Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1850960" data-attributes="member: 707">But the rest of Thanee's post was correct. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />billd91:&nbsp; &quot;Attack Action&quot; is not defined by D&amp;D as &quot;any action which includes an attack,&quot; as you seem to be suggesting.&nbsp; If it were, the designation would be so broad as to be useless, including several spells as well as melee combat options.&nbsp; For the purposes of invisibility and the like &quot;an attack&quot; is is closer to what you're suggesting.&nbsp; But &quot;Attack Action&quot; has a very specific definition in D&amp;D.&nbsp; It's a specific Standard Action, in which you make one attack against your foe.&nbsp; MS was defined as a Standard Action, not a modification of the Attack Action.&nbsp; As Thanee pointed out, MS is an alternative to the Attack Action, not a modification to it.Perhaps, perhaps not.&nbsp; If the wizard is invisible and the archer is using SotR to duck in and out of cover, the only other targets for the fighter are going to be the opposing fighter and the opposing cleric.&nbsp; Both are likely to have very high AC and HPs, and the cleric has healing at his fingertips.&nbsp; If Archer stayed out in the open, Fighter might drop him.&nbsp; But instead he uses SotR to protect himself from most damage (while still dealing some each round).&nbsp; Fighter turns his attacks on the opposing fighter and cleric, who can handle the attention.&nbsp; Then, when Fighter is dead, Archer pops back into the open and concentrates all his attacks on the monk.I'm not suggesting--and hope I haven't given the impression--that SotR is going to net an archer the best possible damage rate per round.&nbsp; Any time he uses it, he's going to be giving up attacks for defense.&nbsp; But staying alive by strategically boosting one's defense at key moments is, IME, very valuable.In the previous example, wherein I basically deliniated an &quot;archer showdown&quot; with both combatants attacking at range, SotR also has the added advantage of robbing an opponent of more attacks than the SotR archer gives up.I will admit, though, that the &quot;archer showdown&quot; does not occur every session.&nbsp; Still, it shows another way in which SotR can be tactically useful.&nbsp; And it can be created by a clever party and a bit of spellcasting. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You may be right about that, Thanee, looking over my example again.&nbsp; It's an &quot;archer showdown&quot; which may not occur often.&nbsp; But it certainly can occur.&nbsp; And as I've noted above in this post, the archer still scores a tactical win if the fighter turns his attacks on the fighter and cleric.Huh?&nbsp; I think you need to rephrase this last part, because I'm not understanding you at all.&nbsp; How is the fighter going to shoot and ready in the same round?&nbsp; Ready is a Standard Action.&nbsp; To shoot he needs either a Standard Action, or a Full-Round Action...?&nbsp; The whole reason SotR has tactical effectiveness is because the fighter can't shoot and ready in the same round.&nbsp; He has to choose.&nbsp; His only other option is to delay.Now, it's entirely possible, as you say, that the fighter can choose not to lose his attacks if he delays and the archer uses SotR.&nbsp; He could instead fire off those arrows at someone else with a better AC and HP.&nbsp; Again, by continuing to attack, and diverting the fighter's attacks to his own tank, the archer is doing well, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Pendragon, post: 1850960, member: 707"] But the rest of Thanee's post was correct. :) billd91: "Attack Action" is not defined by D&D as "any action which includes an attack," as you seem to be suggesting. If it were, the designation would be so broad as to be useless, including several spells as well as melee combat options. For the purposes of [i]invisibility[/i] and the like "an attack" is is closer to what you're suggesting. But "Attack Action" has a very specific definition in D&D. It's a specific Standard Action, in which you make one attack against your foe. MS was defined as a Standard Action, not a modification of the Attack Action. As Thanee pointed out, MS is an alternative to the Attack Action, not a modification to it.Perhaps, perhaps not. If the wizard is invisible and the archer is using SotR to duck in and out of cover, the only other targets for the fighter are going to be the opposing fighter and the opposing cleric. Both are likely to have very high AC and HPs, and the cleric has healing at his fingertips. If Archer stayed out in the open, Fighter might drop him. But instead he uses SotR to protect himself from most damage (while still dealing some each round). Fighter turns his attacks on the opposing fighter and cleric, who can handle the attention. Then, when Fighter is dead, Archer pops back into the open and concentrates all his attacks on the monk. I'm not suggesting--and hope I haven't given the impression--that SotR is going to net an archer the best possible damage rate per round. Any time he uses it, he's going to be giving up attacks for defense. But staying alive by strategically boosting one's defense at key moments is, IME, very valuable. In the previous example, wherein I basically deliniated an "archer showdown" with both combatants attacking at range, SotR also has the added advantage of robbing an opponent of more attacks than the SotR archer gives up. I will admit, though, that the "archer showdown" does not occur every session. Still, it shows another way in which SotR can be tactically useful. And it [i]can[/i] be created by a clever party and a bit of spellcasting. :)You may be right about that, Thanee, looking over my example again. It's an "archer showdown" which may not occur often. But it certainly can occur. And as I've noted above in this post, the archer still scores a tactical win if the fighter turns his attacks on the fighter and cleric.Huh? I think you need to rephrase this last part, because I'm not understanding you at all. How is the fighter going to shoot and ready in the same round? Ready is a Standard Action. To shoot he needs either a Standard Action, or a Full-Round Action...? The whole reason SotR has tactical effectiveness is because the fighter [i]can't[/i] shoot and ready in the same round. He has to choose. His only other option is to delay. Now, it's entirely possible, as you say, that the fighter can choose [i]not[/i] to lose his attacks if he delays and the archer uses SotR. He could instead fire off those arrows at someone else with a better AC and HP. Again, by continuing to attack, and diverting the fighter's attacks to his own tank, the archer is doing well, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification