Flash of Sunset [Archive] - Wizards Community

Flash of Sunset [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rpgdcj
02-12-08, 03:00 PM In the Sun School tactical feat, the Flash of Sunset maneuver states in part, "you can immediately make a single attack at your highest attack bonus".

Are there limits to the number of these single attacks that can be made in a round? As far as I can tell, Complete Warrior predates the "immediate action" rules, so would this be considered an immediate action, including the part where you can only do one immediate action or swift action in a round?

What if I already used a swift action during my turn, then used abundant step? No extra attack for me?

What if I'm moved in position by the wizard using Benign Transposition, and get the single attack, then the sorcerer does the same thing and swaps me with the rogue in flank (hey, it could happen). Do I get a second attack, all before my turn comes around again?
kenobi65
02-12-08, 03:14 PM As far as I can tell, Complete Warrior predates the "immediate action" rules

I don't believe that's quite right.

Swift and immediate actions were around as early as the Miniatures Handbook, which came out in October '03. Complete Warrior came out in December '03.
rpgdcj
02-12-08, 04:42 PM I'm having trouble finding it. Miniatures Handbook introduces the Swift action on page 29, but I can't find any references to Immediate actions until Complete Arcane in November 2004.

But since it's a sidebar in CA, I'm sure I missed the "official" introduction somewhere. Anyone know where Immediate actions were introduced?
bitznarf
02-12-08, 04:51 PM I know it exists in the FAQ if you want an 'official LG source' for the rule.
dkay807
02-12-08, 05:41 PM In the Sun School tactical feat, the Flash of Sunset maneuver states in part, "you can immediately make a single attack at your highest attack bonus".

Are there limits to the number of these single attacks that can be made in a round? As far as I can tell, Complete Warrior predates the "immediate action" rules, so would this be considered an immediate action, including the part where you can only do one immediate action or swift action in a round?

What if I already used a swift action during my turn, then used abundant step? No extra attack for me?

This is not considered an immediate action by the letter of the rules. "You can immediately..." is text describing what you can do. Nothing in the feat states that it requires an Immediate action and thus, using this aspect of the feat takes no action at all - you just do it.

What if I'm moved in position by the wizard using Benign Transposition, and get the single attack, then the sorcerer does the same thing and swaps me with the rogue in flank (hey, it could happen). Do I get a second attack, all before my turn comes around again?

See my point above. You can take this extra attack each time you complete the trigger action of the feat's ability, even if you were not the one to engage it.
rpgdcj
02-12-08, 05:47 PM Thanks, bitznarf.

I guess my question boils down to: does the Flash of Sunset get retroactively defined as an immediate action, or is it considered a free action?

Yeah, it's a core rules issue and there'll be table variation; I was wondering how people might rule at their own table.

I know how dkay807 would rule it. since his reply crossed my post. :-)
Howie23
02-12-08, 05:47 PM I'm having trouble finding it. Miniatures Handbook introduces the Swift action on page 29, but I can't find any references to Immediate actions until Complete Arcane in November 2004.

But since it's a sidebar in CA, I'm sure I missed the "official" introduction somewhere. Anyone know where Immediate actions were introduced?

Rules Compendium cites MH as the place where multiple "free action" types were introduced, but it sounds like Expanded Psionics Handbook was where it got the full treatment. If MH isn't the home of Immediate, then EPH prolly is.

David
solbergb
02-12-08, 06:19 PM swift and immediate actions existed when Complete Warrior was written.

Flash of Sunset isn't one of those. It has no limits, beyond the ability to be teleported repeatedly in a round (generally consuming your own or other people's standard or swift actions)

There are still plenty of abilities that are "not an action" created after swift/immediate actions were invented. If it was intended to be a free, swift, immediate or "AOO" type action, it would have said so.

I've been using the feat for years, in multiple play regions and have never seen any table variation on this point. However it is quite unusual to get more than one attack of this sort per round, given the action cost to set it up by self or others. In this day of multiple teleportation equipment all priced in the 2-10k price range, it might be a touch more common now.
Timlagor
02-13-08, 09:20 AM I see no basis for changing the action type.
The GM is however allowed to limit the number of times a free action can be performed in a round

It is also my reading of the Feat that the teleportation must be done by the monk and that it doesn't apply if the monk is merely teleported by someone else.
dkay807
02-13-08, 10:10 AM I see no basis for changing the action type.
The GM is however allowed to limit the number of times a free action can be performed in a round

The feat actually does not state that it is a free action. Therefore, while I do believe the GM has the final say in most matters, technically, the DM should not limit the number of times one might use flash of sunset.

It is also my reading of the Feat that the teleportation must be done by the monk and that it doesn't apply if the monk is merely teleported by someone else.

That's a reasonable interpretation, considering the fact that the feat states "to use this maneuver, you must move adjacent to a foe instantaneously." I personally would not be inclined to interpret the ability in that manner, but I would not fault any DM for doing so.
solbergb
02-13-08, 04:29 PM I've never seen it ruled that way but my monk wouldn't care much if it was. 90% of the time when the feat works, it is from Abundant Step or benign transposition (he's got a wizard level).
Istaran
02-14-08, 03:39 PM That's a reasonable interpretation, considering the fact that the feat states "to use this maneuver, you must move adjacent to a foe instantaneously." I personally would not be inclined to interpret the ability in that manner, but I would not fault any DM for doing so.

It does seem to fit both balance and flavor better to require that you are the one initiating the instantaneous move. You ready yourself, teleport into position and then strike when you were expecting to appear but your foe was not. Being teleported while not under your own power would be slightly more surprising/disorienting; even if you expected it, you don't know or control the exact moment of the shift, so you are less able to be ready to capitalize on the opportunity, and as your surprise wears off, so does the opening in your foe's defenses. Also you would need to time and place your teleport, so that you're appearing at an unguarded angle while the opening exists, etc. All of this is fine when you've got a feat showing that you've trained in this sort of manuever and execute your teleport and strike technique yourself, but somewhat of a stretch of both balance and flavor if you just lash out at someone every time someone else teleports you.

In most cases of course, it won't be game breaking to be allowed an extra attack at the expense of someone else burning resources to teleport you. Though it could be abusive in the extreme cases (i.e. two very hard hitting monks get swapped with benign transposition and both Flash of Sunset for much more damage than a 1st level spell should be allowed to do, then get swapped by Quickened Benign Transposition and do it again.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rpgdcj 02-12-08, 03:00 PM	In the Sun School tactical feat, the Flash of Sunset maneuver states in part, "you can immediately make a single attack at your highest attack bonus". Are there limits to the number of these single attacks that can be made in a round? As far as I can tell, Complete Warrior predates the "immediate action" rules, so would this be considered an immediate action, including the part where you can only do one immediate action or swift action in a round? What if I already used a swift action during my turn, then used abundant step? No extra attack for me? What if I'm moved in position by the wizard using Benign Transposition, and get the single attack, then the sorcerer does the same thing and swaps me with the rogue in flank (hey, it could happen). Do I get a second attack, all before my turn comes around again?
kenobi65 02-12-08, 03:14 PM	As far as I can tell, Complete Warrior predates the "immediate action" rules I don't believe that's quite right. Swift and immediate actions were around as early as the Miniatures Handbook, which came out in October '03. Complete Warrior came out in December '03.
rpgdcj 02-12-08, 04:42 PM	I'm having trouble finding it. Miniatures Handbook introduces the Swift action on page 29, but I can't find any references to Immediate actions until Complete Arcane in November 2004. But since it's a sidebar in CA, I'm sure I missed the "official" introduction somewhere. Anyone know where Immediate actions were introduced?
bitznarf 02-12-08, 04:51 PM	I know it exists in the FAQ if you want an 'official LG source' for the rule.
dkay807 02-12-08, 05:41 PM	In the Sun School tactical feat, the Flash of Sunset maneuver states in part, "you can immediately make a single attack at your highest attack bonus". Are there limits to the number of these single attacks that can be made in a round? As far as I can tell, Complete Warrior predates the "immediate action" rules, so would this be considered an immediate action, including the part where you can only do one immediate action or swift action in a round? What if I already used a swift action during my turn, then used abundant step? No extra attack for me? This is not considered an immediate action by the letter of the rules. "You can immediately..." is text describing what you can do. Nothing in the feat states that it requires an Immediate action and thus, using this aspect of the feat takes no action at all - you just do it. What if I'm moved in position by the wizard using Benign Transposition, and get the single attack, then the sorcerer does the same thing and swaps me with the rogue in flank (hey, it could happen). Do I get a second attack, all before my turn comes around again? See my point above. You can take this extra attack each time you complete the trigger action of the feat's ability, even if you were not the one to engage it.
rpgdcj 02-12-08, 05:47 PM	Thanks, bitznarf. I guess my question boils down to: does the Flash of Sunset get retroactively defined as an immediate action, or is it considered a free action? Yeah, it's a core rules issue and there'll be table variation; I was wondering how people might rule at their own table. I know how dkay807 would rule it. since his reply crossed my post. :-)
Howie23 02-12-08, 05:47 PM	I'm having trouble finding it. Miniatures Handbook introduces the Swift action on page 29, but I can't find any references to Immediate actions until Complete Arcane in November 2004. But since it's a sidebar in CA, I'm sure I missed the "official" introduction somewhere. Anyone know where Immediate actions were introduced? Rules Compendium cites MH as the place where multiple "free action" types were introduced, but it sounds like Expanded Psionics Handbook was where it got the full treatment. If MH isn't the home of Immediate, then EPH prolly is. David
solbergb 02-12-08, 06:19 PM	swift and immediate actions existed when Complete Warrior was written. Flash of Sunset isn't one of those. It has no limits, beyond the ability to be teleported repeatedly in a round (generally consuming your own or other people's standard or swift actions) There are still plenty of abilities that are "not an action" created after swift/immediate actions were invented. If it was intended to be a free, swift, immediate or "AOO" type action, it would have said so. I've been using the feat for years, in multiple play regions and have never seen any table variation on this point. However it is quite unusual to get more than one attack of this sort per round, given the action cost to set it up by self or others. In this day of multiple teleportation equipment all priced in the 2-10k price range, it might be a touch more common now.
Timlagor 02-13-08, 09:20 AM	I see no basis for changing the action type. The GM is however allowed to limit the number of times a free action can be performed in a round It is also my reading of the Feat that the teleportation must be done by the monk and that it doesn't apply if the monk is merely teleported by someone else.
dkay807 02-13-08, 10:10 AM	I see no basis for changing the action type. The GM is however allowed to limit the number of times a free action can be performed in a round The feat actually does not state that it is a free action. Therefore, while I do believe the GM has the final say in most matters, technically, the DM should not limit the number of times one might use flash of sunset. It is also my reading of the Feat that the teleportation must be done by the monk and that it doesn't apply if the monk is merely teleported by someone else. That's a reasonable interpretation, considering the fact that the feat states "to use this maneuver, you must move adjacent to a foe instantaneously." I personally would not be inclined to interpret the ability in that manner, but I would not fault any DM for doing so.
solbergb 02-13-08, 04:29 PM	I've never seen it ruled that way but my monk wouldn't care much if it was. 90% of the time when the feat works, it is from Abundant Step or benign transposition (he's got a wizard level).
Istaran 02-14-08, 03:39 PM	That's a reasonable interpretation, considering the fact that the feat states "to use this maneuver, you must move adjacent to a foe instantaneously." I personally would not be inclined to interpret the ability in that manner, but I would not fault any DM for doing so. It does seem to fit both balance and flavor better to require that you are the one initiating the instantaneous move. You ready yourself, teleport into position and then strike when you were expecting to appear but your foe was not. Being teleported while not under your own power would be slightly more surprising/disorienting; even if you expected it, you don't know or control the exact moment of the shift, so you are less able to be ready to capitalize on the opportunity, and as your surprise wears off, so does the opening in your foe's defenses. Also you would need to time and place your teleport, so that you're appearing at an unguarded angle while the opening exists, etc. All of this is fine when you've got a feat showing that you've trained in this sort of manuever and execute your teleport and strike technique yourself, but somewhat of a stretch of both balance and flavor if you just lash out at someone every time someone else teleports you. In most cases of course, it won't be game breaking to be allowed an extra attack at the expense of someone else burning resources to teleport you. Though it could be abusive in the extreme cases (i.e. two very hard hitting monks get swapped with benign transposition and both Flash of Sunset for much more damage than a 1st level spell should be allowed to do, then get swapped by Quickened Benign Transposition and do it again.)