Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tundrawalker 08-18-07, 09:53 PM	Thanks for stopping by. I had a look at a number of pages in the threads to see if this topic had been covered in the past, without any luck. So I am starting another thread on this topic but if someone has a link to another thread, then please post away. As the title indicates, this is a thread for discussing the Shot on the Run feat and the Manyshot/Greater Manyshot feats and why the FAQ states they cannot be used together. I do not believe the FAQ is official eratta but quidelines and interpretation. That being said, I feel the discussion on the use of these feats in conjunction with one another is completely wrong. With Greater Manyshot, you use a "standard" action to fire more than one arrow. So when you intend to use the feat, you state you are using a standard action to fire 2 or 3, or whatever the case may be, arrows. Shot on the run allows you to move before and after a ranged attack so long as you don't move more than your total movement. So you can move, use an "attack" action and move again. Now, there is no such thing as an "attack" action. According to the rules, an "attack" is a standard action or can be used as a full round action such as with full attack. So, if an attack is a standard action, it ought to be able to be used with Shot on the Run. But no, the FAQ states in order to use Shot on the Run, you have to use an "attack" action. It actually states in the FAQ that this interpretation is "slicing the baloney a little thin." So I ask if there is no "attack" action, does the writer actually have any idea what he/she is talking about? In my opinion, which is worth only about a beer in any tavern, Shot on the Run and Manyshot/Greater Manyshot can be used together. Any thoughts? Thanks.
runestar 08-18-07, 10:40 PM	A standard action can be an attack (or an attack action in this case), but an attack cannot be a standard action, meaning that the interchangeability is only one-way. You can only trade down, but not upwards. For example, you cannot perform an awesome blow during an AoO or after a charge since activating it is a standard action, and not an attack action. Likewise, a standard action is very specific in its definition. Else, a wizard with 16bab could cast 4 spells/round since its gets 4 attacks, since I could argue that you are attacking with your spells. Ditto for warlocks with their eldritch blasts. The FAQ is absolutely correct in its interpretation here.:)
NeueRegel 08-18-07, 11:09 PM	Does this mean that my sorcerer with a dex of 22 and combat reflexes can't use fireball for each of 7 possible AoO's in his round too?
Rebel581 08-18-07, 11:19 PM	Unfortunately for you, the rules do say what an attack action is. A +6/+1 BAB bonus has 2 attack actions. You may only take 1 attack action in a standard action. Attack actions are one of the options of a standard action, not the same thing. It's like saying a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. The square is the attack action, the rectangle is the standard action. Although on this case, they should change shot on the run to allow manyshot to be used with it. That just seems stupid that you can't. Manyshot is 1 ranged attack and it should work with shot on the run.
Crimson_Concerto 08-18-07, 11:31 PM	Does this mean that my sorcerer with a dex of 22 and combat reflexes can't use fireball for each of 7 possible AoO's in his round too? Is this a serious question? :eek: Wow, where do I begin? First of all, you don't threaten any squares with Fireball, so good luck taking that AoO to begin with. Second of all, yeah, you get an attack on an AoO (more specifically, a melee attack, which Fireball is definitely not), not a standard action, so no, you can't cast a spell on an AoO. Third of all, Fireball isn't an attack anyways. It's a spell, and not only is it a spell, but it doesn't even use an attack roll (not that if it did, you could use it on an AoO; I'm just saying that for emphasis). That's like trying to take a Total Defense action on an AoO.
TygerTyger 08-18-07, 11:35 PM	A standard action can be an attack (or an attack action in this case), but an attack cannot be a standard action, meaning that the interchangeability is only one-way. You can only trade down, but not upwards. OK, now I am confused. Can you point to where in RAW it states that an attack action is greater than a standard action? Heck, can you point out where an "attack action" is even defined? All non-full-round-attacks are, by RAW definition, standard actions. Based on that, I see no problem with Manyshot (a standard action) being use as part of Shot on the Run. As Shot on the Run specifically refers to allowed move actions, we know that its not a full round action. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, it should fit into the RAW action types: Move, Standard, Free, Immediate or Swift. Its pretty easy to to see which one of these types it is. As an example normally, you'd be able to move 30' (or whatever your move is) and then fire off arrows, with or without Manyshot or its Greater cousin. All that Shot on the Run allows you to do is to split your move so as to move before and after, still up to your max move. Why would it make sense to restrict the use of the Manyshot feats, when they take the exact same action type as firing one arrow? Unfortunately for you, the rules do say what an attack action is. A +6/+1 BAB bonus has 2 attack actions. You may only take 1 attack action in a standard action. Attack actions are one of the options of a standard action, not the same thing. It's like saying a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. The square is the attack action, the rectangle is the standard action. Except that is not defined in that way (at least not in my PHB - it just says that if your BAB is high enough, you get to take extra attacks as part of a Full Attack Action), and even if it was, it would not preclude you from doing what he's suggesting. While he can't use Full Attack (and thus attack on both his +6 and +1 as you offered for examples) he couldn't do that anyway, as he's taking a move action. Therefore the example is moot.
NeueRegel 08-18-07, 11:36 PM	C'mon. I'm as much a fan of "heroic fantasy" as the next guy, so I will not be as flippant as I was before, when leaning only towards game balance. But even in hollywood, where suspension of reality is taken to every extreme, the only instance I ever saw of multishot was Prince of Thieves, and even Costner got on one knee and took a second to tear off a bit of fletching to pull off the feat, took aim, and fired. Isn't it enough that you're doing the impossible already? (I use a bow, I've tried, and I'm pretty good, at least at the mechanics. I am a city boy, I shoot at non-living non-moving targets). You just can't nock multiple arrows. So my archer can. Coolies. Running? I doubt it. Riding? With alot of practice. Multiple? Heh. But, I'll just get flamed now, so I'll quit. Neue
Crimson_Concerto 08-18-07, 11:38 PM	The problem, TygerTyger, is that Shot on the Run doesn't say you get a standard action. It says you get an attack. Manyshot isn't an attack. It's a standard action. That's why you can't use Manyshot for all shots in a full-round action. While an attack may be a standard action, standard actions aren't attacks, even if they include attacks within them. The two are related but not synonymous. If something says you can take any standard action, then by all means take an attack, but if it says you can take an attack, you don't get to take any standard action. A standard action is more general. An attack is more specific.
TygerTyger 08-19-07, 12:03 AM	The problem, TygerTyger, is that Shot on the Run doesn't say you get a standard action. It says you get an attack. Manyshot isn't an attack. It's a standard action. That's why you can't use Manyshot for all shots in a full-round action. While an attack may be a standard action, standard actions aren't attacks, even if they include attacks within them. The two are related but not synonymous. If something says you can take any standard action, then by all means take an attack, but if it says you can take an attack, you don't get to take any standard action. A standard action is more general. An attack is more specific. I see what you are saying, but it seems to amount to "all attacks are not standard actions." You're right. Some attacks occur as part of Full Attack Actions. Manyshot however is not one of them. I'll agree that Shot on the Run doesn't say Move - take a Standard Action - Move. But it also doesn't say Move - Take a Full Round Attack Action / Free Action / Swift Action / Immediate Action - Move. So... what kind of action is it allowing? My understanding is that all combat actions (and lots of non-combat) fit within one of the six action types listed. If its not a Standard Action, and it's not a Full Attack Action, then what is it? It's not a Move/Free/Immediate/Swift, its not a Standard (according to this interpretation) and its not a Full... there are no other kinds of actions. That is the complete list. It seems to me that the "attack action" that it's asking for HAS to fit within one of those 6 action types. Maybe I am wrong, which would explain my confusion, but if I am wrong, can anyone point me to the RULE that lays out why I am wrong? So, while I can certainly respect your points, I can't see anything in the rules to support them. Maybe I am misunderstanding the points though. I'll be the first to admit I miss stuff all the time. EDIT: I think I see it now. You are saying "Attack Action" = an attack, or maybe an attack roll. Gotcha. With that interpretation, I get the point. I guess for me its the inclusion of the word "action" in the Shot on the Run feat that makes it difficult to swallow. That and because mechanically there isn't that much difference between shooting one arrow with a standard action and shooting 3 with Greater Manyshot also as a standard action. C'mon. I'm as much a fan of "heroic fantasy" as the next guy, so I will not be as flippant as I was before, when leaning only towards game balance. But even in hollywood, where suspension of reality is taken to every extreme, the only instance I ever saw of multishot was Prince of Thieves, and even Costner got on one knee and took a second to tear off a bit of fletching to pull off the feat, took aim, and fired. Isn't it enough that you're doing the impossible already? (I use a bow, I've tried, and I'm pretty good, at least at the mechanics. I am a city boy, I shoot at non-living non-moving targets). You just can't nock multiple arrows. So my archer can. Coolies. Running? I doubt it. Riding? With alot of practice. Multiple? Funny that. I also don't know anyone who can read minds, stop time, or shoot balls of fire from the air with a pinch of bat guano. :) Saying that something isn't realistic really doesn't have much place here. Unless of course you are running a realistic style campaign with no magic, then its a great discussion.
Crimson_Concerto 08-19-07, 12:11 AM	Let's try it this way: If an ability says you can take a full round action, you can make a full attack, run, withdraw, cast a metamagic spell. If an ability says you can take a full attack, while that is a type of full-round action, that DOESN'T mean you can withdraw instead, because the ability was specific about exactly what type of action it's letting you use. Yes, it's letting you use a full-round action, but it's specifying the one you're allowed to use: a full attack. The same way, if an ability says you can make a standard action, you can attack, Manyshot, cast most spells, or take a full defense action. However, if it says you can make an attack, then yes, while that is a specific type of standard action, that DOESN'T mean you can cast a spell instead. Yes, it's letting you use a standard action, but it's specifying exactly the one you're allowed to use: an attack. It's because the ability is being very specific about the type of standard action it's letting you use instead of just saying you can take any standard action. That better at all? :)
NeueRegel 08-19-07, 12:13 AM	I see what you are saying, but it seems to amount to "all attacks are not standard actions." You're right. Some attacks occur as part of Full Attack Actions. Manyshot however is not one of them. I'll agree that Shot on the Run doesn't say Move - take a Standard Action - Move. But it also doesn't say Move - Take a Full Round Attack Action / Free Action / Swift Action / Immediate Action - Move. So... what kind of action is it allowing? My understanding is that all combat actions (and lots of non-combat) fit within one of the six action types listed. If its not a Standard Action, and it's not a Full Attack Action, then what is it? It's not a Move/Free/Immediate/Swift, its not a Standard (according to this interpretation) and its not a Full... there are no other kinds of actions. That is the complete list. It seems to me that the "attack action" that it's asking for HAS to fit within one of those 6 action types. Maybe I am wrong, which would explain my confusion, but if I am wrong, can anyone point me to the RULE that lays out why I am wrong? So, while I can certainly respect your points, I can't see anything in the rules to support them. Maybe I am misunderstanding the points though. I'll be the first to admit I miss stuff all the time. Gods Mother--------******------- darnit I can't believe I'm going to say this, me, "MR CORE" rules... I'm almost looking forward to 4.0 now, because of all this splatbook nonsense. If you read and interpret the rules as they were meant, before all those silly new "actions" were ever fricken invented, it's as clear as day that they were not meant to be used that way. Instant this and quickened that and silly immediate frack. Stop trying to bend the rules to your every immediate fancy. Multishot was written in the parameters of core rules. Stay in core rules for using that feat. ENDGAME NeueRegal
runestar 08-19-07, 12:17 AM	To see things in perspective, look at the flyby attack feat in the MM. It specifically says that you can move-perform standard action-move. This would allow you to cast a spell or use manyshot or any other standard action, unlike shot on the run. OK, now I am confused. Can you point to where in RAW it states that an attack action is greater than a standard action? Heck, can you point out where an "attack action" is even defined? It is actually the other way around. But I think the PHB does not explicitly state this. It merely mentions how performing an attack action is a standard action. It is like saying that while all apples are fruits, not all fruits are apples. Thus, if I had a feat that let me eat an apple on the run, this does not necessarily mean that I can eat any fruit on the run, just apples. I am just making things worse, aren't I?:embarrass
Twylyght 08-19-07, 12:20 AM	Think of it in that old logic problem fashion. A standard action can be an attack, but not all attacks are standard actions. Granting an attack does not in itself grant a standard action. Like.. Apples are a type of fruit, but not all fruits are apples. If you have a voucher for a free apple, you cant get a watermelon just because its also a fruit.
TygerTyger 08-19-07, 12:24 AM	Note the edits above. I must have edited while you guys were typing. :) The wording of the feat should have been more carefully chosen, but I am starting to get used to that with WotC. Not that they are bad mind you, but it seems like a lot of stuff like this sneaks through. That said, Neue, the same logic that I was applying using the Free / Immediate "frack" as you put it, still applies to basic core only problems. At the end of the day, the feat is poorly worded, and is interpretable in both ways, reasonably. No need to get personal or insulting when someone interprets it in a way that you don't agree with. That's the whole point of the OP coming here for advice. Besides, its not like its asking for the moon and the stars here. Its not really terribly unbalancing or outside the spirit of the feats to allow it.
Salla 08-19-07, 12:31 AM	I disagree that the feat is poorly worded. It says you get 'an attack', not 'a standard action'. If Manyshot were an attack action, you could spam the battlefield with multiple barrages with a high Base Attack Bonus.
NeueRegel 08-19-07, 12:33 AM	Tyger, I'll be the first to recant any personal insult; I just used your text because it outlined my gripes with the current situational problems with the rules; IE, there no longer are any coherent rules, as WoTC has published so much stuff to try to buoy the business with new books and that. (I'm not even talking about the non-Hasbro stuff, which is "right out". As far as the bits about everything being poorly worded and open to some interpretation since the beginning, well, we all know that. Core rules. That also keeps these forums going, and the business. But that stuff can be forgiven, nobody is perfect. They are game designers, geeks like all of us, and no matter how many editors they hire, they are bound to fail here and there. Neue
TygerTyger 08-19-07, 12:50 AM	I disagree that the feat is poorly worded. It says you get 'an attack', not 'a standard action'. If Manyshot were an attack action, you could spam the battlefield with multiple barrages with a high Base Attack Bonus. Not to belabour the point, but no, it does not say you get "an attack". It says you get an "attack action" which does not exist in game. Therefore, the interpretation is necessary and the wording is poor. EDIT: And Neue, I feel your pain. You are right, a lot of the later materials directly contradict core rules, or at least muddy the waters and make all this RAI discussion necessary. Thankfully we've got these boards to work together and try and figure it out.
Nom 08-19-07, 07:39 AM	Not to belabour the point, but no, it does not say you get "an attack". It says you get an "attack action" which does not exist in game.Incorrect. The game includes both "attacks" and "attack actions". The "attack action" is a standard action that grants an attack. There are a variety of other actions and non-actions that grant attacks, including the full attack action, the charge action, certain uses of the "cast a spell" or "activate an item" action, the Cleave and Improved Trip feats, and attacks of opportunity. An "attack" is a single, well, attack that is resolved with an attack roll. The Player's Handbook is actually pretty careful to keep the two terms separate. The only place I can think of where the two are confused is the introductory section to the "Attack" standard action (PH pg 139). It reads "Making an attack is a standard action". It is trivial to prove this statement false (points to AoOs and to full attack). A correct statement would be "You can make an attack as a standard action". As for Shot on the Run, you can indeed use a standard action with it. However, that standard action must be the "attack" action with a ranged weapon, and not any other type of standard action. Tangent: The distinction is more noticeable when we consider Spring Attack, which allows (and requires) the attack action with a melee weapon. Grapple, trip and disarm all explicitly allow you to substitute them for attacks, and thus can be used during a Spring Attack. In contrast, Bull Rush and Feint are distinct standard actions (ie not the attack action), and thus cannot.
TygerTyger 08-19-07, 01:34 PM	Incorrect. The game includes both "attacks" and "attack actions". The "attack action" is a standard action that grants an attack. There are a variety of other actions and non-actions that grant attacks, including the full attack action, the charge action, certain uses of the "cast a spell" or "activate an item" action, the Cleave and Improved Trip feats, and attacks of opportunity. An "attack" is a single, well, attack that is resolved with an attack roll. The Player's Handbook is actually pretty careful to keep the two terms separate. The only place I can think of where the two are confused is the introductory section to the "Attack" standard action (PH pg 139). It reads "Making an attack is a standard action". It is trivial to prove this statement false (points to AoOs and to full attack). A correct statement would be "You can make an attack as a standard action". As for Shot on the Run, you can indeed use a standard action with it. However, that standard action must be the "attack" action with a ranged weapon, and not any other type of standard action. Tangent: The distinction is more noticeable when we consider Spring Attack, which allows (and requires) the attack action with a melee weapon. Grapple, trip and disarm all explicitly allow you to substitute them for attacks, and thus can be used during a Spring Attack. In contrast, Bull Rush and Feint are distinct standard actions (ie not the attack action), and thus cannot. OK then, please provide a page number, or an SRD quote, which defines an "attack action." Hint: There isn't one, as there is no such thing. You can define it yourself, based on the materials given, but you're making an interpretation, not reading the rules. Which is why the wording is in fact ambiguous.
Twylyght 08-19-07, 03:37 PM	Anything a character does is an action. Standard, Move, Full round, and Free are not even actions in their own right, they are categories of actions that share simular rules on the amount of time they take to complete. From the 3.5 definition of action. Action: A character activity. Actions are divided into the following categories, according to the time required to perform them (from most time required to least): full-round actions, standard actions, move actions, and free actions. Page 139 in the players hand book shows the entry for standard actions followed by entries for the types of standard actions. These subentries in the section are each a type of action, it doesnt have to say "action" on each entry because the section they are in has already told you that they are all actions. calling back my habit of using fruits as examples if you have a list like.. Apples Red Delicious Golden Delicious Granny Smith McIntosh Northern Spy You dont have to say Apple with each one, the list tells you they are all Apples. So you take the list like Standard Actions Attack Cast A Spell Activate A Magic Item Use Special Ability Total Defense Start/Finish Full Round Action You know they are all actions. Standard actions to be specific. If something grants a "attack action" you would find attack on the standard action list, then use the rules for standard actions to complete the action, even though you still limited to a single attack. better yet look at Table 8-2 Actions in Combat on page 141. Every entry on that table by virtue of being listed, is an action. The chart is divided into action categories, that determine how long they take to complete.
tundrawalker 08-19-07, 04:02 PM	The problem, TygerTyger, is that Shot on the Run doesn't say you get a standard action. It says you get an attack. Manyshot isn't an attack. It's a standard action. That's why you can't use Manyshot for all shots in a full-round action. While an attack may be a standard action, standard actions aren't attacks, even if they include attacks within them. The two are related but not synonymous. If something says you can take any standard action, then by all means take an attack, but if it says you can take an attack, you don't get to take any standard action. A standard action is more general. An attack is more specific. Yeah, ok but give an example of anywhere else in the game where this is the case. There is no such thing as an attack action, rather it is part of a standard action or a rull-round attack. I believe the rules were intended to be such that Manyshot is to be used when you would attack with a standard action. They listed it as a standard action so you could not use Manyshot when you were using a full-attack (in other words you could not fire multiple arrows per attack when using a full-attack). So, they intended it to be used only when you use an attack when you were not attacking as a full-attack.
Archangel_Tyrael 08-19-07, 04:58 PM	Changed my mind.
Archangel_Tyrael 08-19-07, 05:03 PM	Same as above. Twylyght has it right.
MogliGrimTooth 08-19-07, 05:10 PM	Anything a character does is an action. Standard, Move, Full round, and Free are not even actions in their own right, they are categories actions that share simular rules on the amount of time they take to complete. From the 3.5 definition of action. Page 139 in the players hand book shows the entry for standard actions followed by entries for the types of standard actions. These subentries in the section are each a type of action, it doesnt have to say "action" on each entry because the section they are in has already told you that they are all actions. calling back my habit of using fruits as examples if you have a list like.. Apples Red Delicious Golden Delicious Granny Smith McIntosh Northern Spy You dont have to say Apple with each one, the list tells you they are all Apples. So you take the list like Standard Actions Attack Cast A Spell Activate A Magic Item Use Special Ability Total Defense Start/Finish Full Round Action You know they are all actions. Standard actions to be specific. If something grants a "attack action" you would find attack on the standard action list, then use the rules for standard actions to complete the action, even though you still limited to a single attack. better yet look at Table 8-2 Actions in Combat on page 141. Every entry on that table by virtue of being listed, is an action. The chart is divided into action categories, that determine how long they take to complete. I like the Way this Man/Woman thinks.....
Alaryl 08-19-07, 06:00 PM	sorry, just jumping in, but i would have to say that given the stuff given here i would have to say thet you can't use shot on the run and manyshot (or even greater manyshot) together. if i was DMing this situation i would create a feat the allowed the player to do this (mabey named acrbatic archer?). `Alaryl
tundrawalker 08-19-07, 08:00 PM	I think people are missing the point. I think the reason why Manyshot and Greater Manyshot require a standard action is so they cannot be used in conjunction with a full-round attack. This way, you cannot use either of the feats to fire multiple arrows when you should only fire one per attack action in a full attack. To illustrate, if you have a BAB of +6/+1, and attack with a full attack, the standard action is specific so you cannot fire 2 arrows per attack in the full attack, but instead you can fire 2 arrows as an attack as a standard action. I do not think the requirement of a standard action is not to cause confusion or limit the use of manyshot or greater manyshot, but to prevent it from being used in the full attack. Otherwise, if Manyshot or Greater Manyshot simply stated "as an attack you can fire multiple arrows," it could be used with the Full Attack. Rather, stating a standard action, it intends to use to be only during the single attack of a standard action. Therefore, the two feats can be used with Shot on the Run. Just my interpretation.
TygerTyger 08-19-07, 08:36 PM	Yes Twylyght, but your own quotes of the PHB clearly demonstrate that there are (at PHB writing time) four types of actions, Full, Standard, Move and Free. They do not list an "attack action" in that list. So saying that you can take an "attack action" is ambiguous at best and badly written without a doubt. Saying that an attack is a kind of Standard Action is all well and good, its also pretty much universally agreed. But it still doesn't change the fact that the feat is poorly worded and can be interpreted in either way. I.E. if the feat allow me to use an "Attack Action" and I interpret "Attack Action" to be a "Standard Action which I must use to attack" then its certainly possible to say that you can use Manyshot with it, as that is a Standard Action that is an attack. I think its clear to see why they did not use the term Standard Action, as that would allow casters to use it to cast and move (though of course the exact same thing can be accomplished with 2 ranks in Ride, so its a moot point anyway), and might have allowed for other possible cheese. Its all about clarity. Lets look at your example. If I walk into a store and say that I am looking for a Northern Spy, (which I've never heard of by the way, but am dying to try one now), and the individual I am speaking to doesn't know much about fruits, I am going to get lead on a merry chase as he takes me to the book section and points out the Canadian Authors section, where a few spy novels are. However, if I say that I am looking for a type of apple, well, he's going to point me to the produce section. Clarity. Precision. Two things that are lacking in this feat's description. What the feat should read, if your interpretation is correct, is: When making a single attack with a ranged weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. That would, I believe, take out the ambiguity. That said, as I noted above, more than once, I understand the point you're trying to make, hell I even agree with it. If I were running a game though, I'd be letting my archers use Manyshot with Shot on the Run... which I think it was intended to allow, and even if it wasn't intended, its certainly not at all unbalancing. And I think that Tundrawalker is correct in the intention of the feat's various descriptions. Manyshot and Greater Manyshot were writen in that manner simply to preclude them from being used in a Full Attack Action (which with a very high level character could be rather devestating), so allowing them to be used in this instance makes perfect sense, its almost as though it was designed to work that way.
Nom 08-19-07, 11:44 PM	Yes Twylyght, but your own quotes of the PHB clearly demonstrate that there are (at PHB writing time) four types of actions, Full, Standard, Move and Free. They do not list an "attack action" in that list.:confused: PH pg 139: Standard actions, 1st subheading: Attack. PH pg 142, table 8-2: section "standard actions", 1st three entries: "Attack (melee)", "Attack (ranged)", "Attack (unarmed)". The "attack (standard) action" is explicitly designated in two separate places, not coincidentally in the same two separate places that designate the other standard action types that Twylyght listed. Proving that "attack" and "attack action" are not the same thing is a little trickier since "attack" is defined implicitly, but claiming that there is no such thing as the "attack action" requires a fundamental mis-reading of PH chapter 8. The clearest way to point out the difference between "attack" and "attack action" is to point out all the situations where you make an attack that are clearly not attack actions. Perhaps the best example is the footnote on table 8-2 that describes how certain special attacks substitute for attacks, not actions, and thus can even occur during an AoO. But it still doesn't change the fact that the feat is poorly worded and can be interpreted in either way. I.E. if the feat allow me to use an "Attack Action" and I interpret "Attack Action" to be a "Standard Action which I must use to attack" then its certainly possible to say that you can use Manyshot with it, as that is a Standard Action that is an attack.It can only be interpreted either way if you fail to make the distinction between "attacks" and "attack actions". Thus far, you are only the second person I know of who insists that the terms are ambiguous and/or interchangeable after being shown the evidence.
Crimson_Concerto 08-20-07, 12:03 AM	I think its clear to see why they did not use the term Standard Action, as that would allow casters to use it to cast and moveWell, going by YOUR interpretation, you could indeed use Shot on the Run to cast a spell like, say, a Ray spell since it's a standard action that includes a ranged attack. :P
Optimator 08-20-07, 12:04 AM	I can't wait for the Rules Compendium.
Twylyght 08-20-07, 12:14 AM	Yes Twylyght, but your own quotes of the PHB clearly demonstrate that there are (at PHB writing time) four types of actions, Full, Standard, Move and Free. They do not list an "attack action" in that list. So saying that you can take an "attack action" is ambiguous at best and badly written without a doubt. Full, Standard, Move** and Free in this context are not actions at all, they are categories of actions that share rules. You cant just "Take a free action" ot "Take a full round action" because they are not actions, they are rule sets for handling the actual actions in their respective categories. **Move however is a type of move action though.. so that can muddle the waters. Its all about clarity. Lets look at your example. If I walk into a store and say that I am looking for a Northern Spy, (which I've never heard of by the way, but am dying to try one now), and the individual I am speaking to doesn't know much about fruits, I am going to get lead on a merry chase as he takes me to the book section and points out the Canadian Authors section, where a few spy novels are. However, if I say that I am looking for a type of apple, well, he's going to point me to the produce section. Clarity. Precision. Two things that are lacking in this feat's description. Ah, yes if he didnt know what it was, he might be at a loss. But much like you say when you tell you point out its apple, and he will atleast then get you to the produce section. You didnt have to tell him that your looking for a northern spy that an apple, thats a fruit, thats a type of produce. It is all those things, but you dont have to say it every time. Oh and they are pretty good apples, a little sweet, a little tart, and they make real good cider. When making a single attack with a ranged weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. That would, I believe, take out the ambiguity. Its not that simple though "A single attack" could leave it open to alot of special abilities that make only a single attack. Not as bad with shot on the run as it would be with spring attack... but still. That said, as I noted above, more than once, I understand the point you're trying to make, hell I even agree with it. If I were running a game though, I'd be letting my archers use Manyshot with Shot on the Run... which I think it was intended to allow, and even if it wasn't intended, its certainly not at all unbalancing. And I think that Tundrawalker is correct in the intention of the feat's various descriptions. Manyshot and Greater Manyshot were writen in that manner simply to preclude them from being used in a Full Attack Action (which with a very high level character could be rather devestating), so allowing them to be used in this instance makes perfect sense, its almost as though it was designed to work that way. Actually, In my game, personally, I allow it. If you can take you full movement and manyshot, or manyshot, then take your move, I see no reason why move, manyshot, move for a total of the same distance would unbalance anything. I just say, strictly by the book, it does not work as written. As a additional note, This is not a poke at you but just an observation of a situation I myself have been guilty of before. Its easy to find yourself both arguing against and for a concept even if it is not the current topic. Take my perspective in supporting that "Attack Action" is a valid action type, while your position that since "Attack Action" is not specifically defined as such it is not a valid type of action. Now observe that last paragraph of your post, where you refer to manyshot being a "standard action" to prevent it froom being used with a "Full Attack Action" I would counter challenge you to find "Full Attack Action" under the conditions you wanted to see "Attack action" listed as. It's not there, Full Attack is just a part of full-round actions, and thus "Full attack actions" wouldnt exist. Yet, the full attack action is refrenced alot by the rules. Now something I just noticed in double checking this, the index entries for both action and full attack action do list as Attack (action) 139 and Full Attack (action) 143 for what those are worth.
Archangel_Tyrael 08-20-07, 12:19 AM	Yes Twylyght, but your own quotes of the PHB clearly demonstrate that there are (at PHB writing time) four types of actions, Full, Standard, Move and Free. They do not list an "attack action" in that list. So saying that you can take an "attack action" is ambiguous at best and badly written without a doubt. Standard Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions) Check out the first three under the table. You're fighting your supporters!! So we've reached an interested conclusion: a type of attack that is a standard action (Manyshot) can legally be made while using Shot on the Run. Then could a ToB maneuver therefore be used with Spring Attack?
Kaldair 08-20-07, 12:39 AM	Standard Actions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions) So we've reached an interested conclusion: a type of attack that is a standard action (Manyshot) can legally be made while using Shot on the Run. When did we get to that conclusion? It looks to me like the above pretty clearly states that by the book it is illegal but most DM's allow it cuz it's fun and not unbalancing.
Archangel_Tyrael 08-20-07, 02:58 AM	I could have sworn that here... You know they are all actions. Standard actions to be specific. If something grants a "attack action" you would find attack on the standard action list, then use the rules for standard actions to complete the action, even though you still limited to a single attack. ...you were in favor of the Manyshot/Shot on the Run combo. I mean, this made perfect sense to me of why it should work. We found the elusive "attack action" and it's a Standard Action. Therefore, Manyshot is allowed to be used during a Shot on the Run, right? Actually, In my game, personally, I allow it. If you can take you full movement and manyshot, or manyshot, then take your move, I see no reason why move, manyshot, move for a total of the same distance would unbalance anything. I just say, strictly by the book, it does not work as written. But here, why do you say this? Manyshot=Standard Action Attack Action=Standard Action by Algebra, does not Manyshot=Attack Action? After all, not once in the description of the Full Attack Action does it mention the Attack Action--so attacks and the Attack Action must be separate and different. As a additional note, This is not a poke at you but just an observation of a situation I myself have been guilty of before. Its easy to find yourself both arguing against and for a concept even if it is not the current topic. Take my perspective in supporting that "Attack Action" is a valid action type, while your position that since "Attack Action" is not specifically defined as such it is not a valid type of action. Now observe that last paragraph of your post, where you refer to manyshot being a "standard action" to prevent it froom being used with a "Full Attack Action" I would counter challenge you to find "Full Attack Action" under the conditions you wanted to see "Attack action" listed as. It's not there, Full Attack is just a part of full-round actions, and thus "Full attack actions" wouldnt exist. Full Attack Action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack) and Attack Action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions).
Twylyght 08-20-07, 03:39 AM	I could have sworn that here... ...you were in favor of the Manyshot/Shot on the Run combo. I mean, this made perfect sense to me of why it should work. We found the elusive "attack action" and it's a Standard Action. Therefore, Manyshot is allowed to be used during a Shot on the Run, right? But here, why do you say this? Manyshot=Standard Action Attack Action=Standard Action by Algebra, does not Manyshot=Attack Action? As written, it does not work. Attack and Manyshot are both a type of standard action, but they are still different actions, and not the same. Back to my good old fruits! Apple = Fruit Watermelon = Fruit Would that mean that all apples are also watermelons? no, ofcourse not. For the same reason, granting an attack action is not the same as granting a Manyshot, even though both are standard actions. However, as a house rule, I 100% support letting it work anyway.
EpicEvokerElf 08-20-07, 05:04 PM	I disagree that the feat is poorly worded. It says you get 'an attack', not 'a standard action'. If Manyshot were an attack action, you could spam the battlefield with multiple barrages with a high Base Attack Bonus. This appears to be the answer to your problems. It relies on the interperetation of 'attack' and 'attack action' as closely synonymous, but I for one have no trouble accepting them as such. It is defined in the text of the Manyshot feat thet it is used as a standard action. If this were allowed under Shot on the Run, then it would stand to reason that a spell, for example (such as a ray), would also be legal under the same circumstances. It then becomes a matter of judgement: do you believe that a ray should be usable under these circumstances? If not, then neither is Greater Manyshot.