I hear a lot that Reflexive shot is a lot like Snap shot, allowing you to make attacks of opportunity with a bow. However, people say it's limited to five feet. My question is, where in the rules is this indeed limited to only threatening five feet?
Reflexive Shot (Ex)
At 9th level, a zen archer can make attacks of opportunity with arrows from his bow. The monk still threatens squares he could reach with unarmed strikes, and can still only make one attack of opportunity per round (unless he has Combat Reflexes).
This ability replaces improved evasion.
Emphasis mine. So, can someone help me understand how this is limited to 5ft?
It's not.
It's actually superior to Snap Shot in that respect.
And yet by RAW you still have to spend feats on the completely and utterly worthless Rapid Shot and Snap Shot in order to get Improved Snap Shot, despite already having a better version of Snap Shot, and waiting longer than the fighter, ranger, etc... to do it due to BAB +9 pre-req.
To me, the apex word of the statement is "Still", which implies he now threatens with his bow and "Still threatens squares he could reach with his unarmed Stikes . . ." But nobody seems to know this and I can't find any faq or ruling stating otherwise.
If you don't threaten with your bow, how can you make attacks of opportunity with it? You can only make attacks of op with weapons you threaten with. Threatening with your unarmed strikes doesn't allow you to make an attack of op with a longspear or Lucerne hammer, or a bow for that matter. You need to threaten with a bow to make attacks with a bow. Reflexive Shot doesn't say anything about threatening, but it says you can make attacks of op with your bow, implying you threaten with your bow. As I understand it, weapons that threaten threaten any square they can reach with an attack. I'm asking where's the rule stating this isn't true for a bow with Reflexive Shot.
I believe the level 3 stuff zen archers receive let them threaten with bows.
I'd always read the feat as: You can make AoO with your bow within 5', ie the same distance as you threaten with the normal reach of your unarmed attack. A little underwhelming, to say the least.
However, if you change it to allow AoO at any range, it's overpowered. With a longbow that would give you an AoO against anyone who moves within 550'! Sorry but I think that if they had a range other than 5' in mind when they wrote the feat they would have put it in the feat description.
Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Huh, I've always interpreted it as it was the weapon that had to be threatening. But this does bring up another point: if you threaten with a longspear or other reach weapon, and you also threaten with a natural attack, spiked guantlet, or improved unarmed strike, then this definition of the rules allow you to make an attack of opportunity with your longspear directly adjacent to you, since threat isn't dependant on weapon.
Huh, I've always interpreted it as it was the weapon that had to be threatening. But this does bring up another point: if you threaten with a longspear or other reach weapon, and you also threaten with a natural attack, spiked guantlet, or improved unarmed strike, then this definition of the rules allow you to make an attack of opportunity with your longspear directly adjacent to you, since threat isn't dependant on weapon.Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
I think the intention is that you have to be able to make a melee attack into that square. If the weapon you're wielding can't attack an adjacent square then I don't think you threaten that square.
Why would attacks of opportunity waive the general limitations of your weapon?
If you threaten a certain square, you obviously have some means of attacking into that square. When provoked from that square, you attack with one of the means to attack a target in that square.
Because those same rules limit the threat range of a weapon (bow) by using the threat range of an entirely different weapon (unarmed strike) to determine threat range. Ergo, if I can use bow attacks on AoO in squares threatened by Unarmed STrikes, then why not use Longspear attacks in the same manner?
If it works for one it works for the other. You can't say the rules apply to the bow but not the spear. You don't get to bend the rules to your liking just to deny attacks of opportunity beyond 5ft with a zen archer's longbow, not without breaking the game in another area, such as reach and attacks of op.
The text for Reflexive Shot is pretty clear. You gain the ability to MAKE attacks of opportunity with a bow. It does NOT say anything about THREATENING spaces with a bow.
Compare that description with Snap Shot's:
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. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.
This specifies that you threaten squares with the bow and may make attacks of opportunity with it.
Presumably, a character without Improved Unarmed Strike wielding a weapon in one hand could use their unarmed attack to hit someone who provoked an AoO from them due to their threatening with their weapon.
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
Maezer, you are correct.
Oh, and you can make a bow attack at 5ft, you just provoke an AoO when you do, unless you have a feat that negates that, like point-blank master. I'm under the impression that either the rules need to be clarified concerning attacks of opportunity and threatened squares, or the Reflexive shot ability needs to be errated. I've seen people shove around a lot of worthless text saying such an ability is either too weak (5ft) or plain broken (550ft) and while I can agree with the former I have difficulty understanding the latter.
A Zen Archer cannot outdamage a ranger, fighter, paladin, or calvalier when it comes to archery. So instead, it seemed the Zen Archer was a class that, like the base monk, was more focused on enemy lockdown and control rather than damage. that massive threat range makes sense to go with the class.
A note: Lunge doesn't work for AoOs. It only lasts during your turn.
The point about Enlarge Person being less hampering for a Zen Archer than your typical archer holds, however. You lose 1 to-hit, 2 AC and 1 AoO, but you gain damage and threaten out to 10 ft. with your bow, while a standard archer loses the same things AND another 1 to-hit (total of -2), and doesn't get the extra threatened space, which is irrelevant if they have Improved Snap Shot, but that's 2 feats needed to get there.
Permanent is a possibility.
There's a bow magic item property that adjusts the strength rating to your own strength on the fly.
Also, your bow would be dealing damage 1 size category larger, which for a longbow would be 2d6. That's an increase of 3 damage on average, and with a better change of rolling 6, 7, and 8 than you had on the d8. Not to mention no chance of rolling for 1 damage.
Losing 1 AoO per round kind of sucks, but if you weren't making as many AoOs as you had available, because few enemies provoke them in 5 ft. threatened area, you're still gaining more by threatening out to 10 ft.
Normal size: you are adjacent to a caster who 5 ft. steps away to cast their spell safely.
Large size: you are adjacent to a caster who cannot 5 ft. step away to cast their spell safely.
Normal: you threaten 8 spaces.
Large: you threaten 32 (I believe).
I believe the level 3 stuff zen archers receive let them threaten with bows.
The 3rd level Zen Archer feature is Point Blank Master, which allows the archer to shoot while in melee without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Now, since Zen Archers have improved unarmed strike, they threaten adjacent squares without needing a melee weapon. They don't threaten with the bow: they threaten in spite of carrying the bow.
Logically, a non-Zen Archer ranged character could accomplish the same thing with a cestus or a boot blade or (my personal favorite) a Halfling sling staff.
I disagree that if you threaten with a dagger you can take your AoO with a whip.
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)."
"Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round."
"The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack."
So, the whip does not threaten any area at all. The dagger threatens the normal 5' for a medium/small creature. I understand the RAI of AoO and Threaten to be that you make the attack with the weapon which you threaten.
As far as Reflexive Shot: It does not increase your threatened range. It merely says that you can make an AoO with your bow and the threatened range for it is the same as your unarmed strike threatened squares.
I still think it needs more clarification. If the Reflexive shot rule said "you threaten the same squares into which you can make unarmed strikes" it'd be obvious that it uses unarmed strike threat range. But it's the "you still threaten" that says it's not supposed to work that way.
I always thought it wasn't mentioned because it was supposed to be obvious. But people got so caught up in the supposed "overpoweredness" that they quickly jumped to conclusions and dug up anything they could to say that the huge threatv range couldn't possibly be what was intended.
How much more clear does it need to be? It does NOT mention ANYTHING about THREATENING spaces with a bow.
It DOES mention being able to MAKE attacks of opportunity with a bow. Note, also, that without specific verbiage, one could (using your reading) assume that you threaten with a bow out to 10 range increments.
Snap Shot SPECIFICALLY mentions being able to threaten with a bow.
At this point I think you're just insisting on an incorrect reading because you WANT to threaten out to 100+ feet with a bow, despite there not being any support for such a reading whatsoever.
As for what's intended and something being overpowered...it takes 5 feats (Weapon Focus, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Snap Shot, Improved Precise Shot), Dex 15 and BAB +9 to threaten out to 15 feet. Even ignoring all of the other points made above, don't you think it would be utterly ridiculous for a character to get a free ability at level 9 that allowed them to threaten out to 100 feet, or 1,000 feet? That would probably be fairly overpowered for a 20th level ability, or a prestige class capstone ability. Not to mention that this would STRONGLY pull anyone investing 9 or more levels into Zen Archer to go all-in on Dex, rather than investing in Wis, since you'd want as many AoOs as possible, as this ability would be TREMENDOUSLY powerful. No one would ever be able to take any action that provokes an AoO within visual range without your being able to shoot them. Heck, the best build would probably be 9 Zen Archer and then go into fighter to pick up the Spellbreaker line of feats: no caster would ever be able to cast defensively, no one would ever be able to drink a potion, draw a stowed item, make a ranged attack...
No, I don't. I think it's a unique ability that should be native to a class whose entire focus is utter mastery of bow and arrow. The fighter trades out reliance on Wisdom and that utter mastery of the bow to be the big stupid muppet who simply does more damage in armor with more health and more weapons.
Hell yes I want the rules to let me do what I want to do. Just like you want the rules to let you keep me from doing what I want to do. It's simply the case that I want to do something and the rules aren't explicitely prohibiting it, so why do I need to be bound to your interpretation of the rules? Because it prohibits what I want to do?
I want a simple, clear-cut ruling so nobody can dispute one way or the other. The more concrete, the less someone like you or I can twist it one way or the other. It seems like a simple request to me.
No, I don't. I think it's a unique ability that should be native to a class whose entire focus is utter mastery of bow and arrow. The fighter trades out reliance on Wisdom and that utter mastery of the bow to be the big stupid muppet who simply does more damage in armor with more health and more weapons.
Hell yes I want the rules to let me do what I want to do. Just like you want the rules to let you keep me from doing what I want to do. It's simply the case that I want to do something and the rules aren't explicitely prohibiting it, so why do I need to be bound to your interpretation of the rules? Because it prohibits what I want to do?
I want a simple, clear-cut ruling so nobody can dispute one way or the other. The more concrete, the less someone like you or I can twist it one way or the other. It seems like a simple request to me.
The rules are made on the premise that if they do not permit you to do something, then you cannot do it.
It does not increase your threatened range, therefore, your threatened range does not increase. How far does a human monk normally threaten? 5'. That is all the range you threaten with this ability.
No, I don't. I think it's a unique ability that should be native to a class whose entire focus is utter mastery of bow and arrow. The fighter trades out reliance on Wisdom and that utter mastery of the bow to be the big stupid muppet who simply does more damage in armor with more health and more weapons.
Hell yes I want the rules to let me do what I want to do. Just like you want the rules to let you keep me from doing what I want to do. It's simply the case that I want to do something and the rules aren't explicitely prohibiting it, so why do I need to be bound to your interpretation of the rules? Because it prohibits what I want to do?
I want a simple, clear-cut ruling so nobody can dispute one way or the other. The more concrete, the less someone like you or I can twist it one way or the other. It seems like a simple request to me.
No sane person would allow a threat range of 100+ ft period. Not only do the rules NOT support your wishes but your DM should be telling you No, No, No.
I'm about to start playing a Zen dude at level 9 and there is no way on earth [or golarion] that that is going to fly. I'd be embarrassed to even suggest it as a possibility.