Manyshot with 2 arrows as first attack...
followed by bonus arrow...
followed by any iteratives...
with all shots at -2???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Let us assume that I have a BAB of +11
Using just BAB bonuses, Manyshot, and Rapid Shot I get the following attacks:
+9(2arrows)/+9(rapid)/+4/-1 for a total of 4 attacks and 5 arrows.
- Gauss
Correct.
Thanks. Just wanted to be sure because of both mentioning the full-attack action. Manyshot seemed somewhat weak, to me, if Rapid Shot couldn't be combined with it.
I don't believe the two could be combined in 3.5, so I was hoping that this was changed along with the other changes to the two feats for PF.
Both use the same language of 'When making a full-attack action'. If one of them stated 'full round action' then it would not be possible to combine them.
- Gauss
Correct.Thanks. Just wanted to be sure because of both mentioning the full-attack action. Manyshot seemed somewhat weak, to me, if Rapid Shot couldn't be combined with it.
I don't believe the two could be combined in 3.5, so I was hoping that this was changed along with the other changes to the two feats for PF.
You're right that they couldn't combine in 3.5, because Manyshot was a special standard action then, while Rapid Shot was a full-attack option still.
Thank you, both.
We just ran our first true sessions of all Pathfinder, last weekend (having finally switched from 3.5). The more I learn about it, the more I prefer Pathfinder over 3.5.
|
While I prefer Pathfinder over 3.5, there are some changes I don't like. Manyshot and Rapid Sot are two of them.
In 3.5, since Manyshot was a 'special standard action' (language which 'Vital Strike' SHOULD have used to make ruling on it trouble-free) you could not 'fold' it into a full attack like you can with the 'attack action', which is a standard action but may be folded into a full attack. The upshot was that, in a round where you needed or wanted to take a move action (usually to actually move to get a bead on the bad guy or fire then 'get out of Dodge') as well as shoot your bow, you could use Manyshot to shoot more than one arrow WITHOUT it taking a full-round action to do so. I've read the devs of that system say that Manyshot was created for 3.5 (it didn't exist in 3.0) to give archers that very option. In PF we now only get an extra arrow on our first attack during a full attack. Of course you may take your first attack of your full attack (firing two arrows) and then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks (core rulebook p.187), but it's not the same as you cannot move BEFORE the Manyshot like you could before. Even this tactic has become a bone of contention as some say that tactic somehow breaks the rules, but it's legal by RAW and (despite some furious efforts) have yet to see any RAW which would make it illegal.
Rapid Shot has been nerfed as well. In 3.5 it allowed you to 'get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon'. Combined with either Quick Draw or shuriken that allowed a MELEE fighter an extra THROWN weapon attack. Some of my fighters were BUILT around that. Now, in PF, 'When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.' So, some perfectly good character concepts thrown out of the window for no good reason whatsoever!
Still, at least in Pathfinder you can charge a polearm wielder and suffer no attacks of opportunity, as long as you charge him diagonally!
Wait!
WHAT!!!
...
Still, at least in Pathfinder you can charge a polearm wielder and suffer no attacks of opportunity, as long as you charge him diagonally!Wait!
WHAT!!!
I want to see the rules for THAT, I call that to be 99.999% wrong :-P
You are probably confusing MOVEMENT rules with THREATENING rules. If you MOVE diagonally, every second square counts as ten feet, but for the purpose of THREATENING that's only ten feet. So what you write there is wrong unless you can show me a rule that I have overlooked all these years ;-)
Manyshot with 2 arrows as first attack...
followed by bonus arrow...
followed by any iteratives...
with all shots at -2???
Correct :-)
...
Rapid Shot has been nerfed as well. In 3.5 it allowed you to 'get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon'. Combined with either Quick Draw or shuriken that allowed a MELEE fighter an extra THROWN weapon attack. Some of my fighters were BUILT around that. Now, in PF, 'When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.' So, some perfectly good character concepts thrown out of the window for no good reason whatsoever!
Actually I think it's good this way. A thrower gets a lot of built-in bonuses such as applying his strength bonus for free. For what you want the two-weapon fighting tree or flurry ability are the intended solutions IMO :-)
Now, in PF, 'When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.' So, some perfectly good character concepts thrown out of the window for no good reason whatsoever!
You can still use 2 weapon fighting for this, and i thought that throwing weapons counted as ranged weapons for this purpose. "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon..." and thrown weapons are specifically designated under ranged weapons. I guess the only thing that stops it is the word "shoot" This stops the fighter from making 3 attacks at level 1, but he can still very well use TWF and throw two knives from both hands at once. They would have to be daggers or throwing axes to be effective since 1-handed make bad throwing weapons and you suffer greater penalties, but its do-able.
Still, at least in Pathfinder you can charge a polearm wielder and suffer no attacks of opportunity, as long as you charge him diagonally!
i thought there was some errata or something that said reach creatures provoke on the corners... maybe i'm just smoking something and this was a homebrew rule
|
|
...
Still, at least in Pathfinder you can charge a polearm wielder and suffer no attacks of opportunity, as long as you charge him diagonally!Wait!
WHAT!!!
I want to see the rules for THAT, I call that to be 99.999% wrong :-P
You are probably confusing MOVEMENT rules with THREATENING rules. If you MOVE diagonally, every second square counts as ten feet, but for the purpose of THREATENING that's only ten feet. So what you write there is wrong unless you can show me a rule that I have overlooked all these years ;-)
I agree with you about how insane this is, Sangalor. However, there is an entire thread complaining about this. It turns out that when cutting and pasting the rules from 3.5 they forgot to paste the part about reach weapons threatening the corners, leaving is with nothing but the movement rules to go by; the first diagonal is 5-feet away, the second is 15-feet away, the third is 20-feet away, the fourth is 30-feet away, and so on.
The 'reach' quality is good for two things: hitting things that aren't adjacent but are adjacent to adjacent squares, and getting attacks of opportunity on creatures that move up to you without a 5-foot step. This cut & paste oversight makes reach weapons, by RAW, 'not fit for purpose'.
It took TWO YEARS of persuasion to get James Jacobs to see that.
|
|
Actually I think it's good this way. A thrower gets a lot of built-in bonuses such as applying his strength bonus for free. For what you want the two-weapon fighting tree or flurry ability are the intended solutions IMO :-)...
Rapid Shot has been nerfed as well. In 3.5 it allowed you to 'get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon'. Combined with either Quick Draw or shuriken that allowed a MELEE fighter an extra THROWN weapon attack. Some of my fighters were BUILT around that. Now, in PF, 'When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round.' So, some perfectly good character concepts thrown out of the window for no good reason whatsoever!
The problem is that my characters in 3.5 used TWF and Rapid Shot in the same round, for two extra attacks (one of which must be a ranged weapon) at a combined -4 attack penalty. The NEW version stops me doing this because all my attacks APART from the bonus Rapid Shot attack were MELEE attacks.
In case you think this is pretty powerful, the point is I paid for my ability to do this by using my feat choices on those feats.
I've read the devs of that system say that Manyshot was created for 3.5 (it didn't exist in 3.0) to give archers that very option.
Not disputing anything else you wrote, but...
Manyshot [General] You can fire multiple arrows as a single attack against a nearby target.
ELH was a 3.0 rulebook.
|
|
I've read the devs of that system say that Manyshot was created for 3.5 (it didn't exist in 3.0) to give archers that very option.Not disputing anything else you wrote, but...
Manyshot [General] You can fire multiple arrows as a single attack against a nearby target.ELH was a 3.0 rulebook.
I stand corrected, Chemlak! Although I played 3.0 from it's release until just after 3.5 came out (we finished the adventure we were in), we never purchased the Epic Level Handbook!
Thanks. : )
Was it useable by anyone, or just epic level characters?
What were it's prerequisites in the ELH?
It was a General feat, required Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, a Dex of 15 and a BAB of +6. It was in the non-Epic feats section at the end of the skills and feats chapter (IIRC, it's actually the last feat in the book).
...
Still, at least in Pathfinder you can charge a polearm wielder and suffer no attacks of opportunity, as long as you charge him diagonally!Wait!
WHAT!!!
I want to see the rules for THAT, I call that to be 99.999% wrong :-P
You are probably confusing MOVEMENT rules with THREATENING rules. If you MOVE diagonally, every second square counts as ten feet, but for the purpose of THREATENING that's only ten feet. So what you write there is wrong unless you can show me a rule that I have overlooked all these years ;-)
I agree with you about how insane this is, Sangalor. However, there is an entire thread complaining about this. It turns out that when cutting and pasting the rules from 3.5 they forgot to paste the part about reach weapons threatening the corners, leaving is with nothing but the movement rules to go by; the first diagonal is 5-feet away, the second is 15-feet away, the third is 20-feet away, the fourth is 30-feet away, and so on.
The 'reach' quality is good for two things: hitting things that aren't adjacent but are adjacent to adjacent squares, and getting attacks of opportunity on creatures that move up to you without a 5-foot step. This cut & paste oversight makes reach weapons, by RAW, 'not fit for purpose'.
It took TWO YEARS of persuasion to get James Jacobs to see that.
Hm, I don't see an issue here. Please point me to that thread. Is this still a "problem" or has this been "fixed"? I just checked the combat section on d20pfsrd and didn't see anything there...
I considered movement to be a special case for the purpose of threatening, essentially the same way that movement is considered a special case for attacks of opportunity. So I simply didn't and still don't see the need for explicit description here.
So the second square from an opponent counts as 10 feet when moving, but only 5 feet for threat area, thus reach weapons (as natural reach) work.
Regarding reach: There is a line from the 3.5PHB missing that exempted reach weapons from counting the second diagonal as 15'.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature. For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.) In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat, page 149.
The bolded line is not present in the paragraph below (or anywhere else).
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
Because of that you must use the following rule for the diagonals:
Diagonals: When measuring distance, the first diagonal counts as 1 square, the second counts as 2 squares, the third counts as 1, the fourth as 2, and so on.
The D20PFSRD is incorrect in some places. One of those places is reach weapon templates.
- Gauss
- Gauss
|
|
- Gauss
Gauss, you are a star! I'd hoped someone would do this, and I had a little bet with myself that it'd be you! : )
The way you managed to do that 'quote' thing where we press the button and the quote appears is amazing! I'll never be that skilled because all my spare time is now filled with this new forum addiction. I'm actually typing this in my break at work!
You can also type [.quote.=.label the quote] to put something in quotes (without the periods). Type [./.quote.] when you are done (without the periods).
- Gauss
|
|
You SAY that, but the computer looks at me funny if I try to get clever.
I'll give it a go sometime.
Why did you type the periods (I assume you mean 'full stops') if I don't need to? I'm sure you know what your doing, but I don't!
Cheers, Gauss! I'm learning, slowly but surely. I now know where most of the letters are!
Malachi: Correct, if I did not put the periods in it would have come out like this:
to put something in quotes (without the periods). Type
when you are done (without the periods).
- Gauss
...
Still, at least in Pathfinder you can charge a polearm wielder and suffer no attacks of opportunity, as long as you charge him diagonally!Wait!
WHAT!!!
I want to see the rules for THAT, I call that to be 99.999% wrong :-P
You are probably confusing MOVEMENT rules with THREATENING rules. If you MOVE diagonally, every second square counts as ten feet, but for the purpose of THREATENING that's only ten feet. So what you write there is wrong unless you can show me a rule that I have overlooked all these years ;-)
That is not true. Every other square is 10 feet when you move.
As for the threatening rule, 3.5 specifically said that the second diagonal was threatened. PF(at least the last time I checked) does not have the verbage. It has been FAQ'd several times with no response yet.
I see I was ninja'd by a long shot. :)
That's not being ninja'd. Thats being late to the party. hehehe :D
- Gauss
You threaten diagonals. I'm a little weirded out that people are arguing otherwise, but I have seen more pedantic arguments.
Cheapy:
This is a rules forum, the rules do not state you threaten diagonals. The 3.5 rules did. Now, I believe you should threaten diagonals but that is a personal opinion and not the RAW.
This issue has been FAQd before and there is still no change/comment (that I am aware of) other than JJ's where he went back and forth on it.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter for home games. People will use whichever rule makes more sense to them. The problem will be PFS games. By the rules GMs should not allow diagonals there (which will suck since I am about to be bring in a reach fighter into PFS games).
- Gauss
Just because it's the rules forum doesn't mean you get to throw common sense out the window. The rules of the game are the intent, not the letter.
Remember though, what's good for one is good for all - that would mean, if it's played that way in PF, you can freely advance on large monsters from diagonal as well.
I also think the intent is to keep the 3.5 ruling, but they still have not put it back into the book, so it could have been removed on purpose. We really have no evidence that says it(the removal of the text) was an error. For my home games I will use the 3.5 version, no matter what Paizo says, but I can't argue for that stance just because I want it to be that way. Maybe when they get done with the Mythic book, and the Ultimate Campaign( I don't even know what this book is about) book they will finally answer some more of the FAQ's. This assumes that RPG Superstar does not get in they way. :(
PS:I enjoy RPG Superstar, but I don't like it stopping/reducing the FAQ's.
As far as I can tell, the entire argument is based on the omission of an aside on an *example*.
Cheapy: I do play using common sense. That does not mean the rules do not have a problem. If we do not discover the problems we cannot try to get corrections via Errata/FAQs. And, as always, I post in rules forums based on what the rules are. Common sense opinions vary.
- Gauss
As far as I can tell, the entire argument is based on the omission of an aside on an *example*.
PF is "claiming" to be its own game. Without knowledge of the 3.5 rules there is no way to really say hitting that 2nd diagonal is the intent. Now in cases where the words are the same I assume the meaning is the same, but the PF version is missing some important words.
Related Issue-->So Pazio needs to officially say that referring to 3.5 rules is ok as long as the words are same, which arguably may not apply in this case, or they can answer a lot of questions that already have answer, even if they are on another site. I see no point in answering a question that also has an answer, but the idea of trying to completely seperate themselves from 3.5 leads to situations like this.
Wraithstrike: I have that very problem with my newer players. Since they do not possess 3.5 knowledge they do not know why/how some rules work the way they do, especially when the rules are incomplete.
- Gauss
I am thoroughly entertained by the evolution of this thread. I want to see it continue out to it's conclusion. I can just now imagine the hilarious things that are going to appear here. But I do not want to imagine. Please, do not stop!
Lune, you can add weapon enhancements to plain masterwork weapons because they possess a +1 enhancement bonus.
lol, Cheapy, I was just thinking of that thread. And the Trolls > Tarrasque thread.
It seems I missed a thread. I won't even go looking for it. I would like to inform you that all spells with a DF are divine in nature however even when cast by an arcane caster. :)
<flies away>
BAD Wraithstrike! BAD BAD Wraithstrike!
- Gauss