| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Called Shots...
What.
It says called shots are a full-round action, but in the feats below it says called shots normally take a standard action... If it's a mistake the "standard action" part it would invalidate bot feats, since they are based on that assumpion...
However, if it's a mistake the "full-round action" part (and that's what i hope) this could be a nice boost for meelee characters and give them some pretty useful options (especially for fighters, who starve for options)... And when they'll hear people aks "when you don't full attack, what do you do with your sword?", they'll be able to respond "I debuff!"
FAQ this thread (bad pun semi-intended).
EDIT: Stupid double post...
Feats basically allow you to do things the normal rules don't allow. The improved called shot and greater call shot feats remove the full round action restriction.
Some feats including those in this section have a statement following the word "normal" that tells you how things would be without the feat.
it is indeed silly that they messed up like that. However, to me I think it's fairly clear it's a full round action. The text on those feats must be in error.
Feats basically allow you to do things the normal rules don't allow. The improved called shot and greater call shot feats remove the full round action restriction.
Some feats including those in this section have a statement following the word "normal" that tells you how things would be without the feat.
And in the "normal" section they state something that goes against the rule. So the rule says, that
If i assume that a called shot is a standard action i can assume that a feat called "improved called shot" lets me make a called shot a part of a full round action...
If i assume that a called shot is a full-round action, in a feat like "improved called shot" the power gap is obscenely wide: i go from making a called shot as a full-round to making a called shot as a fraction of a standard action ("standard action that gives you multiple attacks") with a single feat.
Since it's clearly stated that the feats were intended for called shot as a standard action, we should know if it can actually be done without the feat, since a lot of options for combat open (and gives an actual utility to characters who usually full attack when they can't)...
it is indeed silly that they messed up like that. However, to me I think it's fairly clear it's a full round action. The text on those feats must be in error.
If that is, it's really a shame... And it's really an ugly power gap they create...
Yes I was trying to figure out exactly what 'a standard action that allows for multiple attacks' meant. Most likely it's referring to Cleave.
As far as power gap is concerned, there is precedent for it, like the feat Quick Dirty Trick which seems very similar. Yes, it's strong, but in both cases you have to spend multiple feats for it, one of them being Combat Expertise -which is pretty worthless.
if you read the Editors note under the feats in the page that you linked, the Editor clarifies that Called Shots are normally Full Round actions, not standard actions.
Yes I was trying to figure out exactly what 'a standard action that allows for multiple attacks' meant. Most likely it's referring to Cleave.
As far as power gap is concerned, there is precedent for it, like the feat Quick Dirty Trick which seems very similar. Yes, it's strong, but in both cases you have to spend multiple feats for it, one of them being Combat Expertise -which is pretty worthless.
if you read the Editors note under the feats in the page that you linked, the Editor clarifies that Called Shots are normally Full Round actions, not standard actions.
It's a precedent where the original action starts as a standard action, not a full round, that's why it makes me even more suspicious about the "full round action" error, instead of the "standard action" error. (the first point being you have to mess up once in the former case, you have to mess up twice in the latter.
I mean play it how you want, but it's a pretty open and shut case. The feat text is in error. There's an editors note right there saying so.
I referenced Quick Dirty Trick as an example of a combat ability that couldn't originally be made part of a full round attack, which can be with the feat. The fact that it was a standard action before wasn't lost on me, but you can't just compare the two chains as if they are identical. QDT, for example, requires yet *another* feat before you can get to it. They have some similarities, but just because QDT modifies a combat ability that originally was a standard action doesn't mean Called Shot somehow becomes a standard action.
Combat Maneuvers like DT (with no feat) incidentally also come with the penalty of incurring an AoO, which can disrupt the Combat Maneuver, something that Called Shot doesn't have to worry about. Like Combat Maneuvers, Called Shot is probably a sub-par option without the feat, and so you should really get the feat if you plan to use it a lot.
The mis-label as standard being made twice argument is a bit silly, as the second time the author was probably just in the same mindset as when they wrote the first one. They may have even been referencing the first feat. It's a case of self-fufilling prophecy.
Feats basically allow you to do things the normal rules don't allow. The improved called shot and greater call shot feats remove the full round action restriction.
Some feats including those in this section have a statement following the word "normal" that tells you how things would be without the feat.
And in the "normal" section they state something that goes against the rule. So the rule says, that
If i assume that a called shot is a standard action i can assume that a feat called "improved called shot" lets me make a called shot a part of a full round action...
If i assume that a called shot is a full-round action, in a feat like "improved called shot" the power gap is obscenely wide: i go from making a called shot as a full-round to making a called shot as a fraction of a standard action ("standard action that gives you multiple attacks") with a single feat.
Since it's clearly stated that the feats were intended for called shot as a standard action, we should know if it can actually be done without the feat, since a lot of options for combat open (and gives an actual utility to characters who usually full attack when they can't)...
I misread that section. The book is does have a contradiction. It seems the intent was for it to be standard action.