willpell
2012-11-10, 01:20 AM
From the Simple Question per RAW thread:
Q1293
Since a creature with a Gaze Attack can use an "attack action" to inflict its gaze upon someone, and does not need to roll an attack to do so, a creature who gets an iterative attack due to a BAB of 6 can make one weapon attack at their full BAB, then "subtract" 5 BAB for their iterative attack but use that attack to Gaze someone, requiring no attack roll, correct?
Re: A 1289
A 1293 No.
Gaze attacks not produced by a spell are supernatural.
Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise.
The text in the DMG section on gaze attacks does specifically say "an attack action".
Re: A 1293
Yes, and there's one attack action which specifically fits the action requirement: the standard action attack (Player's Handbook, page 139).
Don't confuse "an attack action" with "an attack". You may make one attack in a standard action attack, and possibly multiple attacks (depending on your BAB) in a full attack action. Both of these are attack actions, but only one fits the requirement for Supernatural abilities.
Well then why didn't the gaze attack text say "a standard action"? Why would the term 'an attack action" even exist if it was no different from standard?
This is not a simple question, and, to be honest, do you really need to ask this? :smallwink:
Courtesy of Curmudgeon's response, yes I do. The standard action is the default; it applies when nothing is specified. This clearly does specify a nonexistent type of action-as-unit-of-time, and thus I want to know what the RAI here is. I believe it was intended that you could perform multiple direct-gaze attacks if your BAB allows more attacks in combat. Perhaps this is not explicated by RAW, but I am not Curmudgeon and do not obey even the most obviously unreasonable details of the as-written text, because I know that writers and editors are human and fallible, and so take it as read that they screwed up sometimes when attempting to communicate the mechanisms they thought they were explaining. To me, the use of a (literally) non-standard term in this context is an obvious clue that an exception to the usual rules exists, and was simply not spelled out correctly.
So there you have it. I contend that RAI appears to state that a medusa who has enough BAB that she could fire multiple shots from her bow could instead choose to "aim" her gaze at multiple persons. Curmudgeon quotes rules that appear to prove otherwise, but IMO he is taking them out of context; I think that if the writers had planned to make intentional gazing always a standard action, they would have simply said "as a standard action" rather than "as an attack action".
Since we know the editors didn't always succeed in conveying what they wanted to convey (unless drown-healing really was their intent, which I doubt), I figure we have to play detective sometimes, and the use of an unusual term like "attack action" here seems like a definite smoking gun to me.
Q1293
Since a creature with a Gaze Attack can use an "attack action" to inflict its gaze upon someone, and does not need to roll an attack to do so, a creature who gets an iterative attack due to a BAB of 6 can make one weapon attack at their full BAB, then "subtract" 5 BAB for their iterative attack but use that attack to Gaze someone, requiring no attack roll, correct?
Re: A 1289
A 1293 No.
Gaze attacks not produced by a spell are supernatural.
Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise.
The text in the DMG section on gaze attacks does specifically say "an attack action".
Re: A 1293
Yes, and there's one attack action which specifically fits the action requirement: the standard action attack (Player's Handbook, page 139).
Don't confuse "an attack action" with "an attack". You may make one attack in a standard action attack, and possibly multiple attacks (depending on your BAB) in a full attack action. Both of these are attack actions, but only one fits the requirement for Supernatural abilities.
Well then why didn't the gaze attack text say "a standard action"? Why would the term 'an attack action" even exist if it was no different from standard?
This is not a simple question, and, to be honest, do you really need to ask this? :smallwink:
Courtesy of Curmudgeon's response, yes I do. The standard action is the default; it applies when nothing is specified. This clearly does specify a nonexistent type of action-as-unit-of-time, and thus I want to know what the RAI here is. I believe it was intended that you could perform multiple direct-gaze attacks if your BAB allows more attacks in combat. Perhaps this is not explicated by RAW, but I am not Curmudgeon and do not obey even the most obviously unreasonable details of the as-written text, because I know that writers and editors are human and fallible, and so take it as read that they screwed up sometimes when attempting to communicate the mechanisms they thought they were explaining. To me, the use of a (literally) non-standard term in this context is an obvious clue that an exception to the usual rules exists, and was simply not spelled out correctly.
So there you have it. I contend that RAI appears to state that a medusa who has enough BAB that she could fire multiple shots from her bow could instead choose to "aim" her gaze at multiple persons. Curmudgeon quotes rules that appear to prove otherwise, but IMO he is taking them out of context; I think that if the writers had planned to make intentional gazing always a standard action, they would have simply said "as a standard action" rather than "as an attack action".
Since we know the editors didn't always succeed in conveying what they wanted to convey (unless drown-healing really was their intent, which I doubt), I figure we have to play detective sometimes, and the use of an unusual term like "attack action" here seems like a definite smoking gun to me.