Ok this is a stupid question kinda.
But where in the rules does it say that you can take your move action after your attack?
I know you can do that, but my GM was convinced that you can only move before the attack, and once you attack you can't move. Told him that's wrong, but he asked me for the quote
I'm NOT talking about moving, attack and then move again, but simply attack and move.
So I kinda need the place where in the rules it says "you can take your move action at any time during your turn" or something. I know it's somewhere.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The italicized portion PROVES that you can move after making an attack
Where does this restriction come from within the DM's imagination?
Is he creating this restriction as a houserule, or confusion?
What is he quoting as evidence?
No it's confusion, he was convinced you can't move after your attack.
The other players backed me up so he let me move, but he still said he'd like the rules quote.The part Ravingdork quoted might be enough, but I would really like basically a place where it says "You get a move and a standard and a swift action each turn, and you can take them in any order you like".
I've no idea, as I said I never even considered that idea either.
He said it's just how he's always played, you can move and then attack, or you can attack and not move, or if you have Mobility you can attack and then move.
I don't think he has any kind of proof for it except that he's always played it like that. Maybe his first GM had that houserule without telling him its a houserule or they did understand a rule wrong.
I'll show him the Decide between Full attack etc, that should be enough. If not then I'll ask him to show some proof of his own, because i'm 100% sure there is nothing like that in the rules either :)
Yeah, that's what I linked.
There are other examples.
I am still curious of this DM's evidence.
I want to know where this idea came from, as it is so weird, that I have difficulty wrapping my head around how he came to this opinion.
AD&D, if my memory serves.
How does Sniping even work with this weird houserule?
There is not even a thematic reason for it.
If he argued, then what were his arguing points?
Was it "I said so"?
I suspect it has to be a case of "Cause I said so".
You can full-attack, then take a 5 foot step afterwards.
You can move and then attack, or attack and then move.
I have to agree with BBT here, this is a VERY odd interpretation that has pretty much NO precedent in 3.0 or 3.5 rulesets.
The other players backed me up so he let me move, but he still said he'd like the rules quote.
Ask him for the rules quote that says you can't move after attacking. Otherwise, RD and BBT have all the evidence you need to support your case.
Did he play AD&D?
Good question. If memory serves, once you attacked you could not move afterwards. Make sure your DM knows that Pathfinder is 3.0/3.5 based, not AD&D. But here's some quick references (Pathfinder specific):
I can find nothing in RAW that says moving your speed cannot be done before or after attacking. Those are way old rules, as BBT suggests above.
Maybe he has been playing XCOM too much, and is kinda stuck in the game :)
Otherwise: standard, move, swift, free... any order.
Concur. He has to be coming from SOMEWHERE. I suspect it's ancient habit.
Plus, he's telling YOU to reference where it says you can. I still say to challenge him on referencing where it says you can't.
Page 181 of the CRB says you can perform a Standard action and a Move Action or a Full-Round action in a normal round. That's about the closest I can find to it saying they aren't order oriented.
Lol, situations like these are always fun. Next thing you know he'll tell you drawing a weapon provokes.
Proof that you can take a move after your attack:
pg 187 Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The confusion originates in 3x editions. You were restricted on the moves as the dm thinks, and it is further bolstered by the fact that to get around it, you needed to feat into Spring attack, which allowed you to divvy up your move distance into a before and after attack choice. I find this change to the situation a loophole because players will not define whether they're making a full round attack, or a single attack and hence bend the rule to advantage. As well, players with only one attack aren't really defined as doing a full attack or the "first" attack, as the rule is being quoted.
Lol, situations like these are always fun. Next thing you know he'll tell you drawing a weapon provokes.
My group has always played that you cant move after an attack, as well as drawing a weapon provokes an AO, this is how I was taught to play and havnt ever checked otherwise.
|
The confusion originates in 3x editions. You were restricted on the moves as the dm thinks, and it is further bolstered by the fact that to get around it, you needed to feat into Spring attack, which allowed you to divvy up your move distance into a before and after attack choice. I find this change to the situation a loophole because players will not define whether they're making a full round attack, or a single attack and hence bend the rule to advantage. As well, players with only one attack aren't really defined as doing a full attack or the "first" attack, as the rule is being quoted.
The 3.x versions never restricted your movement to having to be before your attack. I believe AD&D broke the round up into a specific action order, but 3.x did not.
I find this change to the situation a loophole because players will not define whether they're making a full round attack, or a single attack and hence bend the rule to advantage.
Are you saying it's a loophole to attack once as a standard action, then use your move action to move up to your speed?
Or are you talking specifically about the "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" option?
If it's the latter, isn't the option there specifically to be used when it's an advantage? Why would anyone choose to do that if it's a disadvantage?
|
I find this change to the situation a loophole because players will not define whether they're making a full round attack, or a single attack and hence bend the rule to advantage. As well, players with only one attack aren't really defined as doing a full attack or the "first" attack, as the rule is being quoted.
Isn't a loophole a situation in which the rules are used to accomplish something that wasn't intended?
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The ability to make your choice after the initial attack is explicitly written into the rules so it isn't a loophole. Also the explicitly stated intent is so that the players can make that decision to their advantage.
The ability to make your choice after the initial attack is explicitly written into the rules so it isn't a loophole. Also the explicitly stated intent is so that the players can make that decision to their advantage.
He might have been talking about people using that rule to, for example, use Manyshot to get two arrows on their first attack, then give up the rest of their attacks to move. The rule isn't clear about only being able to decide if the first attack wasn't contingent on being a full-attack.
|
Lol, situations like these are always fun. Next thing you know he'll tell you drawing a weapon provokes.My group has always played that you cant move after an attack, as well as drawing a weapon provokes an AO, this is how I was taught to play and havnt ever checked otherwise.
Sometimes we all make assumptions and never bother to check if those assumptions are accurate. I've been surprised a few times by reading something on these threads which makes me check for myself, only to discover I'd been doing it wrong.
In the case of standard action attack followed by move: perfectly RAW and as intended.
In the case of drawing a weapon: the Actions In Combat tables include a column which makes clear if an action provokes an AoO. Drawing a weapon does not provoke.
|
|
The ability to make your choice after the initial attack is explicitly written into the rules so it isn't a loophole. Also the explicitly stated intent is so that the players can make that decision to their advantage.He might have been talking about people using that rule to, for example, use Manyshot to get two arrows on their first attack, then give up the rest of their attacks to move. The rule isn't clear about only being able to decide if the first attack wasn't contingent on being a full-attack.
Ahh ok...I can see that.
The ability to make your choice after the initial attack is explicitly written into the rules so it isn't a loophole. Also the explicitly stated intent is so that the players can make that decision to their advantage.He might have been talking about people using that rule to, for example, use Manyshot to get two arrows on their first attack, then give up the rest of their attacks to move. The rule isn't clear about only being able to decide if the first attack wasn't contingent on being a full-attack.
Well in that case you have done an action that requires a full-attack already. So even if you give up your remaining attacks, you still took a full-attack action.
If someone were to use that quote in that case to argue that Multiattack is only one attack I would smack them over the head with the rulebook.
That might not be 100% like the rule is written, but it's pretty clear what the intend is. "As long as you've only done something that you could have done as a Standard Action as well, you can decide to abort your full-attack action and instead take a move action".
|
|
Ahh ok...I can see that.The ability to make your choice after the initial attack is explicitly written into the rules so it isn't a loophole. Also the explicitly stated intent is so that the players can make that decision to their advantage.He might have been talking about people using that rule to, for example, use Manyshot to get two arrows on their first attack, then give up the rest of their attacks to move. The rule isn't clear about only being able to decide if the first attack wasn't contingent on being a full-attack.
I honestly don't think that this is the case with the OP. Our natural, rational response is to try and understand what happened; to make sense of it. As unlikely as it seems to the more experienced among us, I believe the OP was talking about the simple 'standard attack then move' not being allowed, while 'move followed by standard attack' is okay.
I think an assumption of 2nd ed was carried over to 3rd, without being checked.
To the OP and his DM, it is absolutely, certainly and positively allowed to take an attack as a standard action and then move! Rules quotes have been provided up thread.
BBT, he said it's how he has always played. I said that twice before already.
And obviously he has nothing to back it up, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the rules, except "Huh? I really thought that's how it works"
That's why I was asking if the opposite (the right way) was explicitly mentioned, because it's easier to just point him to "Here, read, it says so here" than trying to proof something isn't mentioned.
If you scroll up on the page BBT linked to in post #3, to the heading "Action Types" it says this:
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action."
So, if anything, you'd only be able move after your standard action, not before the attack. (Note- I don't believe this; I'm just saying if the order mattered, it would be this way.)