammunition rules does it state that drawing an arrow has to be done before you fire the bow.
so providing you ready your bow and have it loaded before you make an attack multiple AOO are possible.
Ready(loaded)
[AOO #1 + Free action Draw]
Ready(loaded)
[AOO #2 + Free action Draw]
Ready(loaded)
etc...
But that assumes Free Action out of turn
Here's the ruling. Or rather, the confirmation.
The intent of the feat in question is obvious though.
And you can still piggy back the drawing of the arrow on the free action of speaking, which is allowed out of turn. And free actions are done as part of other actions, so...
So the only swift action you can take in combat is to cast a quickened spell? Bards will be disappointed that their Inspire Courage ability can't actually be used as a swift action. The only immediate action you can take in combat is feather fall? People with the feat to dodge out of an AOE spell must be just as disappointed as the bards.
I find it interesting that none of the other class abilities are listed on this table or even talked about in the Combat Chapter, but Attack of Opportunity has its very own paragraph yet omits committing it to an action type, don't you?
Are you attempting to state that because Channel Energy is not listed in the Standard Action of the Combat Table, that my argument is now void?
In other words, that table is not all-inclusive, even in the core rules. It gives common examples, it doesn't list everything. Further, everything in the game is either an action or not an action. It's a binary state.
So what action type would you classify an attack of opportunity as?
And you can still piggy back the drawing of the arrow on the free action of speaking, which is allowed out of turn. And free actions are done as part of other actions, so...
Before the Archer's initiative, I shout and go prone.
I shout and quickdraw a lance and attack the charging character
I shout and draw an arrow and use my Improvised melee weapon to attack the adjacent caster with an Improvised Weapon AoO.
I'm amazed you're advocating this even after SKR's mini-clarification on free actions. Did he say that the summoner can just shout and use Lifelink as written? Nope. They changed it to Not an Action.
It's not easy being cheesy.
Here's the ruling. Or rather, the confirmation.
The intent of the feat in question is obvious though.
And you can still piggy back the drawing of the arrow on the free action of speaking, which is allowed out of turn. And free actions are done as part of other actions, so...
Link shows some summoner stuff.
Here's the relevant stuff Leo:
Summoner: Can I use life link when it's not my turn, I'm paralyzed, or I otherwise can't take actions?
SKR: Although the ability is listed as a free action, it's something a summoner should be able to do at any time the eidolon would take enough damage to send it back to its home plane, even if it's not his turn (as is normally the case when he's being attacked), he's helpless from Strength or Dexterity poison, he's under a hold person spell, and so on. In other words, it's not an action at all, and shouldn't be listed as such.
So we have some dev feedback on their stance on free actions when it is not your turn.
Who is the arbiter? Thus far speaking is the only Free Action known to be allowed outside of your own turn in a standardized manner.
Now theres another one (feeding your eidelon your HP)
Not defined in the table, not defined in the combat chapter.. not defined in the book... at what point do we get excited?
When you have an ability that is not defined in the table, not defined in the chapter, and has two good interpretations with two vastly different mechanisms of working.
When one interpretation works, is not ridiculously over powered, and meets the obvious intent of the feat is compared to an interpretation that makes the feat unable to meet its design intent
You quoted nocking an arrow, that is not the same as drawing. Nocking is putting the arrow from your hand onto the bow string. I would like to see where it says drawing an arrow is a non-action.
Where are you getting that rather specific definition of nocking? Nocking is the act of putting the arrow to the bow. It doesn't specify WHERE the arrow is comming from.
Nock (verb):
2: to fit (an arrow) against a bowstring.
Note the lack of the words "from the hand" which you insist is part of the definition.
I don't see much difference between a free action and a non action.
You may not, but the Pathfinder rules do... it even has a dedicated part of the combat chapter. They are very specific in this:
Free Action
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Not an Action
Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
If Pathfinder were as lax in its rules as you seem to think it is why would they bother with this? Why not just expand Free Action.
They get used interchangeably fairly often. I don't see much difference between the definitions.
Now theres another one (feeding your eidelon your HP)
Sorry BNW, that's Not An Action. :)
Now theres another one (feeding your eidelon your HP)Sorry BNW, that's Not An Action. :)
And note that the Devs didn't bother to make the distinction when they wrote the ability. A free action you can take during someone elses turn (there's no rule against them) and a non action are pretty synonymous.
Your entire argument is still resting on your absurdly specific definition of nocking an arrow.
And note that the Devs didn't bother to make the distinction when they wrote the ability.
Which is why they had to revise it because whoever wrote the ability didn't write it correctly... one of SKR's explainations is you should be able to do it "even if it's not his turn"
A free action you can take during someone elses turn (there's no rule against them) and a non action are pretty synonymous.
There's no rule against them, but there is a big distinction and as the ruling shows you should not assume you can do a free action outside your turn.
Why else would they clarify and REMOVE the Free Action part?
Simply because you cannot take a free action outside your turn... unless it is talking.
Reading your post, you'd think that Lifelink was still a free action.
Your entire argument is still resting on your absurdly specific definition of nocking an arrow.
I get it, you're more of a generalist and you don't care for splitting hairs. Regardless of that fact, Nocking is not the same as Drawing and in no way encompasses Drawing. They are in no way synonyms and are very different words. Kind of like free action and not an action.
Here's the relevant stuff Leo:
Summoner: Can I use life link when it's not my turn, I'm paralyzed, or I otherwise can't take actions?
SKR: Although the ability is listed as a free action, it's something a summoner should be able to do at any time the eidolon would take enough damage to send it back to its home plane, even if it's not his turn (as is normally the case when he's being attacked), he's helpless from Strength or Dexterity poison, he's under a hold person spell, and so on. In other words, it's not an action at all, and shouldn't be listed as such.
So we have some dev feedback on their stance on free actions when it is not your turn.
Thank you.
Now i get it.
And I find it interesting that you're stating that because it isn't listed on the table, it cannot have an action type. Don't you? Or do you realize how ridiculous that stance is?
It CAN have an action type... but it does not. Can you show me where it says what type of action an attack of opportunity is? Can you show me where it says that it is Not An Action? Refer to the description or to the table (or both).
There is nothing there. Thus, an AoO is in limbo. Paizo usually goes through great lengths to define the action type of abilities, attacks, etc, but AoO was left in the cold.
Depending on the official definition of "attack action" (which we STILL do not have), either an attack action or a free action that is usable outside your turn. Attack action is preferable, but has some rules hangups (ie, can you then use Vital Strike on an AOO). Honestly, it doesn't matter what type of action it is; it's clearly an action, as it takes some amount of time, and it has its own rules for how many you can do on any given turn. Take a page from 4E and call it an Opportunity Action if you want.
So you're saying you don't know. Thanks. I don't know either. I do think Attack Action should be clarified too.
If it is an attack action then you can sunder/vs on an AoO (theres some other random class abilites as well out there).
If it is a free action then it opens up a can of worms as well (unless you label it as a clear exception like Talking is)
And you can still piggy back the drawing of the arrow on the free action of speaking, which is allowed out of turn. And free actions are done as part of other actions, so...Before the Archer's initiative, I shout and go prone.
I shout and quickdraw a lance and attack the charging character
I shout and draw an arrow and use my Improvised melee weapon to attack the adjacent caster with an Improvised Weapon AoO.
I'm amazed you're advocating this even after SKR's mini-clarification on free actions. Did he say that the summoner can just shout and use Lifelink as written? Nope. They changed it to Not an Action.
It's not easy being cheesy.
I never said it wasn't cheesy. In fact, in the post where I came up with the idea, I think I specifically said it was so :)
BNW, the problem is that free actions say that you can do them on your turn. Talking is a specific exception.Up to a reasonable limit. Commands of a couple of words, yes. Reciting the Gettysburg Address... absolutely not. All actions fit into the context of a six second combat frame.
You know how radio commercials speed up speech to say everything, but fit it in about 3 seconds of time?
My characters can do that with the Gettysburg Address.
And the Magna Carta.
I get it, you're more of a generalist and you don't care for splitting hairs.
Right, because i am trying to understand the INTENT of the rules: something the writers assume you're trying to do when you read it, otherwise the rulebook would read like a law book. I do not want to pick up a product and see "Combat whereby the party of the first part, hereafter referred to as the aggressors..."
Regardless of that fact, Nocking is not the same as Drawing and in no way encompasses Drawing. They are in no way synonyms and are very different words.
Sorry, but nocking is not a game term. If i am putting an arrow to a bowstring i must be doing so from somewhere, either a quiver, my hand, or the ground. Your attempts to resist all calls to reason about what the feat clearly does are entirely of your own making, not that of the writers. Ease up on your definition of nocking (which you have no reason to hold) and your problem goes away. All you need to do to let the archer take his arrow out is well...
Kind of like free action and not an action.
And which one of us would have made the right call at the table? If i said "the summoner can spend his HP when its not his turn, otherwise the ability is useless" and you said "Nope, sorry, its not your turn you can't use the free action"?
Right, because i am trying to understand the INTENT of the rules: something the writers assume you're trying to do when you read it, otherwise the rulebook would read like a law book. I do not want to pick up a product and see "Combat whereby the party of the first part, hereafter referred to as the aggressors..."
Understandable, however, PF goes really deep down that game term and defining rabbit hole. You can't have your cake and eat it too. (In regards to PF the complete RAW edition, super defined rulesets with enough wiggle room to fuss about.)
My point right now is: this is how Snap Shot works in the ruleset. It may not be the way it was intended to work, if the developers wished it to be used in a certain manner then they should ensure the wording aligns itself to that.
I completely agree that the intent of the feat is to allow ranged AoOs. That much is obvious (even to me). However, the developers need to be mindful of the wordings they are using in the feats because as written the feat cannot be used as it was intended to.
With the addition of each batch of content the mechanical wording becomes even murkier and more and more questions arise. We need to be vigilant for the devs and show them where the wordings do not match the intentions of the mechanics so we can have a game that is easily understood by all who play it.
Surprisingly not everyone who plays Pathfinder is going to roll on to the Rules forums and ask for help. They may find it frustrating to figure out this stuff by themselves.
With enough of a fuss things can improve:
Look at the progress and clarification we've had in clarifying the rules in the past few months, quite astounding.
And which one of us would have made the right call at the table? If i said "the summoner can spend his HP when its not his turn, otherwise the ability is useless" and you said "Nope, sorry, its not your turn you can't use the free action"?
I would have said: "As written it is a Free Action, thus you can't use it outside of your turn. But, that seems really limited for no apparent reason and even borderline useless so we should probably open up the ability to be used outside your turn."
The same goes for Snap Shot, the feat is useless if you can't AoO with it. I am strongly against useless feat fluff.
But, that is a house rule that I would have made in my game and I dislike making house rules to make feats/abilities work as they were designed. Why do I have to house rule for commonsense?
Sorry, but nocking is not a game term. If i am putting an arrow to a bowstring i must be doing so from somewhere, either a quiver, my hand, or the ground.
So you're saying that Nocking an Arrow (Not an Action) can encompass picking up an arrow off the ground (Move Action) and nocking it to the bowstring (Not an Action) as well as drawing a piece of ammunition (Free Action) and nocking it to the bowstring (Not an Action)?
Talk about action economy.
|
This whole issue surrounding Free Actions outside of your turn or as a part of another action reminded me of another question that I've been having for some time:
If a creature with Grab gets an AoO, and successfully lands the hit, is he allowed to make the Free Action to actually start the grapple? I had assumed he would, since it's all generally one cohesive attack, but perhaps I am wrong here?
"Grab (Ex): If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity."
And the same idea follows for a Harpoon on a critical hit (the Grappling Weapon Quality). I mean, the damn thing CRIT, it's probably buried in there, and possibly poking out the other side, but if the crit happened on an AoO, does that mean that the Harpoon was suddenly less effective because you don't get that Free Action to try the Grapple?
"Grapple: On a successful critical hit with a weapon of this type, you can grapple the target of the attack. The wielder can then attempt a combat maneuver check to grapple his opponent as a free action."
Is it written differently from the text in Disarming Strike intentionally?
"Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can disarm your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may disarm your opponent as if from the disarm combat maneuver. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity."
I'm concerned that the former states "Free Action", while the latter just says "you can", as if it doesn't take an action at all. Is this bad writing, or was that on purpose? Because the two effects feel like they should react the same way once the initial hit lands.
Then we get into the madness of Swift Actions. Would Dispelling Critical, for instance, have any effect on an AoO?
"Benefit: If you have dispel magic prepared or can cast it spontaneously, when you score a critical hit against an opponent, you may use a swift action to cast dispel magic to make a targeted dispel against that opponent."
Since "You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action."
Personally, I thought it was a rather elegant solution to say that Free Actions had to be used in conjunction with another action (excluding Free Actions as the latter). I had always assumed AoOs were a very limited and specific list of Standard Actions(though I have yet to find that list) that acted like Immediate, and so stacking a Free Action on it had always made sense to me, so long as you do the Free Action DURING its conjoined action.
For instance, if the spellcaster is casting Shocking Grasp next to you (not defensively), then that provokes your AoO. I would think, sure, you can trip him and drop your weapon simultaneously, but you can't hit him with your weapon and THEN drop said weapon.
And as long as you can't stack Free Actions on other Free Actions, you won't have people trying to cheat their way into AoOs with the "Drawing!" and quickdraw example. The only way to draw the weapon out of turn order would be by gaining a normal action to stack it on, and since you don't get the AoO if you don't already threaten, there's no triggering action there.
Not that my personal opinion actually helps anyone, since it's not at all official (though in my defense, I thought it was when I played by those rules). But if any devs happen to come across this post, at least I think it makes sense this way. :P
*All quoted text was taken from d20pfsrd.com, since I don't have the books yet. Hopefully, it is all unchanged from the actual book text.
|
|
Sorry, but nocking is not a game term. If i am putting an arrow to a bowstring i must be doing so from somewhere, either a quiver, my hand, or the ground.So you're saying that Nocking an Arrow (Not an Action) can encompass picking up an arrow off the ground (Move Action) and nocking it to the bowstring (Not an Action) as well as drawing a piece of ammunition (Free Action) and nocking it to the bowstring (Not an Action)?
Talk about action economy.
Ah, but you're forgetting this also includes drawing it from a Bag of Holding (which could take as long as a Full-Round Action) to put it to the string. And you might even be able to stop in combat, find a suitable tree branch, and whittle an arrow to then nock.
With a kind enough DM, perhaps.BigNorseWolf: The verb is "to set (an arrow) into the bowstring", not "to get an arrow from somewhere and then set it into the bowstring". Similar to the verb "lay". You lay a blanket on the grass. Retrieving the blanket from somewhere and THEN laying it on the grass is not the same.
Count your verbs. You're using one too many.
I completely agree that the intent of the feat is to allow ranged AoOs.
...I would have said: "As written it is a Free Action, thus you can't use it outside of your turn. But, that seems really limited for no apparent reason and even borderline useless so we should probably open up the ability to be used outside your turn."The same goes for Snap Shot, the feat is useless if you can't AoO with it. I am strongly against useless feat fluff.
It doesn't seem useless to me. Anybody can take this Free Action to nock an arrow at the end of their turn: that allows shooting 1 arrow as an AoO, which is the normal limit for AoO's anyways, you would need an additional Feat (combat reflexes) to bypass that limit...
IF you have that Feat you CAN use the other AoOs for other things, just not Snap Shots. Combat Reflex isn't a pre-req for Snap Shot, and I wasn't aware that Combat Reflexes was otherwise some de-facto feat choice for archers, who have to take a bunch of other feats to get rid of other limitations/vulnerabilities of Archery.
Balance-wise, I don't see a problem with that, as Archery is the weapon style that is most prone to being able to FulL Attack consistently, so only being able to get 1 AoO on top of that hardly seems the worst thing in the world. If melee weapons are still superior at the tons-of-AoOs schtick, I'm fine with that... Getting just 1 AoO with a bow is a step change in how archery functions already.
Just a note that this issue has been resolved.
Since reloading an arrow is a free action, and since free actions can be done as a part of another action, you can reload the arrow as a part of the AoO.
Check the FAQ link on the first post.
Huh. I never considered AoOs to qualify as actions. ...Wonder what else that will implications for.
Huh. I never considered AoOs to qualify as actions. ...Wonder what else that will implications for.
You could think of the action as the attack action, and the AoO as a specialized readied action.
I'm not sure if that's the underlying assumption. Also not sure about if vital strike can be used in an AoO.
Tbh, I'm not sure if logic truly works here. It is clear that the reason why you can reload out of turn is because it's a free action tagging along with the AoO.
Shrug!
I am thankful for the ruling, however, it does not clear up any of the issues being discussed in the thread that were resulting from the ability to take free actions outside of your turn.
I'd like to hear a more mechanical explaination on why that was chosen other than the feat should work like the normal firing of a bow. I think there is perhaps a better way to word the feat.
I prefer:
Snap Shot (Combat)
With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. If your ranged weapon can be reloaded as a Free Action and is unloaded at the time an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from you, you may load and fire your weapon during your Attack of Opportunity. Also, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon
Honestly, this seems like this was just their quick reaction to making this Feat work like how they may have intended, even if it allowed 1 AoO/round without all Free Actions being usable during other actions... But the FAQ does seem applicable to other things, like the Trip and Rock Catching abilities for example... Which definitely were problematic per RAW... Though I personally would have just Errata'd those abilities to NOT use Free Actions.
What else DOES this affect? Switching grips during AoOs is now A/OK?
Anything that allows Free Actions is now usable during AoOs apparently.
I just have the feeling there is going to be stuff I will just instinctively disallow, yet the 'new'/clarified RAW will allow if consistently applied.
EDIT: If you can draw an arrow as part of AoO (at the beginning) why can't you use the arrow as a melee weapon for that AoO? Or other weapons via Quickdraw? In that case, you would need to be able to take the AoO in the first place, so it may not help Unarmed characters, but you would seemingly be able to draw ANY weapon you have that is optimal for the AoO, e.g. one that gives a bonus to the maneuver, or is Ghost Touch vs a Ghost provoking, etc... Again, I feel that this solution was chosen quickly to 'fix' one CASE, and not with a deeper look at how the rules SHOULD work together in general re: Free Actions during AoOs. I think Free Actions were designed to be taken during your turn (except speaking) for a reason, yet Paizo has thrown that bit of rules away to make this one Feat work. (like I said, it also makes other things work, but those could have been fixed in their own way by removing the Free Action bit and making their abilities non-actions).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has thrown that bit of rules away to make this one Feat work.
Indeed.
What about a character that has a situationally buffed spiked gauntlet (let's say its a Holy Spiked Gauntlet) & a warhammer in the same hand that makes an AoO attempt.
They are threatening & have a light shield and a warhammer. Upon making their AoO the character switches the hammer to their shield hand and swings with the gauntlet at the provoking creature.
Granted this is a bit situational and uncommon, but the fact that it allows you to mess with balance on the fly (and outside your turn) is a bit troubling.
Do the rules even say you have to draw an arrow in order to use it with a longbow?
I know that spell components only have to be on the person, are not arrows the same for a long bow and short bow?
Do the rules even say you have to draw an arrow in order to use it with a longbow?
Err.. yes they do. Hence the debate.