Shot on the Run

[Storyteller01]

FFG came out with a feat that does allow movement while making a full attack for their Dragon Star line. Huge feat chain, and the design was to make fireams more viable in combat.

Still, that's a full-attack action while making (I believe) a movement at base speed. Much deadlier than manyshot using shpt on the run, and if I've read previous posts right FFG is a rather reputable company...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, while the author may have intended that the Manyshot feat won't work with Shot on the Run, the wordeing clearly does not serve his purpose admirably. Had it done so, no Sage intervention would have been necessary. The problem was the ambiguity of using the term 'standard action' when any attack action used with Shot on the Run must also be a standard action (as opposed to a full action). The initial wording of Manyshot should have included the caveat that it cannot be used with Shot on the Run to avoid that problem.

While I agree that it may be necessary to include such "doesn't work with Shot On The Run" text for additional clarity, I have to admit that the feat seems crystal clear to me as written. Manyshot is a standard action. Shot On The Run requires a specific standard action, the Attack action. Manyshot is not the Attack action.

I'm sure you already know this, but I honestly do not see where it "clearly does not serve his purpose admirably" unless you are merely arguing that "because a number of people do not understand, it must not be clear." I would argue that line of reasoning is a fallacy, since there are a number of reasons why some might not understand, other than that the text isn't clear.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

FFG came out with a feat that does allow movement while making a full attack for their Dragon Star line. Huge feat chain, and the design was to make fireams more viable in combat.

Still, that's a full-attack action while making (I believe) a movement at base speed. Much deadlier than manyshot using shpt on the run, and if I've read previous posts right FFG is a rather reputable company...

This has little bearing on Shot On The Run. You note that this Pounce-like feat is part of a "huge feat chain," written for a non-D&D game, and intended for a different weapon. The balance considerations are going to be a bit different than for Shot On The Run.

 

[Storyteller01]

This has little bearing on Shot On The Run. You note that this Pounce-like feat is part of a "huge feat chain," written for a non-D&D game, and intended for a different weapon. The balance considerations are going to be a bit different than for Shot On The Run.

Just bustin' chops for 3rd party sources (besides, the feat was named "Improved Shot on the Run")

Realistically, It's not unheard of to fire multiple shots with a bow while moving. Personally, I'd say that you can only move at half the movement rate if you want accuaracy (given how touchy bows are, with having to watch your breathing and keep that upper body from moving ). You'd still be pulling negatives from the Multishot feat. Otherwise you're shooting blind (which would waste ammo...).

 

[Thanee]

This isn't true. You'll note in my previous example that the Archer gets two full attacks for the Fighter's every one. Why? Because the Fighter can't know when the Archer is going to full attack, and when he's going to use Shot On The Run, and the Fighter has to choose whether to Ready An Action or Delay without knowing that.

How so?

Archer starts by shooting once and then disappears. Fighter readies.

Archer reappears, Fighter shoots, Archer shoots and vanishes (could also do a full attack and stay in view).
Fighter either readies again to shoot once, or full attacks.

Now if the Archer full attacked, he could full attack again and then disappear, but the Fighter can then also full attack (someone else ).

And there are many other options for both, the Fighter could just run to the corner and deny the Archer his hiding place completely, the Archer then could try to find a new one. Basically both are occupied with each other, but the Fighter does not have to, the threat to be able to shoot the weak Archer alone is enough to limit the Archer's attacks, while the Fighter could unleash his full potential every round, by simply ignoring the Archer, whenever he does not present himself in full view (after a full attack).

In my experience, absolutely not true. The archer (in general) has a worse AC and worse HP than the frontline fighters, and is also farther away from the cleric. If the archer can shift attacks away from himself and onto the fighters (who will have a much better chance of not taking any damage from them) he's doing his party a service.

Not, if he is doing "nothing" by himself in the meantime.

If, OTOH, you find yourself in forested areas, chambers with pillars and statues, mazes, running through town squares, etc., then Shot On The Run will pay off well.

Yeah, in such a terrain, it's a moderately useful feat.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lord Pendragon]

How so?

I think my previous post made it fairly clear. The fighter loses attacks because he's forced to ready or delay to try and attack the archer. If he guesses what the archer's going to do correctly, they exchange an equal number of attacks. If the fighter guesses incorrectly, the archer winds up getting in more attacks.

Now if the Archer full attacked, he could full attack again and then disappear, but the Fighter can then also full attack (someone else ).

My scenario assumed two things. First, that the fighter and archer were facing off against each other. And second, that the fighter can't simply charge the archer's position. Perhaps there's a chasm there, or the archer's on a fortified wall. Or the archer has a fighter partymate with Hold The Line and a glaive. The idea is that Shot On The Run allows the archer to make more attacks than the fighter.

And there are many other options for both, the Fighter could just run to the corner and deny the Archer his hiding place completely, the Archer then could try to find a new one. Basically both are occupied with each other, but the Fighter does not have to, the threat to be able to shoot the weak Archer alone is enough to limit the Archer's attacks, while the Fighter could unleash his full potential every round, by simply ignoring the Archer, whenever he does not present himself in full view (after a full attack).

Not quite. Again, my scenario was showing the usefulness of the feat, assuming that the archer has party support. Solo, I will agree that it's not so good, exactly for the reasons you mention. The fighter can charge the archer's position, etc. etc.

But as the archer in a party, it's very good. And no, the "threat to be able to shoot the weak Archer alone" isn't enough to limit the archer's attacks. It's exactly by mixing in full attacks that the archer gains the advantage. He can't be successfully predicted, so he forces the fighter to lose attacks.

Not, if he is doing "nothing" by himself in the meantime.

Whoever said anything about doing "nothing" by himself? The archer is attacking the fighter every round!

Yeah, in such a terrain, it's a moderately useful feat.

It ain't Power Attack with a greataxe, but so long as cover is available, it's a good feat. Thus far it's been my experience that such cover is usually available. YMMV.

 

[billd91]

While I agree that it may be necessary to include such "doesn't work with Shot On The Run" text for additional clarity, I have to admit that the feat seems crystal clear to me as written. Manyshot is a standard action. Shot On The Run requires a specific standard action, the Attack action. Manyshot is not the Attack action.

I'm sure you already know this, but I honestly do not see where it "clearly does not serve his purpose admirably" unless you are merely arguing that "because a number of people do not understand, it must not be clear." I would argue that line of reasoning is a fallacy, since there are a number of reasons why some might not understand, other than that the text isn't clear.

You say that Manyshot is not THE attack action, but it clearly is AN attack action (because you are making a single attack) that is also a standard action... and so is the attack action involved in Shot on the Run because it is, by necessity, the only attack that can be made with a move action. That's a significant ambiguity that generated a lot of discussion on this board and others. If the standard for having clarity in the text and admirably serving the author's intention includes that level of ambiguity, then it's a poor standard. Adding the caveat that it can't be used with Shot on the Run, while seeming arbitrary, would have been unambiguous on that point.

Personally, I don't see it as particularly unbalancing either way to use Multishot with Shot on the Run. But that's a different question. Based on the FAQ, Multishot not being useable with Shot on the Run is the RAW.

 

[Thanee]

@Lord Pendragon: I just think, that the scenarios, which play up on the usefulness of SotR are extremely limited. Often you can have an almost equal effect by simply moving and shooting or shooting and moving.

With doing "nothing" I was referring to making only a single attack each round, whereas the Fighter can do a full attack every round, thus is much more effective as a whole.

If you assume, that the Archer and Fighter are facing off against each other, but in the same light assume, that it is not only them in the combat, then I must say, that these assumptions will almost never appear in a "realistic" scenario.

If the Fighter is forced to ready, there must be nothing else he can do, because if there is, he won't ready. Thus he only ever loses attacks at the same rate as the Archer, who stays out of view for the time, because if not, the Fighter can shoot and ready again all within the same round. The loss you refer to is an artificial construct caused by the faulty assumptions (see above).

And that's why I think SotR is bad, it might be cool in theory, but it fails to achieve that in practice.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

@billd91: Sorry, but there really is no ambiguity.

SotR can only be used when using the Attack Action, which is a limited form of a Standard Action (it is one particular Standard Action).

MS is a Standard Action, but it is neither the Attack Action nor an Attack Action (it's another particular Standard Action). It's an attack, however (which is important for Invisibility, for example).

Manyshot is on the same level as the Attack Action.

Standard Actions:
-Attack
-Cast a Spell
-Drink a Potion
-Use Manyshot
-...

While you can substitute a special attack (like Trip or Grapple) for an Attack Action, you cannot substitute another Standard Action for the Attack Action.

It's the same reason, why you cannot use Dirty Fighting or Circle Kick with the Full Attack Action, since using them is a Full Attack Action by itself (thx Hyp ).

The only problem here is that some people do not see the difference between Standard Action and Attack Action as defined in the rules, but it's not a problem with the rules, they are unambiguous.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's the same reason, why you cannot use Dirty Fighting or Circle Kick with the Full Attack Action, since using them is a Standard Action.

No, that's different (from memory, anyway). With Dirty Fighting and Circle Kick, you take the Full Attack action, give up all your regular attacks, and instead make a single attack with some special effect.

They're much closer to the way Whirlwind Attack works than the way Manyshot works.

For example (if I'm remembering correctly), you can use Combat Expertise with Circle Kick, since you're taking the Full Attack action. You can use Combat Expertise with Whirlwind Attack, since you're taking the Full Attack action. However, you can't use Combat Expertise with the S&F Weaopn Master's Ki Whirlwind, since that's a standard action in its own right, not the Attack action or the Full Attack action.

-Hyp.