Complete Adventurer (merged)

[JPL]

OK, another question about the exemplar: what, if anything, does the intro text suggest as far as areas of expertise? Some of the class abilities seemed better suited for certain skills [although using Craft: pottery to make a Diplomacy check is fine with me...]

And what's the sample character's area of expertise?

OK, that's two questions.

[JPL thinking about his dwarf fighter / master chef...]

 

[Psion]

The bardic alignment restriction makes no sense whatsoever anyhow. It was one of the first things I house-ruled out in 3E.

Lots of nonsensical restrictions (i.e., monk and paladin multiclass restrictions) get waved off as freebies in the ascetic and devoted feats.

 

[Psion]

Wild guess: name change due to the Shifter race from Eberron.

I'm wondering when the Sharn (FR creature) is due for a name change.

 

[CronoDekar]

Virtuoso performance doesn't affect spellcasting or magic item activation, unlike a Bard [not really sure what the effect of this is mechanically].

When using bardic song normally, you can't cast spells or use spell completion/magic word items while you are singing; this restriction is apparently removed when using a virtuoso performance (this is a change from the S&S virtuoso).

 

[Darkness]

I'm wondering when the Sharn (FR creature) is due for a name change.

Right, they'll probably add another 'n.'

 

[Psion]

The FAQ answer was written by Skip Williams.

Skip's made bad calls before. See burst weapons (which Monte explained his intent when writing was clearly contradictory to Skip's call.)

The Manyshot feat was written by Andy Collins; when he was queried on the SotR question in his pre-Sage days, he stated that he had deliberately phrased it as "standard action" and not as "attack action" to prevent the combination with SotR.

The Attack action is a standard action that allows you to make a single attack. The Full Attack action is a full round action that allows you to make one or more attacks. The Charge action is a full round action that allows you to make a single melee attack following a move.

If you have a feat that requires the Attack action or Full Attack action - like Combat Expertise - you can't use it if you Charge, even though when you charge, you make an attack. Because that attack does not result from an Attack action or Full Attack action; it results from the Charge action. Thus, you are not taking 'the Attack action or the Full Attack action', and are not eligible to use Combat Expertise.

That's very bad game design IMO. Because then you have to remember niggly situations in which effects apply. When the feats merely apply as exceptions to the existing rules, vice existing in their own rules-space, you can merely assume that all other aspects of the rules apply as normal. You start "lawyering" the rules like this, pretty soon you need a lawyer to understand it.

 

[Psion]

OK, another question about the exemplar: what, if anything, does the intro text suggest as far as areas of expertise?

No recommendations.

And what's the sample character's area of expertise?

Perform (sing) and Tumble, IIRC.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because then you have to remember niggly situations in which effects apply.

Huh? What's niggly?

Are you taking the Attack action with a melee weapon? If yes, you can Spring Attack. If no, you can't.

Are you taking the Attack action or Full Attack action in melee? If yes, you can use Combat Expertise. If no, you can't.

When the feats merely apply as exceptions to the existing rules, vice existing in their own rules-space, you can merely assume that all other aspects of the rules apply as normal.

The feat does apply as an exception to the existing rules.

Normally, you can't take a standard action to fire multiple arrows at a single target with a penalty to the attack roll.

With Manyshot, you can.

All other aspects of the rules apply as normal. Since you're not taking the Attack action with a ranged weapon, you can't use Shot on the Run... just like the normal rules.

-Hyp.

 

[Psion]

The feat does apply as an exception to the existing rules.

No, it makes its own "action" it seems.

Normally, you can't take a standard action to fire multiple arrows at a single target with a penalty to the attack roll.

With Manyshot, you can.

All other aspects of the rules apply as normal.

No, because now you have a whole new action which is technically not an attack action, it is a "attack as a standard action." Which, as is being clearly demonstrated, has implications beyond what is clearly spelled out in the feat description.

The rules describe how to resolve an attack and a full attack; all variations should spring from those. We should NOT have to create a new sort of attack for every feat that lets you deviate from the rules.

As I said intitially, attack actions are defined in the rules, with things like how you resolve them and attacks of opportunity. All of a sudden we are expected to make assumptions about how these special attacks are resolved, but find that we cannot assume it operates like an attack action in all ways... just in ways that Andy Collins wants you to. Not being spelled out in the feat, we have to either read his mind or wait for the inevitable clarification. Think about it: I can't even make an assumption about whether or not I suffer an attack of opportunity when performing a dual strike. I would assume I would not, because I would not for an attack action, and I would feel fairly safe in making that call. But since it's not technically an attack action, I technically can't make that call.

 

[drnuncheon]

Huh? What's niggly?

"You're attacking, but you're not using the attack action." That sounds pretty niggly to me. I understand how the rule works perfectly, but it doesn't lend itself easily to plausible in-game explanations.

J