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="Hardhead" data-source="post: 1401483" data-attributes="member: 2844">OK, then what if I hit someone with a SA, then cleave onto another, all with a standard action.  By your "one standard action = one attack" rule (which, BTW, is not supported by the rules in the SRD that I can find, and you've quoted none to back it up, but for the sake of argument, assuming it's in there somewhere), you don't get a sneak attack on the second guy, even if he's flat footed. I'm aware of what your position on the subject is.  That's been stated clearly.  What I'm not clear on is where you're getting this rule from for 3.5. OK, I'll be generous.  Even though it's listed in the "Special" entry under the feat, and you'd therefore assume it was specific to that feat, let's assume that it's a general rule that's somehow been misplaced.  It says "Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage."If that's true, and it's a general rule, you also don't get SA when using Rapid Shot, since you're firing multiple arrows.  Hell, you don't get a SA when preforming a full round action and shooting a bunch of arrows.But, even then, it still says nothing about "volley" attacks (which is not a defined term in 3.5, and as best as I can tell, not used anywhere in the SRD) in general.  Just about arrows.Follow you so far.  And, I'd like to point out, I've never argued that it wasn't a rule in 3.0.  I've only argued that the rule was removed in 3.5.Here, we disagree, aparently.  I'm of the opinion that since this rule hasn't been mentioned in the 3.5 rulebooks, then it's not a rule in 3.5.   Here... I totally agree.  My point is not, and has never been, that it's a balanced rule.  As I said, my group limits SA's to once per round (this was imposed when another person was DMing, and I use it when I'm DMing too).  I doubt SAs were supposed to be quite as common as they ended up being.  The "spirit" of the rule is almost certainly not that you should be able to deal a hojillion d6 damage with Scorching Rays.  Your way may even be how it's supposed to work, and they forgot to put it in the rulebooks.  More likely, I think, they figured the "volley" attack rule, without shuriken, was specialized enough they could just put it under the only "volley" attack in 3.5, Manyshot, and not worry about it.. forgetting about that new ray spell they added.But, I'm arguing that, as far as the rules are concerned, it's legal.  It's certainly not balanced.  It's most likely not what they intended.  But it's what the 3.5 rules say happens.</blockquote>

Verification