Shot on the Run, Manyshot and stuff :)

[Hypersmurf]

So if you as an archer make a full attack action, you provoke an AoO for each shot you fire? Cool.

That's certainly how I'd run it.

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Not that it would matter since the first AoO will most likely be a Disarm...

 

[Elvinis75]

By the rules fine. However it makes no logical sense. Just a thought guys. If firing a bow once is an attack action and firing it multiple times is a full attack action. Both of them are still ranged attacks as defined.

Shot on the run allows a make an attack with a ranged weapon and still move before and after.

Multishot allows the firing of multiple arrows (bow only) as a standard action. I know that this is not the same thing as an attack however consider the differences between MS and all other Standard Actions. 80-90% are excluded from even being a possibility. Why not a spell, magic item, or SN ability? Because they are not “a ranged weapon”. Not just an attack at range but it must be a weapon. A bow is the only weapon that applies to MS. In my mind it is very much common sense that a bow doesn’t stop being “a ranged weapon” if multiple arrows are fired out of it at the same time. So it is still “a ranged weapon”. Finally we come back to SOTR. MS is not multiple attacks. It is an attack. One attack roll. The bow that fires that volley of arrows with a single release and is still a ranged weapon. Thus rules over-examining aside(official or not) the common sense is very common. Single shot with only a bow is a perfect match. The number of arrows on the string isn’t a factor. If someone can show me some other common sense I’d be willing to listen. So far I haven’t heard it. The bag o rat and whirlwind GC worked BTR if you ignore common sense to. Azazu use the rules that make sense for your campaign. If you are curious it is one thing but yet another to blindly follow rules that don't seem to make sense. All of course IMHO.

 

[Darklone]

It's called Manyshot.

Noone stops you from houseruling it. We pointed out the rules as they are, the arguments for these rules, the comments of the designers...

If you want a discussion about common sense... go into your garden and try to shoot even 2 arrows from one bow. Compare how the arrows fly if you shoot only one.
Tried it? Ok. Now you will agree that Manyshot does not make any sense at all.

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

By the rules fine. However it makes no ... All of course IMHO.

I'm confused. What exactly was your point? That the rules make no sense? Heh. Can you point out a single instance in the rules where anything makes sense? Forget combat - no facing, and delimited movements. Forget magic - magic making sense is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Character generation? Potentially, until you realize you're talking about fictional characters that exist only on paper having personality - that makes no sense, now does it?

Of course, you could say that about drama and theatre, too, right?

Okay, I'll bite back my sarcastic tongue and stop the sarcasm.

Of course the rules make no sense - they are abstractions to allow fictional characters to do things that we see fictional characters 'in the movies' do. You want realism? Go hunting rhino with a bow and spear.

I.E. It's a game. The rule is balanced. Spring attack allows a melee fighter to do the exact same thing - move, attack, move. Shot on the Run allows you to move, shoot, move. Many shot allows you to shoot like you were Legolas of the Lord of the Rings movies. Whirlwind attack allows you to strike at multiple opponnents in melee, like Conan the Barbarian. These make sense, in so far as the game is emulating the movies, and are balanced in that you can't do both the move, attack, move and the 'attack everything' together.


And one last comment. Does it make any kind of sense to attempt to apply common sense and logic to the system of a game designed to allow fantasy combat between fictional characters in an a highly abstracted manner???

That's like saying a sci-fi novel has to fit within known realms of physics. It doesn't work, never has, never well.


So don't bring common sense to the table of fantasy gaming - it's as out of place as a knife at the OK Corral Gunfight.



Now if you want to talk house rules about making the game more realistic, I'd be happy to discuss such with you over in house rules. I don't like realism rules much, but I can understand them, see how to abuse them, and even ::gasp:: apply some form of logic to them

 

[Camarath]

Thus rules over-examining aside(official or not) the common sense is very common.

I have never found common sense to be that common (either frequent or shared).

 

[Elvinis75]

The name of the feat doesn’t do anything to prove anything using common sense. The skill is defined by the text. The many refers to the number of arrows and shot (singular) refers to an attack. Further the idea that MS does not make sense is not the same as it being unrealistic. In a world that is different that ours where a fighter can swing a Great Sword 5 + times in 6 seconds the nearly impossible becomes possible. So assuming that it is possible and takes as long as a normal attack to launch. Nothing logically sets them apart. I hit a nerve, 3 responses before I could finish writing this. I guess that I’ll agree to disagree that common sense can be used a DM tool. If it isn’t common sense to you then show me how it unbalances the game.

 

[RigaMortus]

Wait a second... full attack action does not draw AoOs, but ranged attacks do?

So if you as an archer make a full attack action, you provoke an AoO for each shot you fire? Cool.

Does this also mean that someone making multiple attacks while unarmed (and not having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat/ability) would also incur multiple AoOs from each of his unarmed attacks in the Full Attack Action?

 

[Darklone]

The name of the feat doesn’t do anything to prove anything using common sense. The skill is defined by the text. The many refers to the number of arrows and shot (singular) refers to an attack. Further the idea that MS does not make sense is not the same as it being unrealistic. In a world that is different that ours where a fighter can swing a Great Sword 5 + times in 6 seconds the nearly impossible becomes possible.

Two things:
- You're one of the dudes who think a greatsword is slow? Hehehhee, it is not. Hitting several dudes several times with it is something that anyone could do.
- One attack in D&D does not consist of one strike/slash/thrust. Read the combat chapter. Read the AoO description. It is assumed that you try to hit your opponent all the time.

 

[Darklone]

Does this also mean that someone making multiple attacks while unarmed (and not having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat/ability) would also incur multiple AoOs from each of his unarmed attacks in the Full Attack Action?

Sure, why not?

Just how many guys do have Combat Reflexes ?