Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Norfleet" data-source="post: 1249491" data-attributes="member: 11581">The S&S text of ET does not specify that the feat may only be used once per round.So, the key points of contention: The feat may only be used once per round....this is never specified. It DOES specify that you can make one extra melee attack opponent who is denied dexterity bonus, and you can only use this feat against one opponent, but it is not specified that it can be fired only once per round, merely that you may only attack one opponent, regardless of how many opponents are dex-deprived by any single event that triggers denial-of-dexterity. If you are invisible and walk into a crowd, a single event which triggers denial-of-dexterity, you receive only one attack, not multiple attacks against all opponents.The other point of contention is "before or after your regular action". The term "regular action" is not defined, and can be interpreted as meaning that the extra attack must be taken before or after an action, not during, so a run-by stabbing could not be performed while performing a run action, since the attack must be taken before or after the action. "Regular" seems to be a meaningless qualifier, unless some actions are deemed irregular, and therefore unsuitable for consideration as regular actions.The errata suggests that a "regular" action apparently means after an action, either an MEA, or a standard action, and that the feat is not limited to firing once per round only.Thus, the errata'ed sequence, an MEA feint (regular action), is followed by an ET extra attack, and then can be followed by another MEA feint (another regular action), which triggers a second denial-of-dexterity event, allowing a second extra attack that follows immediately.Since the errata text does not directly contradict the above, AFAICT, it appears that the errata, while questionable to some, is one possible correct interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification