Spring Attack & Quicker Than the Eye

[Felix]

I don't run a rogue, so this is purely academic.

My DM told me this was eratta'd, and I don't know if I should believe him, or tell him to sod off for pulling my leg. Here's the combo:


--Use move action to initiate Spring Attack and move forward 15' to engage with the enemy.

--Use standard action as a move action to initiate Quicker than the Eye. Roll Bluff Check.

--[If successful Bluff check] Gain an extra attack against the enemy with him sans Dex to AC, this triggers sneak attack.

----Because you used an attack action with a melee weapon, you may now complete the movement started in Spring Attack, and get out of melee combat.

--[If unsuccessful Bluff check] Do not gain an attack against the enemy, and look silly.

----Because you did not use an attack action with a melee weapon, you may not complete the movement started in Spring Attack, and must remain in melee range.



There is a bit of a problem since Quicker than the Eye gave you an extra Partial Action to do whatever you wanted, and there are no more Partial Actions in 3.5, but I think a simple extra attack vis a vis Haste would be sufficient.

So, tell me: is this an interesting way to immitate a faint and lunge, or a combo y'all have seen so many times it's now pase, or has it been erattad?

Whichever, whaddya think?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Quicker than the Eye never gave you any extra actions.

It allowed you to conceal a Partial Action... but you needed to have that Partial Action available to conceal in the first place.

----------

However, even if it did grant a Partial Action, the fact that you might not get the chance to make your Attack Action would preclude you using Spring Attack. For example, if you foe has reach, then using Spring Attack would prevent him making an AoO as you close. But if you don't take the Attack Action, you're not Spring Attacking, so he would get the AoO. You can't say "Well, I might be able to Spring Attack later, depending on how my Bluff goes, so he can't AoO me now"...

... so you're not Spring Attacking

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

Quicker Than the Eye
Your Hands can move so quickly that observers don't see what you've done.
Prerequisite: Dex 19
Benefit: While under direct observation, you can make a Bluff check as a move equivalent action, opposed by the Spot check of any observers. If you succeed, your misdirection makes them look elsewhere while you take a partial action. If your partial action is an attack against someone who failed the opposed check, that opponent is denied a Dexterity bonus to AC.

No, it doesn't say you gain a Partial Action.

But it doesn't say you DON'T gain a partial action!

Hummph. Well, Hyp, you just stuck your finger in my pie, then asked if I was going to eat it. And this right after talk about rendering Arterial Strike less useful! Gah!

 

[Hypersmurf]

But it doesn't say you DON'T gain a partial action! [/b]

If you add Expert Tactician to the mix, you might be closer. Under the Song and Silence FAQ interpretation of the feat (which I personally think is complete nonsense, and looks like whoever wrote it didn't have the book in front of him, but some people agree with it), your QttE bluff would trigger ET, and you'd get an attack.

However, I still wouldn't allow it to qualify for Spring Attack, because while it's an extra attack, it's not the Attack Action

If you use the Song and Silence FAQ ruling in conjunction with the original, unerrata'd Sword and Fist version of Expert Tactician...

... well, now it's just getting desperate

And this right after talk about rendering Arterial Strike less useful! Gah!

Well, I did only call it a "disputed interpretation" I'm not sure if it's ever been officially clarified one way or the other...

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Well, I did only call it a "disputed interpretation" I'm not sure if it's ever been officially clarified one way or the other...

-Hyp.

What's up with Arterial Strike? Which thread?

 

[Felix]

This was back on the third page of "Is Tumbling too easy, or is my DM running it too easy" thread. You really don't want to read it; it's not that interesting.

I think you can sacrifice as many 1d6 for as many 1 point of wounding as you want. I.E.: 12d6 becomes 12 points of wounding damage each round. Others would argue otherwise.

[Edit] By the way Hyp, what exacty is an Attack Action? Seems to me that any time I roll an attack roll, I make an attack. So what exactly is an Attack Action? AA is not in my PHB...[/Edit]

 

[Hypersmurf]

What's up with Arterial Strike? Which thread?

Can't remember the thread.

But the ambiguity is as to whether you can sub out more than one die of SA damage for Wounding on each attack.

eg If I'm a 13th level Rogue, with +7d6 Sneak Attack, I can definitely instead do +6d6 Sneak Attack and one point of Wounding. But can I do +3d6 Sneak Attack and fourpoints of Wounding on each attack?

EDIT - What Felix said

-Hyp.