Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RavingDork 02-16-07, 12:07 AM	From the FAQ: Is it possible to use the Shot on the Run feat in conjunction with the Manyshot feat? Some people I know insist that you must use the attack action with Shot on the Run, and they further claim that Manyshot is a standard action and not the attack action. But there isn’t any such thing as an attack action, is there? The text on actions in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook (page 138) describes many kinds of actions (standard actions, move actions, fullround actions, and free actions); it even describes things that are not actions and mentions restricted activity. Nowhere, however, do the rules describe attack actions. So, what’s the correct answer? No, you cannot use Shot on the Run and Manyshot together. It is true that no category of actions is called “attack actions” in the D&D game, but there is an action called attack—it’s the first action described under Standard Actions on page 139 in the Player’s Handbook. It might seem that the folks who say no Manyshot with Shot On the Run are slicing the baloney a little thin, but the letter of the rules is on their side, and so is the intent behind the letter of the rules. The Manyshot feat description could say you fire multiple arrows with the attack action, but it doesn’t. Manyshot is a standard action, not a variant on the attack action (see the feat description on page 97 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, the Shot on the Run feat could allow you to make any kind of ranged attack while moving, but it doesn’t. When using Shot on the Run, you must use the attack action with a ranged weapon (see the feat description on page 100 in the Player’s Handbook). This rules out using spells, most magic items, or special standard actions such as the Manyshot feat when making a Shot on the Run. That’s because casting a spell would require the cast a spell action (described on page 140 of the Player’s Handbook), using any magic item except for some use-activated items would require the activate magic item action (Player’s Handbook, page 142), and, as already noted here, using the Manyshot feat is a standard action. Most magic weapons are use activated and don’t require any action to activate at all (see page 213 in the Dungeon Master’s Guide), so you can use these weapons along with the attack action. For example, you could use a +1 longbow or +1 arrow (or both) with the attack action, and thus you also could use these items with Shot on the Run. I have heard people on these boards talking about combining ManyShot and Shot on the Run for years. I have allowed it in my games for years. What is WotC thinking? If anything, it seems the feats were designed to work together! It certainly isn't overpowered after spending such a huge amount of feats to make the trick work. What's the point? DESPAIR! :weep:
ShinAkuma2 02-16-07, 12:14 AM	What is WotC thinking? They're thinking, "These are the rules as they are written. Change them in your game if you want." There's nothing to suggest that Manyshot and SotR can be used together. For as long as I've been here (a couple of years, now), everyone has understood that the two feats are not compatible.
jaelis 02-16-07, 12:18 AM	I have heard people on these boards talking about combining ManyShot and Shot on the Run for years. I have allowed it in my games for years. What is WotC thinking? People keep talking about it because it's confusing. But the FAQ answer is clear, and has been in place for a long time.
thepuregamer 02-16-07, 01:05 AM	Yup wizards of the coast is on crack. Sometimes, there is no real reason for things to be or not be RAW. There is no logical reason for it to be this way. So, as people do with all things they spend money on like cars, cell phones, and other things, they have to modify them to make them work properly.
Egres 02-16-07, 03:10 AM	I have heard people on these boards talking about combining ManyShot and Shot on the Run for years. Yeah. Asking again and again the same, old question, and obtaining the same, old right answer: the one you have just found in the FAQ.
Inigo Carmine 02-16-07, 08:18 AM	It's not really that confusing. You can't use manyshot when using shot on the run for the same reason a cleric can't cast multiple spells per round with a high BAB. They are unique standard actions; not the basic attack action.
risner 02-16-07, 09:00 AM	I have heard people on these boards talking about combining ManyShot and Shot on the Run for years. I have allowed it in my games for years. What is WotC thinking? We evidently haven't been reading the same boards, because I don't recall ever seeing anyone suggest they work together. They are thinking, hey, we have not been publishing errata for a while, lets continue to not publish it and post one or two via the FAQ that most of the people that enjoy playing with lots of house rules will ignore, then publish a whole book of errata and call it Rules Compendium. I find it great that they are finally putting a stop to some of the insanity where people look at a green wall and claim it is purple.
Zumarai 02-16-07, 09:26 AM	I find it great that they are finally putting a stop to some of the insanity where people look at a green wall and claim it is purple. Tell me about it, and now we have people who insist that Dual Strike works with Spring Attack...
runestar 02-16-07, 09:33 AM	It was never a matter of whether it is overpowered or not. Wotc wrote the rules, now they have to abide by them for consistency's sake. This mandates that they have to play the role of an impartial arbiter and adopt a literal interpretation of the rules, regardless of whether the final result is deem broken or not.:) This means that they will likely give the green light to most of the builds in the CO boards, how much cheese they reek of, yet forbid improved toughness from replacing toughness for a DDefender build, however harmless such a move might seem.:P
starfire311 02-16-07, 09:42 AM	I have heard people on these boards talking about combining ManyShot and Shot on the Run for years. I have allowed it in my games for years. What is WotC thinking? If anything, it seems the feats were designed to work together! It certainly isn't overpowered after spending such a huge amount of feats to make the trick work. What's the point? DESPAIR! :weep: Yes, people come here and ask if they can be combined, and the answer has always been no.... so you see we do talk about it.
RavingDork 02-16-07, 10:47 AM	Yes, people come here and ask if they can be combined, and the answer has always been no.... so you see we do talk about it. But I know that is not true. I have seen prominent people on these boards stating that this combo did indeed work. There is no way my emory is THAT bad. Also, sorry for the childish topic title, it was meant to be more of a joke than to represent my actual feelings about WotC. It's just one of those moments where you think something worked one way for years and years, and you had lots of support from lots of people (and sources) on the matter. Than suddenly you find out you were wrong all along. It's a horrible feeling.
tarkin 02-16-07, 11:25 AM	No, your memory is that bad. What happens is this: The discussion comes up, the prominent people say NO, you can't do it. Other people argue and claim you can do it. You are in favor of doing it, so you remember the arguments made, but confuse who made which one.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-16-07, 11:54 AM	No, you cannot use Shot on the Run and Manyshot together.Old news. 'Manyshot' and 'attack' are two separate standard actions. Shot on the Run lets you attack in the middle of a move. It does not let you manyshot in the middle of a move. I have heard people on these boards talking about combining ManyShot and Shot on the Run for years.They were mistaken. I have allowed it in my games for years.That's your prerogative.
jameswilliamogle 02-16-07, 12:09 PM	It works great w/ Flyby Attack, though, which imo is superior to spring attack for most characters (the AoO's generated being the only drawback, but you don't need to worry so much about that if you are a ranged flyer, anyways).
thepuregamer 02-16-07, 01:43 PM	Dork: I have allowed it in my games for years. Tyler: That's your prerogative. And this is the main problem with the whole system. All the things that make logical sense are left 1 small step short of being RAW and all the things the make zero sense are RAW just because WotC ddn't feel like doing it right the first time. Because DM's have to alter things to make sure they make sense. Like Improved crit and keen stacking. Those 2 make sense stacking but they are specifically banned for balance reasons which if that is banned for balance reasons, well we should probably be rewriting the druid class, the cleric class, and all spells above lvl 6. So a faq that states that RAW, Shot on the run and many shot do not work together is just them telling us that they are too lazy to do anything about it. Make an erratta cause conceptually many shot and ranged standard actions take the same ammount of effort for your archer. They are both standard actions that involve you shooting at an enemy. For a feat tree reached by 4th or 6th lvl, to end at 4th or 6th lvl is ridiculous. Are you really going to be using that trick then at lvl 20? probably not. I don't think anyone would take a primary caster class that progessed normally until ir reached 3rd or 4th lvl spells and then it stopped gaining caster lvls and kept getting its bab, saves, and hp. This stuff is depressing.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-16-07, 02:32 PM	All the things that make logical sense are left 1 small step short of being RAW and all the things the make zero sense are RAW just because WotC ddn't feel like doing it right the first time.This is a generalization and is your opinion. You can play the game exactly as written, you can play something completely different and just call it D&D, whatever floats your boat. Free will is a wonderful thing.
Seerow 02-16-07, 02:41 PM	does it really matter? Shot on the Run only lets you move up to your move speed... unless moving your full movement is going to put you out a range increment, why not just move then use manyshot? I dunno, I've always considered shot on the run a largely worthless feat. Maybe somebody here will enlighten me.
tarkin 02-16-07, 03:04 PM	Shot on the run is a tactical feat. One of the prime things you can do with it is: 1. Stand quitely behind Total cover, waiting for your action. 2. On your action, pop out from behind cover 3. Take your shot at the enemy 4. Pop back behind cover. ------------ If the enemey has not readied an action against you, he can not attack at all. If he DOES ready an action against you, then next round drink a potion of cure light wounds knowing full well that the enemey is in all probablity wasting his action by reading to attack you again. After you are all healed up, pop back out again and take your shot. This is a very intelligent, safe way to fight, if you have access to say total cover and a means of preventing the enemey from moving so that you don't have total cover. Like say a castle with arrow slits.
GorTeX 02-16-07, 03:04 PM	dunno, I've always considered shot on the run a largely worthless feat. Maybe somebody here will enlighten me. unless you want to move-fire-move... Start in Cover, move out in the open, fire, them move back into Cover..can't do that if you just take a move action then shoot.
runestar 02-16-07, 08:32 PM	And this is the main problem with the whole system. All the things that make logical sense are left 1 small step short of being RAW and all the things the make zero sense are RAW just because WotC ddn't feel like doing it right the first time. Where dnd is concerned, mechanics will always take precedence over logic. Logic is there to act as backup flavour for mechanics if appropriate and possible, not the other way around.:) Keen was not allowed to stack with improved crit for game balance reasons. Same goes for the epic progression rules. They don't make logical sense, but make perfect sense when you look at it from a balance POV.
thepuregamer 02-17-07, 03:23 AM	Where dnd is concerned, mechanics will always take precedence over logic. Logic is there to act as backup flavour for mechanics if appropriate and possible, not the other way around.:) Keen was not allowed to stack with improved crit for game balance reasons. Same goes for the epic progression rules. They don't make logical sense, but make perfect sense when you look at it from a balance POV. On the first part you are only partially correct. At this point( ie, since the system is already out) mechanics must take precedence over logic for it to work. But in making a gaming system it should be the other way around. What is the reason one decides how mechanisms function or are written? When they were making Shot on the Run, there was some logical reason for them making it that way. They wanted you to be able to shoot in between running. It is possibly a mistake in foresight that caused sotr being limited to ranged standard actions. With many class abilities and feats, there should be some synergy between them. Using Shot on the run is fine at lower lvls, but it is an ability that doesn't get any better on the way to lvl 20 in that it doesn't work with any other abilities. At lvl 20, it isn't worthwhile to be using shot on the run. Its still optimal to use power attack. That is because power attack is better designed than sotr. Oh and needing something similiar to a castle for a feat to be useful is not a great way to go about it. Problem with consistently hiding behind cover is that you can lose sight of your target. Unless they stand there and take you attacks this will not work very long and 1 attack a round will not quickly kill anybody. Have you played a game with keen and improved critical stacking? I have, I've played it with a 12-20 threat range and it wasn't overpowered. This was so because with a 12-20 threat range, one must use alot less power attack to obtain a hit on the numbers 12-20. Much less overpowered than say spells of its lvls or twf'er sneak attack of its lvl or power attack charger builds and those are all legit. If things were designed in dnd 3.5 purely by balance, improved crit and keen would still be in there. I can list all sorts of examples of RAW things that make zero sense just in core. The 2 I have already mentioned, Flame blade works with PA. There's defensive casting but no similiar version for archers. Monks( well actually they just make zero sense in a midieval setting), polymorph rules( those are actually just really complicated). I will admit that many of these are poor examples. Flame blade is a great example though. Monk's unarmed fists working or not working with ina is another great example. Talking of balance polymorphing and necromancy come to mind. Those RAW are by far the most out of control aspects of the game. Necromancy because it is basically a resource independent of your spells per day and polymorphing because even just MM1 monsters are over the top when added onto being a full caster. Balance has not a consistently the reason anything is done in the design of this system. Also how is it balanced to give everyone the same progession during epic lvls? Isn't it largely considered that casters are the strongest around lvl 20? Thus making non casters progess at the same rate as casters in epic is just making a problem that already exists bigger. Customers are unhappy with products when they come out with mistakes. Cars can be recalled. Video games can be patched. A gaming system with obvious flaws should get attention. There is no reason to defend it. I enjoy playing dnd really but I'm not going to pretend that the game is sacred or perfect or beyond criticism. RAW does not mean rules done right.
navar100 02-17-07, 04:35 AM	That's why there's Rule 0. It is important to know Many Shot won't work with Shot On The Run as an official rule, however much one doesn't like it, when discussing it with people not in your game, but when it comes to your game, move Many Shot move to your heart's content.
WinDReiN 02-17-07, 07:56 AM	You can combine skirmish with many shot, right? Can you harm a rouge, who's lvl equals yours, with skirmish?
jameswilliamogle 02-17-07, 09:05 AM	You can combine skirmish with many shot, right? Can you harm a rogue [sic], who's lvl equals yours, with skirmish?Skirmish + Many Shot works, you just move first then attack. It doesn't work w/ Spring Attack, b/c Spring Attack only allows an attack, and Manyshot, as silly as it is, requires a standard attack. It does work with Flyby Attack, if you can get that somehow. There's none of that "+4 levels" affect for Skirmish; if the target has a discernable anatomy, and you moved 10', you get it, whether or not it was a Rogue.
runestar 02-17-07, 09:11 AM	Have you played a game with keen and improved critical stacking? I have, I've played it with a 12-20 threat range and it wasn't overpowered. This was so because with a 12-20 threat range, one must use alot less power attack to obtain a hit on the numbers 12-20. I don't see why you have to use less power attack simply because you have a higher threat range. You can argue that you should to maximize the chances of getting off a successful crit, but all things equal, a barb wielding a keen scimitar with improved crit can afford to power attack as much as another barb simply wielding a normal scimitar and he would still be better off. In the very least, he would not be dealing any less damage than the latter.:confused: Also how is it balanced to give everyone the same progession during epic lvls? Isn't it largely considered that casters are the strongest around lvl 20? Thus making non casters progess at the same rate as casters in epic is just making a problem that already exists bigger. That has already been explained in the ELH. If this was not the case, fighters would never miss, and rogues would never hit anything. I could care less about spellcasters' bab not scaling(since touch ACs don't really scale well). I can list all sorts of examples of RAW things that make zero sense just in core. The 2 I have already mentioned, Flame blade works with PA. There's defensive casting but no similiar version for archers. Monks( well actually they just make zero sense in a midieval setting), polymorph rules( those are actually just really complicated). I will admit that many of these are poor examples. Flame blade is a great example though. Monk's unarmed fists working or not working with ina is another great example. And your point is? You seem to be backing up my earlier point even more...:confused: Anyways, you have missed the crux of my earlier statement. All I am saying is that the game designers have their own reasons for designing the products the way they are. I admit that sometimes, their decisions look like something I could have replicated by throwing darts at a dartboard. I am not saying that they are necessarily right, just that they have their own rationale for doing stuff, and it would not be fair to pass judgment without first understanding how and why things turned out the way they did. It could simply all be a matter of perspective(such as the decision to nerf the demon lords to their current watered down version in FC1).:)
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-17-07, 03:54 PM	Making a single attack is a standard action. Making a shot on the run, using the feat, is a standard action. Making multiple ***** with the Manyshot feat is a standard action. Think about it that way. In the PHB, the wording is poor and confusing. Re-wording it like that makes it make sense as to why you can't combine Manyshot and Shot on the Run. Of course, I'd personally houserule otherwise, but that's what the RAW says.
Johnny_Angel 02-17-07, 03:58 PM	Making a single attack is a standard action. Making a shot on the run, using the feat, is a standard action. Making multiple ***** with the Manyshot feat is a standard action. Think about it that way. In the PHB, the wording is poor and confusing. Re-wording it like that makes it make sense as to why you can't combine Manyshot and Shot on the Run. Of course, I'd personally houserule otherwise, but that's what the RAW says. You could do it by RAW if you were hasted. I think there's a very valid reason why you can't normally many shot while using shot on the run. Compare it to spring attack. Would you allow a monk or a fighter to move, get multiple attacks, and then move again?
Roland the Crownbreaker 02-17-07, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by Johnny_Angel I think there's a very valid reason why you can't normally many shot while using shot on the run. Compare it to spring attack. Would you allow a monk or a fighter to move, get multiple attacks, and then move again? Isn't that exactly what the feat Bounding Assault does?
thepuregamer 02-17-07, 06:15 PM	I don't see why you have to use less power attack simply because you have a higher threat range. You can argue that you should to maximize the chances of getting off a successful crit, but all things equal, a barb wielding a keen scimitar with improved crit can afford to power attack as much as another barb simply wielding a normal scimitar and he would still be better off. In the very least, he would not be dealing any less damage than the latter.:confused: Except that al you are showing is that having a combat feat and a better weapon, contributes to one player having more damage. An improved crit character though is not as strong as say a Shocktrooper character. The point I am making is that there is no balance issue with keen and improved crit stacking compared to other melee abilities that work RAW. Thus balance is not a good reason to make those 2 abilities not stack. That has already been explained in the ELH. If this was not the case, fighters would never miss, and rogues would never hit anything. I could care less about spellcasters' bab not scaling(since touch ACs don't really scale well). And your point is? You seem to be backing up my earlier point even more...:confused: A lvl 30 fighter will be at 30 bab. A lvl 30 rogue will be at 22 bab. A fighter will not always hit. There first attack will likely always hit, but it should. They are lvl 30 fighters for a reason. Lvl 30 rogues will likely hit with their 1st attack. Of course lvl 30 rogues use techniques that often leave their opponents flatfooted and thus they have other ways getting hits on opponents. More importantly that hit chance is extra iterative attacks. Melee types need to keep getting attacks to keep up. The fact that they don't with the epic system is a mistake. Saying that the weakest classes would become too strong by giving them conitnued high bab is idiotic. Getting stronger is exactly what they need. Anyways, you have missed the crux of my earlier statement. All I am saying is that the game designers have their own reasons for designing the products the way they are. I admit that sometimes, their decisions look like something I could have replicated by throwing darts at a dartboard. I am not saying that they are necessarily right, just that they have their own rationale for doing stuff, and it would not be fair to pass judgment without first understanding how and why things turned out the way they did. It could simply all be a matter of perspective(such as the decision to nerf the demon lords to their current watered down version in FC1).:) Don't konw abotu demon lords but the existence of widespread houseruling is a sign that there are things wrong with the system. Sure you can play dnd without changing a thing just like you could have played the old elder scrolls daggerfall without downloading the patches. It was just buggy as heck.
Tyler Do'Urden 02-17-07, 06:23 PM	Isn't that exactly what the feat Bounding Assault does?Sort of. Bounding Assault gives you an iterative Spring Attack. One iterative Spring Attack. There's a follow-up feat, Rapid Blitz, which gives you a third iterative Spring Attack. This feat chain in its entirety is not anywhere near as generous as permitting a manyshot on the run. Then there's the feat Rapid Assault in the Book of Nine Swords which has nothing to do with either of these but struck me as funny.
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-17-07, 06:29 PM	A lvl 30 fighter will be at 30 bab. A lvl 30 rogue will be at 22 bab. Just have to nitpick this one. A level 30 fighter will have a BAB of 20 and an EAB (epic attack bonus) of 5. A level 30 rogue will have a BAB of 15 and an EAB of 5.
Willie the Duck 02-17-07, 08:41 PM	This is a generalization and is your opinion. You can play the game exactly as written, you can play something completely different and just call it D&D, whatever floats your boat. Free will is a wonderful thing. Please remember the Oberoni Fallacy: the existance of rule 0 does not immunize the system from criticism. WotC has decided (whether actively or through default) to be a high-inertia system. They are not going to change things readily and quickly. Should rules interact in ways that appear unusual or unfortunate, they will simply reaffirm the case and say that it's unfortunate that it is the case. They also won't admit to anything being unintended (I believe the two handed weapon + spiked armor TWF build to be one of these situations). I can understand their reasoning. I know alot of people upset with the Warhammer game because the rules are constantly changing. However, D&D seems to be on the far end of the inertia scale, compared to other games like M:tG or computer game patches, etc. As to shot on the run and manyshot, well, the wording is pretty unambiguous. I also see it as quite a poor choice. I criticize the PHB for not being worded better. Not only is the combination not overpowered, but it makes sense (if you can move then shoot more than one arrow, or you can shoot one arrow in the middle of your move, you should be able to combine those skills. It also opens up a tactic (the high speed rogue or scout who backs up out of threat range, fires while still within 30', and then keeps backing up) that really should exist in the game. Oh, and nitpick: jameswilliamogle, if you use [sic] in a quote, you don't also correct the mistake.
runestar 02-17-07, 08:53 PM	The point I am making is that there is no balance issue with keen and improved crit stacking compared to other melee abilities that work RAW. Thus balance is not a good reason to make those 2 abilities not stack. I will concede on this point. In a way, I agree with your rationale. However, it is clear that in the transtition to 3.5, wotc seemed to have some sort of phobia regarding aggressive stacking. Perhaps keen+improved crit was simply a harmless victim caught in the crossfire. Or perhaps wotc honestly saw some problem with it, perhaps when combined with other abilities which improve threat range?:P A lvl 30 fighter will be at 30 bab. A lvl 30 rogue will be at 22 bab. A fighter will not always hit. There first attack will likely always hit, but it should. They are lvl 30 fighters for a reason. Lvl 30 rogues will likely hit with their 1st attack. At lv 30 or less, the disparity is still not so great. What about at lv60? A fighter will have bab+60 and monks will have bab+45. For a monster to be of a meaningful challenge to a fighter, its AC will have to be roughly around fighter's to hit +10. This means that the monk will never hit, since it needs to roll higher than a 20. And if you nerf the AC such that the monk has a fair chance of hitting, the fighter will never miss. You can argue that few games ever reach such a plateau, but that changes nothing, since this was precisely the sort of slippery slope wotc was trying to avoid.:) Don't konw abotu demon lords but the existence of widespread houseruling is a sign that there are things wrong with the system. Sure you can play dnd without changing a thing just like you could have played the old elder scrolls daggerfall without downloading the patches. It was just buggy as heck. It does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. With so many different people playing dnd, it is naturally impossible to meet all their demands and accomodate all their playing styles. People houseruling could just mean that they have their own method of playing. That is perfectly natural...:)
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-17-07, 08:57 PM	At lv 30 or less, the disparity is still not so great. What about at lv60? A fighter will have bab+60 and monks will have bab+45. I'm still going to nitpick you, since it was ignored earlier. A level 60 fighter will have a Base Attack Bonus of 20. He will also have an Epic Attack Bonus of 20. A level 60 monk will have a BAB of 15. The monk will have an EAB of 20. Thus, the fighter, before weapons, abilities, feats etc. will be attacking at 40/35/30/25. The monk will be attacking at 35/30/25, and flurrying at 35/35/35/30/25.
runestar 02-17-07, 09:30 PM	I'm still going to nitpick you, since it was ignored earlier. A level 60 fighter will have a Base Attack Bonus of 20. He will also have an Epic Attack Bonus of 20. A level 60 monk will have a BAB of 15. The monk will have an EAB of 20. Thus, the fighter, before weapons, abilities, feats etc. will be attacking at 40/35/30/25. The monk will be attacking at 35/30/25, and flurrying at 35/35/35/30/25. We were never using the official epic rules. The previous poster was asking why the epic rules for progression are what they are. It is clear that his example was meant to be a deviation from the existing epic rules. I was replying by positing a hypothetical scenario where classes' bab continued scaling at their pre-epic pace rather than being subjected to the epic bab rules, so that he could better see the consequences of adhering to such a rule.:)
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-17-07, 10:03 PM	We were never using the official epic rules. The previous poster was asking why the epic rules for progression are what they are. It is clear that his example was meant to be a deviation from the existing epic rules. I was replying by positing a hypothetical scenario where classes' bab continued scaling at their pre-epic pace rather than being subjected to the epic bab rules, so that he could better see the consequences of adhering to such a rule.:) That's what I get for only skimming the thread and nitpicking something.
Jaxgaret 02-17-07, 10:35 PM	That's what I get for only skimming the thread and nitpicking something. Making a single attack is a standard action. Making a shot on the run, using the feat, is a standard action. Making multiple ***** with the Manyshot feat is a standard action. You're on a roll tonight. I don't think there are a whole lot of characters who **** when they Manyshot, or utilize the Manyshot feat to **** :) Although I could see a Dwarf using that very effect as a great time-saver...
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-17-07, 10:41 PM	You're on a roll tonight. I don't think there are a whole lot of characters who **** when they Manyshot, or utilize the Manyshot feat to **** :) Although I could see a Dwarf using that very effect as a great time-saver... I should just quit before the hole gets any deeper.
Willie the Duck 02-20-07, 09:12 PM	That might be what the dwarf is trying to avoid.:rimshot:
thepuregamer 02-20-07, 11:59 PM	Sort of. Bounding Assault gives you an iterative Spring Attack. One iterative Spring Attack. There's a follow-up feat, Rapid Blitz, which gives you a third iterative Spring Attack. This feat chain in its entirety is not anywhere near as generous as permitting a manyshot on the run. Then there's the feat Rapid Assault in the Book of Nine Swords which has nothing to do with either of these but struck me as funny. What, rapid blitz and bounding assault give extra itterative attacks. Many shot gives extra attacks at a much bigger penalty. -4 for 2 attacks, -6 for 3 and so on. There is a much more reduced hit chance using many shot than those other feats. Just have to nitpick this one. A level 30 fighter will have a BAB of 20 and an EAB (epic attack bonus) of 5. A level 30 rogue will have a BAB of 15 and an EAB of 5. As has been said, I was using the hypothetical situation of if bab progression continued as normal beyond 20. So no big deal, it was just a misread on your part. At lv 30 or less, the disparity is still not so great. What about at lv60? A fighter will have bab+60 and monks will have bab+45. For a monster to be of a meaningful challenge to a fighter, its AC will have to be roughly around fighter's to hit +10. This means that the monk will never hit, since it needs to roll higher than a 20. And if you nerf the AC such that the monk has a fair chance of hitting, the fighter will never miss. You can argue that few games ever reach such a plateau, but that changes nothing, since this was precisely the sort of slippery slope wotc was trying to avoid. If classes kept their progession after 20 this would not be a problem. 60 lvls of full bab should mean something. It should mean that atleast your first 3 attacks hit. Armor class should keep going up at a rate such that medium bab classes always hit with their first attack by that point. The mitigating factor would be creature health at this point. A lvl 60 fighter is the extreme as a melee class. Its only purpose is to hit things. The gap in ability should keep increasing. Rogues SA should keep going up, monk unarmed damage should keep going up. The same things that were supposedly balancing them up to that point should still be there. Fighters are the only ones whose damage doesn't go up as much. A greatsword does 2d6 at lvl 1 and 2d6 at lvl 20. Everything else a fighter can use to raise his damage, so can everyone else. For a fighter to be only 5 ahead in attack bonus after lvl 20 is a factor that increases the power gaps seen in the game.
UnknownMourner 02-21-07, 12:31 AM	Change it if you want it that way
ZolDarklock 02-21-07, 12:50 AM	Official rules are for official tournament play only... at all other times official rules are only a suggestion, not a commandment play the game with whatever rules you the DM want to play by everybody has never agreed on what is the best way, so play it your way
Willie the Duck 02-21-07, 11:29 AM	Again, rule 0 and the ability to change the rules do not mean that the rules are well crafted, or that discussions about their poor craftsmanship are moot.
Zherog 02-21-07, 12:27 PM	You could do it by RAW if you were hasted. With 3.0 haste, yes. But not with 3.5's version of the spell. In 3.0, haste granted an extra partial* action, which could be used for anything. In 3.5, haste grants one extra attack when you make a full attack action. * "partial" action in 3.0 is the equivelant of "standard" action in 3.5
thepuregamer 02-21-07, 01:38 PM	Again, rule 0 and the ability to change the rules do not mean that the rules are well crafted, or that discussions about their poor craftsmanship are moot. That is what I have been saying long windedly the whole time. :tiphat:
Kalarus 02-21-07, 06:48 PM	You can combine skirmish with many shot, right? Can you harm a rouge, who's lvl equals yours, with skirmish? Yes you can use them together, however keep in mind that only ONE arrow gets the skirmish damage bonus, not all of them. As Manyshot says, "Apply precision based damage only once". D&D 3.5 FAQ defines "precision based damage" as sneak attack, skirmish, sudden strike, or any other similar ability which allows you to deal extra damage based on hitting a vital spot. So no shooting multiple arrows with skirmish damage each... and I got the impression that was the actual question. Or maybe I just believe everyone's a powergamer at heart :D
kenicolo 03-06-07, 08:15 PM	I rememeber reading the IMPROVE PRECISE SHOT FEATS where it said: ...if you target a grapling opponnent, yo automaticaly hit.... So as i was shooting a gapling opponenty... i said : the feats says i automaticaly hit him.... so i dont need to roll???? so i kild the guy wuite fast...until i read about cover and grapling and the 50% chance to hit either of the grapling dudes.... So you see they say somethig and us roll with it... not that they also say : THESE RULES ARE SUGGESTION....
Bopple 03-06-07, 08:25 PM	You don't automatically hit grappling opponent without attack roll. It says you automatically 'strike at' the foe you want to hit, rather than hit your ally. You have to make an attack roll.