Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thedmstrikes" data-source="post: 4820438" data-attributes="member: 56834">Wow....and I thought my players got into the rules alot.... I have a few things to contribute, so please be patient and of course, do not feel attacked or sleighted if I disagree with your interpretation.  So, here we go: It seemed that this question was answered by the time I logged in today, however, there are two points near the end I would like to address.  First up is a disagrement based on a chart.  I have been an active peruser of rules questions for quite some time and have even chatted with rules designers in the past over some trivial things.  One of the things that all my sources are adamant in answering rules questions is that if there is a discrepancy between a chart and a text passage, the text passage trumps everytime.  The charts are supposed to be placed there as a visual confirmation of the text and are not supposed to contradict them in any way.  That said, 99.9% of these disagreements fall into one of two categories:  typos and human error.  Typos are self explanatory and usually corrected by updates and errata.  Human error involves several different points of view, but normally the incorrect party figures things out when they recheck their facts against the chart again.  Now that we have had to bear this entire disertation about charts and text, I believe the argument involving attacks based on the chart referenced is flawed becasue the title of the chart is standard actions.  This completely agrees with the text in the SRD at the beginning of the section.  An attack (any of three types) is a standard action and has been covered already in this post so I will not speak on it any further. The second thing I would like to talk about is the Boots.  I do not have any of my references available, so my logic may be flawed without consulting the text verbage, but if it is as simple as stating that a charge can be equal to a standard action instead of a full round action, I can offer this: I would rule that the magic of the boots allows you to "charge" as a standard action (as if you had only a standard action), then you could take any free actions (sans 5' move as it is prohibited if you charge in any case) or move actions afterward (or before just to be thorough).  Does this mean you can spring attack?  No, not as I have presented it (for two reasons).  First, the movement afterward would be a considered a different action and not subject to spring attack.  Second, the charge description clearly states that the attack comes at the end of movement, thus leaving no opportunity to move afterward as part of the same action and thus activating the spring attack benefits.  Here is the meat of this theory of mine:  yes, technically the character has moved after the attack during the same round, but spring attack has to be part of a single action, not a full round of actions. The character would still benefit from the effects of mobility and dodge (if used against the recipient of the charge) when he/she moves away after the attack.  One last thing to consider (and you will not find this in the SRD) is there are a series of feats in one of the books I got from WOTC that augmented a charge (i.e. allowing a single 45 degree turn during the charge) but I do not remember the full range of them or their sourcebook name (I am away from home at the moment).  One of these feats may be useful in deciphering the actual effects of the boots with a little more certainty.</blockquote>

Verification