Deadeye Shot Feat Question (PHB2)

[Korak]

Actually, with the sundering cleave maneuveur he obtains more than a standard action, unless you are going to state that the extra attack is a non action.

Not all standard actions are created equal. By virtue of feats, class abilities, and other tactical choices, some characters are able to "do more things" with a standard action than other characters.

But you dont have to.

Immaterial. When a human in light armor takes a move action, he doesn't have to use all 6 squares of movement, but whether he moves 3 squares or 6 squares, it is still the same move action. It is not important whether or not a character chooses exercise all the options allowed to him within his action, he has still spent an action, and all those possibilities that he ends up exercising will still fall under the same action.

Bob readies an attack to strike the first creature enters in his threatened area.

Nope... Bob cannot ready an attack.

He doesn't know, of course, if his attack will drop his opponent, so he simply readies an attack action.

That's correct. He readies a standard action: attack

However, he could also add the great cleave feat extra attacks if he drops his opponent and other creatures too, but these attacks were not readied at all.

No the attacks allowed by cleave and great cleave were not readied specifically, but then again, neither was the very first attack. Characters can't ready attacks. They ready actions. Many of the actions that can be readied allow one or more attacks. What Hyp and I are saying is that since a character readies an action, and not an attack, then any attacks allowed by the readied action should be considered readied attacks for purposes of other feats and abilities that refer to readied attacks.

 

[Egres]

What Hyp and I are saying is that since a character readies an action, and not an attack, then any attacks allowed by the readied action should be considered readied attacks for purposes of other feats and abilities that refer to readied attacks.

Check the FAQ.

Readying an "attack on the first creature that attacks my ally" is perfectly legal.

 

[Legildur]

IMO that's just lazy phrasing in the FAQ. I find it a useful document, but it's hardly a reliable source for a rules discussion at this level of detail.

 

[Egres]

IMO that's just lazy phrasing in the FAQ. I find it a useful document, but it's hardly a reliable source for a rules discussion at this level of detail.

Maybe.

Then, let's read the DMG 3.5:

"I shoot the first enemy that comes from the door".

Thats' a perfect example of a readied action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Maybe.

Then, let's read the DMG 3.5:

"I shoot the first enemy that comes from the door".

Thats' a perfect example of a readied action.

And if it were phrased more precisely, it would likely be "I ready the attack action, triggered by the condition of an enemy coming through the door, to make a ranged attack on that enemy with my bow".

Given that the standard, move, or free action someone uses to 'shoot the first enemy' is likely the attack action. If they meant something else, it would pay them to be explicit about it.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Maybe.

Then, let's read the DMG 3.5:

"I shoot the first enemy that comes from the door".

Thats' a perfect example of a readied action.

I wouldn't be hanging my hat on an example of the game in play using 'plain speak' as way to support a rules argument. But that's just me.

 

[Egres]

And if it were phrased more precisely, it would likely be "I ready the attack action, triggered by the condition of an enemy coming through the door, to make a ranged attack on that enemy with my bow".

In your, absolutely respectable, opinion.

But the authors seem to think differently.

 

[moritheil]

I was about to respond to this:

Actually, I don't even think it has to be that specific. You Ready the "cast a spell" action, at which point when the trigger happens, you can cast any spell at that time, you don't need to specify Lesser Orb.

when I saw this:

I don't have a 3.5 DMG handy, but I'm assuming the language is similar - in the 3E DMG, under 'Adjudicating the Ready Action', it notes that the DM should require players to be specific about their action. They don't ready to 'cast a spell'; they have to say which spell. They don't ready an attack; they ready an attack against a specific opponent, or against an opponent who meets specific criteria.

Korak - It may be true that "a character readies an action, and not an attack," but it does not necessarily automatically follow that "any attacks allowed by the readied action should be considered readied attacks." You seem to be implying that it does.

 

[Korak]

Korak - It may be true that "a character readies an action, and not an attack," but it does not necessarily automatically follow that "any attacks allowed by the readied action should be considered readied attacks." You seem to be implying that it does.

No, my second statement is not logically required. However, given the actual rule text which specifies that only actions can be readied combined with the lack of an explicit definition of a "readied attack" leads me to conclude that the simplest explanation for what a readied attack is... is that it's an attack that is made as part of a readied action.