Ring the Golden Bell and Tome of Battle

[sage20500]

Could an unarmed swordsage use Tome of Battle Strikes in Conjunction with Ring the Golden Bell?

Need to fill in a bonus feat for my psychic warrior side of a gestalt, and I was wondering if that would be legal since they allow the attack to deal any effects that an unarmed strike could normally deliver.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm gonna go with "no."

Ring the golden bell is a special ranged attack ability rather than a rider on a normal attack so it could only be used with maneuvers that allow for ranged attacks (mostly just a handful of stances.) It's not going to be usable with 90%+ of maneuvers.

[Powerdork]

I'm gonna go with "no."

Ring the golden bell is a special ranged attack ability rather than a rider on a normal attack so it could only be used with maneuvers that allow for ranged attacks (mostly just a handful of stances.) It's not going to be usable with 90%+ of maneuvers.

I'd argue that Ring the Golden Bell does not mention an action cost, thus it either triggers on a ranged attack (what with?), triggers on an unarmed strike attack (thus being usable with a strike), or uses the default action cost for feats. I'm more inclined to say that it mentions "unarmed strike" first as its trigger.

Unless you can cite a source for your premise?



Sage: Ask your GM at first opportunity, and pick another feat to use in case you can't use this one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd argue that Ring the Golden Bell does not mention an action cost, thus it either triggers on a ranged attack (what with?), triggers on an unarmed strike attack (thus being usable with a strike), or uses the default action cost for feats. I'm more inclined to say that it mentions "unarmed strike" first as its trigger.

Unless you can cite a source for any your claims?

How about the one the OP linked? "<X times per day> you may deal unarmed strike damage with a successful ranged attack."

That's describing a ranged attack that deals damage equal to your unarmed strike damage. It's not your unarmed strike as a ranged attack. That would be phrased more like "you may use your unarmed strike as a ranged attack with a range increment of <X> feet, <Y> times per day."

You can use one of your normal iterative attacks to use this ability but it's not a melee attack and it's not a rider on a melee attack.

For it to be usable with most maneuvers, it'd have to be treated as a melee attack, a rider on a melee attack like stunning fist, or at least a thrown attack that you could shoehorn in with bloodstorm blade. The text doesn't make it any of these things.

[Powerdork]

How about the one the OP linked? "<X times per day> you may deal unarmed strike damage with a successful ranged attack."

That's describing a ranged attack that deals damage equal to your unarmed strike damage. It's not your unarmed strike as a ranged attack. That would be phrased more like "you may use your unarmed strike as a ranged attack with a range increment of <X> feet, <Y> times per day."

You can use one of your normal iterative attacks to use this ability but it's not a melee attack and it's not a rider on a melee attack.

For it to be usable with most maneuvers, it'd have to be treated as a melee attack, a rider on a melee attack like stunning fist, or at least a thrown attack that you could shoehorn in with bloodstorm blade. The text doesn't make it any of these things.

Welp, fair enough, my bad. Still, in future, I suggest working on phrasing to avoid misreadings, because "special ranged attack"? Not the best thing to emphasize.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Welp, fair enough, my bad. Still, in future, I suggest working on phrasing to avoid misreadings, because "special ranged attack"? Not the best thing to emphasize.

It is special. It's not a normal ability that every character has. It's not even a normal ranged attack with that extremely variable range increment. It's freakin' weird and poorly edited. In those senses of the term, it's most assuredly "special."

There's a reason I treat Dragon Compendium the same way I treat the original dragon magazines its material comes from; only allow on a case by case basis if what the player wants is impossible or onerously difficult without it.

[Powerdork]

It is special. It's not a normal ability that every character has. It's not even a normal ranged attack with that extremely variable range increment. It's freakin' weird and poorly edited. In those senses of the term, it's most assuredly "special."

There's a reason I treat Dragon Compendium the same way I treat the original dragon magazines its material comes from; only allow on a case by case basis if what the player wants is impossible or onerously difficult without it.

I don't deny that it's special. I'm just saying that starting your argument that a ranged attack is ineligible for most maneuvers with "it's a Special Ranged Attack" is perhaps not the best idea. You could have sidestepped this whole issue by saying something like "Unfortunately, Ring the Golden Bell's attacks are ranged attacks and not melee attacks (which most maneuvers call for)." Clarity and concision are important when discussing rules interactions.

[torrasque666]

I don't deny that it's special. I'm just saying that starting your argument that a ranged attack is ineligible for most maneuvers with "it's a Special Ranged Attack" is perhaps not the best idea. You could have sidestepped this whole issue by saying something like "Unfortunately, Ring the Golden Bell's attacks are ranged attacks and not melee attacks (which most maneuvers call for)." Clarity and concision are important when discussing rules interactions.
I dunno. I got his point the first time. Now you're just being cheeky.

[Endarire]

As GM, I'd allow you to use melee strikes at range with Ring the Golden Bell due to how it's worded, but ask your GM what he thinks. You're initiating martial maneuvers with unarmed attacks.

[Telonius]

As a DM, I'd allow it to work with maneuvers. From the flavor text, it's supposed to be the air delivering the attack. You use your crazy kung fu skills to hit the air; the air transfers the force; the target (hopefully) gets hit and takes the damage it would have taken as though it had been standing right next to you instead of being 20 feet away. The mechanical difference is that instead of a melee attack you use a ranged attack to hit the target. The rules text says it can deliver "any effect" the unarmed strike can deliver. An unarmed strike can deliver a maneuver, so it seems to me that it ought to work.

[Zaydos]

As written I'd say no it doesn't work. Martial strikes include a melee attack, but they are not delivered by your melee attack. They are a special action which makes you make a melee attack with special bonuses and this is not a melee attack.

That said as a DM I'd probably allow it (party balance matters some there) though make a note that it didn't work with multi-attack strikes (such as Time Stands Still) unless you paid a use for each one, and that it very much doesn't work on charge maneuvers.

[Kelb_Panthera]

By the by; you can get what you're after here for cash; necklace of natural attacks from savage species unambiguously applies to a monk's unarmed strike and the throwing enhancement is a thing. Then just dip into bloodstorm blade and *bam* maneuvers delivered by "throwing" your fist. Range increment's a bit shorter (probably) but there's no limit on the number of times per day you can do it.

[Telok]

It probably works with boosts and some stances since those are riders on attacks. Probably not with most strikes though.

[Red Fel]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if an action does not specify what type of action it is (e.g. standard, swift, etc.) doesn't it default to standard? I remember that being the crux of arguments about the RKV's Divine Impetus ability.

RtGB does not list an action. It does not say "as part of any attack action, you may use this ability," which suggests that it is its own action. That defaults to standard.

Most strikes are standard actions. The two would seem mutually incompatible, then - it takes a standard action to use a strike, and a standard action to use RtGB. Even if you could take two standard actions in a turn, they're still two separate standard actions.

I agree with those who suggest that a boost or stance could augment RtGB, however - the feat itself notes that "This attack can deliver any effect your unarmed strike can normally deliver, such as a stunning attack due to the Stunning Fist feat."

But I think it's a separate, standard action to execute.

[illyahr]

I agree with Red Fel in that it seems to ask for a Standard Action to use.

That said, I also agree that I would allow it. I'm a bard. I run Rule of Cool.