Bigguyinblack |
Source Blood of Fiends pg. 25
Your lack of regard for others proves a boon when you fire projectiles into melee.
Prerequisites: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot.
Benefit: When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee, you can choose to take a –1 penalty to your AC and gain a +2 competence bonus on your attack roll. However, when you roll a natural 1 on a ranged attack roll made with this bonus, you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target.
RAI: One of your allies is fighting an enemy in melee. You are undisciplined and wild and take that chance of hitting your ally. "It was just an arrow, Go cry some more."
RAW: My Zen Archer Monk moves up to melee range. He has improved unarmed strike and threatens so he is in melee. He fires his bow while adjacent to the enemy and chooses to use the Reckless Aim feat lowering his AC by one and adding +2 to his attack rolls with his bow. He has rolled a 1. "Arrggghhh!"
The Zen Archer, Absolute and disciplined master of the bow, Has pulled a Red Rider and shot himself in the eye.
The feat is PFS legal.
Thoughts?
GinoA |
If there isn't an ally involved in this fight then the pre-reqs aren't met. This is one case where you don't count as your own ally.
Assuming InBlack quoted the relevant text accurately, it doesn't refer to allies in the rules text and the fluff only refers to "regard for others".
Edit: I clearly type too slowly.
David knott 242 |
Well, the opponent is in melee with you. I think that what is relevant is that the enemy you are shooting at threatens someone, not that he is threatened.
shroudb |
There is actually a questionable bit. What does "In melee" mean exactly? I have improved unarmed strike and am adjacent to the enemy. I threaten them and in fact don't yet threaten with the bow. But I'm shooting them. Per RAW am I in melee with them?
if you are a monk yes. because if they try to move away you can kick them as an AoO
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Tarantula |
As long as the monster threatens you, or you threaten it; both of you "engaged in melee".
"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)"
LazarX |
There is actually a questionable bit. What does "In melee" mean exactly? I have improved unarmed strike and am adjacent to the enemy. I threaten them and in fact don't yet threaten with the bow. But I'm shooting them. Per RAW am I in melee with them?
Not if you're shooting that round. This is where round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out become important. If you've declared that you are bowshooting, you are NOT in melee with your intended target, nor do you provide a flank for anyone else.
OldSkoolRPG |
As long as the monster threatens you, or you threaten it; both of you "engaged in melee".
"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)"
Good catch. No ambiguity there.
Tarantula |
Bigguyinblack wrote:There is actually a questionable bit. What does "In melee" mean exactly? I have improved unarmed strike and am adjacent to the enemy. I threaten them and in fact don't yet threaten with the bow. But I'm shooting them. Per RAW am I in melee with them?Not if you're shooting that round. This is where round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out become important. If you've declared that you are bowshooting, you are NOT in melee with your intended target, nor do you provide a flank for anyone else.
If he is a Zen Archer monk, he has Improved Unarmed Strike and so he would threaten adjacent squares and would be considered to be "in melee" with enemy creatures in those squares. He would provide flank as well. No need to declare prior. (Monks also don't need a free hand for unarmed attacks so he can hold the bow (2 handed weapon) and still threaten.)
Shadowborn |
"Your lack of regard for others proves a boon when you fire projectiles into melee."
Yes, it's not in the actual mechanics section of the feat, but it is part of the feat as it is written. Unless everyone agrees that "you" and "others" are synonymous, then this bit of rules-lawyering doesn't fly at the game table.
Bigguyinblack |
In a regular home game you would be correct. In Pathfinder Society play GMs are required to run games per the rules as written to the best of their ability. Of course nothing says they have to run at all but if they are refusing to run due to a situational +2 to hit then there are deeper problems involved.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
Bigguyinblack |
New question.
Say I am adjacent to an enemy. That enemy has 2 allies adjacent to them as well. They are all holding melee weapons. I fire and roll a 1.
"you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target."
Those other 2 enemies are adjacent to my target. They are armed. Per RAW are they considered to be threatening my target?
shroudb |
As long as the monster threatens you, or you threaten it; both of you "engaged in melee".
"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)"
nope
LazarX |
In a regular home game you would be correct. In Pathfinder Society play GMs are required to run games per the rules as written to the best of their ability. Of course nothing says they have to run at all but if they are refusing to run due to a situational +2 to hit then there are deeper problems involved.
PFS GMs DO have latitude to prevent flagrant rules abuse, contrary to what some folks might believe, this includes intentional misuse of RAW. I would definitely overrule this kind of abuse at any table I run.
Chess Pwn |
Is it possible to threaten an ally but not be in melee with them?
NO "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."
All of your questions are answered in the quote saying what being in melee is. If either threaten the other and are enemies then both are in melee.
GinoA |
LazarX wrote:This is where round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out become important.Huh? Did we switch to playing The Bard's Tale when I wasn't looking? . . . Sweet! Dibs on geomancer.
Not to mention requiring called intent directly violates RAW. I can change from a full-attack to a simple-attack after seeing the result of the first die roll, afterall.
LazarX |
blahpers wrote:Not to mention requiring called intent directly violates RAW. I can change from a full-attack to a simple-attack after seeing the result of the first die roll, afterall.LazarX wrote:This is where round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out become important.Huh? Did we switch to playing The Bard's Tale when I wasn't looking? . . . Sweet! Dibs on geomancer.
I want you to point me to the exact RAW statement that negates called intent. Called Intent is mandatory for declaring things such as Power Attack, Multi-Attack, or other maneuvers that impose a round penalty, also for declaring certain rerolls which must be declared before the original roll is made.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
GinoA wrote:I want you to point me to the exact RAW statement that negates called intent. Called Intent is mandatory for declaring things such as Power Attack, Multi-Attack, or other maneuvers that impose a round penalty, also for declaring certain rerolls which must be declared before the original roll is made.blahpers wrote:Not to mention requiring called intent directly violates RAW. I can change from a full-attack to a simple-attack after seeing the result of the first die roll, afterall.LazarX wrote:This is where round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out become important.Huh? Did we switch to playing The Bard's Tale when I wasn't looking? . . . Sweet! Dibs on geomancer.
Needing to declare what action you're initiating is waaaaay different than the words you said that people are replying to, specifically "round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out".
The fact that you have to declare the use of a penalty-granting ability before using it does NOT mean that you have to declare your entire round before initiative (or even at the start of your turn).
And "Called Intent" is a term that you made up and isn't in the rules, so no one has to disprove it.
And being able to stop your full-attack after the first swing and still get to move is explicit in the rules, despite your sideways attempt at implying-but-technically-not-saying otherwise.
OldSkoolRPG |
Needing to declare what action you're initiating is waaaaay different than the words you said that people are replying to, specifically "round by round declarations before initiative orders are called out".
The fact that you have to declare the use of a penalty-granting ability before using it does NOT mean that you have to declare your entire round before initiative (or even at the start of your turn).
And "Called Intent" is a term that you made up and isn't in the rules, so no one has to disprove it.
And being able to stop your full-attack after the first swing and still get to move is explicit in the rules, despite your sideways attempt at implying-but-technically-not-saying otherwise.
Just to add to what Jiggy said, you can start your turn NOT using power attack and then decide to start using it at any time. You don't declare you are activating it until you are activating it.
claudekennilol |
Bigguyinblack wrote:PFS GMs DO have latitude to prevent flagrant rules abuse, contrary to what some folks might believe, this includes intentional misuse of RAW. I would definitely overrule this kind of abuse at any table I run.In a regular home game you would be correct. In Pathfinder Society play GMs are required to run games per the rules as written to the best of their ability. Of course nothing says they have to run at all but if they are refusing to run due to a situational +2 to hit then there are deeper problems involved.
How in the world is accidentally shooting yourself a "flagrant rules abuse". This is in no way abusive and is simply a result of following the rules. It's not like he's trying to get in half a dozen extra shots through colorful interpretations. He's simply doing what the rules say which would, in this case, be shooting himself. I don't see how there's any abuse in this whatsoever.
Seranov |
How in the world is accidentally shooting yourself a "flagrant rules abuse". This is in no way abusive and is simply a result of following the rules. It's not like he's trying to get in half a dozen extra shots through colorful interpretations. He's simply doing what the rules say which would, in this case, be shooting himself. I don't see how there's any abuse in this whatsoever.
It's flagrant abuse of his feet, which will need more bandages and healing salves than the average adventurer will ever need, by a significant margin. ;)
JohnF |
Just to add to what Jiggy said, you can start your turn NOT using power attack and then decide to start using it at any time. You don't declare you are activating it until you are activating it.
That is by no means clear in the rules.
In fact, as the effects last until your next turn (including all subsequent melee attacks, and any attacks of opportunity you make), it's reasonable to interpret the rules text:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll
to mean that you can't turn Power Attack on part-way through your attack sequence, as you've already made an attack roll by then.
claudekennilol |
CRB wrote:You must choose to use this feat before making an attack rollto mean that you can't turn Power Attack on part-way through your attack sequence, as you've already made an attack roll by then.
This is wrong. If you want to interpret it this way what's wrong with taking it to an even more wrong extreme? Only new characters that have never rolled an attack die should be able to use Power Attack by your logic.
OldSkoolRPG |
OldSkoolRPG wrote:Just to add to what Jiggy said, you can start your turn NOT using power attack and then decide to start using it at any time. You don't declare you are activating it until you are activating it.That is by no means clear in the rules.
In fact, as the effects last until your next turn (including all subsequent melee attacks, and any attacks of opportunity you make), it's reasonable to interpret the rules text:
CRB wrote:You must choose to use this feat before making an attack rollto mean that you can't turn Power Attack on part-way through your attack sequence, as you've already made an attack roll by then.
As has been thoroughly discussed in other threads it says "before making an attack roll" not "before making any attack rolls". In other words you can't make an attack and see that it is going to hit even with a penalty and then declare you are using Power Attack. So as to whether you turn it on in the middle of an attack sequence. Yes you can. Attack #1, are you making "an attack roll"? Yep, so you can activate power attack before that roll or not as you choose. Attack #2, are you making "an attack roll"? Yep, so if you didn't activate on attack #1 you can activate on #2 before the roll, or not and so on.
Kenji Elindir |
I would like to add, for posterity, 'You are your own ally'. I know it doesn't matter in this particular case, but it really can't be restated enough. If the feat did call of an ally to threaten the creature you're attacking, you being adjacent (or threatening it from reach in some way) to the enemy as a monk would fulfill that requirement because you are your own ally.
RumpinRufus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also remember... this monk is not only trying to fire a whole bunch of arrows in a short amount of time, but he's simultaneously bobbing and weaving with his eyes on the enemy so as not to take an axe to the face. And being reckless with his aiming.
I don't consider it unreasonable that he might accidentally loose an arrow into his foot during all that movement.
GinoA |
This all seems clearly legal in RAW. The only scenario that seems like cheating (to me at least) is the one described by Bigguyinblack. Using the fact that an ally with reach threatens the target but isn't adjacent so can't be hit by that critical fumble.
Assuming the rules text in the first post is accurate, that is RAW as well though. I've decided to avoid conversations about RulesAsInterpreted*. The rest of you can have fun with that.
*I know this isn't the traditional expansion of RAI, but I've decided it's more accurate.