Skip (who was one of the three lead writers for 3.0 but NOT 3.5)
System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Full attack actions MAY, after the first attack is resolved, retroactively become a standard action (by choosing to give up your remaining attacks), leaving you with a move action.
No. There is no official retroactivity specifically written in the rules. Of course the GM can do things retroactively there is a rule written for that.
the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules
I also believe that the intent of the rules matches what I've said. I believe that the devs are okay with taking the first attack in a Manyshot, Flurry, Rapid Shot or TWF sequence as a full attack, then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks, just like it says on p.187.
Now, I know you haven't read this entire thread.
Malachi: WOW, you just stated that you took what was a special full-attack action, then nullified it without somehow the universe imploding. Just, wow.
And I had hopes for you :) (Im joking btw)
BTW, not all of the devs do not believe the same thing you do. James Jacobs stated that for him, it depended on 'did you benefit' from that first attack. IE: manyshot gave you something and thus you cannot take it back. His opinion was also that if you did not benefit (such as TWF or Rapidshot penalties) then you can still make the choice.
In any case, Manyshot and certain other feats and abilities specify a full-attack action. Most of those other feats do not gain special benefits until the second attack so those feats are not really the problem. Manyshot is the problem.
Personally, for me. Manyshot specifies a full attack action. If you use Manyshot you cannot then decide to turn it into a standard attack action and make a move action. IF you want to keep your options open, dont fire two arrows on your first attack.
- Gauss
setzer9999: So, have I annoyed you enough that you are simply not answering my questions? I hope not. :D
- Gauss
As to this specifically about Whirlwind... no. You give up your regular attacks and trade it for one melee attack. Since you can no longer choose to take other attacks, as they no longer exist because you took the Whirlwind attack, you can't choose to give them up for a move either. That's how the decision works for a full-attack... you can "give up" your other attacks and move instead, but if you don't have the attacks to give up, then you can't trade them for a move.
Why does it matter how many attacks you give up? You didn't give up attacking. You get one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.
You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.
So according to you After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"The GM being the final arbiter of the rules" is admitting to house ruling.
Page 9 of the CRB under "The Most Important Rule."
Incorrect. It states "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your REMAINING attacks. If you have no remaining attacks, you cannot do anything "instead" of them.
You can have remaining attacks with Whirlwind attack.
My questions were not leading. I asked you to agree or disagree and then post why. That is not a leading question. Agree or disagree without the option for why is a leading question.
All I am asking is do you agree or disagree with step 1 and then with step 2 and post why. That is not leading.
Allow me to repost so you can answer, remember, you can post your reasoning for each question (that is what makes it not leading). I am simply trying to get a concise estimation of your reasoning so we can continue to have a rational discussion. IF you would rather not have a rational discussion then perhaps the thread should be closed.
Here is the repost:
Lets go back to Iterative attacks for a moment. No Manyshot or any other feat.
Assume I have multiple iterative attacks, no special feats are being used.
Step 1: I make one attack. Am I making a standard attack? Dont know yet. Am I making a full-attack? Also don't know yet.
Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with step 1? Please state agree or disagree, then provide reasoning.
Step 2: Now I make a decision. If I decide to move, my first attack is a standard action. If I decide to attack again my first (and subsequent) attack(s) is a full-attack action.
Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with step 2? Please state agree or disagree, then provide reasoning.
- Gauss
Skip (who was one of the three lead writers for 3.0 but NOT 3.5) says that you attack first then choose action type later. He NEVER says that you cannot choose your action type BEFORE your first attack, so there is nothing in what he says that stops you and nothing in the rulebook either. He NEVER says that if you are taking a full attack that you are denied the choice to take a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks.
1. If the book says make the attack then then decide. That is telling you the order to do it in.
2. Skip says "If you decide to use a move action after attacking, then your first attack is considered the attack standard action."
This supports the "order" presented in the book, which say attack first and then decide, which is also what Skip says.
The book is not saying you have an option to attack first and decide. In short you don't get to decide the order.
The general rule is telling you how it will be done.
The book says you can not take move action during a full attack. It does say the only movement allowed is a 5 foot step. Otherwise the "full attack or.." clause is meaningless.
Skip also say "You decide between the full attack and attack actions after you make your first attack."
That means just like the book is saying one or the other. You either continue with your attacks or you take the move action which means that your first attack defaults to a standard action.
As to RAW vs RAI, in this thread I've tried to keep it all about the RAW as this is a PFS thread, and I'm convinced that my opinions are either supported by, or not contradicted by, the RAW, nor are they contradicted by Skip from the posts regarding his opinions on this thread. I don't have access to any opinion he may have that is NOT posted on this thread. : )
This is not a PFS thread. PFS has its own section on these boards. Now sometimes the PFS mod will move a post to the "rules" thread if he thinks the rule will follow the general game rules. With that said the intent of the debates is always to find RAI when the RAW is not clear. We all know the rules are not written perfectly, but we do all want to know what the intent was since that is how the game was supposed to be played. RAW if a feat calls for an action then you must use that action. That has been true for 3.5 and PF. If you move you are not using a full attack action. That blocks Manyshot.
I also believe that the intent of the rules matches what I've said. I believe that the devs are okay with taking the first attack in a Manyshot, Flurry, Rapid Shot or TWF sequence as a full attack, then take a move action instead of your remaining attacks, just like it says on p.187.
PS:You have not debunkded anything. You have refused to answer Guass's 'either/or' posts.
You have not stated why you think you can use a standard action or at least "not a full round attack" despite what the book says to gain the benefits of a full attack action.
You have also refused to explain your logic that both options are full attacks which in the book would read as "full attack or full attack" if you were correct, despite the book saying "attack or full attack", and despite the fact that Skip disagrees with you. It is not like he(Skip) could have made that article behind behind Jonathan Tweet's back since he was still working there(at WotC) at the time. He(J.Tweet) was also the lead designer. In short Mr.Tweet was the boss.
In order for you to be correct. Skip has to go behind his bosses back to get the article published. His boss then has to let it stay on the site without ever correcting. People like SKR who also worked there, and also now work for PF would also have to not know it exist, forget to mention it to Jason(lead rules dev for PF), or just use the same words basically knowing the game is backwards compatible, and just hope the fans can read minds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SKR:You know that Skip's official version of the the full attack action, which most people go by does not mesh with how we want it to work.
Jason:Our fans can read minds. Don't even worry about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PS:I do agree with you for TWF, but I have explained that already. While I would like for rapidshot to work like TWF, and until Talonhawke forced me to look at it again I thought it did, I have to disagree.
But this is the rules forum, where we are trying to deduce the "objective" ruling, official if possible. This started out as a PFS question too, I believe. If you invoke that phrase, you are technically correct, but, you can't call anyone else wrong either... your "what's good for the goose..." quote applies at you as well. If your interpretations are rules, then so are mine, and so are everyone else's... and we are nowhere on this.
Understand I wasn't invoking that rule. I wasn't trying to anyway. I was saying that Skip was invoking that rule because there is no rule for retroactively doing something.
Wraithstrike: why must you mispell my name? :P Here...spell it out with me. Give me a G! Give me an A! Give me a U! Give me a double S! What does that spell?! GAUSS!
Hehehe, ok..the men in the clean white coats are coming to take me away hahah! :D
- Gauss
Woooo, Setzer9999 is reading the rules of a feat without applying the Deciding between... rules. Bad Setzer!! What will the other people on your side of the debate say!?
- Gauss
setzer9999: So, have I annoyed you enough that you are simply not answering my questions? I hope not. :D
- Gauss
Your questions, the way you wrote them, were leading in that they presumed your stance to be correct before asking them. The issue here isn't about Manyshot... the issue here is about defining what is a full-attack action, when that determination is made, and if you can be locked into it.
What Malachi and I have been saying (I don't mean to put words in your mouth Malachi, so correct me if I'm wrong and this is a simplification of it) is that a "full-attack" action isn't something you declare beforehand. There are steps to take to get to it. One step is that you make your first attack (which is where Manyshot comes in, unfortunately, hence this whole problem), the next step being a decision to use your remaining attacks or move.
The bottom line is, the rules don't say you have to decide that your first attack is a part of a full-attack action. The rules say that you decide if you are full attacking upon your second attack. Unfortunately Manyshot occurs on your first attack. This leaves it open for interpretation... it is NOT clear that you are correct, no matter how much you would like it to be so.
The way Manyshot is written isn't a case of specific overruling general, it is a case of poor wording.
That is not a leading question. He simply gave you a premise and asked you to explain why it is incorrect if you disagree with it.
It would be no different than if you asked me why I think Manyshot required a full attack action. I would say the feat calls out a full attack action, and that if other means were available to use it besides a full attack action, they would be mentioned.
Wraithstrike: why must you mispell my name? :P Here...spell it out with me. Give me a G! Give me an A! Give me a U! Give me a double S! What does that spell?! GAUSS!
Hehehe, ok..the men in the clean white coats are coming to take me away hahah! :D
- Gauss
Those other people sent a picture of naked lady to my computer screen. I am not to blame Gu, uh I mean Gauss. Surely you can understand. :)
Setzer9999: For a proper discourse we must identify the problem and then debate the problem. Here, there are two separate problems. First: does a full-attack action include a move action if you are using the rules in the 'Deciding between...' section? If we come up with an answer THEN and ONLY THEN can we move onto the Manyshot problem.
It is not entrapment. It is a linear step by step process. Other people on your side of the debate have states that you are deciding between two full-attack actions. One with a single attack+move and one with a full-attack+no move.
I cannot figure out which side of that problem you are on because you seem to post on both sides of that particular problem. Hence, I am asking..which side you are on?
The last time I asked you gave me an answer that indicated full-attack actions do not include move actions. Then you appeared to do a 180 and applied a move action to a full-attack action.
Until you clarify this problem we cannot even begin to discuss the Manyshot problem because Manyshot interacts with this more fundamental rule.
It is basic logic here.
- Gauss
Edit: BTW Setzer9999, if I were an emotional person I would take your statement that I was trying to entrap you as an insult. I do not do that sort of thing. I was simply trying to understand your position WITHOUT the complication of Manyshot. Like I said, without resolving the underlying problem Manyshot cannot even be discussed. I did not lie when I said let us figure out iterative attacks without including Manyshot. I pride myself on being forthright.
Again, the way you are wording it is in an attempt to trap me, because I would say Yes to 1, you don't know, and Yes to 2, it is a standard... HOWEVER, that is the entire problem with Manyshot, not the solution. Manyshot happening before you determine if it is or isn't a full-attack is the entire thing we are arguing. The two arrows were already fired on a single attack... then, the rules for determining what happens next under the full-attack heading are quite clear... that you can then decide to move or continue to attack. The feat is at odds with this, but not in the way that you would insinuate, in that it is a case of specific overruling general....My questions were not leading. I asked you to agree or disagree and then post why. That is not a leading question. Agree or disagree without the option for why is a leading question.
All I am asking is do you agree or disagree with step 1 and then with step 2 and post why. That is not leading.
Allow me to repost so you can answer, remember, you can post your reasoning for each question (that is what makes it not leading). I am simply trying to get a concise estimation of your reasoning so we can continue to have a rational discussion. IF you would rather not have a rational discussion then perhaps the thread should be closed.
Here is the repost:
Lets go back to Iterative attacks for a moment. No Manyshot or any other feat.
Assume I have multiple iterative attacks, no special feats are being used.Step 1: I make one attack. Am I making a standard attack? Dont know yet. Am I making a full-attack? Also don't know yet.
Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with step 1? Please state agree or disagree, then provide reasoning.
Step 2: Now I make a decision. If I decide to move, my first attack is a standard action. If I decide to attack again my first (and subsequent) attack(s) is a full-attack action.
Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with step 2? Please state agree or disagree, then provide reasoning.
- Gauss
So you would require that manyshot have specific verbage saying you must give up the option to attack first and then choose in order for you to agree with us?
No you cannot. Read the feat. You give up your regular attacks to use the feat. There are no remaining attacks. You have given them up.
let's see:
A fine creature takes up 1/2 ft space.If you were attacking with a reach weapon. that's 16 spaces.
50 fine creatures can fit in each space... I think.
50 X 16 is 800 attacks. 800 separate attack rolls against each opponent.
So that means after your first attack you would have 799 remaining attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Karlgamer: Oh god lets not bring back the bag of frogs again!
- Gauss
Karlgamer: Oh god lets not bring back the bag of frogs again!
- Gauss
Back in my day it was a bad of rats. ;)
Design Manager
|
@ Malachi
A Full Atack does not "retroactively become" a standard attack. This is non-sensical and does not conform to any other rule as written, nor to any of the input from developers.
But lets take as many points of context as we can get, and see if we can put them together for a reasonable answer. I'll use only Pathfinder material since apparently the people who created the OGL it's based off of mean nothing to you.
1)"In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
—Sean K Reynolds, 11/04/11
This is a point of reference that dictates you must delcare TWF and accept the penalties before your turn starts.
2)"As for Spring Attack, this feat lets you make a single melee attack at any point during a movement; that attack has to be a pure-vanilla attack, basically. You can't fancy it up with things like Cleave or Vital Strike, as those are their own standard actions, basically. If you have all three of those feats, you can do one of the following:
1) Run up to a foe, stab it, and run away, all without provoking an AoO (Spring Attack).
2) Run up to a foe and stab it, and then stab a dude standing next to the guy you just stabbed (Cleave).
3) Run up to a foe and stab it and do extra damage (Vital Strike).
A generous GM might allow you to mix and match these feats and even use them all at the same time... but that's not the intent of the rules."
-James Jacobs 03/06/2010
This does a couple things for us... It lays out, in no uncertain terms, that the referenced feats are all solid standard actions, and gives us some precedent (in addition to the blatant statement in the CRB) for attack=standard action.
WE'll finish establishing that with this quote:
3)"Q: What type of action (standard, full, move, swift, free) does Vital Strike use?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action.
Note: Attack Action means it is one of the types of action listed under Standard Actions List. You see that Attack is is one of the types of Standard Actions available others including: Activate Magic Item, Cast a Spell, Total Defense, and Use Special Ability"
We have now firmly established that Attack actions are a type of Standard Action. Go us.
And finally, this:
4)
James Jacobs (Creative Director) wrote:
"If you make a full attack, and you "resolve" your situation after that first attack in your sequence (say, that first attack drops the foe)... only a hard-ass GM who's probably never played the game on the other side of the screen would say that you can't stop and do something other than complete your attack... even if you HAD done a flurry of blows. I mean... think it through. The difference between making 1 attack and moving and making only the 1st attack of a flurry of blows and then moving is that you may have made that one attack at a penalty to your roll. That's hardly unbalanced, in my book. Manyshot, on the other hand... that's a different story. In my book... as long as your attack was something that was a net "LESS" than a standard attack... I'm okay with letting a character move after that. Manyshot is hardly "LESS.""
|
Karlgamer, I stand corrected on the Skip/lead designer thing. I had believed that, although he was one of the three LEAD designers on 3.0, his contribution to 3.5 was simply that it evolved from the 3.0 that he had a major hand in designing, and that he had little or no NEW input into 3.5.
I agree that there is no retroactivity in the rules! That's why I disagree with Skip! It was Skip who said that you take an attack BEFORE you decide what kind of action it is, but that is NOT RAW! That was my point; I've been posting with the RAW in mind the whole time to back up my arguments!
I choose to try to advance our debate, however, by suspending my disbelief and treating the situation as if what Skip said about deciding AFTER, was actually RAW, but it isn't.
Although the word 'retroactively' comes from me, it accurately describes and emphasises the consequences of what Skip says; if you attack first and THEN decide what action it was, you are RETROACTIVELY (as a word, not as a reserved game term because no-one is saying that it is) deciding what the action WAS. What's more, if we are taking Skip's word as if it had the same authority as RAW on this issue, then deciding to define your action type retroactively is okay! If you think that, and for the purposes of advancing the debate we are, then you cannot suddenly have a problem with a full attack retroactively becoming a standard action attack. And if you have no problem with this then you can have no problem with taking a full attack triggering Manyshot and then that full attack retroactively becoming a standard attack. This change in terminology does NOT 'turn back time'!
If you don't agree that you can retroactively decide what attack it WAS, then YOU don't agree with Skip!
You can't have it both ways.
Karlgamer: Rats move faster. Use frogs, they wont get away.
- Gauss
Ssalarn:
James Jacobs also added some nice information that made it clear in no uncertain terms that when using the Deciding between... section of the rules an Attack is a standard action and a full-attack is a full-round action. (See an earlier post of mine on one of the last two pages.)
- Gauss
So you would require that manyshot have specific verbage saying you must give up the option to attack first and then choose in order for you to agree with us?Pretty much this. Yes. You can call that wrong all day long, but there's nothing in the written rules to make either side concrete... and I would just go with the fact that in general, you can decide after your first attack if you want to keep attacking or move. Manyshot is not two attacks, it is your first, single attack. The feat is flawed as written, because you actually don't know if you are full-attacking when you choose to use it, yet the resolution of what occurred with both arrows has already taken place.
You can say that you should then be limited to sticking to a full-attack after that, but there isn't anything concrete in the rules as far as I'm concerned, and without errata/official FAQ, nothing said here would convince me otherwise.
And no... I'm not saying moving is PART of a full-attack action... I'm saying you can't actually decide if you are full attacking until you decide to make your second attack or not... something that is at odds with the fact that Manyshot has you do something before this determination is made.
While I don't agree I do understand why a person would need to have that stated, since there are rules that I wish stated things more clearly even if I do know how they work. I still don't think it allows for manyshot on anything less than a full attack though, simply because the feat calls for a full attack. At best I would say manyshot is not legal by the rules.
PS:I am not saying manyshot is illegal. I was just making a point.
|
Design Manager
|
In reference to my last post, here's the link to where James Jacobs ruled on this subject:
James Jacobs
|
Design Manager
|
Ssalarn:
James Jacobs also added some nice information that made it clear in no uncertain terms that when using the Deciding between... section of the rules an Attack is a standard action and a full-attack is a full-round action. (See an earlier post of mine on one of the last two pages.)
- Gauss
Lol, was it the link I just added? If so, this thread is absolutely ridiculous since we've already had a direct weigh in from the Creative Director of Pathfinder on the exact subject at hand.
Malachi:
We can have it 'both ways' IF feats are a specific exemption to the general rules. It is pretty well established in most threads that feats ARE specific exemptions to the general rules. The question here is..is THIS feat (Manyshot) a specific exemption to the general rules on 'Deciding between...'.
Ultimately, this is impossible for anyone to determine without a developer because the feat didnt spell out the specific exemption. The feat is expecting us to read the action type and go with it.
It is my sides POV that the feats state what the action type is and that is the specific exemption in itself.
It is your sides POV that the feats state what the action type is and that is NOT a specific exemption in itself and since it states single attack the 'Deciding between...' rule applies.
Fine, until a developer states one way or the other we are at an impasse. At least we are no longer debating what type of actions are involved with 'Deciding between...'
- Gauss
Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.
- Gauss
|
Design Manager
|
This is one of those things that makes me beat my head on the wall, when Paizo staff members take the time to answer a question, and it isn't "good enough" because it didn't come from their chosen staff member, or it hasn't been properly FAQ'd yet, or it's FAQ'd but it's not official until there's an Eratta.. Etc., etc.
See posts above. See James Jacobs delineate how the abilities interact. Accept.
Karlgamer, I stand corrected on the Skip/lead designer thing. I had believed that, although he was one of the three LEAD designers on 3.0, his contribution to 3.5 was simply that it evolved from the 3.0 that he had a major hand in designing, and that he had little or no NEW input into 3.5.
I agree that there is no retroactivity in the rules! That's why I disagree with Skip! It was Skip who said that you take an attack BEFORE you decide what kind of action it is, but that is NOT RAW! That was my point; I've been posting with the RAW in mind the whole time to back up my arguments!
I choose to try to advance our debate, however, by suspending my disbelief and treating the situation as if what Skip said about deciding AFTER, was actually RAW, but it isn't.
Does the book not say attack and "then" decide?
Does "then" not indicate "after"?I will also add this since Mr.Tweet was the head designer it is not just Skip you are disagreeing with. Jonathan was around until 2008(4th edition, IIRC). You are going to say that the book and the people that made the game are incorrect?
As for not turning back time you should remember that Skip is trying to explain so that it is easy to understand. Of course you can't turn back time. When you make that first attack no action is declared. After that first attack which the book, Skip, and James agree with is that you have the option to go into full attack mode or take a move action, and therefore the first attack is treated like an attack(standard action).
You should remember the book is hard to understand at times, and throwing out more technical terms is not really going to help so you have to use the words you can to get intent across.
No, you don't get to attack the ones you want. You attack EACH opponent within reach. Based on the wording, you can't pick and choose. You give up your regular attacks to attack all opponents in your reach. You would HAVE to roll 800 times. The wording of the feat does not give you the choice to exclude anyone from your attack.
Since when do you care about the wording of the feat. :)
But the rules says: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.
You have 799 remaining attacks. If the feat doesn't agree who cares, right?
|
Design Manager
|
And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.
- Gauss
Did you skip right over my link where JJ specifically says Manyshot doesn't work the way you want it to?
Setzer9999:
James Jacobs answer to my question had nothing to do with Manyshot. Once again you misunderstand my purpose. My purpose was to deal with 'Deciding between...' since your side was insisting there was a Full-attack+move option.
As I stated before. This is not a question about do you decide to do a full-attack or standard attack BEFORE you use them. It is a question about 'Does Manyshot modify the general rules?'
My side: Yes
Your side: No
It is that simple. BUT, until your side was shown that a full-attack did not include a move action we could not even properly deal with the Manyshot problem.
- Gauss
In short, when taking a full attack you can't move more than 5 feet UNLESS, after your first attack of your full attack sequence is resolved, you take a move action instead of making the remainder of your attacks (which you could only do in a full attack). In the same way that you cannot increase your wager on blackjack after the first card has been dealt UNLESS you double down.
You can only accept that the movement option applies to a full attack if you assume that the "Deciding Between" heading is irrelevant. However, if we test that hypothesis:
Your blackjack exception provides a separate situation which is an exception to the general rule. The full attack exception applies to every full attack by every character. That is to say, the 'move action' rule is exactly as general as the 'no movement' rule.A specific exception in the rules would be something like Improved Trip or Slow Fall. The general rule is that creatures making a trip attack provoke an AoO; the specific exception is that creatures with Improved Trip do not. The general rule is that falling creatures take X damage; the specific exception is that creatures with Slow Fall and near a wallreduce that by Y amount. Compare that to the full attack rules as interpreted by you: The rule which states that you cannot move applies to all characters making a full attack, and the rule which states that you can take a move action instead of additional attacks applies to all creatures making a full attack. They are equally specific, and the existence of one directly contradicts the other. If the rule really is "you may take one attack and then one move action as a full attack action", then the "cannot move except a 5' step" should not exist. Additionally, you have the statement "if you have not already moved", which would be impossible on a full round action such as a full attack.
On the other hand, if we assume that the "Deciding" heading indicates that the rules following it related to deciding between a standard action Attack and a full round action Full Attack, these issues disappear and the statements become consistent. I still haven't seen a sound argument that the section of rules called "Deciding Between an Attack and a Full Attack" refers to something other than deciding between an attack and a full attack.
This means that you MAY take a full attack (with or without Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, TWF or whatever) BEFORE your first attack if you want to, resolve your first attack as if it were the first attack in a full attack sequence, and THEN decide to take a move action instead of your remaining attacks. NOWHERE in the rules does it contradict this, NOWHERE have I seen Skip saying that this is not allowed nor contradicted anything he said.
So yes, Manyshot requires a full attack action. Full attack actions MAY, after the first attack is resolved, retroactively become a standard action (by choosing to give up your remaining attacks), leaving you with a move action. You cannot disagree with this 'retroactive' part because Skip himself is saying that you attack first then RETROACTIVELY decide if that was a standard or full action.
Retroactively deciding that your first attack will be your only attack and therefore a standard action IN NO WAY implies that your first attack didn't really happen the way you resolved it. It does not erase that second arrow from the past, nor does it turn back time, nor does Orc A come back to life because the second arrow was the one that took him down.
I don't agree, I think what that means is that once you've declared that you are making a full attack the "Deciding Between" rules no longer apply because you have already made the decision, so you have lost access to the move action. Regardless, assuming that you can cancel in this way:
The problem with this is that you are only allowed to use Manyshot as part of a full round action. If you cancel, your full attack has become a standard attack. You aren't taking a full attack AND a standard attack in the same round, it's one or the other. So if you declare your intent to make a Full Attack, use Manyshot, and then change to a standard action Attack, you are in violation of the rule which states that Manyshot is only used on a full attack. It doesn't erase the arrow from the past or anything because the rules don't specify what happens when you break them. It simply shouldn't happen in the first place, you are never supposed to be in violation of the rules except by GM fiat. This is why we are saying that Manyshot locks you in, because after using it you can either make a Full Attack and not break the rules or make an Attack and break the rules.
And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.
- Gauss
With the knowledge that manyshot requires a full round action, but it does not say exactly what you would like for it to say, what do you believe the intent to be?
|
Design Manager
|
His rulings are in opposition to one another. When not presented with Manyshot as part of the question specifically, the way he rules it indicates that it would work. His objection to this comes as a "its too good" clause after the fact. This is a good guideline for WRITING a rule, or good advice, but its still not actually a rule.Did you skip right over my link where JJ specifically says Manyshot doesn't work the way you want it to?And, funny enough, JJ's response supports both sides of our argument. He is saying it is a standard, yet he is also saying you don't have to declare that its a full-attack beforehand... which lets Manyshot do its thing before declaration.Ssalarn, no it wasnt. I asked him today (or yesterday, I forget) a more focused question that did not involve Manyshot.
- Gauss
See my post about 5 up. It's ridiculous that when employees and creators of the game weigh in, you still feel the need to argue. It's disrespectful to every member of the staff who takes the time to communicate with an ungrateful fanbase.