Should an Arcane Archer roll to beat SR when using bow?
Only if he's using the class feature to imbue his arrow with a spell and that spell has SR. If he's just attacking with his regular +x enhancement bonus arrows from class, why the hell would he have to roll SR? Do you require that of anyone else using magic weapons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeson
Can you spread attacks among different targets? (A PC drops a target with first attack but has 3 more to go.)
Of course. Those targets have to be in range to attack, though. Which is a much bigger issue in melee than with a bow. Do note you can take your 5 ft step in between attacks if you need to to reach a new target with your sword, assuming you did not move in any other fashion during the round (and if you're taking a full attack action, that's highly doubtful).
Part of the benefit to ranged combat is that you can basically always get your full attack. There are a lot of downsides, however. (greatly lower damage compared to melee; susceptability to tons of "instantly lose" effects like Deflect Arrows feat and the Wind Wall spell; etc...)
EDIT: Upon noticing your custom title...what was your position in these arguments?
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Again, if there's a spell attached to the arrow, the spell might allow SR. Just firing a +3 arrow does NOT potentially fail against SR. Magic weapons work to full effect against SR.
As far as the full attacks... Actions In Combat :: d20srd.org
"You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones."
Note, the plural on attacks and targets. You can choose multiple targets, and you can choose them as your attack routine progresses, not when you start (potentially losing attacks devoted to a target you down early).
Your ruling of needing Cleave is a houserule, and if that's how it works in your game, should have been stated at the start of the campaign if possible, and certainly not on the spot like that. Also, your houserule STILL would not apply to ranged attacks (I'm going out on a limb and assuming both questions relate to the arcane archer character), since Cleave can only be used with melee attacks, and thus you would basically be saying ranged attackers are never allowed to multitarget, since you've given them no avenue for doing so. Which is clearly in violation of the expected normality. Look at the Manyshot feat. Why specify that you can only make the attacks of this feat on a single creature if that's the normal restriction on ranged attacks anyway?
The DM is wrong when he deviates from the written rules after implicitly or explicitly informing the players that they are the rules of his game.
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Yes it's the same character. It wasn't a house rule. More of confusion of rules with with older editions or other games entirely. The more I think about, years ago there was a question of why all attacks had to be at the same target. It was house ruled in that group after that multiple attacks can go against different targets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky
The DM is wrong when he deviates from the written rules after implicitly or explicitly informing the players that they are the rules of his game.
I know that is not always going to work. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if she threatened to leave the game because I wouldn't let her play the character as she wanted.
__________________
We're all mutants. The remarkable thing is how many of us appear to be normal. -- Walter Bishop
it's not that she can't play her character as she "wants". it's that she can't play her character as the rules go. and without warning your players beforehand that you've houseruled something, you're basicly cheating them, hiding behind the Rule 0.
i wouldn't be surprised if they started leaving your group either. if you want to preserve your players' respect and trust in you, you should really think about changing your approach to DMing.
just a friendly advice.
I'm assuming that this player has committed horrible crimes against you and earned your enmity somehow? Perhaps you have sworn some sort of vow to make them suffer?
That's the only possible reason I can think of that you would DECREASE the power of the Arcane Archer from the rules as written.
SR doesn't apply to magical weapons, nor do you require a feat to switch targets with a weapon. If you've chosen to change these rules as the DM, you should have a good reason. What is it?
I know that is not always going to work. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if she threatened to leave the game because I wouldn't let her play the character as she wanted.
That is a poor attitude to take as a gamemaster. The DM needs to be open to input from his players, especially when he is completely changing an established rule in the game concerning iterative attacks. I agree with the others that if this was something you actually meant to change, that it should have been discussed prior to campaign start and character generation.
If it was a mistake on your part as a GM not understanding the rules, you should man up to the mistake, and let the player play the PC as it was meant to be played, instead of invoking Rule 0.
__________________ -Rhun
"I believe that imagination is stronger than knowledge - myth is more potent than history - dreams are more powerful than facts - hope always triumphs over experience - laughter is the cure for grief - love is stronger than death." -Robert Fulghum
I'm assuming that this player has committed horrible crimes against you and earned your enmity somehow? Perhaps you have sworn some sort of vow to make them suffer?
That's the only possible reason I can think of that you would DECREASE the power of the Arcane Archer from the rules as written.
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
The ruleset allows for other attacks to be directed at other valid targets. One of the big reason you have to take iterative attacks in order. As long as the player did not cast the dice for all the attacks at once at the first foe, the following attacks can be directed at other targets.
No one has heard of making a honest mistake when it comes to rules? I never claimed to be perfect. This wasn't house rules, it was misreading the rules. On my part or the players part is what I've been trying to figure out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankthedm
The ruleset allows for other attacks to be directed at other valid targets. One of the big reason you have to take iterative attacks in order. As long as the player did not cast the dice for all the attacks at once at the first foe, the following attacks can be directed at other targets.
Manyshot does not have this option however.
Let me ask this. The attack rolls are rolled at the same time. When she sees a hit drops the target she wanted to move to the next. Would that be any different?
__________________
We're all mutants. The remarkable thing is how many of us appear to be normal. -- Walter Bishop
Let me ask this. The attack rolls are rolled at the same time. When she sees a hit drops the target she wanted to move to the next. Would that be any different?
The rules don't say anything on that. I'd allow it, because if anything, the player probably did that in the first place to speed up combat. Taking a hard stance like that would only encourage the player to roll one attack at a time, just to not potentially get screwed over, and make his/her turn take longer.
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Last edited by StreamOfTheSky; 22nd June 2009 at 11:53 PM..
Let me ask this. The attack rolls are rolled at the same time. When she sees a hit drops the target she wanted to move to the next. Would that be any different?
There's really no reason to do this, especially if you are using a time-saving method like rolling all attacks and damage at the same time.
You need to specify which die belongs to which attack so you can incorporate the appropriate attack modifiers.
Also PHB pg 143
Quote:
After you first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out.
Sure seems to say that you roll them 1 attack at a time - or at least the first attack roll is done first and then you can decide what to do with the remaining attacks after the results are known.
Rules Compendium pg 17
Quote:
As you make your attacks, you specify your targets. You can see how the ealrlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
Looks like you are supposed to specify each target as you make the attack and you must do them from highest bonus to lowest. (RC pg 17 and PHB pg 143)
"If you don't run your games by the RAW and don't inform the players of the fact that you have not memorized every rule in the book, you are a bad DM"
Why not just tell him flat out that he's a bad DM because he made a bad call in-game? After all, good DMs never ever make mistakes.
Funny, people defending people who are undeniably WRONG and who refuse to be humble enough to admit it annoys ME to no end.
I never said he's a bad DM. It's ok to make mistakes, I do all the time. And I admit it, and I apologize. And I try to not make the same mistake again. I even said it was ok to make houserules, as long as the players have fair warning. If a DM told me I wasn't allowed to ever multitarget with a ranged weapon, I wouldn't play an archer, and if that rule was in-stated mid-campaign, I would demand to make a new character...but it's perfectly fine for a DM to do that.
Go untwist your panties and stop putting words in my mouth.
Both of you, go read my post on the next page. ~PCat
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Last edited by Piratecat; 23rd June 2009 at 03:45 PM..
Can we keep it on topic? And the topic is not my skills as a DM. You don't have enough information to make that judgement.
It seems irdeggman has the same reading of the rule as I do. Attacks are made against 1 target unless specified before rolling. I have no problem with rolling at the same time to save time but you need to inform before hand what you intend to do with your attacks.
__________________
We're all mutants. The remarkable thing is how many of us appear to be normal. -- Walter Bishop
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
