Rules Compendium anti magic field example

[Nyarlathotep]

Spring Attack and Shot on the Run both changed; those changes have never appeared in the PHB Errata document.

-Hyp.

What changed about them?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What changed about them?

PHB says "When you take the Attack action with a ranged/melee weapon, you may move before and after the attack, provided the total distance moved does not exceed your speed."

This is something that made sense in 3E, where the Attack action - a standard action - incorporated attack and movement. But in 3.5, where the Attack action - a standard action - only includes an attack normally, the feat was saying "Your standard action now grants movement up to your speed", which meant you still had a move action left over.

SE PHB says "When you take the Attack action with a ranged/melee weapon, you may split your move action before and after the attack...", which means you're required to spend both a move and a standard action to use the feat.

This has never appeared in an errata document; they just changed it for the SE printing.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't see why the effects would be considered magical.

People get most concerned about spells like Orb of Electricity and Orb of Force.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

This has never appeared in an errata document; they just changed it for the SE printing.

I don't know if I would call that a rule change so much as a clarification.

But yes, the text was changed, and it seems like the sort of thing that should've also appeared in the errata. We could call it "stealth errata", but that seems to imply that WotC did it on purpose. I think it's more likely that they've simply been neglecting the errata.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know if I would call that a rule change so much as a clarification.

Well, the effect is that of a rule change - the number of actions it costs to Spring Attack by the 3.5 rules changed when they changed the text.

If it was how they intended it all along, the original wording wasn't just unclear, it was incorrect.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

If it was how they intended it all along, the original wording wasn't just unclear, it was incorrect.

Interestingly, all groups I've played with interpreted the original text that way, so it seems like it was subject to some interpretation.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Interestingly, all groups I've played with interpreted the original text that way, so it seems like it was subject to some interpretation.

It's the way it worked in 3E, and it was easy to miss that while the wording of the feat apparently hadn't altered its meaning (move before and after when you take the Attack action), the definition of a standard action had changed, creating a follow-on effect.

It was an easy misinterpretation to make, and a good deal of why it was easy was, I suspect, because it was an unintentional change from 3E. The writers didn't mean for the movement to become part of the standard action after they'd just divorced movement from all other standard actions in 3.5... but it did.

I don't agree that "You have to use a move action as well as a standard action" is a valid reading of the wording from the 3.5 original printing, but from the beginning I believed it was what they had probably meant to say, and I ruled accordingly in my own game; once the SE PHB changed the wording, the actual rule came in line with what I was doing already.

But it was a change to the original 3.5 rule.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I don't agree that "You have to use a move action as well as a standard action" is a valid reading of the wording from the 3.5 original printing

I do (as do my groups). But then, I believe that demonstrably RAI readings are valid, and that strict literal readings can sometimes be invalid (something we often disagree on).

 

[fanboy2000]

But in 3.5, where the Attack action - a standard action - only includes an attack normally, the feat was saying "Your standard action now grants movement up to your speed", which meant you still had a move action left over.

Interesting. The feat also says "provided that your total distanced moved is not greater than your speed." This would mean, if you moved your full speed, that while you still still had a move action that could be used before or after your standard action you couldn't actually use it to move. Because moving would put your total above you speed. But you could do useful things like load a light crossbow.

If it hadn't been errataed (sp?), it would qualify as a little know rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This would mean, if you moved your full speed, that while you still still had a move action that could be used before or after your standard action you couldn't actually use it to move. Because moving would put your total above you speed. But you could do useful things like load a light crossbow.

Right.

-Hyp.