Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Samo 07-22-06, 05:59 PM	In a recent game i was running one of my players, an 9th level fighter (Archer), pulled out 6 d20's and rolled them. As you can guess i looked at him in shock and politely asked what the hell he was doing. He looked up at me and said, I'm using rapid shot and manyshot. By my understanding of the rules you CAN use rapid shot and manyshot combined to make an attack, but only if the creature is within 30ft and you take a -5 to all attack rolls (-2 for rapid shot, -4 for many shot, +1 point Blank shot) and you can only use the manyshot feat on the first arrow you shoot (giving him 4 attacks) (he originally rolled 6 becasue he thought he could manyshot all his attacks). Could someone please let me know if I'm anywhere close to letting him use these feats correctly.
Oogar 07-22-06, 06:10 PM	Manyshot is a Standard Action. Rapid Shot is a Full Attack Action. Thus they are mutually exclusive. IF (repeat again in capitals... IF) Manyshot were an Attack Action, there might be an argument to let it happen. Just look at the feat descriptions and the important terms contained within. As usual, if it seems to good to be true, it likely is.
kenobi65 07-22-06, 11:33 PM	Oogar's correct. This one comes up on rules forums on places like EN World all the time...and he's got the correct interpretation. Read Manyshot closely. Manyshot is not an attack action...it's a standard action. And, Rapid Shot can only be used as part of a "full attack action". Thus, you can't use both in the same round.
Puggle Halfwine 07-23-06, 11:47 PM	Things like this raise eyebrows with me. How could the player of a 9th level Living Greyhawk character (who, to get to that level, must have played at LEAST 50ish games of Living Greyhawk, presumably with a host of different DM's and players) not know the difference between a standard action and a full-round action? I humbly suggest that character be audited next game he plays at. I think you'll find a lot of 'suspect' handwriting and signatures, unsigned ARs, etc. I've had a similar thing happen to me on a table I've run. At Phenomenon Convention last year two 5th level archers were adding their Base Attack Bonus to damage with every arrow (along with their strength, although they at least DID have a strength bow for that). They were quite insistant that 'it works like that', much to the surprise of myself and everyone else at my table. Needless to say I put a stop to that (with the help of the PHB). IMHO there's a big difference between not knowing a (exceedingly complicated or often unused) rule and just blatantly trying to cheat.
smerwin29 07-24-06, 07:53 AM	IMHO there's a big difference between not knowing a (exceedingly complicated or often unused) rule and just blatantly trying to cheat. I think there is also a middle ground, which I like to call the "wishful thinking" player. A lot of times the players may have read a rule incorrectly (to their benefit) or were told something wrong by another player or DM (again, to their benefit) that was too good to be true, and they played that way for so long and were never corrected. After a while, if the DMs don't question them on why they are doing that amount of damage, it is not a matter of blatant cheating but of misunderstanding and sometimes not wanting to know the correct way.
Mommy was an Orc 07-24-06, 10:32 AM	Things like this raise eyebrows with me. How could the player of a 9th level Living Greyhawk character (who, to get to that level, must have played at LEAST 50ish games of Living Greyhawk, presumably with a host of different DM's and players) not know the difference between a standard action and a full-round action? I humbly suggest that character be audited next game he plays at. I think you'll find a lot of 'suspect' handwriting and signatures, unsigned ARs, etc. I think that's going a little far - note that Samo is also stating indirectly that he was the only person challenging this, and he wasn't doing it very aggressively. A player needs to be responsible for making sure what he's doing is legal, but at the same time, if someone is making a mistake and no one ever points it out to him... He may not realize that an attack that requires a standard action to use can't be used as a part of a full-round action. After all, if you can fire an arrow as a standard action and three with Rapid Shot/+6 BAB, why can't you swap out that first arrow with Manyshot? If no one ever confronts him about this, why would he change? And when I say confront, I mean casually mention during the game that you don't think they're allowed to do that with a very simple description of why, and after the game, show a page reference.
Lomiat 07-24-06, 02:42 PM	Not to suggest there's any reason that anyone playing a 9th-level archer would have any reason to believe he could use Manyshot and Rapid Shot simultaneously, it's still worth noting that the archer likely could have just taken Manyshot as a 9th-level feat. Despite the fact, then, that the PC might have advanced through 40-some ARs, the player may have only played with Manyshot for 0 to a handful of mods. My 9th-level fighter has Staggering Strike, and 2 ARs into his 9th level, he still hasn't had a chance to use it (and then to test out the rules). I've read the rules and believe I understand them correctly, but if I'd read them more casually or based my interpretatio off of what someone else said without ever having actually read the material myself... then I might assume I got 2 arrows with each of my rapid shots. It's lazy, but it's not necessarily cheating.
JamesMaissen 07-24-06, 02:44 PM	Things like this raise eyebrows with me. How could the player of a 9th level Living Greyhawk character (who, to get to that level, must have played at LEAST 50ish games of Living Greyhawk, presumably with a host of different DM's and players) not know the difference between a standard action and a full-round action? I humbly suggest that character be audited next game he plays at. I think you'll find a lot of 'suspect' handwriting and signatures, unsigned ARs, etc. IMHO there's a big difference between not knowing a (exceedingly complicated or often unused) rule and just blatantly trying to cheat. I would be less quick to bandy such accusations at people. It's rude at the very least. I would suggest that you take a moment and look back at the yahoo groups (and what have you) to when 3.5 first came out. How many times was this question raised? It has come up periodically and slowly filtered through to the population that Manyshot cannot be used in the place of an attack. The wording hasn't changed to this date, so whatever was unclear to people then can be unclear to someone else now. What's made it 'obvious' now where it was unclear then? Nothing, except it's been discussed many times now in forums like this one. Some of us (myself included) spend alot of time following these rules discussions as we find it interesting on a myriad of levels. But we are by no means in the majority, nor should such actions be required of every gamer. It's not really up to you to draw the line between 'obvious' and 'obscure' when it comes to rules.. I doubt many people would draw that line in the same place. I'd close with a request that you look within yourself and ask why are you so quick to see 'cheaters' around you? This is something that many others can find quite distasteful to even observe 3rd person (I know I that's why I writing this post). I would try to come to terms with it, if not to address whatever is at the root of this, to atleast approach this more tactfully. There are bound to be people within LG that cheat, but statistically I would think that number to be infinitessimal compared to those making honest errors of one form or another. I mean stop and think on it for a second: how many errors have you made in D&D? How many times have you purposefully cheated?? -James
Maesto 07-24-06, 07:58 PM	One other note just for the record, Manyshot only uses 1d20, not multiple...