We're discussing the rules and the rules say you can't do it.The rules explicitly DO allow it. The intent behind the rules is to allow it when it's not more beneficial than attacking normally ("Net LESS").
The intent of the rule is to allow you to respond to a new situation created by the first attack or to new information gained by the first attack.
A new situation created by your first attack is must likely the neutralization of your opponent, while new information gained by your first attack could be apparent damage reduction possesed by your opponent, revelations that your opponent is illusory, our even certain special abilities possesed by your opponent like the weapon shattering property of caryatid columns.
This intent is apparent in the language of the rule and in James Jacobs recent comment on the rule.
Another way to abuse this rule is through the feat Improved Second Chance. You can reroll a missed attack by taking a -5 to the subsequent attacks of your full attack. You can gain the benefit of this feat and avoid the penalty by declaring a full attack with the intention of canceling to get a move action. Indeed, it would be foolish not to declare with the intent to cancel whenever possible because the subsequent attacks at -10 and -15 are unlikely to hit anyway.
A monk would be well advised to avoid all of this declaring with the intent to cancel nonsense because as has been pointed out it doesn't really help him in the long run. But, a skirmisher archer, who is much less restricted by the fact that you can only move after attacking when employing this rules abuse, could really benefit from taking advantage of full attack feats without having to forfeit their move action to do so.
It's not game breaking, but an archer declaring with the intent to cancel as much as possible on a Manyshot-Second Chance feat combination could really have some fun abusing the rules.
You've misrepresented the feat. For Second Chance, you can either give up your remaining attacks to move, or give up your remaining attacks to re-roll the first.
Second Chance: "Benefit: When making a full attack, if you miss on your first attack, you can forgo making any other attacks for the rest of your turn to reroll that attack at your highest base attack bonus."
Improved Second Chance: "Benefit: When you reroll a missed attack using the Second Chance feat, you can still make the rest of your attacks that turn, albeit at a –5 penalty to each attack."
Improved second chance is what you were talking about. Note the pre-reqs: "Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Second Chance, base attack bonus +11."
I think that is a significant investment to be able to re-roll their main attack (which they could have done anyway) and then move away.
For those who do not like being able to cancel out, in what situations do you see it happening? When is it better for the fighter/monk/archer to only take a single attack against an enemy then move, rather than take all their attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because a flurry is not the same as a standard BAB sequence. It's a distinct action, not a normal full set of BAB attacks. You actually have to commit to the flurry to get the higher BAB. If you were using the same BAB pattern as another meleer than you'd be operating at the Monk's normal non-flurry BAB.
By arbitrarily assigning a difference between "normal" full attacks and "other distinct" full attacks, more problems are created than apparent problems are solved.
By this logic, a character that declares it is taking a full-attack action to two-weapon fight would not be able to abort its remaining attacks and move if its first attack dropped its opponent.
For those who do not like being able to cancel out, in what situations do you see it happening? When is it better for the fighter/monk/archer to only take a single attack against an enemy then move, rather than take all their attacks?I really wish people would refrain from being so passive agressive about those who disagree. by prefacing their questions with "For those who do not like..." It's not a matter of liking. You're getting a rules based answer. If you don't like the rule either change it as a GM or bribe your GM to do so. Monks are the exception because they are the only class which has a BAB that toggles values based on a class feature. For every other class, BAB remains constant. If the Monk chooses not to use their flurry BAB, than the same rules would apply to them that apply to everyone else. (And there are monk archetypes that give up flurry, if memory serves correctly.)
The rule is that you CAN give up the rest of your attacks in order to take a move action. Some people do not like this and think it will cause abuse issues.
I ask, when would this come up, that someone would intentionally declare a full-attack, intending to cancel and take a move action? Under what circumstances would that be more beneficial than just taking their entire full-attack?
Everyone seems to agree that it isn't an abuse of the rules to convert your remaining attacks to a move action if your first attack drops the enemy or is somehow rendered ineffective (dr/unable to hit, etc).
Even archers with manyshot will do more damage if they actually take all of their attacks, rather than make one attack and move. So when is intentionally full-attacking intending to move after the first attack rules abuse? When is it the desirable option?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me where in the rules it says this. It seems like you are arbitrarily making up a difference between this based on your own personal belief on how this works; it is not a rules-based answer. There is absolutely no rule that says your full attack is something special and separate if a class feature modifies your base attack bonus.
As a sidenote, challenging someone's comprehension and reading ability could be considered about as insulting as the perceived passive-aggressive responses you think other posters directed at you, particularly when you claim to be the victim in one post then verbally attack someone in your next. It really has no place on these boards and I'd ask you to refrain from it.
|
The rule is that you CAN give up the rest of your attacks in order to take a move action. Some people do not like this and think it will cause abuse issues.
Yes, there is such a rule that allows you to make the first attack and then choose whether to continue attacking or to move or make a move equivalent action instead. And there are attack options that must be made as part of a full attack. When an attack option has to be made as part of a full attack, both rules are invoked; that the attack option must be made as a full attack doesn't go away.
One side of the argument says that it is making use of the full action form "I attack once and then choose to move...that's still a full attack so I can use the attack option that requires a full attack." The other side of the argument is "I attack once and then move. Deciding to attack means that I am choosing a standard action and a move action instead of a full attack; when choosing to do this, it is not a full attack; I cannot make use of attack options that require a full attack in that first attack, and if I did so, I no longer have the option of taking a move action as well." I can see both sides of it. I've never seen the first interpretation anywhere other than on these boards. Maybe that's the way the wind blows now; if so, I'll blow with that wind.
Except the rules make no mention at all of converting action types. By raw, the full attack description covers attacking and moving. It does not cover converting action types. Thus, by raw, it is not a standard+move. It would be a good house rule if you're worried by that, but its not the rules as is.
Fun fact: Manyshot isn't a separate action, like flurry of blows is.
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit.
It's just a rider effect of making a normal full-attack action, just like Deadly Aim and Power Attack are. Except those aren't restricted to just full-attack actions. It's no more special than Deadly Aim.
Yes, there is such a rule that allows you to make the first attack and then choose whether to continue attacking or to move or make a move equivalent action instead. And there are attack options that must be made as part of a full attack. When an attack option has to be made as part of a full attack, both rules are invoked; that the attack option must be made as a full attack doesn't go away.
One side of the argument says that it is making use of the full action form "I attack once and then choose to move...that's still a full attack so I can use the attack option that requires a full attack." The other side of the argument is "I attack once and then move. Deciding to attack means that I am choosing a standard action and a move action instead of a full attack; when choosing to do this, it is not a full attack; I cannot make use of attack options that require a full attack in that first attack, and if I did so, I no longer have the option of taking a move action as well." I can see both sides of it. I've never seen the first interpretation anywhere other than on these boards. Maybe that's the way the wind blows now; if so, I'll blow with that wind.
Ah, I see now... You're right. Looking at it again, I think the key part is "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack." If you choose the attack once and move, then you have chosen "an attack" and not a "full attack" which is required for the benefits of FoB and manyshot. While you are still spending a full-round action, you are no longer performing the "full attack" action and therefore do not qualify to trigger manyshot or FoB. If you want to FoB or manyshot, you must chose "full attack" and lose the option to move afterwords.
The full text is:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a Monk's first attack with FOB, not only can he move, he can control a frightened mount, direct or redirect an active spell, draw a weapon, load a hand crossbow or light crossbow, open or close a door, mount/dismount a noble steed, move a heavy object, pick up an item, sheathe a weapon, stand up from prone, ready or drop a shield, or retrieve a stored item. Exciting isn't it!
|
|
Yes, there is such a rule that allows you to make the first attack and then choose whether to continue attacking or to move or make a move equivalent action instead. And there are attack options that must be made as part of a full attack. When an attack option has to be made as part of a full attack, both rules are invoked; that the attack option must be made as a full attack doesn't go away.
One side of the argument says that it is making use of the full action form "I attack once and then choose to move...that's still a full attack so I can use the attack option that requires a full attack." The other side of the argument is "I attack once and then move. Deciding to attack means that I am choosing a standard action and a move action instead of a full attack; when choosing to do this, it is not a full attack; I cannot make use of attack options that require a full attack in that first attack, and if I did so, I no longer have the option of taking a move action as well." I can see both sides of it. I've never seen the first interpretation anywhere other than on these boards. Maybe that's the way the wind blows now; if so, I'll blow with that wind.
Ah, I see now... You're right. Looking at it again, I think the key part is "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack." If you choose the attack once and move, then you have chosen "an attack" and not a "full attack" which is required for the benefits of FoB and manyshot. While you are still spending a full-round action, you are no longer performing the "full attack" action and therefore do not qualify to trigger manyshot or FoB. If you want to FoB or manyshot, you must chose "full attack" and lose the option to move afterwords.
The full text is:** spoiler omitted **...
The problem is that by interpreting it this way your character has officially entered a quantum state of both having started a full attack and not having started a full attack.
Despite the title of the segment, you must have started a full attack to get more than one attack (as its text implies), which means you get the benefits (and drawbacks) of doing a full attack on that attack. If you convert it into a regular attack and the attack misses because some +1 now doesn't happen, or doesn't kill the opponent because that extra +1d6 was needed, then the very condition that caused you to "cancel" your full round no longer exists. In other words: You've create a paradox.
IMO it would be much simpler to treat the whole "Full-attack, but cancel and move-action" thing as still being a full attack, and let people take their occasional +1. If you can take a -2 because you started out doing TWFing but canceled, then I see no problem getting +1 or 2 in relatively unusual cases by doing the same "cancel".
In other words: Either the rule should be amended to say that you can only cancel if you treated that first attack as a regular attack (which effectively destroys the rule since there are so many random effects that can modify your attacks on a full round, the most common being TWFing), or it must simply be accepted that this attack/cancel/move maneuver is a special form of full attack. To hit a middle ground, specific full attack actions or relevant feats would need to be modified to take this specific case into account. In fact, some feats would have to be modified regardless as they offer benefits in exchange for penalties on later attacks, which makes no sense if you do not take those later attacks.
|
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,
base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,
your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both
arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak
attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack.
Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high
Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage
bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage
reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all
your effort during a round. The only movement you can
take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before,
during, or after the action. You can also perform free
actions
and swift actions (see below). See Table 8–2 for a
list of full-round actions.
Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be
unable to take a full round’s worth of actions. In such
cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard
action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions
as normal). You can’t take a full-round action (though
you can start or complete a full-round action by using a
standard action; see below).
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 f irst 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.
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.
You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack,
charge, run, or withdraw.
Right there in bold if nobody else has posted this.
There is no damn way you are going to gain the use of Manyshot by opting out of your full attack.
Once you have decided to not take that full attack you do not gain anything that requires a full attack action. Those require the full attack action to be completed. Starting a Full attack action is not the same as completing one.
|
|
Manyshot (Combat)
You can fire multiple arrows at a single target.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot,
base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow,
your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both
arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak
attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack.
Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high
Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage
bonuses, such as a ranger’s favored enemy bonus. Damage
reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all
your effort during a round. The only movement you can
take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before,
during, or after the action. You can also perform free
actions
and swift actions (see below). See Table 8–2 for a
list of full-round actions.Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be
unable to take a full round’s worth of actions. In such
cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard
action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions
as normal). You can’t take a full-round action (though
you can start or complete a full-round action by using a
standard action; see below).Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.
You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack,
charge, run, or withdraw.Right there in bold if nobody else has posted this.
There is no damn way you are going to gain the use of Manyshot by opting out of your full attack.
You are mis-applying the "Start/Complete Full-Round Action" quote. This section states that if you perform a move action, you can use a standard action to begin a full round action. On the next round you use that standard action to complete the full round action. It also states that this cannot be used towards full attacks, charges, runs, or withdrawal.
This quoted text has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to begin a full attack, make the first attack, and then decide to do a move action in place of the remaining attacks.
Once you have decided to not take that full attack you do not gain anything that requires a full attack action.
Can you explain how the Start/Complete Full-Round Action leads you to this conclusion?
It's a specific standard action, and it doesn't apply to a full attack. Basically it lets you do things like begin summoning a monster in the surprise round.
I don't disagree with you (based on James statements) I just don't see how the bold text supports that.
The problem is that by interpreting it this way your character has officially entered a quantum state of both having started a full attack and not having started a full attack.
Despite the title of the segment, you must have started a full attack to get more than one attack (as its text implies), which means you get the benefits (and drawbacks) of doing a full attack on that attack. If you convert it into a regular attack and the attack misses because some +1 now doesn't happen, or doesn't kill the opponent because that extra +1d6 was needed, then the very condition that caused you to "cancel" your full round no longer exists. In other words: You've create a paradox.
IMO it would be much simpler to treat the whole "Full-attack, but cancel and move-action" thing as still being a full attack, and let people take their occasional +1. If you can take a -2 because you started out doing TWFing but canceled, then I see no problem getting +1 or 2 in relatively unusual cases by doing the same "cancel".
In other words: Either the rule should be amended to say that you can only cancel if you treated that first attack as a regular attack (which effectively destroys the rule since there are so many random effects that can modify your attacks on a full round, the most common being TWFing), or it must simply be accepted that this attack/cancel/move maneuver is a special form of full attack. To hit a middle ground, specific full attack actions or relevant feats would need to be modified to take this specific case into account. In fact, some feats would have to be modified regardless as they offer benefits in exchange for penalties on later attacks, which makes no sense if you do not take those later attacks.
My proposed interpretation, is that if you use an ability which requires a "full attack" then you have already decided between "an attack" and a "full attack". You have chosen to make a "full attack" by virtue of using an ability which requires it.
With normal BAB iterative attacks, this is not an issue, it is only when specific feats/abilities/etc grant a benefit only on a full attack that it becomes confusing. The easiest way, is that if you chose to utilize an ability requiring a full attack, then you have already chosen "full attack" and now cannot give up your remaining attacks to move.
|
|
My proposed interpretation, is that if you use an ability which requires a "full attack" then you have already decided between "an attack" and a "full attack". You have chosen to make a "full attack" by virtue of using an ability which requires it.
My problem with this interpretation is that it makes the rule basically useless for a very large number of characters (even though doing so gives them a penalty, in many cases) simply to avoid a small benefit in a couple (much less common) cases.
I would rather special-case the (very) few spots where someone got a non-trivial benefit out of this than block the option out entirely for that many characters.
(Anecdote: 2 of the 4 party members in my current game would be unable to use the rule under your interpretation, as one uses flurry and the other uses regular TWFing, even though both take an effective penalty for doing so. Those 2 party members are the only ones that even typically make full attacks, thus affecting well over 90% of such actions taken for this group.)
How often do your characters end up killing a creature on the first attack of their full-attack? How many times in your whole campaign would this have even come up?
If they are so confident that they are going to kill it on the first swing, then just take a standard action. If you're not sure, and you want to TWF, then take the fullattack and move your 5 feet after it falls. Or take a normal iterative bab swing, and if they don't drop, finish your iteratives. All you're losing is 1-2 attacks from TWF for the option to move IF the first one drops them.
For the monk? Well... paizo hates monks. Sorry.
|
|
How often do your characters end up killing a creature on the first attack of their full-attack? How many times in your whole campaign would this have even come up?
If they are so confident that they are going to kill it on the first swing, then just take a standard action. If you're not sure, and you want to TWF, then take the fullattack and move your 5 feet after it falls. Or take a normal iterative bab swing, and if they don't drop, finish your iteratives. All you're losing is 1-2 attacks from TWF for the option to move IF the first one drops them.
For the monk? Well... paizo hates monks. Sorry.
It's actually quite common to not be confident. Both characters will sometimes have trouble overcoming DR, and critical hits vastly help that. The difference between 1 or 2 damage and 16 or 17 damage is huge. Plus, a nat 1 can always happen (if you can even hit on a 2, often the miss chance is much higher than that 5%).
Plus, why penalize the TWFer? He's already taking a -2 just so that he can use the later attacks if he needs to.
the other uses regular TWFing,
The TWFing feat doesn't specify a full attack action. It gives extra attacks, which falls into the "attack or full attack" option so they can get out of it.
Start/Complete Full-Round Action
The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start
undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete
in the following round by using another standard action.
You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack,
charge, run, or withdraw.Right there in bold if nobody else has posted this.
This rules section confused the heck out of me, but I just realized it doesn't relate at all to this thread's debate. It's not describing any sort of limit of a full-round action or saying that a full-round action is really a standard and a move action.
"Start/Complete Full-Round Action" is a particular type of standard action. It lets you split any sort of full-round action (other than full attacks, charges, runs, or withdraws) effectively between rounds.
For example, casting a spell with a 1 round casting time is a full-round action. Normally, that means you declare that at the start of your turn and don't complete the spell until right before your next turn. During your turn, you can also take a 5-foot step. Instead, using this rule Stan the Summoning Sorcerer could take a move action to retreat 30 feet behind his allies, then take a standard action to start the full-round action of casting his summon spell. On his next turn, he uses another standard action to complete the full-round action of casting his spell, and then has a remaining move action to take. The rules for this particular type of standard action are not relevant in any way to the Full Attack subsection of the Full-Round Actions section that we're debating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most Monks don't USE normal Full Attack actions. What they use is something else that takes the place of standard full attack actions, the flurry of blows.
Flurry of Blows (Ex): "Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action."
If making a flurry of blows as a full-attack action is not taking a full attack action, then you can't flurry and use Medusa's Wrath.
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (Way #1 to get additional attacks with a full-round action), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (Way #2 to get additional attacks with a full-round action), or for some special reason (Way #3, including Flurry of Blows, to get additional attacks with a full-round action), you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
Another way to abuse this rule is through the feat Improved Second Chance...You've misrepresented the feat. For Second Chance, you can either give up your remaining attacks to move, or give up your remaining attacks to re-roll the first.
Second Chance: "Benefit: When making a full attack, if you miss on your first attack, you can forgo making any other attacks for the rest of your turn to reroll that attack at your highest base attack bonus."
Improved Second Chance: "Benefit: When you reroll a missed attack using the Second Chance feat, you can still make the rest of your attacks that turn, albeit at a –5 penalty to each attack."
Improved second chance is what you were talking about. Note the pre-reqs: "Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Second Chance, base attack bonus +11."
I can see eye to eye with this, and I concede your point.
For those who do not like being able to cancel out, in what situations do you see it happening? When is it better for the fighter/monk/archer to only take a single attack against an enemy then move, rather than take all their attacks?
A Manyshot archer with Wind Stance can declare a full attack with the intent to cancel it, fire two arrows for one, and then move for 20% concealment. I would trade an iterative arrow attack for 20% concealment. In contrast the archer could just declare a standard attack, fire one arrow, and then move for 20% concealment, but the above option to declare a full attack with the intent to cancel would be the better option, however unscrupulous.
I think that is a significant investment to be able to re-roll their main attack (which they could have done anyway) and then move away.
This is not the point. However sub-optimal an option might be has no bearing on weather or not declaring a full attack with intent to cancel it just to get a benefit is abusive of the rules.
I am saying this now because I don't think I agree with your and Howie's new interpretation. I do believe it opens up the paradox where the very attack with the extra arrow that created a new situation that prompted you to respond by cancelling your full attack does not happen. (I don't have time to edit that so it makes better sense.)
To be clear, I am not claiming that getting that extra arrow after canceling the full attack is breaking the rules. That is fine and fully within the rules. I am claiming that declaring a full attack with the intent to cancel it just to get a benefit is abusive of the rules.
I also think it is breaking this rule:
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.
(My emphasis)
I think people are ignoring the point that your decision to cancel the full attack is dependent on how the first attack turns out. Deciding to cancel before you know how the first attack turns out is not in accordance with the language of the rules.
|
|
I think people are ignoring the point that your decision to cancel the full attack is dependent on how the first attack turns out. Deciding to cancel before you know how the first attack turns out is not in accordance with the language of the rules.
That rule is there so that you can see the result of your attack before choosing, not because your choice must be dependent on that factor.
Whether the game allows you to do something or not NEVER depends on whether or not the player chooses before or after the point at which the branching normally occurs.
Besides, even if the character did fully intend to cancel their full-round, they may choose not to after they see the result of their attack, invalidating your argument even if you DO buy into the idea that the choice must be dependent on the attack's results. You never know what kind of crazy crap an attack might do.
For example, maybe they intended to cancel so they could move around to flank the enemy, but their first attack was a critical and they used the feat that grants them a free bull rush on critical, knocking the guy 5ft back. This new position is acceptable for flanking so they 5-ft in and continue their full round instead.
For those who do not like being able to cancel out, in what situations do you see it happening? When is it better for the fighter/monk/archer to only take a single attack against an enemy then move, rather than take all their attacks?A Manyshot archer with Wind Stance can declare a full attack with the intent to cancel it, fire two arrows for one, and then move for 20% concealment. I would trade an iterative arrow attack for 20% concealment. In contrast the archer could just declare a standard attack, fire one arrow, and then move for 20% concealment, but the above option to declare a full attack with the intent to cancel would be the better option, however unscrupulous.
So far, manyshot is the only example people have given that comes close to being a real benefit compared to to just making the full attack. Wind stance is 20% concealment vs ranged attacks only. Not as good as a flat 20% concealment.
I think that is a significant investment to be able to re-roll their main attack (which they could have done anyway) and then move away.This is not the point. However sub-optimal an option might be has no bearing on weather or not declaring a full attack with intent to cancel it just to get a benefit is abusive of the rules.
Really? So is it abusive of the rules to play a character so sub-optimal that they can't even contribute to the game in any manner? When does using a rule change from being okay to being abusive?
I am saying this now because I don't think I agree with your and Howie's new interpretation. I do believe it opens up the paradox where the very attack with the extra arrow that created a new situation that prompted you to respond by cancelling your full attack does not happen. (I don't have time to edit that so it makes better sense.)
To be clear, I am not claiming that getting that extra arrow after canceling the full attack is breaking the rules. That is fine and fully within the rules. I am claiming that declaring a full attack with the intent to cancel it just to get a benefit is abusive of the rules.
So is it abusive of the rules to take rapid shot? I mean, that lets you get a whole extra attack when making a full-attack! It doubles the damage for archers! What makes using a rule as printed okay or abusive?
You said you are fine with a manyshot archer attacking once with 2 arrows, then moving. So when does it become abusive? If the player thinks "hmm, if I just full-attack cancel move each turn, then the big bad boss guy won't be able to catch up to me to hit me." Is that really different then the fighter's player deciding to move to a square because it provides cover? Or really any other tactical decision at all?
the other uses regular TWFing,The TWFing feat doesn't specify a full attack action. It gives extra attacks, which falls into the "attack or full attack" option so they can get out of it.
...TWF comes from the Full Attack Action called Two Weapon Fighting, not from the feat. The feat simply reduces penalties when using the TWF action.
@lakesidefantasy:
Wind Stance is AWFUL. It is only 20% concealment vs ranged attacks... So how is that better than stacking Many shot/rapid shot for 4 attacks vs 2 and some crappy move?
most Monks don't USE normal Full Attack actions. What they use is something else that takes the place of standard full attack actions, the flurry of blows.Flurry of Blows (Ex): "Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action."
If making a flurry of blows as a full-attack action is not taking a full attack action, then you can't flurry and use Medusa's Wrath.
Exactly right Grick, I don't see the point that others are trying to say a FOB is not a full attack. It even says its a full attack in the description...