RAW vs RAI, Shooting yourself for fun and profit.


Rules Questions


Reckless Aim

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?

Shadow Lodge

I say everything is there for this to be a viable outcome. Honestly, I would love to see this in one of my games, especially of the missed shot renders the shooter unconscious or was using some kind of poison.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


Ally was my language. The feat only refers to "Engaged in melee" check and "Adjacent creature that threatens" check.


LazarX wrote:
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.


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?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.


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?

if you are a monk yes. because if they try to move away you can kick them as an AoO


if you threaten with a melee weapon you're in melee with them. That's the best definition I know of. Thus I'd say a reach is melee if you're threatening, but wouldn't work with the feat as it needs adjacent too.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bigguyinblack, you just told me that the guy deliberately using a feat called "Reckless Aim" is an "absolute and disciplined master of the bow". Why? To try and make it look like the game was being silly?


Please note that the text of the feat says "When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee" Whether YOU are engaged in melee or not doesn't matter but whether the OPPONENT is engaged in melee does.


which is threatening with a melee attack.


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.)"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.


Tarantula wrote:

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.


LazarX wrote:
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.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Of course if he IS shooting that round, he's also provoking AOO's from any that threaten HIM.

That may be a windfall he hadn't planned for.


LazarX wrote:

Of course if he IS shooting that round, he's also provoking AOO's from any that threaten HIM.

That may be a windfall he hadn't planned for.

Zen archers stop provoking at lv3 with their bow.


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.


Yes it all seems legit per RAW. In fact if the enemy has reach and is threatening an ally who is 10 or more feet from them I believe I get the bonus to hit with no chance of hitting an ally because none of them are adjacent to the enemy. This is clearly a case of RAW abuse but in PFS RAW is LAW.


"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.


Hey because you lack regard for others you get the effect. Says nothing about that the conditions involve one of those others you lack regard for.


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.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Did you check to see that the feat was legal before trying to find a way to shoot yourself in the face?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, he's a zen archer, he's probably transcended the distinction between self and other.


Jiggy yes it is PFS legal.


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?


Quote:

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

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bigguyinblack wrote:

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.


Is it possible to threaten an ally but not be in melee with them?


Bigguyinblack wrote:
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.


You don't threaten allies.

I don't think this is a huge abuse of RAW, the monk might accidentally shot himself in the foot as he tries to draw and shoot before the enemy attacks him. Easy to explain with fluff, and its not like a 1 is going to come up that often (5%).


Also you are putting yourself next to him for next round, so that for a +2 to hit and a chance to hit yourself doesn't seem like it's too strong or anything. Most archers I know want to stay pretty far away from the enemies.


blahpers wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GinoA wrote:
blahpers wrote:
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.

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.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
GinoA wrote:
blahpers wrote:
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.
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.

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.


Jiggy wrote:

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.


If you want to tempt the dice gods like that....

Be my guest.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Bigguyinblack wrote:

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.

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.

Dark Archive

claudekennilol wrote:
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. ;)

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
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 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.

Grand Lodge

JohnF wrote:
CRB wrote:
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.

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.


JohnF wrote:
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 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.

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.

Grand Lodge

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.


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.


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.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / RAW vs RAI, Shooting yourself for fun and profit. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.