You guys are adding more restrictions than the wording implies.
- you're giving up the moving at the beginning of your turn. - your bonus action to give yourself advantage for one attack. - your movement is 0 for the rest of your turn.
it doesn’t impose any restrictions on OTHER ways to move in the game beyond being unable to use it BEFORE Steady aim is taken.
there’s absolutely nothing written about “maintaining accuracy” or references to time limitations beyond practical limits given on a turn.
for a single classed rogue, it makes sense that it would take the rest of the rogues turn since they can’t attack multiple times with their attack action.
that doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t restrict your movement when using movement that isn’t your own speed.
Nothing said yet has refuted how the feature is written beyond your own “intent” based on different interpretations of what the name SHOULD involve mechanically in your own opinions. The mount ruling works even more considering the ruling being that the mounts turn is a different turn after yours, so the limitations that were in effect aren’t any longer. In fact the mount ruling makes this class feature one of the only ways to utilize mounts effectively.
It still works with the extra attack feature, meaning one of those attacks is made with advantage.
it still works with spells that utilize attack rolls, and even movement, like steel wind strike.
example question: would you allow multiclassed rogue/wizard to use Steady aim as a bonus action, then cast dimension door to teleport afterward?
It makes little sense, to me, to allow a rogue to travel vast distances on a mount yet still maintain "steady aim". It would be vastly more difficult to aim from the back of a galloping horse than if you took a few steps yourself. I would probably, therefore, house rule that your mount's turn counted as yours, and it's movement as yours, for the purposes of this feature.
That said, I'd probably house rule that a mount shares your turn anyway. This sage advice seems silly for normal mounts, to me.
I just want to point out the historical fact that shooting from horseback is easier than shooting while walking. Aiming takes concentration that you naturally stop walking for, and walking takes away from that concentration. Adjusting balance on the other hand is more subconscious than walking so you are able to do it while aiming.
So I don't see why you couldn't steady aim while mounted. Being mounted has its own drawbacks.
Practically speaking, is there really much difference between taking the aimed shot while riding versus taking the aimed shot and then having the horse close the distance after your turn? I guess maybe if you were just out of range to begin with. In that case, you could just have the horse go before your turn and bring you into range. If the DM wanted to indicate the difficulty of the maneuver, the ability check rules provide a way to do it.
As Bobbybaker says, it also works to just take the rule at face value, although that might not be as cinematic :)
This entire thread is a pretty good illustration of how a DM frequently has to take a rule and interpret it for their table. There are SO many variants on HOW the rule seems to read and what people interpret, it's almost funny. In the end, the ruling at your table will stand and so long as there is some sense of logic behind the ruling made, it shouldn't be a big issue. Since it's come up here and I have a Rogue in the party I am DMing for currently, it will be addressed, to ensure he knows what he can and cannot do with this skill in our game. I think it's also important to have some discussion with the table, to ensure everyone is on the same page for mechanical skills like this and nobody ends up surprised that they can't do something that had become part of a planned tactic or some such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The mounted combat rules may be clunky but my DM tends to run RAW and use Crawford's rulings usually. This is one time when it works in my favor, allowing melee rogues to close distance with mounts and still use Steady Aim. I'm taking it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If you don’t want to use a mount, the scout rogue seems to be able to take full advantage of it by using their reaction to move without attack of opportunity to set up another steady aim/attack on their turn.
thst is until you get your high level feature and have to make a decision between steady aim and 2 attacks on your turn with full sneak attack progression being applicable twice on the same turn.
It makes little sense, to me, to allow a rogue to travel vast distances on a mount yet still maintain "steady aim". It would be vastly more difficult to aim from the back of a galloping horse than if you took a few steps yourself. I would probably, therefore, house rule that your mount's turn counted as yours, and it's movement as yours, for the purposes of this feature.
That said, I'd probably house rule that a mount shares your turn anyway. This sage advice seems silly for normal mounts, to me.
I just want to point out the historical fact that shooting from horseback is easier than shooting while walking. Aiming takes concentration that you naturally stop walking for, and walking takes away from that concentration. Adjusting balance on the other hand is more subconscious than walking so you are able to do it while aiming.
So I don't see why you couldn't steady aim while mounted. Being mounted has its own drawbacks.
That conflicts with what I've read about archery, which is that it was a very specific and difficult skill to learn to shoot from horseback. From what I've read, it is incredibly difficult to learn to shoot with any degree of accuracy while there is a moving horse underneath you.
Even so, I don't think we are comparing shooting while walking to shooting while riding. My point was that taking a few of steps (walking 5ft, say), then stopping and shooting would be easier IMHO than shooting from the back of a moving horse, and yet RAW the first is not allowed but the second is. The same goes for assuring from the back of a cart moving at speed over rough terrain, which would be even more difficult.
To me, it completely destroys the suspension of disbelief to have this rule work that way. I can't think of a single bit of mental gymnastics I can do to make it feel remotely plausible. It would end up being a pure "because rules" situation, and I really hate them. So, when I'm in the DM seat, there would probably be something to nullify it in those situations.
example question: would you allow multiclassed rogue/wizard to use Steady aim as a bonus action, then cast dimension door to teleport afterward?
I would allow that, given that steady aim would make no difference at all in that example. Stay aim doesn't allow the attack to be a bonus action, just uses the bonus action to allow the next attack on the turn to have advantage. If you're then using your action to cast dimension door, there is no attack roll to gain advantage on (unless, somehow, you ended up with an attack using your reaction on your turn, or you've been given another action with e.g. haste, and I'd probably allow those because they are unique, fairly rare and pretty expensive situations).
In other cases, I'd handle it on the merits of each situation.
As for the rest, there must be some element of the game making sense. The conflicting situations I've mentioned above (you can't take a few steps and use it, but you can use it from the back of a wagon bouncing at high speed over rough ground) must be resolved. It's the same way as how I'd restrict people who were continually sheathing and drawing weapons in combat to exploit a loophole in RAW: the main reason I'd stop it is because it makes so little sense and makes the fight feel ridiculous.
So how about the same rogue/wizard casting steel wind strike? You get your single attack roll with advantage along with 4 other attacks and then teleport up to 30 ft(60ft with spellsniper)?
So how about the same rogue/wizard casting steel wind strike? You get your single attack roll with advantage along with 4 other attacks and then teleport up to 30 ft(60ft with spellsniper)?
I'd probably allow it, given that teleportation is instant, and you could still take the time steadying yourself ready for that first strike. Also, the "jumping around" is a magical effect, so it makes sense that it could have more effects, like making time appear to slow for you as it is happening (which makes sense given that it is allowing you to attack more targets than you could with a normal melee attack). So, there's enough to work with to make it feel feasible.
Teleportation is a type of movement, it’s just not a type of move speed. Similar to being pushed, pulled, or if you’re moved by another creature. Falling down is also moving.
so what scenario would you limit a character who is spending so many resources from moving after steady aim if they find a way to move without using their speed?
Teleportation is a type of movement, it’s just not a type of move speed. Similar to being pushed, pulled, or if you’re moved by another creature. Falling down is also moving.
so what scenario would you limit a character who is spending so many resources from moving after steady aim if they find a way to move without using their speed?
If you are going to look at it that way, drawing an arrow from a quiver is "a type of movement": you've moved your arm.
For me, I'd consider every scenario separately. Mounts, I would probably house rule that they act on your turn anyway (I don't like that sage advice ruling), and I would count the movement of the mount as enough to throw off stay aim. A cart moving across uneven terrain, I'd probably apply disadvantage to targeting anything not on the cart, whether they have steady aim or not. If a thunder wave or similar had thrown the character across the battlefield since the character's last turn, I'd consider either stopping steady aim or asking for a check before allowing it.
However, there are so many things to consider, so many scenarios, that I'm not going to think of all of them up front. I'll think about each individual possibility as it occurs, and put it through my feasibility and consistency filter.
Using steady aim does not literally set your movement to zero per se. To the contrary, moving at any time during the turn (before, during or after) prevents steady aim. That is pretty clearly the intent. If it is the same turn as the shot, it is steady, aim, fire, turn done.
I'd agree with you there: this would be an exploit at best. Personally, I'd just say that the steady aim "sets movement to zero until the end of the turn" is more specific than the boots "set speed to 30". It doesn't even need a house rule to stop this clear exploit from working.
Using steady aim does not literally set your movement to zero per se.
But that's what it says it does.
Yes and people are looking at the semantics and playing rules lawyer rather than go to the clear intent.
The clear intent is that the character not "move" at all on the turn that they use Steady Aim.
"As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is O until the end of the current turn."
The problem? What does "move" mean in the context of this rule?
The OP asked if a character can move obtaining a mechanical benefit even if the "move" involved costs 0' of movement and still use steady aim (crouching behind total cover, standing up, using steady aim to gain advantage on the attack, crouching down behind total cover again).
Thus the entire thread comes down to a DM ruling (which will likely be different for each DM and circumstance) as to what constitutes too much movement when a character wants to use the steady aim feature.
Is breathing too much movement?
Is moving your arms too much movement?
Is swinging a weapon, drawing a weapon, making an attack too much movement? (e.g. fighter/rogue with extra attack - takes their first attack, can they use steady aim to obtain advantage on their extra attack? If you have a bonus action it can be taken at ANY time in your turn so it can be taken between the two attacks of the attack action - just to short circuit that other argument).
Is rising from a crouch too much movement?
or is movement simply the expenditure of the character's movement allowance during the turn? (Keeping in mind that the default rules are theater of the mind and not a grid where "movement" could have quite different definitions).
The RAW text just says that the rogue can not have moved during the turn. Thus we have a fairly reasonable discussion of what various DMs would consider to be "moved" or not ranging from - "if they haven't expended any feet of movement then they haven't moved even if they are doing jumping jacks" TO "if they move anything more than breathing then they have moved and steady aim can't be used".
This also isn't "rules lawyering", it is simply a case of DM ruling and DMs opinions are going to vary. Players and DMs can have different takes on it too.
For right or wrong, my discussion in this thread has assumed a character can move as much as anyone who has used all of their movement on their turn and has 0 remaining speed. Swinging weapons, object interactions, casting somatic spells, etc. are all assumed by me to be fair game. If a DM takes a more restrictive reading, then I would suggest the character begin their turn by taking the steady aim bonus action since the ambiguous wording only applies to movement taken before the feature is used.
I had a situation last night where the rogue was in a rowboat with four other people and she used Steady Aim. Since the boat was moving via ores I had the rogue make an Acrobatics check to determine if she could stay upright. If she succeeded then I allowed Steady Aim otherwise it would be a standard attack action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You guys are adding more restrictions than the wording implies.
- you're giving up the moving at the beginning of your turn.
- your bonus action to give yourself advantage for one attack.
- your movement is 0 for the rest of your turn.
it doesn’t impose any restrictions on OTHER ways to move in the game beyond being unable to use it BEFORE Steady aim is taken.
there’s absolutely nothing written about “maintaining accuracy” or references to time limitations beyond practical limits given on a turn.
for a single classed rogue, it makes sense that it would take the rest of the rogues turn since they can’t attack multiple times with their attack action.
that doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t restrict your movement when using movement that isn’t your own speed.
Nothing said yet has refuted how the feature is written beyond your own “intent” based on different interpretations of what the name SHOULD involve mechanically in your own opinions. The mount ruling works even more considering the ruling being that the mounts turn is a different turn after yours, so the limitations that were in effect aren’t any longer. In fact the mount ruling makes this class feature one of the only ways to utilize mounts effectively.
It still works with the extra attack feature, meaning one of those attacks is made with advantage.
it still works with spells that utilize attack rolls, and even movement, like steel wind strike.
example question: would you allow multiclassed rogue/wizard to use Steady aim as a bonus action, then cast dimension door to teleport afterward?
I just want to point out the historical fact that shooting from horseback is easier than shooting while walking. Aiming takes concentration that you naturally stop walking for, and walking takes away from that concentration. Adjusting balance on the other hand is more subconscious than walking so you are able to do it while aiming.
So I don't see why you couldn't steady aim while mounted. Being mounted has its own drawbacks.
Practically speaking, is there really much difference between taking the aimed shot while riding versus taking the aimed shot and then having the horse close the distance after your turn? I guess maybe if you were just out of range to begin with. In that case, you could just have the horse go before your turn and bring you into range. If the DM wanted to indicate the difficulty of the maneuver, the ability check rules provide a way to do it.
As Bobbybaker says, it also works to just take the rule at face value, although that might not be as cinematic :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This entire thread is a pretty good illustration of how a DM frequently has to take a rule and interpret it for their table. There are SO many variants on HOW the rule seems to read and what people interpret, it's almost funny. In the end, the ruling at your table will stand and so long as there is some sense of logic behind the ruling made, it shouldn't be a big issue. Since it's come up here and I have a Rogue in the party I am DMing for currently, it will be addressed, to ensure he knows what he can and cannot do with this skill in our game. I think it's also important to have some discussion with the table, to ensure everyone is on the same page for mechanical skills like this and nobody ends up surprised that they can't do something that had become part of a planned tactic or some such.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The mounted combat rules may be clunky but my DM tends to run RAW and use Crawford's rulings usually. This is one time when it works in my favor, allowing melee rogues to close distance with mounts and still use Steady Aim. I'm taking it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If you don’t want to use a mount, the scout rogue seems to be able to take full advantage of it by using their reaction to move without attack of opportunity to set up another steady aim/attack on their turn.
thst is until you get your high level feature and have to make a decision between steady aim and 2 attacks on your turn with full sneak attack progression being applicable twice on the same turn.
That conflicts with what I've read about archery, which is that it was a very specific and difficult skill to learn to shoot from horseback. From what I've read, it is incredibly difficult to learn to shoot with any degree of accuracy while there is a moving horse underneath you.
Even so, I don't think we are comparing shooting while walking to shooting while riding. My point was that taking a few of steps (walking 5ft, say), then stopping and shooting would be easier IMHO than shooting from the back of a moving horse, and yet RAW the first is not allowed but the second is. The same goes for assuring from the back of a cart moving at speed over rough terrain, which would be even more difficult.
To me, it completely destroys the suspension of disbelief to have this rule work that way. I can't think of a single bit of mental gymnastics I can do to make it feel remotely plausible. It would end up being a pure "because rules" situation, and I really hate them. So, when I'm in the DM seat, there would probably be something to nullify it in those situations.
I would allow that, given that steady aim would make no difference at all in that example. Stay aim doesn't allow the attack to be a bonus action, just uses the bonus action to allow the next attack on the turn to have advantage. If you're then using your action to cast dimension door, there is no attack roll to gain advantage on (unless, somehow, you ended up with an attack using your reaction on your turn, or you've been given another action with e.g. haste, and I'd probably allow those because they are unique, fairly rare and pretty expensive situations).
In other cases, I'd handle it on the merits of each situation.
As for the rest, there must be some element of the game making sense. The conflicting situations I've mentioned above (you can't take a few steps and use it, but you can use it from the back of a wagon bouncing at high speed over rough ground) must be resolved. It's the same way as how I'd restrict people who were continually sheathing and drawing weapons in combat to exploit a loophole in RAW: the main reason I'd stop it is because it makes so little sense and makes the fight feel ridiculous.
So how about the same rogue/wizard casting steel wind strike? You get your single attack roll with advantage along with 4 other attacks and then teleport up to 30 ft(60ft with spellsniper)?
That wouldn't matter. Teleporting isn't movement.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I'd probably allow it, given that teleportation is instant, and you could still take the time steadying yourself ready for that first strike. Also, the "jumping around" is a magical effect, so it makes sense that it could have more effects, like making time appear to slow for you as it is happening (which makes sense given that it is allowing you to attack more targets than you could with a normal melee attack). So, there's enough to work with to make it feel feasible.
Teleportation is a type of movement, it’s just not a type of move speed. Similar to being pushed, pulled, or if you’re moved by another creature. Falling down is also moving.
so what scenario would you limit a character who is spending so many resources from moving after steady aim if they find a way to move without using their speed?
Nothing prevents you from moving after using Steady Aim. You just have to do it with 0 speed.
EDIT: Comedy option
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I love those boots. I didn’t think about their interaction at all.
If you are going to look at it that way, drawing an arrow from a quiver is "a type of movement": you've moved your arm.
For me, I'd consider every scenario separately. Mounts, I would probably house rule that they act on your turn anyway (I don't like that sage advice ruling), and I would count the movement of the mount as enough to throw off stay aim. A cart moving across uneven terrain, I'd probably apply disadvantage to targeting anything not on the cart, whether they have steady aim or not. If a thunder wave or similar had thrown the character across the battlefield since the character's last turn, I'd consider either stopping steady aim or asking for a check before allowing it.
However, there are so many things to consider, so many scenarios, that I'm not going to think of all of them up front. I'll think about each individual possibility as it occurs, and put it through my feasibility and consistency filter.
I'd agree with you there: this would be an exploit at best. Personally, I'd just say that the steady aim "sets movement to zero until the end of the turn" is more specific than the boots "set speed to 30". It doesn't even need a house rule to stop this clear exploit from working.
But that's what it says it does.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The clear intent is that the character not "move" at all on the turn that they use Steady Aim.
"As a bonus action, you give yourself advantage on your next attack roll on the current turn. You can use this bonus action only if you haven't moved during this turn, and after you use the bonus action, your speed is O until the end of the current turn."
The problem? What does "move" mean in the context of this rule?
The OP asked if a character can move obtaining a mechanical benefit even if the "move" involved costs 0' of movement and still use steady aim (crouching behind total cover, standing up, using steady aim to gain advantage on the attack, crouching down behind total cover again).
Thus the entire thread comes down to a DM ruling (which will likely be different for each DM and circumstance) as to what constitutes too much movement when a character wants to use the steady aim feature.
Is breathing too much movement?
Is moving your arms too much movement?
Is swinging a weapon, drawing a weapon, making an attack too much movement? (e.g. fighter/rogue with extra attack - takes their first attack, can they use steady aim to obtain advantage on their extra attack? If you have a bonus action it can be taken at ANY time in your turn so it can be taken between the two attacks of the attack action - just to short circuit that other argument).
Is rising from a crouch too much movement?
or is movement simply the expenditure of the character's movement allowance during the turn? (Keeping in mind that the default rules are theater of the mind and not a grid where "movement" could have quite different definitions).
The RAW text just says that the rogue can not have moved during the turn. Thus we have a fairly reasonable discussion of what various DMs would consider to be "moved" or not ranging from - "if they haven't expended any feet of movement then they haven't moved even if they are doing jumping jacks" TO "if they move anything more than breathing then they have moved and steady aim can't be used".
This also isn't "rules lawyering", it is simply a case of DM ruling and DMs opinions are going to vary. Players and DMs can have different takes on it too.
For right or wrong, my discussion in this thread has assumed a character can move as much as anyone who has used all of their movement on their turn and has 0 remaining speed. Swinging weapons, object interactions, casting somatic spells, etc. are all assumed by me to be fair game. If a DM takes a more restrictive reading, then I would suggest the character begin their turn by taking the steady aim bonus action since the ambiguous wording only applies to movement taken before the feature is used.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I had a situation last night where the rogue was in a rowboat with four other people and she used Steady Aim. Since the boat was moving via ores I had the rogue make an Acrobatics check to determine if she could stay upright. If she succeeded then I allowed Steady Aim otherwise it would be a standard attack action.