I had a discussion with our GM about the general ruling of the lvl4 cleric spell "blessing of fervor". One of the effects, you can choose from while under the effect of the spell is "Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus."
Example. I have a cleric with two attacks, +7 and +2. How many attacks do I get and what are the attack boni?
Our ruling so far was that I get two attacks with +7, and that's it. Or should it rather be two times +7 and once +2?
Is there any official ruling for this spell?
You get an extra attack at your highest bonus; +7/+2/+7.
Some GM's might not care about the order and might just go +7/+7/+2.
Two attacks when you already had two attacks is hardly an "extra attack". You get an extra attack at +7, in addition to the +7/+2 which you already had, which can be taken at any point during your full attack.
EDIT: Pizza Lord, why do you say "some GMs might not care about the order". Why would any?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If without blessing of Fervor your attacks are +7/+2, then with it you should get +7/+7/+2.
As to the question of when the attack is made (what order) and does it matter....there are some reactionary abilities that exist that are dependent on the enemies attack bonus, and may be better done against higher or lower attack values (depending on the specific ability).
Anyways, as a GM I generally ask players to roll attacks from highest to lowest simply for consistency.
Alchemir wrote: I had a discussion with our GM about the general ruling of the lvl4 cleric spell "blessing of fervor". One of the effects, you can choose from while under the effect of the spell is "Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus."
Example. I have a cleric with two attacks, +7 and +2. How many attacks do I get and what are the attack boni?
Our ruling so far was that I get two attacks with +7, and that's it. Or should it rather be two times +7 and once +2?
Is there any official ruling for this spell?
No ruling needed - its very clear that you get an extra attack on top of all the attacks you already have. Same as Haste
glass wrote: Two attacks when you already had two attacks is hardly an "extra attack". You get an extra attack at +7, in addition to the +7/+2 which you already had, which can be taken at any point during your full attack.
EDIT: Pizza Lord, why do you say "some GMs might not care about the order". Why would any?
Because first, going from highest to lowest is RAW:
Full-Attack
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first. .
This is for one reason because of logic, and the other to avoid metagaming.
The logic part would be, that the more attacks you get per turn, the less accurate you become, so it makes sense to go from highest to lowest attack bonus to reflect that.
Metagaming would be a situation like this:
Melee character with a wizard and another fighter in reach. First attacks to the wizard, using his lower bonus, as wizards are generally easier to hit, if the lower bonus misses you have the higher ones to double tap
Then after downing the wizard, using the higher bonus hits, against the fighter, as those are typically harder to hit.
Whoever you want to hit first, gets the highest bonus, later hits take the lower bonus.
right; attack sequence +7, +2 with blessing of fervor:T4 may become +7, +2, +7. Order generally isn't important but with two weapons or some feats it can get confusing. There's no specific ruling on this as it is well understood. see Haste:T3.
I don't know what logic(rationalizing) Toshy is using but I'll pass...
glass wrote: ...EDIT: Pizza Lord, why do you say "some GMs might not care about the order". Why would any? Because some GMs are weird/have their own interpretation of the wording and might assume taking an extra something comes after doing something. I can't speak for everyone and it doesn't change the OP's answer to how many attacks and their bonus. Some GMs just have their reasons.
Azothath wrote: right; attack sequence +7, +2 with blessing of fervor:T4 may become +7, +2, +7. Order generally isn't important but with two weapons or some feats it can get confusing. There's no specific ruling on this as it is well understood. see Haste:T3.... Order can be important when text like this shows up →Furious Focus feat.
Full Attack...3rd paragraph If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
The extra attack is not addressed so naturally it would come after the attacks from having a high BAB.
Now you know how it's done.
Of course We assume that most people can figure out how to change the order and keep it fair without impacting feats and such. It's not that complicated. *-<8^)
thanks for all the feedback.
Toshy wrote: glass wrote: EDIT: Pizza Lord, why do you say "some GMs might not care about the order". Why would any? Because first, going from highest to lowest is RAW:
Full-Attack
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. (Bolding mine.)
That rule only applies to iterative attacks; extra attacks for any other reason can be taken whenever.
glass wrote: Toshy wrote: glass wrote: EDIT: Pizza Lord, why do you say "some GMs might not care about the order". Why would any?
Because first, going from highest to lowest is RAW:
Full-Attack
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.
(Bolding mine.)
That rule only applies to iterative attacks; extra attacks for any other reason can be taken whenever. That's incorrect. Exactly when the extra attack is to be taken is not explicitly defined in RAW. It does mandate the iterative BAB attacks proceed in descending order. IF you interrupt the mandated descending order you have technically violated RAW, so the extra attack is done before or after, and usually after. The standard play-style and flow was well known by designers at the time of the CRB publication.
It also says this is a Full Attack action. So that's 1-2 parts [optional 5-ft step][normally BAB iterative attacks or some other full action]. So you can't just do it anywhere as you need those iterative attacks.
Azothath wrote: That rule only applies to iterative attacks; extra attacks for any other reason can be taken whenever. That's incorrect. Exactly when the extra attack is to be taken is not explicitly defined in RAW. It does mandate the iterative BAB attacks proceed in descending order. IF you interrupt the mandated descending order you have technically violated RAW, so the extra attack is done before or after, and usually after. It is not incorrect. If you do your +7 iterative before your +2 iterative, you have done them in the correct order and complied with the RAW, even if you do your blessing of fervour attack in between.
Not that it really matters - there is no practical difference AFAICT between +7/+7/+2 with the iterative first and +7/+7/+2 with the iterative second. But if you wanted to do the former, you could.
EDIT: I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph - of course we are talking about Full Attacks. That is the only way you get iteratives, and the only way to get an extra attack from blessing of fervour or haste.
I did have to play with the quote as it got mangled in the previous post when I responded with the forum tool 'Reply'.
glass, you're quoting Toshy not Azothath(me).
At least get it staight as you are repeating my point(s) without understanding or insight and ignoring my previous post...
You should review Full Attack actions as there are several options. This is about one of those, thus debunking 'whenever' in general context.
Debate may not be your forte.
Azothath wrote: glass, you're quoting Toshy not Azothath(me).
At least get it staight as you are repeating my point(s) without understanding or insight and ignoring my previous post...
No, I am quoting you and indirectly, myself. The quote tags are a bit mangled, but AFAICS there is nothing from Toshy in there (and of course, the edit window is now closed so I cannot fix it myself).
Unless the post directly above mine, which I am quoting and responding to is by Toshy, not you. In which case it was, and still is, mislabelled by the forum software on my screen.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Apologies for the double post, but I just noticed Azothath's last paragraph. I tried to edit a response into my previous post, but the window close just before I could submit. Azothath wrote: You should review Full Attack actions as there are several options. This is about one of those, thus debunking 'whenever' in general context. Once again you include a cryptic final paragraph, and once again I skipped over it initially. And once again, now that I have actually read it, I have no idea what you are getting at. There are "several options" for what?
Azothath wrote: Debate may not be your forte. That certainly appears to be the case for one of us!
I have laid out a clear argument for why I think the extra attack from blessing of fervour can be taken at any point during a full attack. You have responded with an unsupported statement that I am "incorrect" and cryptic insinuations that I do not know I am talking about, but no actual counter-arguments.
Azothath wrote: glass wrote: ... ℟ I still have no idea what you're getting at - at least you are consistent, I guess.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I believe the correct order is: (1) primary, (2) iterative and (3) after the bard’s player reminds you that he cast haste at the start of the fight and please can you stop forgetting his contribution.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The rules clearly state that attacks granted by BAB must be used in descending order. The rules are silent on when bonus attacks can/must be made.
For the people who insist that bonus attacks must come at the start of the sequence I present the following scenario: A monk finishes his sequence of attacks but hasn't quite finished the opponent so he decides to spend a ki point to gain an extra attack. Do you tell the monk no, he had to spend the swift action to gain the attack at the start of the round because now he is making a highest BAB attack after a lowest BAB attack?
thanks for all the feedback. The order of the attacks is not that big of a deal for me, but getting an extra attack would be.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thorin001 wrote: A monk finishes his sequence of attacks but hasn't quite finished the opponent so he decides to spend a ki point to gain an extra attack. Do you tell the monk no, he had to spend the swift action to gain the attack at the start of the round because now he is making a highest BAB attack after a lowest BAB attack? Or how about Medusa's Wrath? If you make a full attack and knock your opponent unconscious with the last iterative attack, can you not use the Medusa's Wrath attacks because they are made at your highest BAB?
There are a few edge cases where players could cheese things up if they were allowed to take their -5 or -10 BAB attacks before their normal full BAB attacks. (Two-Weapon Feint requires you to give up your "first" primary hand attack.) But as long as you are requiring them to take their normal attacks in descending BAB order it really doesn't matter where full-BAB bonus attacks are made.
There is also the case when people want to pop mirror images with their secondary attacks, before useing their main attacks.
I'm sure the GM can handle special situations as needed keeping things fair.
Azothath wrote: I'm sure the GM can handle special situations as needed keeping things fair. The existence of the rules forum and extensive FAQ list suggest that your statement may not be entirely true.
Liliyashanina wrote: There is also the case when people want to pop mirror images with their secondary attacks, before useing their main attacks. That, at least, they cannot do because regardless of where you are placing your max bonus extra attack, your lower iteratives must come after the higher ones.
Ian Bell wrote: Liliyashanina wrote: There is also the case when people want to pop mirror images with their secondary attacks, before useing their main attacks. That, at least, they cannot do because regardless of where you are placing your max bonus extra attack, your lower iteratives must come after the higher ones. They used 'secondary and main' attacks, not iteratives. So you could have a main/primary attack, and a couple secondaries, like bite/claw/claw. I don't think there's any rule that says a creature can't claw/bite/claw or tail then bite rather than bite then tail.
I can't say for sure that the wording was their intention or not though, since the main topic question was answered first reply and the rest is all... intellectual discussion.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
