1. Is making a ranged attack with a rod of ropes a move action, an attack, or a standard action? The description of the second function of the rod of ropes (Complete Scoundrel 116) (4,000 gp; 4 lbs.) says, in part, that

    When you [take a move action to] press button 2, a small leather wrist loop springs from one end of the rod and three sharp grappling hooks sprout from the other end. Pressing the button [as a move action] again launches one-third of the rod (the end with the three hooks) in the direction you aim it. [...] The rope stops unreeling if the hooks strike something solid (including a creature) or if you give the rod a quick backward jerk.

    This function's description continues, saying

    This function can be used to attack and push back opponents within 30 feet (beyond that distance it lacks sufficient power). On a successful ranged attack (no range increment) the hooked end deals 1d6 points of damage. ...

  2. Is making both of the following ranged attacks a move action, an attack, a standard action, or a full-round action? The description of the third function of the rod of ropes says, in part, that

    Pressing the [third] button [as a move action] again launches the two ends of the rod (each one-third of its length) in opposite directions simultaneously. [...] The grappling hooks work exactly as described above, including [presumably, dealing damage and] the possibility of bull rushing opponents.

    Note: Answering 1 may or may not answer 2.

  3. A creature makes a Use Rope skill check (DC 10 +2/10 ft.) to secure a typical grappling hook. Can a creature secure the rod of ropes' grappling hooks to struck foes?
  • \$\begingroup\$ Title needs some work. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 16:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Parallelism is a virtue. (But, hey, feel free to change it.) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 17:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, the first title could have used work too, but as a single aberration it didn't merit much fuss. If it's going to start breeding though… Title needs some work. The first red flag is that it contains the word “question”, the second is that “question” is in the plural. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 17:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Worry not. The breed dies here. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 17:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is your question just about the attack or are you expecting the move action that requires the button to be pressed as part of an answer? So button+attack or just attack? Or maybe I just answered the Q=) \$\endgroup\$
    – joedragons
    Commented Sep 28, 2015 at 14:20

2 Answers 2


I can't provide clear rules support, so my answer will be more from extrapolating some examples known to me.

It requires Standard Action for both 1. and 2.

While description doesn't specify that clearly, the wording seems to me as implying that. Instead of saying something like "the hook/hooks may damage something in their path" it states that the rod can be used to attack. So this may require additional effort (spent on aiming).
In the whole game there are no means to attack something spending Move Action, which I can recall from my memory on the fly. And, while there definitely may exist ones, they should be really rare exceptions. So, at least while you can't find some sort of such move-equivalent attacks that in your imagination remind you mechanics of this rod, I suggest you to stick with Standard Action attacks.

As for the second part of your question specifically, I'd be totally OK allowing several attacks for spending single Standard Action. You may consider Scorching Ray spell or Greater Manyshot as examples. I'd also suggest to use Line template to see which two targets can be affected.

Also, you can't secure a Grappling Hook on a creature...

... unless you'll design some entirely new mechanic for that with some extended checks to account for the abilities of the defender. And it should be very hard, at least as I see it! And you souldn't be able to benefit from damage and Bull Rush power of the rod then.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The weirdness I imagine is penetrating a creature's disguise using a metagame construct. For example, the rod wielder tries to attach the grapple to a freeze-using gargoyle (Arkham style, yo!), but the attempt A) fails, and B) takes a standard action, revealing the gargoyle's ruse. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 26, 2015 at 10:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Well, my answer was meant to say, you can't secure a grappling hook on dodging, unwilling creature. Attempt won't fail simply because of invalid target (there is no such thing for a hook really). And, taking into account gargoyle's DR, attached hook shouldn't even hurt it. So, until you attempt to hang too much weight on the rope with that hook, gargoyle's disguise should be fine. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 26, 2015 at 11:40

For question 3: securing a grappling hook:

Why not? It would be a ranged grapple comparable to ranged pin's ranged grapple (a feat from Complete Warrior). Alternatively, see the wording for a Net attack or using a whip for a ranged disarm or ranged trip. So a Use Rope check vs. a Grapple check to secure, forfeiting normal damage for that use. Each round an opposed grapple check to maintain control.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Could you make this into a more complete answer that actually comprehensively covers the question? We generally expect each answer to answer the question independently, not just add a small detail or another. You can see that meta question for advice on how to answer this if you're concerned you'd just be repeating another answer. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 23, 2015 at 8:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is the implication it is not acceptable to answer only the part of a question you are knowledgeable about? If so, I'm sorry for rendering assistance. I suppose the complete answer is 0) Talk to DM/GM, 1&2) attacks are standard actions in almost all cases, 3) see above, and consider the amount of tom-foolery normally found at your table.. \$\endgroup\$
    – Citarian
    Commented Nov 24, 2015 at 6:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is largely a problem with multi-part questions - someone winds up only knowledgeable about part of it - so in fact I've cast a close vote on the question as too broad, anticipating it might be better off split up into two or more questions. But yes, the implication is that answers should be whole & complete, so that they could stand on their own even if every other answer suddenly vanished. Otherwise we're stuck in a difficult position as voters - your answer couldn't really be considered the best, or even accepted! \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 24, 2015 at 6:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .